The Embry study: What it actually said.

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 21 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



Doan wrote:

Doan continues with his dodges.


Kane continues with his LIES! ;-)

Doan dares me to debate, then avoids opportunities.

Constanctly screeching, in monkeboy talk, "STUPID!" and "LIAR."

He got nailed on his poor understanding of the report, and even missed
some of the content. tsk.


Does your not knowing make you stupid?


Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)

No it doesn't. Were you stupid when you were three and didn't know about
safety concepts?


It's when you are an old and still have the mental capacity of a three
year old! ;-)

Unwilling to debate the Report are you?

I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU. YOU ARE AFRAID TO DEBATE ME.

I snipping any evasiveness from this point on. Not just today, but forever.

................


To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something
different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to
mislead, Doan.


13 children, Kane!

26 people, not counting fathers, Doan.

33 families participated, Doan. Something you seemed quite ignorant of.

,,,,,,,,,,,,


LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten
from Dr. Embry?

Dr. Embry himself.


And you believed him?

Some reason I shouldn't? I believe I pointed out to him that I did not
have a university account so could not look there. But then, memory
could be wrong.

In any case, he provided it. Why should I question him further?

Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component
in the Embry study?

No one. I claimed that I disagreed with the interpretation by Dr. Embry
that Sit and Watch had to constitute "punishment."

You seem to be freely interpreting your own biases into the study, like
claiming it's only about "reprimands," so therefore disagreeing with Dr.
Embry and the report.


I only interprete what available in the study. I don't rely on
second-hand reported, which has proven to be false! ;-)

You interpreted wrongly. What is in the study is considerably more than
"reprimands," as I have shown by quotation and page citations.

Those can't be "false" because they are there where you could read them
and understand them if your strangeness was not getting in your way.
Which of the things I listed as also being part of the study would you
say aren't there or are proven false?


Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked

kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-)

No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries as
children that were trained not to enter the street.

That is false!

That is what I stated. If you think it's false, prove it. I have said
I'm not providing a source. Enjoy yourself. As you evade real debate.


I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a
researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel.


Opinion is like an asshole, everybody has one! ;-)

You seem to have more than your share.


Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study
shows....."


LOL!

Can't, I see. So all you can do is LOL, and that is exactly what's going
on each time you do write, "LOL!"


YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are
driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'.


Nope! Because YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

I'm stupid because YOU jumped to a conclusion?
You mean you were too stupid to notice you were mistaken and withdraw
your claim.

That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get
out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment.


One sign of this serious problem is the tendency to exclaim, "LOL!" a lot.

LOL!

See?


Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions
while demanding others do so.


Hypocrit! Who claimed that the Embry study can only be gotten from Dr.
Embry?

Because at the time I got it that is what he told me. That he did not
think it was available other than from him.


hahaha! You now blame it on Dr. Embry? How low can you get?

Where am I assigning "blame?" I am simply reporting what he said to me.

So he lied to you?

Why would you assume that? Could he not have honestly believed what he
told me? How would that be a lie?


He is not that STUPID!

To tell me what he believed? No, I don't presume he's either stupid, or
lies. He states what he believes he knows at the moment. At the moment
he apparently didn't think it was any longer available through AAA.
Though he never mentioned that to me. In fact at the time I asked I of
course did not have a copy...or why would I ask...and I could not
therefore know about how funded the experiment, thus I could not know to
ask him about AAA.


I thought you first said you had the study "long time ago", in your
garage! ;-)

I did. There is no time line mentioned.

I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were
available through the library.


He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA
Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it.

Or he might have believed they no longer offered it. It's a very old study.

Would you care to write or call him and entertain your speculation that
he lied, or was stupid?


I don't need to. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

I don't care.

I notice this is a long way from debating the merits of his study
though. Coward.

You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or
stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of
required performance? An impossible one, by the way.


In you case, you have a habit of making "mistakes"! ;-)

Nope. Actually a bit less than most people, though doubtless more than
some. I don't keep score.

You seem to though. For what purpose? Nothing else going for you?

What is low about that?

By not taking responsibility for your own STUPIDITY! ;-)

I don't think it stupid to believe the producer of the experiment and
study when he tells me something. I would tend to take him as the
authority. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I might even disagree, if I have
information I think is more relevant or recent. But that does not make
him stupid or a liar at the time he said what he did.

Do you always take the word of authority without question?

No. I was not questioning the study. I was asking for a copy. When he
told me what he did I had no reason to question his answer. Would you?


What, the study said clear PUNISHMENT. Are you sure you not questiong
the study? Keep you story straight, boy! ;-)

We were discussing access to the study, not punishment. Notice I said,
"I was asking for a copy?"

What has that to do with punishment, other than you make it a habit to
quickly change the subject when you have lost the point.

As for that issue, yes, I am questioning both Embry and his study on
that point...though it's not that big an issue. He used "punishment" as
part of describing the Sit and Watch Time Out part of the package. I
believe and I've repeatedly told you so, that this can be done without
it being punitive.

I do not disagree he said it, but that it's 100% applicable.


What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist
somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?"


You could tell him that "researcher" like you kept it in a garage! ;-)

IN other words you are still cowardly dodging the content and relevance
of his study, but want to play your little games.

Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication?


Or you could do a google search and find it in less than a minute.
Dorothy did and she found it! Why can't you? You said you worked with
computer all the back to 1967! ;-)

Nope. About 1959. When one went into the computer, since it filled a room.

This has nothing to do with the content. You lied back when you first
claimed you had it, and it took you many months to get it yourself.

Alina told me so. 0:-

You are an
adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research
to see if what the authority say is right?

On finding the study? I asked him where I could get it. He said he
thought nowhere but from him, apparently. He provided me with
considerably more than I asked for.


LOL! How nice of him to give you the wrong information. ;-)

He didn't as far as I know. Nor did he intend to do any such thing. And
who knows, my memory of the conversation, so very years ago could be wrong.

The point is we have it now and you wish to continue discussing access
rather than content. Why is that I wonder?


You see, that is the difference

between you and me.

Oh yes, I see the difference alrighty.

You would harass someone that answered you to the best of the ability at
the moment, calling them a liar, and stupid. I would not.


LOL! I called you for what you are - STUPID ASSHOLE! ;-)

Getting that desperate?

Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was
claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do.


But you already said you had the study "long ago". Shall I look back
in the "archives"? ;-)

That aside, what has that to do with why I would call someone a stupid
liar? Yes, look in the archives.

You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take
the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people
"smelly-****", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-)

You don't know if I was "never-spanked." I made the remark in reference
to my parents. How would you know, stupid, unless you asked or I
volunteered it, that someone else had or had not spanked me?


You volunteered it! I didn't ask.

Yep. And I didn't say what you claim.

I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of
public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their
parent's church a "smelly ****." What would you call her?


I wouldn't call your mom that! ;-)

Good, as she would never countenance such behavior from parents that
Fern celebrated and supported. As for you, she'd just laugh at you.

I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that
will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I
planned for you to do....actually debate Embry when I KNEW with
reasonable certainty you had the study report in question.

Thanks for your cooperation, even if I had to be so patient. 0:-

LOL!

Still showing what a coward you are? Not willing to follow up on your
dare to me?

Isn't what you are doing, "low?"

No. What I have said about the study came straight from the study!

And you don't know where what I said came from. That doesn't make you
stupid, but it makes you a liar to keep insisting your information is
correct and mine is not because yours came from the study -- so I must
be lying.


I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study.

That's nice. I didn't claim it was. If so, please quote me and cite the
post I said so in.


LOL! It's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are LIAR! ;-)

I haven't said one way or the other where it is from. I never claimed it
was from the report. Thus you cannot claim it's false and that I am a
liar thereby.

You are for continuing this evasive charade.

In fact, I am
very sure that you made it up.

Now who's being stupid. You can't read my mind. You don't know what I
read or who I talk to or what I learn outside this ng. Unless I share it
and the source. I shared it, I'm not sharing the source. You may freely
discount, as I've told you, stupid, a number of times, my comment.


LOL!

Still got that compulsive laugh I see.

See!

Sure, you still have the compulsive laugh when you are stumped.

YOU ARE STUPID!

There is nothing stupid in not sharing the source. Any more than it
would be to not share my social security number, or what size shoes I
wear. Just a decision on my part.

My shoes are size 11, by the way, but you'll never believe me and you'll
call me a liar because it has nothing to do with the study, right? 0:-


But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure."


I already have proof. It's the study, STUPID! ;-)

I did not say the source was or wasn't the study, stupid. So you can't
use the study as proof, stupid. What a silly monkeyboy.

That makes you a LIAR!

Nope. It makes you a speculator that isn't intelligent enough to say, "I
believe you are a liar," or "I think you are a liar," or "I looks to me
like you are a liar."


I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR! Prove to me otherwise! You can't!

I can't prove a negative. I can prove that you are lying when you claim
I'm a liar though. All I have to do is ask you to show proof.

And taking this for an great example, I never said what the source of my
claim was. You keep stupidly insisting it's not in the Report so that it
is a lie.

Knowing now, most assuredly after many repetitions, that I have not
claimed it was in the study, how can you use the study as proof I'm lying?

You are simply dodging the study because you know how damning it is to
the argument for spanking to teach children to stay out of the street.

We know, for instance, that about 90% or more of parents spank their
small children. They have declared that one of the things they often do
is spank for running into the street, yet Embry points out that street
entry is the second leading cause of child deaths.

Would that equate for you with "spanking" being effective for children
under 5 in reducing street entries?

Or don't you wish to debate hte actual study, as in, "The Embry study:
What it actually said?"

Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a
mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up."


I AM VERY SURE!

Since you don't know the source for my comment you are now showing how
monumentally you let your emotions driven biases run away with your reason.

It's sad to have such intelligence and misuse it so. Your parents must
be disappointed.

So I am very sure that you are deluding yourself, or lying. It's hard to
tell which with you any more. Just when I think it's the one you
suddenly convince me it's the other. How confusing. 0:-

You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you
cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement.


I AM SURE YOU ARE STUPID and A LIAR! ;-)

Do you always base your assuredness on guesses?

Or are you prepared to prove that my statement comes from a particular
source and my claim is mistaken? Please show your work product.



In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve
it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of
information.

When you know where I drew that information from, then you can argue it.
Until then you are simply being, well, stupid.


I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it.

No, you cannot argue it. You could if I said they were from the Embry
study. Did I?


One more time, if it's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are a liar!

Where did I say it was from the study? I haven't said one way or the
other. Hence it is not 'FALSE' nor can you prove it so, since you do not
know the source unless you can read my mind.

Until
you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR!

You are a liar to claim such when you know perfectly well I never said
it came from the study we are discussing.


It's not from study. That is why I said YOU ARE A LIAR!

But I didn't say it was from the study, did I?

On the other hand, you could be missing something in the study you
haven't figured out. Or you've misread. Or you simply have, in your
hysterical need to protect your childhood, continually missed.

We just don't know.

But I know where the source is, and I'm not saying. Now if I said it was
here, or there, or over there, and it wasn't, then I'd be misleading.
But I'm simply saying I won't say. That's not misleading or lying.

And a stupid

liar if you think anyone would believe your lies!

I made clear long ago on this subject that since I'm not offering the
source any reader, including you, may simply discount it.


I do! ;-)

And I have no problem at all with what you do, child. For you do not
matter, and matter less each day you post these evasions from the study
debate.

You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still
do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR ASS NOW.


LOL! Yes you do have my ass - with your mouth! ;-)

Nope. On the end of my boot.

I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time
I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there.


Can't even keep you stories straight! Last time you said you checked it
and it said "out-of-print"! Were you lying then?

I did not know it was available at AAA. When I found reference to AAA I

checked. They said it was not available at that time. I don't know why.

Because you are STUPID, that's why!

Not knowing is stupid? It would be stupid to insist it was not available
AFTER I found out it was. Did I do that?


That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying?

That is not a question.


It's a statement of fact!

Whatever you think that means.

Do
you know that? ;-)

Yes, I know that. If after knowing I continued to insist it was out of
print, that would be a lie. I made no such claim. I simply explored it
further by asking you for source.

Show where I "knew" and continued to claim it was out of print.


It is out of print - STUPID!

Yes, I know. One can get it however, by paying the copying fee NOW. I
got it when it was copied by Embry's staff for me.

Nope.
Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone?

Why didn't you tell Alina way back that it was available there? Could it
known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell
her about it.

According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember?

You are not answering my question.


You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Sure. Was I wrong?

Gosh, imagine. What if I sent her that copy of the 78 pages or so and
she was actually you.

By golly, you'd sure have the last laugh on ME.....

.........wouldn't you? R R R R R R

Will we ever know it Alina was you, or Alina was a real seperate person,
or if Alina was a dog on a leash for you?

Probably not, but it's interesting to comtemplate, as long as one
doesn't use it to evade debating the content of the Report. How about
it? You ready to follow up on that dare of yours?

When I do bring up things from the study you just go into one of this
little monkeyboy fits of yours wanting to argue anything BUT the content.

I've only managed to drag you kicking and screaming ONCE to the font.

And there you drank the bitter draught of finding out you were WRONG
about no mention of spanking in the study. And that your claim of it not
being about spanking was full of ****, because it's not offered as a
spanking study, but and alternative to spanking.

In other words, you got caught makinga mistake, AND a stupid evasion
claim that logically is not true.

The Embry experiment is an alternative to spanking. Care to deny that?

She was suppose to
con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember?

You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question.


You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Sure did. And no, I'm not dodging at all. IN fact your question just now
is YOUR dodge.

You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question.

But we'll let that go, as just another attempt to involve this ng in
this discussion instead of the study you dared me to debate.

Why aren't you doing so given that I've openned the door to it?


YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or
not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim
YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability?


You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Did you not claim she wasn't?

Then why is it she never said in this ng that you had given her any
access other than an offer you NEVER followed up on?

Are you saying now that

you were WRONG? ;-)

No. I am saying that at the time I offered her a copy free. Postage
paid. I did not need to do to her what she claimed in this ng you did to
her, cause her to have to pay for the copy. Why didn't you tell her
about AAA if you had a copy and knew about that source?


Because, according to you, SHE WAS MY SOCK PUPPET trying to con a copy out
of you! Were you wrong?

We'll never know, will we. Or, I could be wrong and we will.

The point being here, Doan, if she wasn't, who did you not give her the
full information and tell her she could go to the library for it?

You recently told others. Didn't you know that back then?

So, if Alina IS a sockpuppet, then of course you wouldn't tell her that
publically. Either because you did not KNOW that yourself, or you did
not want others to know that.

Or, because you failed to do the proper maintenance of your socks.

Gosh I love a mystery, don't you?

In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you
claim to have had then? 0:-

I offered every who wanted a copy! Is that to conceal????

That's not an answer to the question I just asked.

Why did you not offer the freebie of the library? Why not the AAA?

Why did you not give Alina a choice?

How many copies did you send out, Doan?

Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to
say. I can only report what I was told.

And you were told the WRONG thing and you believed it. That is why you
are STUPID! ;-)

I am stupid because I believe the person in charge of the access? How
would I have found out otherwise?

Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library?

I didn't ask who they were. I presume a staffer at AAA.


LOL! Did you email to Fairley Washington?

No. I called.

You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had
no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see
if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from.


You first said you had a copy in your garage! Can't keep your story
straight? ;-)

My story is straight. I had the copy from Embry. Prior to having it I
had no knowledge it was at AAA.

They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was
willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy.


It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible
discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a
lie."

AND I PROVED IT! ;-)

No, you haven't. It's not a lie to have incorrect information. It's a
lie to mislead deliberately by omission or commission. YOU, of course
are guilty of both, and I just proved that.


LOL! It's you!

No, it's you child. It has been you all along. You claim to have had the
correct information but withheld it from everyone. Until recently.

I have to assume one of the following.

You did not have the study report until recently.

Or, you had it and withheld information about how to acquire it.

Or you just now got it, and are pretending you had it all along, but
oddly, only NOW mentioning AAA as a source. In fact you never mentioned
the library system until recently.


You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at
the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA.


And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-)

That has nothing to do with you. I did not mention it at the time.


She was my sock puppet and it has nothing to do with me???

Only you know.

I can't prove a negative, but I sure can explore one to death. 0:-

Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew
then, did you not?


Because I already had a copy at hand! Why should I bother to point them
elsewhere when I can just give them mine, STUPID?

Oh, maybe for the same reason Dorothy mentioned.

And out of courtesy. And to demonstrate to me that you did in fact have
a copy and knew where to get them?

Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not?

It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF.


I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even
keep your story straight, can't you? ;-)

Yes, that is what they told me. Did they tell you that too? If not, then
why did you withhold the information it could be obtained through them?

Because I can provide anyone that asked a copy!

Only if they provide a stamped preaddressed envelope?

My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind.


LOL!

There's a behavioral techique for reducing that compulsive laughter.
Operant Conditioning..in fact what Embry was discussing in his report.

But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim
you did.


Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL!

If you make it difficult to get, as Alina reported.


LOL! I offered her a copy and YOU DIDN'T, claiming she was my sock
puppet.

I didn't? Why of course I did, and I sent her one. I'm very trusting.

Tell me, who made it difficult for her?

You. I simply covered all costs myself.

BTW, did you apologize
to her?

For what? 0:-

If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were
available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first
claimed to have the report...the same invitation you recently extended
to me, and to becca I believe... the library system?


I first offer her copy of mine. She, like Dorothy, didn't want to give
me her address.

That's nice. Let's continue discussing Alina. Shall we?

I had asked her if she'd mind establishing for me, when she got the
study, that it was the same report I had. Here is her reply:

"I have, however, asked him for that study. It is ME that is taking
long now, because he has asked that I send an envelope so he can snail
mail it back. Baby is still a little sick so I have not gone out or
done much.
If it helps you in any way, yes, I will let you know when I have it."

I notice something else rather peculiar. Her posts are being, and have
for some time been, marked as "Error! newsgroup server responded:no such
article in group Perhaps the article has expired"

I find it odd, and am sure they aren't expired, as I can retrieve other
posts to this newgroups far older. Someone is removing them.

Interestingly "she" did say something very pecular in another post
though. Here's our exchange:

Kane says:
"What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what you
were looking for there? Many other websites have good information on
child rearing without punishment.

I'll let you know when I really browse through it I created an account
and am checking it out only now.
"

An account to browse? The Praxis site requires no account. Never has.

I think "Alina" in "her" haste and confusion in sorting out 'roles' may
just have slipped up a bit.

That is when I point her to other sources.

We were discussing Alina. You never pointed her to other sources in this
ng. Yet you'd have had then what you have now...the document you claimed
you had: The Embry Report #2.

I came
through for her and she RESPECTED ME for it.

That's nice.

You, on the other hand,
INSULTED her by claiming that she is my sock puppet!

It's an insult to be you?

Yes, I guess I see your logic alrighty.

YOU OWED HER
AND Alina an apology! BE A MAN and APOLOGIZE!

No. I don't owe anyone an apology for claiming they are you. Unless of
course there is something wrong with being you.

Interesting you should bring up Alina again. It's as though she
disappeared off the face of the earth. Hope she's alright.

How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or
so. 0:-

In other words, you lied.

Are you so STUPID?

One doesn't have to be a genius to catch you in a lie. You rarely post
without at least one attempt to mislead people. Usually a number of such
attempts, just like this post.


LOL! And you think you can fool others!

About your lying? I don't need to, though I'd not try to.

I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you
claimed you did.


And you were wrong! ;-)

I doubt that. You refused to debate by simply refusing to prove you had

the copy.

YOU have to live with what that appears to be.

If you had it then your own "cleverness" makes you appear the liar,
either then...or now in reference to the past.


LOL! And you are saying that you are too STUPID to fall for my
"cleverness"??? HOW STUPID IS THAT?



If you simply refused to prove it, and weren't lying, then my comment on
street entries and the effects of spanking comes under the same
category. I refuse to tell you were I got that information. Yet you
insist that makes it a lie.


It is a lie because it's not in the study!

I didn't say one way or another that it was in the study.

AND I JUST PROVED TO YOU AND EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP THAT IT IS NOT IN
THE STUDY.

You "PROVED" that? I don't see anything but your unsupported words.
Quote the line, and scan it into a graphic, and put it up on a photo
display site. They are free, and surely you know about them. I just used
one a couple of months ago to display some official documents concerning
me for another newsgroup debate.


I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the
study. You know that!

The only way you could prove that what I said was not in the study would
be to quote the whole study.


NO! The burden of proof is on you!

I did not claim it was in the study. So no, it's upon you, who claim
it's not in the study. All you have to do is print the whole study here.
0:-

If it's not there how can I prove it's not, or that it is?

I never said it is. I never said it isn't. It's YOU that wish now to
make the claim I said it was...and you've failed repeatedly when
challenged...and it's your claim it's NOT there that is now the question.

And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the
study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other.


Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

About what?

"I refuse to tell you were I got that information."

You are just afraid to go into the content of that report. Aren't you
little droanner?

This is your monkeyboy dance.


Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to.

It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

It's not in the study! ;-)

I haven't claim it was....or wasn't.


It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

LOL!

Yes, that's all you can do at this point, isn't it, hapless one?


ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT???

You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim
anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-

So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane?

I could.


And you did but nobody is buying! Even people on your side don't
believe you!

They don't?

About what?

The source of my claim about the spanking v entry rates? But I never
gave a source and refused to. What is there not to believe?

Please ask those folks to post what they don't believe and why. I'll be
happy to answer them, as I have been happy to answer you.

Even if it is in service to your evading following through on your dare
to me. I can help you only so much to dodge that you are a liar and a
**** coward that will NOT debate the Report with me without resorting to
this bull****.

What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well
under that accusation/question. Is that not true?


That you are a LIAR! ;-)

I asked, is that not true. Your response is not in compliance with
standard english as an aswer to a question.

In fact it's not a sentence in that sense. Or are you answering only
that portion of the paragraph you feel safest with and avoiding the rest?

See if you can control that compulsive laughter, as you dream up you
next evasion.

Is that what you

were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM!

I wasn't counting on anything. Yes, unfortunately for you, people are
not that stupid. And you are right, you cannot fool them for long.


And I, unlike you, don't try to fool other people. I know they are
intelligent and will see through a lie!

Really? You don't try to fool other people? R R R R R

Sure, Doan.

And how have I tried to fool other people?

The attacking defense is the oldest of debating ploys. You don't do it
very well though.

The presumptive declaration doesn't work either, to hide that you are
hiding. And the last thing you believe is that others are
intelligent..well, as intelligent and clever as you, little boy.

If you really do believe that, you know then what trouble you are in.

Attempting to call me a liar based on information you cannot know, and
insisting on meanings in other people's words that are not there but
convenience you, Doan, is the epitome of lying.

A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can,
those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging
as fast as your little monkey feet will dance.


Funny, Kane. THEY KEPT QUIET! ;-)

Why would they want to provide you more opportunities to engage anyone
but me, and thus dodge, as you are doing, any chance of actually
debating the content of the Embry experiment report?

They might even think it rude.

Though I'm certainly comfortable with them joining in should they chose
to. I don't think you are going to be able to hide from this study much
longer.

Your one shot at going into it with me was to expose how little you
understood about the presence of a spanking component for tracking.

They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along
with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with
"spanking" by the study.


LOL! AND "THEY" has been QUIET! Why is that, Kane?

I am not a mind reader, like you little monkeyboypsychic. I can only
guess. I have so far.

So my only logical answer would be, I don't really know.

Maybe they've moved on months or years ago and don't even know we are
having this conversation.

Maybe they find you a distasteful little moron with delusions of
grandeur based on nothing more than a few shoddy debating tricks.

How should I know. I can't read their minds.

It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment.

LOL! And the conclusion was on "reprimands"! ARE YOU SO STUPID?

No other?

Please refer to the pages I posted the numbers of and the quotations I
offered that showed they tracked and made conclusions about other items.

The study is not just on how many reprimands per street entry. It
includes other studies factors.

And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With
Alina it's four, at last count.

LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet.

Yes, I said that. 0:-

Were you WRONG? ;-)

Was I?

Kind of explains some things, doesn't it?


Explains what?

Some things, doesn't it?

The question mark at the end invites you to answer the question. Does it
not explain some things?

Are you admitting
that you were WRONG???

Oh?

Don't have the guts to admit you wrong, Kane? YOU ARE ALSO A COWARD!

I said "Oh?"

Are you a coward when you answer my questions with a question?

Was I wrong about Alina? What's to admit?

Can you prove you aren't or weren't her?

I can't. She's disappeared. Invite her back. I have some questions that
I've sent to her, e-mail returned as no such address.

If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-)

Ah, then I don't. Thank you for pointing that out.

We both know the truth. You ready to discuss that with the newsgroup are
you?

LOL! And you sent a copy of the study? ;-)

Sure. Didn't she tell you?

Why are you asking again. I've answer that before.

Could she not have gotten it I wonder?

My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I
have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise
to keep.

Lol! That you won't debate with me?

LOL! You don't know when you are check, do you boy?

That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to.

LOL! You know how STUPID you sound?

No, I know how stupid I wanted you to think I sounded. Keeping you
thinking you are the smart one is just another chess move. Not a hard
one, but a necessary one. You get stupider the smarter you think you are.


LOL!

Sorry about that "tic" of yours. I'm not purposefully triggering it.
That would be cruel.

But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I
will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the
study as the source.

But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's
a LIE! ;-)

So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior
management that is not in the study is a lie?

Yes! If it is contrary to the fact in the study!

You do see the strange and illogical claim you just made, no?

Embry can't be examined and questioned and reviewed with anything
remotely the truth if it conflicts with what is IN the report?

Is my disagreement with the use of the word 'punishment' to describe Sit
and Watch, then a lie?

When did disagreements get to be lies?

Would a replication of his experiment that had some different findings
constitute either one then being lies? And the authors liars?

You throw this word around like you have not idea of its meaning and
limitations.

Read a decription or two. In none will you find "mistakes" and
"disagreements" or even "errors" listed as being lies.

What is true one day can become outdated the next and not true. It makes
neither a "lie."

Intent to deceive is the hallmark of a lie.

Show how there is intent to decieve in

"
So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior
management that is not in the study is a lie?

"

How does that work?


Contrary to the fact is a lie! Simple, Kane! ;-)

When it's a disagreement? How?

If it's red and I say it's blue I'm not lying. I'm color blind to some
ranges of red. I am seeing the truth. It IS blue.

For YOU it is red. You are telling the truth. For me it is blue. I am
telling the truth.

If I tell you why that also is the truth. I disagreed with Embry on one
item, and I told you why. Neither my disagreement nor my reason are lies.

I disagree with more than just Embry's use of "punishment" as a
descriptor. That is not a lie. And If Embry should, by some discussion
come to agree with me, he would not have been lying in the first place.

There are some areas of his study and his explanations that have some
minor incongrueties. I don't make a big thing of them as I presume they
are simply word choice issues, and he could easily explain what he meant
were I to ask. If they were large issues, I'd ask.

And both of us would be discussing the facts...even though they might be
in opposition with each other.

Opposing facts to not equate with either being a lie.

For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be
a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was
not thinking of this study and how it showed a powerful alternative to
spanking)?

You could check the fact with what's in the study. It's that simple,
Kane!

You have to prove that his comment to the magazine was in fact referring
to the study. No such connection exists except through the man. And he
has the right to have varying opinions about many things, related or
not. A conflict, even if it existed, means there is a lie going on.

And I see no conflict, since he didn't mention the study in the article,
nor the article in the study.


You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your
projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan.

When I have the fact, I called you a LIAR, with proof of course! ;-)

What fact? That he didn't mention the study in the article? That I made
a comment, without source, about rates of street entry and spanking?

What proof? What fact?

You keep screeching it, and I keep pointing out the hole in it. Since I
cited no source you cannot use the study as the source. Simple, eh?

That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference.


Oops! More adhoms! ;-)

You've been busy with them constantly. I give what I get, and then a
bit. Hear the echo?

You have the study, you know
it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You have no way of knowing if that information came from the
study
or not, other than your claim. I haven't said, one way or the other.

I posted what the study really said. Don't be STUPID!

How do we know that? Who has the study but you, and my recipients?

LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why
didn't they speak up on your behalf?

Why should they become involved? I didn't ask them to. I've certainly
not tried to keep them out or bring them in. They are invited to do,
just like your claim, what they want to do; Choose for themselves.


LOL! And they have chosen to ignore you?

Why do you think?

Can you read minds? Tell us what they are thinking. Please.
Then you and I can go to Aqua Caliente and see if it works on horses. We
could get rich.

I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any
ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in
honesty, they are staying out to avoid providing you with more boltholes
by attacking them and their words.

I know I watched you enough with others and didn't interrupt while they
tore you a new one.


LOL!

All you ever came back at them when you ran out of room to run was
either "STUPID!" or "LIAR" or, predictably, "LOL!"

You have more than one pony, but not a very large herd.

From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your
speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65.

It doesn't matter if my speedometer is right and your radar is busted?
;-)

In other words you don't want to play by the rules you set.

What rules?

You have none? You don't have a standard to judge another's comments?
You give yourself permission to say anything, make any claim?

How about, for a rule:
"Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)"


Yup! That described YOU!

It describes how deficient you are morally. You cannot apply such a
standard to people, when you do not to yourself. Not morally.

Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known?

Yes! What have I claimed to be false, Kane?

Your question does not fit my comment.

You've claimed many things to be false. Problem is you have been
mistaken so many times when you have.

Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's
not stupid, that's just dishonest.

That's you! ;-)

I am perfectly comfortable if you find my metaphors useful for your
arguments. Feel free.


I did, STUPID! ;-)

Yes you did. That doesn't equate with me being stupid.

I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the
experiment not listed in the report.

LOL! And everyone suppose to take your words for it right, honest kane?

I haven't offered proof. I simply made a statement, and I've already
told you that you should feel perfectly free to discount it if you wish.

You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-)

You don't know if I can't or not. I simply won't, just as I stated.
Someday I might. But on my time and my terms, not yours.

You have my permission to discount the statement.


I don't need your permission! ;-)

I give it freely in any case. I don't need to either.

Hence, this issue is hardly of any importance, other than to continue to
avoid responding to the my willingness to meet your silly challenge of
debating the study.

Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he
did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive
of what I said.

So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-)

"Over?" Why only two choices, your two?

Why not, "along with?" Why not, "as adjunct to?" Or, "Dr. Embry's other
thoughts and discoveries?"

Because the study is the STANDARD, STUPID!

One may not then, when reviewing someone's report of an experiment,
bring in any outside information or considerations? They must make all
arguments up soley from what is in the study and compare to nothing,
cite nothing, quote nothing, speculate on nothing, but what is in the
report?

If YOUR rule is followed every researcher in the country will never be
reviewed again.

I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important
than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you.

Do you believe there is no connection between what Dr. Embry might say
in a non-academic non-research setting more casually, and what he does
say in a report on his research experiment?


He can say he believe in UFOs too, if he cares. But if he said that it
is base on his studies and the studies didn't say so, then there is no
connection. It's simple, Kane! ;-)

Did he in his magazine remarks mention this particular study?

Were there other studies?

Can he have an opinion that is not based on any particular element in
the studies, except his own observations?

Do with it whatever you want.

LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like
Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-)

I think I'd rather believe them than you, and no one has said they
don't. Why would they, since I've not tried to establish it as coming
from the study, or mentioned any source whatsoever.

It could be an opinion.

And everyone has an opionion. Opinions are not FACTS!

Yes. Call me a liar again then prove it is no more than your opinion. I
always like that one.

The fact is that 90% of the population spanks their children. This is a
small sample of people...who I presume would be likely to do the same.
Embry must have thought so or he would not have set a track to be
recorded for physical punishment.

That he also had a less formal opinion about spanking v street entry
rate seems congruent to me.

Not to you though?

Okay. What ever you say, boy.

It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy.


Or just LIES! ;-)

Could be. It's not. But then neither of us have proof we are willing to
share one way or the other.

Nevertheless my comment is congruent with Embry's opinion, or
observations, whichever it was he was referring to in the magazine article.


I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I?

LOL!

Well? Have I?

Is THIS how you pursue and argument claiming someone lied? Avoid the
principle questions of the accused? Tsk.

I made a comment. I made it clear you do not have to believe it.

I gave no source. Nor will I unless I decide to.

That removes all chance YOU could know or prove one way or the other if
it's the truth or a lie.

Just as I cannot "prove" Alina was your sock. 0:-

Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide
by the same one.


LOL! What rule is that?

The one that says I have to tell you something I don't wish to when
you
claim you do not have to follow the same rule or, I am a liar and you
are not?

When you lied, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Then you lied? Or you do not have to follow the same rule?

I don't lie, you lied!

If you insist I have to tell you something you ask about, and you do
not, Doan, that makes you dishonest, and a liar. It IS an attempt to
mislead people into assuming YOU have some authority over me that you do
not.


LOL!

In other words, you don't wish to debate this, or the study.

And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a
liar, then constitutes a lie on your part.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Prove it. NOW, not in reference to some other time that you won't cite.

If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not
identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report.

LOL! Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I see.

Yes, pretty good, isn't it?


You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

So you have rules for you that are different for others. Is that it?

If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying?


You are the one that's lying!

There is something you keep missing. I never deliberately attempt to
mislead anyone. You do, constantly.


You lied and I have proven so! Yet, you continued to LIE!

You have not proven a thing. You keep claiming you have, but all we see
you doing is your usual dance. Injecting meanings not evident.
Insinuating. And blatantly lying yourself.

If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety
and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make
up a normal sounding name and use it as a nym, for instance.

And I do reserve the right, when I've been obviously lied to, to lay a
trap for he liar by pretending to agree with him, or her.

Please, don't let that one get by. I want you to prove I'm a liar by
springing the trap. You will you know. Your flabby ego will get you
eventually. It has before, and you keep hoping I won't bring up those
instances again.

Doan

You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking
increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came
from.

Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you
insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I
made NO such claim.


So it's not from the study? Where is the source?

I refused to tell you. I still do. That does not make my statement a
lie. It makes it something you don't know.


I already told you that it's not in study!

And I didn't agree or disagree.

Because you are STUPID!

No, it's not stupid to not answer. It's just honest and smart. I made a
statement. You bit. Now you have to live with it, and reveal as you
frantically try to wriggle out of your own little stupid stumbling rants.

I did not say it was in the study, and I didn't say if it wasn't.


LOL! It's either is or it isn't.

Yes. That is correct. But I haven't said it was or wasn't. I've refused
to say.


Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. Refusing to say proves nothing. You do understand the thinking
behind the 5th Amendment, right?

My take on you is that whatever I offered you'd then take off in another
direction with. Arguing into infinity if I'd let you.

You don't really think I will, do you?

I PROVED IT! ;-)

Proved what to who?


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! TO EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP!

No, you have proven no such thing. What you have proven is that you will
lie about others being liars. The defense by attack ploy.

It's you that constantly mislead...thus lie, about just about anything
that comes up. Often it's an evasion lie...just a misleading to get the
thread OFF the topic you don't really want to talk about.

You conceal your reluctance to discuss an issue by covering it up with
****lies. The kind the obscure the point being argued, and divert the
opponent to trying to clean the **** off his or her shoes.

I play with you when I feel like it, usually to let you indulge yourself
to the point of exposure of your nonsense ****lies.

Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And
they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor
was I claiming it wasn't.

And they kept QUIET?

Their perogative. You are insinuating what?


So what is this you have "PROVED?"


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR!

You've proven no such thing.

We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows.


You don't konw???

Sure, I know. But I'm not discussing it with you as proof, one way or
the other. I'm telling you, stupid little boy, that I won't say.


BECAUSE YOU ARE LIAR!

Nope. Because I don't wish to say. Someday I might. Stick around. You
are a fine diversion.

But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have
to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves.


You not going to tell them? ;-)

Nope. How many times must I repeat it?


UNTIL YOU STOP LYING!

Nope. It's going to be over soon.

This isn't about anything but your diversionary ****lies. The kind you
use to keep people off the topic you don't want to discuss.

I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where
it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada.


I know! YOU CAN'T! ;-)

How would you "know?" You a mind reader?

That's a mighty big world out there. Lots of information sources. But
then get together enough monkeys with enough keyboards......R R R R R R

And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that
it's not there.

THAt YOU LIED!

But I didn't say it was there, nor that it wasn't. I am speculating on
your claim, not mine.

So you understand the modifier, "If?" It's the second word in the
sentence right after "and."

I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source.

How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that
statement?

You are rambling! ;-)

No, I am posting in long response to your long rambling attempt to make
me out a liar on no evidence at all. I have not said what the source is,
nor have I said what it isn't.

You are free to speculate and even claim all you want, and I'll not
verify or deny it. Why should I?


Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You are if you use insufficient data to make such a claim. Show my
lie.

Go ahead.

Thus, it's a FALSE statement
no matter where it came from.

Not if it's from somewhere else.


PROVE IT!

No. You prove you have the study.

Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that?

Of course. Didn't you know that's what I wanted to hear?

There is a rough critical mass of information that provides sufficient
correlation for an intelligent person to make significant presumptions
and thus take various related actions.

All I can say to you at this point is, Thank you sincerely from the
bottom of my heart.


[snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane]

Things that show you are a liar. That you are unethical. And that you
are cheat. And propose questions about your mental stability.


Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-)

Doan

I see you are well back into your little monkeyboy cave where you won't
have to debate Embry, Doan. If I can see it, so can others.


Oops! More adhoms! ;-)

Opps, more of your ad homs.
" Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-)"

Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of
"spanking" as part of the study, right?


Showing your STUPIDITY again? ;-)

It's not stupid to expose your stupidity. You made the claim. You got
shown where you were wrong, right from the study you keep shouting about
but don't want to discuss.


Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you.


I have a long live ahead of me. ;-)

Actually that's doubtful. Constant self delusion creates a lot of
stress. Stress is a real killer. High blood pressure, and other stress
related diseases are rampant.

Doan

But then I can wish you a long life. And all that it takes to have one.
Like really really lowering your stress levels.

0:-

Any further correspondance not directly addressing the Embry study
report will be ****canned, Doan.

Let's talk about the "reprimand" thing, shall we?

The reprimand issue was far from the only thing in any conclusions.
Plesae provide a page that supports your claim, and I'll explain (I
already know the page) what it means and why it does not stand alone
with rate of street entries.

Hint: it's not how reprimands effected entry rates so much as how the
program effected both.

Could I hand it to you more beautifully wrapped?

Only Embry could explain it more clearly, I'm sure.

Kane



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Another STUPID response from ignoranus kane0! ;-)

Doan
AFfromDreamLand

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 21 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



Doan wrote:

Doan continues with his dodges.


Kane continues with his LIES! ;-)

Doan dares me to debate, then avoids opportunities.

Constanctly screeching, in monkeboy talk, "STUPID!" and "LIAR."

He got nailed on his poor understanding of the report, and even missed
some of the content. tsk.


Does your not knowing make you stupid?


Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)

No it doesn't. Were you stupid when you were three and didn't know about
safety concepts?


It's when you are an old and still have the mental capacity of a three
year old! ;-)

Unwilling to debate the Report are you?

I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU. YOU ARE AFRAID TO DEBATE ME.

I snipping any evasiveness from this point on. Not just today, but forever.

...............


To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something
different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to
mislead, Doan.


13 children, Kane!

26 people, not counting fathers, Doan.

33 families participated, Doan. Something you seemed quite ignorant of.

,,,,,,,,,,,,


LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten
from Dr. Embry?

Dr. Embry himself.


And you believed him?

Some reason I shouldn't? I believe I pointed out to him that I did not
have a university account so could not look there. But then, memory
could be wrong.

In any case, he provided it. Why should I question him further?

Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component
in the Embry study?

No one. I claimed that I disagreed with the interpretation by Dr. Embry
that Sit and Watch had to constitute "punishment."

You seem to be freely interpreting your own biases into the study, like
claiming it's only about "reprimands," so therefore disagreeing with Dr.
Embry and the report.


I only interprete what available in the study. I don't rely on
second-hand reported, which has proven to be false! ;-)

You interpreted wrongly. What is in the study is considerably more than
"reprimands," as I have shown by quotation and page citations.

Those can't be "false" because they are there where you could read them
and understand them if your strangeness was not getting in your way.
Which of the things I listed as also being part of the study would you
say aren't there or are proven false?


Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked

kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-)

No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries as
children that were trained not to enter the street.

That is false!

That is what I stated. If you think it's false, prove it. I have said
I'm not providing a source. Enjoy yourself. As you evade real debate.


I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a
researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel.


Opinion is like an asshole, everybody has one! ;-)

You seem to have more than your share.


Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study
shows....."


LOL!

Can't, I see. So all you can do is LOL, and that is exactly what's going
on each time you do write, "LOL!"


YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are
driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'.


Nope! Because YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

I'm stupid because YOU jumped to a conclusion?
You mean you were too stupid to notice you were mistaken and withdraw
your claim.

That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get
out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment.


One sign of this serious problem is the tendency to exclaim, "LOL!" a lot.

LOL!

See?


Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions
while demanding others do so.


Hypocrit! Who claimed that the Embry study can only be gotten from Dr.
Embry?

Because at the time I got it that is what he told me. That he did not
think it was available other than from him.


hahaha! You now blame it on Dr. Embry? How low can you get?

Where am I assigning "blame?" I am simply reporting what he said to me.

So he lied to you?

Why would you assume that? Could he not have honestly believed what he
told me? How would that be a lie?


He is not that STUPID!

To tell me what he believed? No, I don't presume he's either stupid, or
lies. He states what he believes he knows at the moment. At the moment
he apparently didn't think it was any longer available through AAA.
Though he never mentioned that to me. In fact at the time I asked I of
course did not have a copy...or why would I ask...and I could not
therefore know about how funded the experiment, thus I could not know to
ask him about AAA.


I thought you first said you had the study "long time ago", in your
garage! ;-)

I did. There is no time line mentioned.

I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were
available through the library.


He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA
Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it.

Or he might have believed they no longer offered it. It's a very old study.

Would you care to write or call him and entertain your speculation that
he lied, or was stupid?


I don't need to. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

I don't care.

I notice this is a long way from debating the merits of his study
though. Coward.

You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or
stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of
required performance? An impossible one, by the way.


In you case, you have a habit of making "mistakes"! ;-)

Nope. Actually a bit less than most people, though doubtless more than
some. I don't keep score.

You seem to though. For what purpose? Nothing else going for you?

What is low about that?

By not taking responsibility for your own STUPIDITY! ;-)

I don't think it stupid to believe the producer of the experiment and
study when he tells me something. I would tend to take him as the
authority. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I might even disagree, if I have
information I think is more relevant or recent. But that does not make
him stupid or a liar at the time he said what he did.

Do you always take the word of authority without question?

No. I was not questioning the study. I was asking for a copy. When he
told me what he did I had no reason to question his answer. Would you?


What, the study said clear PUNISHMENT. Are you sure you not questiong
the study? Keep you story straight, boy! ;-)

We were discussing access to the study, not punishment. Notice I said,
"I was asking for a copy?"

What has that to do with punishment, other than you make it a habit to
quickly change the subject when you have lost the point.

As for that issue, yes, I am questioning both Embry and his study on
that point...though it's not that big an issue. He used "punishment" as
part of describing the Sit and Watch Time Out part of the package. I
believe and I've repeatedly told you so, that this can be done without
it being punitive.

I do not disagree he said it, but that it's 100% applicable.


What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist
somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?"


You could tell him that "researcher" like you kept it in a garage! ;-)

IN other words you are still cowardly dodging the content and relevance
of his study, but want to play your little games.

Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication?


Or you could do a google search and find it in less than a minute.
Dorothy did and she found it! Why can't you? You said you worked with
computer all the back to 1967! ;-)

Nope. About 1959. When one went into the computer, since it filled a room.

This has nothing to do with the content. You lied back when you first
claimed you had it, and it took you many months to get it yourself.

Alina told me so. 0:-

You are an
adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research
to see if what the authority say is right?

On finding the study? I asked him where I could get it. He said he
thought nowhere but from him, apparently. He provided me with
considerably more than I asked for.


LOL! How nice of him to give you the wrong information. ;-)

He didn't as far as I know. Nor did he intend to do any such thing. And
who knows, my memory of the conversation, so very years ago could be wrong.

The point is we have it now and you wish to continue discussing access
rather than content. Why is that I wonder?


You see, that is the difference

between you and me.

Oh yes, I see the difference alrighty.

You would harass someone that answered you to the best of the ability at
the moment, calling them a liar, and stupid. I would not.


LOL! I called you for what you are - STUPID ASSHOLE! ;-)

Getting that desperate?

Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was
claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do.


But you already said you had the study "long ago". Shall I look back
in the "archives"? ;-)

That aside, what has that to do with why I would call someone a stupid
liar? Yes, look in the archives.

You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take
the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people
"smelly-****", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-)

You don't know if I was "never-spanked." I made the remark in reference
to my parents. How would you know, stupid, unless you asked or I
volunteered it, that someone else had or had not spanked me?


You volunteered it! I didn't ask.

Yep. And I didn't say what you claim.

I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of
public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their
parent's church a "smelly ****." What would you call her?


I wouldn't call your mom that! ;-)

Good, as she would never countenance such behavior from parents that
Fern celebrated and supported. As for you, she'd just laugh at you.

I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that
will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I
planned for you to do....actually debate Embry when I KNEW with
reasonable certainty you had the study report in question.

Thanks for your cooperation, even if I had to be so patient. 0:-

LOL!

Still showing what a coward you are? Not willing to follow up on your
dare to me?

Isn't what you are doing, "low?"

No. What I have said about the study came straight from the study!

And you don't know where what I said came from. That doesn't make you
stupid, but it makes you a liar to keep insisting your information is
correct and mine is not because yours came from the study -- so I must
be lying.


I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study.

That's nice. I didn't claim it was. If so, please quote me and cite the
post I said so in.


LOL! It's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are LIAR! ;-)

I haven't said one way or the other where it is from. I never claimed it
was from the report. Thus you cannot claim it's false and that I am a
liar thereby.

You are for continuing this evasive charade.

In fact, I am
very sure that you made it up.

Now who's being stupid. You can't read my mind. You don't know what I
read or who I talk to or what I learn outside this ng. Unless I share it
and the source. I shared it, I'm not sharing the source. You may freely
discount, as I've told you, stupid, a number of times, my comment.


LOL!

Still got that compulsive laugh I see.

See!

Sure, you still have the compulsive laugh when you are stumped.

YOU ARE STUPID!

There is nothing stupid in not sharing the source. Any more than it
would be to not share my social security number, or what size shoes I
wear. Just a decision on my part.

My shoes are size 11, by the way, but you'll never believe me and you'll
call me a liar because it has nothing to do with the study, right? 0:-


But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure."


I already have proof. It's the study, STUPID! ;-)

I did not say the source was or wasn't the study, stupid. So you can't
use the study as proof, stupid. What a silly monkeyboy.

That makes you a LIAR!

Nope. It makes you a speculator that isn't intelligent enough to say, "I
believe you are a liar," or "I think you are a liar," or "I looks to me
like you are a liar."


I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR! Prove to me otherwise! You can't!

I can't prove a negative. I can prove that you are lying when you claim
I'm a liar though. All I have to do is ask you to show proof.

And taking this for an great example, I never said what the source of my
claim was. You keep stupidly insisting it's not in the Report so that it
is a lie.

Knowing now, most assuredly after many repetitions, that I have not
claimed it was in the study, how can you use the study as proof I'm lying?

You are simply dodging the study because you know how damning it is to
the argument for spanking to teach children to stay out of the street.

We know, for instance, that about 90% or more of parents spank their
small children. They have declared that one of the things they often do
is spank for running into the street, yet Embry points out that street
entry is the second leading cause of child deaths.

Would that equate for you with "spanking" being effective for children
under 5 in reducing street entries?

Or don't you wish to debate hte actual study, as in, "The Embry study:
What it actually said?"

Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a
mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up."


I AM VERY SURE!

Since you don't know the source for my comment you are now showing how
monumentally you let your emotions driven biases run away with your reason.

It's sad to have such intelligence and misuse it so. Your parents must
be disappointed.

So I am very sure that you are deluding yourself, or lying. It's hard to
tell which with you any more. Just when I think it's the one you
suddenly convince me it's the other. How confusing. 0:-

You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you
cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement.


I AM SURE YOU ARE STUPID and A LIAR! ;-)

Do you always base your assuredness on guesses?

Or are you prepared to prove that my statement comes from a particular
source and my claim is mistaken? Please show your work product.



In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve
it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of
information.

When you know where I drew that information from, then you can argue it.
Until then you are simply being, well, stupid.


I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it.

No, you cannot argue it. You could if I said they were from the Embry
study. Did I?


One more time, if it's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are a liar!

Where did I say it was from the study? I haven't said one way or the
other. Hence it is not 'FALSE' nor can you prove it so, since you do not
know the source unless you can read my mind.

Until
you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR!

You are a liar to claim such when you know perfectly well I never said
it came from the study we are discussing.


It's not from study. That is why I said YOU ARE A LIAR!

But I didn't say it was from the study, did I?

On the other hand, you could be missing something in the study you
haven't figured out. Or you've misread. Or you simply have, in your
hysterical need to protect your childhood, continually missed.

We just don't know.

But I know where the source is, and I'm not saying. Now if I said it was
here, or there, or over there, and it wasn't, then I'd be misleading.
But I'm simply saying I won't say. That's not misleading or lying.

And a stupid

liar if you think anyone would believe your lies!

I made clear long ago on this subject that since I'm not offering the
source any reader, including you, may simply discount it.


I do! ;-)

And I have no problem at all with what you do, child. For you do not
matter, and matter less each day you post these evasions from the study
debate.

You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still
do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR ASS NOW.


LOL! Yes you do have my ass - with your mouth! ;-)

Nope. On the end of my boot.

I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time
I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there.


Can't even keep you stories straight! Last time you said you checked it
and it said "out-of-print"! Were you lying then?

I did not know it was available at AAA. When I found reference to AAA I

checked. They said it was not available at that time. I don't know why.

Because you are STUPID, that's why!

Not knowing is stupid? It would be stupid to insist it was not available
AFTER I found out it was. Did I do that?


That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying?

That is not a question.


It's a statement of fact!

Whatever you think that means.

Do
you know that? ;-)

Yes, I know that. If after knowing I continued to insist it was out of
print, that would be a lie. I made no such claim. I simply explored it
further by asking you for source.

Show where I "knew" and continued to claim it was out of print.


It is out of print - STUPID!

Yes, I know. One can get it however, by paying the copying fee NOW. I
got it when it was copied by Embry's staff for me.

Nope.
Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone?

Why didn't you tell Alina way back that it was available there? Could it
known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell
her about it.

According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember?

You are not answering my question.


You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Sure. Was I wrong?

Gosh, imagine. What if I sent her that copy of the 78 pages or so and
she was actually you.

By golly, you'd sure have the last laugh on ME.....

........wouldn't you? R R R R R R

Will we ever know it Alina was you, or Alina was a real seperate person,
or if Alina was a dog on a leash for you?

Probably not, but it's interesting to comtemplate, as long as one
doesn't use it to evade debating the content of the Report. How about
it? You ready to follow up on that dare of yours?

When I do bring up things from the study you just go into one of this
little monkeyboy fits of yours wanting to argue anything BUT the content.

I've only managed to drag you kicking and screaming ONCE to the font.

And there you drank the bitter draught of finding out you were WRONG
about no mention of spanking in the study. And that your claim of it not
being about spanking was full of ****, because it's not offered as a
spanking study, but and alternative to spanking.

In other words, you got caught makinga mistake, AND a stupid evasion
claim that logically is not true.

The Embry experiment is an alternative to spanking. Care to deny that?

She was suppose to
con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember?

You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question.


You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Sure did. And no, I'm not dodging at all. IN fact your question just now
is YOUR dodge.

You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question.

But we'll let that go, as just another attempt to involve this ng in
this discussion instead of the study you dared me to debate.

Why aren't you doing so given that I've openned the door to it?


YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or
not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim
YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability?


You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Did you not claim she wasn't?

Then why is it she never said in this ng that you had given her any
access other than an offer you NEVER followed up on?

Are you saying now that

you were WRONG? ;-)

No. I am saying that at the time I offered her a copy free. Postage
paid. I did not need to do to her what she claimed in this ng you did to
her, cause her to have to pay for the copy. Why didn't you tell her
about AAA if you had a copy and knew about that source?


Because, according to you, SHE WAS MY SOCK PUPPET trying to con a copy out
of you! Were you wrong?

We'll never know, will we. Or, I could be wrong and we will.

The point being here, Doan, if she wasn't, who did you not give her the
full information and tell her she could go to the library for it?

You recently told others. Didn't you know that back then?

So, if Alina IS a sockpuppet, then of course you wouldn't tell her that
publically. Either because you did not KNOW that yourself, or you did
not want others to know that.

Or, because you failed to do the proper maintenance of your socks.

Gosh I love a mystery, don't you?

In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you
claim to have had then? 0:-

I offered every who wanted a copy! Is that to conceal????

That's not an answer to the question I just asked.

Why did you not offer the freebie of the library? Why not the AAA?

Why did you not give Alina a choice?

How many copies did you send out, Doan?

Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to
say. I can only report what I was told.

And you were told the WRONG thing and you believed it. That is why you
are STUPID! ;-)

I am stupid because I believe the person in charge of the access? How
would I have found out otherwise?

Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library?

I didn't ask who they were. I presume a staffer at AAA.


LOL! Did you email to Fairley Washington?

No. I called.

You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had
no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see
if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from.


You first said you had a copy in your garage! Can't keep your story
straight? ;-)

My story is straight. I had the copy from Embry. Prior to having it I
had no knowledge it was at AAA.

They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was
willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy.


It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible
discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a
lie."

AND I PROVED IT! ;-)

No, you haven't. It's not a lie to have incorrect information. It's a
lie to mislead deliberately by omission or commission. YOU, of course
are guilty of both, and I just proved that.


LOL! It's you!

No, it's you child. It has been you all along. You claim to have had the
correct information but withheld it from everyone. Until recently.

I have to assume one of the following.

You did not have the study report until recently.

Or, you had it and withheld information about how to acquire it.

Or you just now got it, and are pretending you had it all along, but
oddly, only NOW mentioning AAA as a source. In fact you never mentioned
the library system until recently.


You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at
the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA.


And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-)

That has nothing to do with you. I did not mention it at the time.


She was my sock puppet and it has nothing to do with me???

Only you know.

I can't prove a negative, but I sure can explore one to death. 0:-

Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew
then, did you not?


Because I already had a copy at hand! Why should I bother to point them
elsewhere when I can just give them mine, STUPID?

Oh, maybe for the same reason Dorothy mentioned.

And out of courtesy. And to demonstrate to me that you did in fact have
a copy and knew where to get them?

Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not?

It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF.


I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even
keep your story straight, can't you? ;-)

Yes, that is what they told me. Did they tell you that too? If not, then
why did you withhold the information it could be obtained through them?

Because I can provide anyone that asked a copy!

Only if they provide a stamped preaddressed envelope?

My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind.


LOL!

There's a behavioral techique for reducing that compulsive laughter.
Operant Conditioning..in fact what Embry was discussing in his report.

But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim
you did.


Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL!

If you make it difficult to get, as Alina reported.


LOL! I offered her a copy and YOU DIDN'T, claiming she was my sock
puppet.

I didn't? Why of course I did, and I sent her one. I'm very trusting.

Tell me, who made it difficult for her?

You. I simply covered all costs myself.

BTW, did you apologize
to her?

For what? 0:-

If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were
available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first
claimed to have the report...the same invitation you recently extended
to me, and to becca I believe... the library system?


I first offer her copy of mine. She, like Dorothy, didn't want to give
me her address.

That's nice. Let's continue discussing Alina. Shall we?

I had asked her if she'd mind establishing for me, when she got the
study, that it was the same report I had. Here is her reply:

"I have, however, asked him for that study. It is ME that is taking
long now, because he has asked that I send an envelope so he can snail
mail it back. Baby is still a little sick so I have not gone out or
done much.
If it helps you in any way, yes, I will let you know when I have it."

I notice something else rather peculiar. Her posts are being, and have
for some time been, marked as "Error! newsgroup server responded:no such
article in group Perhaps the article has expired"

I find it odd, and am sure they aren't expired, as I can retrieve other
posts to this newgroups far older. Someone is removing them.

Interestingly "she" did say something very pecular in another post
though. Here's our exchange:

Kane says:
"What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what you
were looking for there? Many other websites have good information on
child rearing without punishment.

I'll let you know when I really browse through it I created an account
and am checking it out only now.
"

An account to browse? The Praxis site requires no account. Never has.

I think "Alina" in "her" haste and confusion in sorting out 'roles' may
just have slipped up a bit.

That is when I point her to other sources.

We were discussing Alina. You never pointed her to other sources in this
ng. Yet you'd have had then what you have now...the document you claimed
you had: The Embry Report #2.

I came
through for her and she RESPECTED ME for it.

That's nice.

You, on the other hand,
INSULTED her by claiming that she is my sock puppet!

It's an insult to be you?

Yes, I guess I see your logic alrighty.

YOU OWED HER
AND Alina an apology! BE A MAN and APOLOGIZE!

No. I don't owe anyone an apology for claiming they are you. Unless of
course there is something wrong with being you.

Interesting you should bring up Alina again. It's as though she
disappeared off the face of the earth. Hope she's alright.

How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or
so. 0:-

In other words, you lied.

Are you so STUPID?

One doesn't have to be a genius to catch you in a lie. You rarely post
without at least one attempt to mislead people. Usually a number of such
attempts, just like this post.


LOL! And you think you can fool others!

About your lying? I don't need to, though I'd not try to.

I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you
claimed you did.


And you were wrong! ;-)

I doubt that. You refused to debate by simply refusing to prove you had

the copy.

YOU have to live with what that appears to be.

If you had it then your own "cleverness" makes you appear the liar,
either then...or now in reference to the past.


LOL! And you are saying that you are too STUPID to fall for my
"cleverness"??? HOW STUPID IS THAT?



If you simply refused to prove it, and weren't lying, then my comment on
street entries and the effects of spanking comes under the same
category. I refuse to tell you were I got that information. Yet you
insist that makes it a lie.


It is a lie because it's not in the study!

I didn't say one way or another that it was in the study.

AND I JUST PROVED TO YOU AND EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP THAT IT IS NOT IN
THE STUDY.

You "PROVED" that? I don't see anything but your unsupported words.
Quote the line, and scan it into a graphic, and put it up on a photo
display site. They are free, and surely you know about them. I just used
one a couple of months ago to display some official documents concerning
me for another newsgroup debate.


I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the
study. You know that!

The only way you could prove that what I said was not in the study would
be to quote the whole study.


NO! The burden of proof is on you!

I did not claim it was in the study. So no, it's upon you, who claim
it's not in the study. All you have to do is print the whole study here.
0:-

If it's not there how can I prove it's not, or that it is?

I never said it is. I never said it isn't. It's YOU that wish now to
make the claim I said it was...and you've failed repeatedly when
challenged...and it's your claim it's NOT there that is now the question.

And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the
study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other.


Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

About what?

"I refuse to tell you were I got that information."

You are just afraid to go into the content of that report. Aren't you
little droanner?

This is your monkeyboy dance.


Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to.

It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

It's not in the study! ;-)

I haven't claim it was....or wasn't.


It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

LOL!

Yes, that's all you can do at this point, isn't it, hapless one?


ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT???

You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim
anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-

So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane?

I could.


And you did but nobody is buying! Even people on your side don't
believe you!

They don't?

About what?

The source of my claim about the spanking v entry rates? But I never
gave a source and refused to. What is there not to believe?

Please ask those folks to post what they don't believe and why. I'll be
happy to answer them, as I have been happy to answer you.

Even if it is in service to your evading following through on your dare
to me. I can help you only so much to dodge that you are a liar and a
**** coward that will NOT debate the Report with me without resorting to
this bull****.

What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well
under that accusation/question. Is that not true?


That you are a LIAR! ;-)

I asked, is that not true. Your response is not in compliance with
standard english as an aswer to a question.

In fact it's not a sentence in that sense. Or are you answering only
that portion of the paragraph you feel safest with and avoiding the rest?

See if you can control that compulsive laughter, as you dream up you
next evasion.

Is that what you

were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM!

I wasn't counting on anything. Yes, unfortunately for you, people are
not that stupid. And you are right, you cannot fool them for long.


And I, unlike you, don't try to fool other people. I know they are
intelligent and will see through a lie!

Really? You don't try to fool other people? R R R R R

Sure, Doan.

And how have I tried to fool other people?

The attacking defense is the oldest of debating ploys. You don't do it
very well though.

The presumptive declaration doesn't work either, to hide that you are
hiding. And the last thing you believe is that others are
intelligent..well, as intelligent and clever as you, little boy.

If you really do believe that, you know then what trouble you are in.

Attempting to call me a liar based on information you cannot know, and
insisting on meanings in other people's words that are not there but
convenience you, Doan, is the epitome of lying.

A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can,
those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging
as fast as your little monkey feet will dance.


Funny, Kane. THEY KEPT QUIET! ;-)

Why would they want to provide you more opportunities to engage anyone
but me, and thus dodge, as you are doing, any chance of actually
debating the content of the Embry experiment report?

They might even think it rude.

Though I'm certainly comfortable with them joining in should they chose
to. I don't think you are going to be able to hide from this study much
longer.

Your one shot at going into it with me was to expose how little you
understood about the presence of a spanking component for tracking.

They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along
with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with
"spanking" by the study.


LOL! AND "THEY" has been QUIET! Why is that, Kane?

I am not a mind reader, like you little monkeyboypsychic. I can only
guess. I have so far.

So my only logical answer would be, I don't really know.

Maybe they've moved on months or years ago and don't even know we are
having this conversation.

Maybe they find you a distasteful little moron with delusions of
grandeur based on nothing more than a few shoddy debating tricks.

How should I know. I can't read their minds.

It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment.

LOL! And the conclusion was on "reprimands"! ARE YOU SO STUPID?

No other?

Please refer to the pages I posted the numbers of and the quotations I
offered that showed they tracked and made conclusions about other items.

The study is not just on how many reprimands per street entry. It
includes other studies factors.

And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With
Alina it's four, at last count.

LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet.

Yes, I said that. 0:-

Were you WRONG? ;-)

Was I?

Kind of explains some things, doesn't it?


Explains what?

Some things, doesn't it?

The question mark at the end invites you to answer the question. Does it
not explain some things?

Are you admitting
that you were WRONG???

Oh?

Don't have the guts to admit you wrong, Kane? YOU ARE ALSO A COWARD!

I said "Oh?"

Are you a coward when you answer my questions with a question?

Was I wrong about Alina? What's to admit?

Can you prove you aren't or weren't her?

I can't. She's disappeared. Invite her back. I have some questions that
I've sent to her, e-mail returned as no such address.

If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-)

Ah, then I don't. Thank you for pointing that out.

We both know the truth. You ready to discuss that with the newsgroup are
you?

LOL! And you sent a copy of the study? ;-)

Sure. Didn't she tell you?

Why are you asking again. I've answer that before.

Could she not have gotten it I wonder?

My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I
have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise
to keep.

Lol! That you won't debate with me?

LOL! You don't know when you are check, do you boy?

That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to.

LOL! You know how STUPID you sound?

No, I know how stupid I wanted you to think I sounded. Keeping you
thinking you are the smart one is just another chess move. Not a hard
one, but a necessary one. You get stupider the smarter you think you are.


LOL!

Sorry about that "tic" of yours. I'm not purposefully triggering it.
That would be cruel.

But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I
will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the
study as the source.

But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's
a LIE! ;-)

So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior
management that is not in the study is a lie?

Yes! If it is contrary to the fact in the study!

You do see the strange and illogical claim you just made, no?

Embry can't be examined and questioned and reviewed with anything
remotely the truth if it conflicts with what is IN the report?

Is my disagreement with the use of the word 'punishment' to describe Sit
and Watch, then a lie?

When did disagreements get to be lies?

Would a replication of his experiment that had some different findings
constitute either one then being lies? And the authors liars?

You throw this word around like you have not idea of its meaning and
limitations.

Read a decription or two. In none will you find "mistakes" and
"disagreements" or even "errors" listed as being lies.

What is true one day can become outdated the next and not true. It makes
neither a "lie."

Intent to deceive is the hallmark of a lie.

Show how there is intent to decieve in

"
So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior
management that is not in the study is a lie?

"

How does that work?


Contrary to the fact is a lie! Simple, Kane! ;-)

When it's a disagreement? How?

If it's red and I say it's blue I'm not lying. I'm color blind to some
ranges of red. I am seeing the truth. It IS blue.

For YOU it is red. You are telling the truth. For me it is blue. I am
telling the truth.

If I tell you why that also is the truth. I disagreed with Embry on one
item, and I told you why. Neither my disagreement nor my reason are lies.

I disagree with more than just Embry's use of "punishment" as a
descriptor. That is not a lie. And If Embry should, by some discussion
come to agree with me, he would not have been lying in the first place.

There are some areas of his study and his explanations that have some
minor incongrueties. I don't make a big thing of them as I presume they
are simply word choice issues, and he could easily explain what he meant
were I to ask. If they were large issues, I'd ask.

And both of us would be discussing the facts...even though they might be
in opposition with each other.

Opposing facts to not equate with either being a lie.

For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be
a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was
not thinking of this study and how it showed a powerful alternative to
spanking)?

You could check the fact with what's in the study. It's that simple,
Kane!

You have to prove that his comment to the magazine was in fact referring
to the study. No such connection exists except through the man. And he
has the right to have varying opinions about many things, related or
not. A conflict, even if it existed, means there is a lie going on.

And I see no conflict, since he didn't mention the study in the article,
nor the article in the study.


You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your
projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan.

When I have the fact, I called you a LIAR, with proof of course! ;-)

What fact? That he didn't mention the study in the article? That I made
a comment, without source, about rates of street entry and spanking?

What proof? What fact?

You keep screeching it, and I keep pointing out the hole in it. Since I
cited no source you cannot use the study as the source. Simple, eh?

That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference.


Oops! More adhoms! ;-)

You've been busy with them constantly. I give what I get, and then a
bit. Hear the echo?

You have the study, you know
it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You have no way of knowing if that information came from the
study
or not, other than your claim. I haven't said, one way or the other.

I posted what the study really said. Don't be STUPID!

How do we know that? Who has the study but you, and my recipients?

LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why
didn't they speak up on your behalf?

Why should they become involved? I didn't ask them to. I've certainly
not tried to keep them out or bring them in. They are invited to do,
just like your claim, what they want to do; Choose for themselves.


LOL! And they have chosen to ignore you?

Why do you think?

Can you read minds? Tell us what they are thinking. Please.
Then you and I can go to Aqua Caliente and see if it works on horses. We
could get rich.

I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any
ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in
honesty, they are staying out to avoid providing you with more boltholes
by attacking them and their words.

I know I watched you enough with others and didn't interrupt while they
tore you a new one.


LOL!

All you ever came back at them when you ran out of room to run was
either "STUPID!" or "LIAR" or, predictably, "LOL!"

You have more than one pony, but not a very large herd.

From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your
speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65.

It doesn't matter if my speedometer is right and your radar is busted?
;-)

In other words you don't want to play by the rules you set.

What rules?

You have none? You don't have a standard to judge another's comments?
You give yourself permission to say anything, make any claim?

How about, for a rule:
"Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)"


Yup! That described YOU!

It describes how deficient you are morally. You cannot apply such a
standard to people, when you do not to yourself. Not morally.

Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known?

Yes! What have I claimed to be false, Kane?

Your question does not fit my comment.

You've claimed many things to be false. Problem is you have been
mistaken so many times when you have.

Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's
not stupid, that's just dishonest.

That's you! ;-)

I am perfectly comfortable if you find my metaphors useful for your
arguments. Feel free.


I did, STUPID! ;-)

Yes you did. That doesn't equate with me being stupid.

I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the
experiment not listed in the report.

LOL! And everyone suppose to take your words for it right, honest kane?

I haven't offered proof. I simply made a statement, and I've already
told you that you should feel perfectly free to discount it if you wish.

You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-)

You don't know if I can't or not. I simply won't, just as I stated.
Someday I might. But on my time and my terms, not yours.

You have my permission to discount the statement.


I don't need your permission! ;-)

I give it freely in any case. I don't need to either.

Hence, this issue is hardly of any importance, other than to continue to
avoid responding to the my willingness to meet your silly challenge of
debating the study.

Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he
did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive
of what I said.

So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-)

"Over?" Why only two choices, your two?

Why not, "along with?" Why not, "as adjunct to?" Or, "Dr. Embry's other
thoughts and discoveries?"

Because the study is the STANDARD, STUPID!

One may not then, when reviewing someone's report of an experiment,
bring in any outside information or considerations? They must make all
arguments up soley from what is in the study and compare to nothing,
cite nothing, quote nothing, speculate on nothing, but what is in the
report?

If YOUR rule is followed every researcher in the country will never be
reviewed again.

I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important
than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you.

Do you believe there is no connection between what Dr. Embry might say
in a non-academic non-research setting more casually, and what he does
say in a report on his research experiment?


He can say he believe in UFOs too, if he cares. But if he said that it
is base on his studies and the studies didn't say so, then there is no
connection. It's simple, Kane! ;-)

Did he in his magazine remarks mention this particular study?

Were there other studies?

Can he have an opinion that is not based on any particular element in
the studies, except his own observations?

Do with it whatever you want.

LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like
Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-)

I think I'd rather believe them than you, and no one has said they
don't. Why would they, since I've not tried to establish it as coming
from the study, or mentioned any source whatsoever.

It could be an opinion.

And everyone has an opionion. Opinions are not FACTS!

Yes. Call me a liar again then prove it is no more than your opinion. I
always like that one.

The fact is that 90% of the population spanks their children. This is a
small sample of people...who I presume would be likely to do the same.
Embry must have thought so or he would not have set a track to be
recorded for physical punishment.

That he also had a less formal opinion about spanking v street entry
rate seems congruent to me.

Not to you though?

Okay. What ever you say, boy.

It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy.


Or just LIES! ;-)

Could be. It's not. But then neither of us have proof we are willing to
share one way or the other.

Nevertheless my comment is congruent with Embry's opinion, or
observations, whichever it was he was referring to in the magazine article.


I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I?

LOL!

Well? Have I?

Is THIS how you pursue and argument claiming someone lied? Avoid the
principle questions of the accused? Tsk.

I made a comment. I made it clear you do not have to believe it.

I gave no source. Nor will I unless I decide to.

That removes all chance YOU could know or prove one way or the other if
it's the truth or a lie.

Just as I cannot "prove" Alina was your sock. 0:-

Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide
by the same one.


LOL! What rule is that?

The one that says I have to tell you something I don't wish to when
you
claim you do not have to follow the same rule or, I am a liar and you
are not?

When you lied, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Then you lied? Or you do not have to follow the same rule?

I don't lie, you lied!

If you insist I have to tell you something you ask about, and you do
not, Doan, that makes you dishonest, and a liar. It IS an attempt to
mislead people into assuming YOU have some authority over me that you do
not.


LOL!

In other words, you don't wish to debate this, or the study.

And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a
liar, then constitutes a lie on your part.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Prove it. NOW, not in reference to some other time that you won't cite.

If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not
identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report.

LOL! Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I see.

Yes, pretty good, isn't it?


You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

So you have rules for you that are different for others. Is that it?

If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying?


You are the one that's lying!

There is something you keep missing. I never deliberately attempt to
mislead anyone. You do, constantly.


You lied and I have proven so! Yet, you continued to LIE!

You have not proven a thing. You keep claiming you have, but all we see
you doing is your usual dance. Injecting meanings not evident.
Insinuating. And blatantly lying yourself.

If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety
and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make
up a normal sounding name and use it as a nym, for instance.

And I do reserve the right, when I've been obviously lied to, to lay a
trap for he liar by pretending to agree with him, or her.

Please, don't let that one get by. I want you to prove I'm a liar by
springing the trap. You will you know. Your flabby ego will get you
eventually. It has before, and you keep hoping I won't bring up those
instances again.

Doan

You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking
increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came
from.

Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you
insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I
made NO such claim.


So it's not from the study? Where is the source?

I refused to tell you. I still do. That does not make my statement a
lie. It makes it something you don't know.


I already told you that it's not in study!

And I didn't agree or disagree.

Because you are STUPID!

No, it's not stupid to not answer. It's just honest and smart. I made a
statement. You bit. Now you have to live with it, and reveal as you
frantically try to wriggle out of your own little stupid stumbling rants.

I did not say it was in the study, and I didn't say if it wasn't.


LOL! It's either is or it isn't.

Yes. That is correct. But I haven't said it was or wasn't. I've refused
to say.


Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. Refusing to say proves nothing. You do understand the thinking
behind the 5th Amendment, right?

My take on you is that whatever I offered you'd then take off in another
direction with. Arguing into infinity if I'd let you.

You don't really think I will, do you?

I PROVED IT! ;-)

Proved what to who?


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! TO EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP!

No, you have proven no such thing. What you have proven is that you will
lie about others being liars. The defense by attack ploy.

It's you that constantly mislead...thus lie, about just about anything
that comes up. Often it's an evasion lie...just a misleading to get the
thread OFF the topic you don't really want to talk about.

You conceal your reluctance to discuss an issue by covering it up with
****lies. The kind the obscure the point being argued, and divert the
opponent to trying to clean the **** off his or her shoes.

I play with you when I feel like it, usually to let you indulge yourself
to the point of exposure of your nonsense ****lies.

Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And
they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor
was I claiming it wasn't.

And they kept QUIET?

Their perogative. You are insinuating what?


So what is this you have "PROVED?"


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR!

You've proven no such thing.

We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows.


You don't konw???

Sure, I know. But I'm not discussing it with you as proof, one way or
the other. I'm telling you, stupid little boy, that I won't say.


BECAUSE YOU ARE LIAR!

Nope. Because I don't wish to say. Someday I might. Stick around. You
are a fine diversion.

But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have
to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves.


You not going to tell them? ;-)

Nope. How many times must I repeat it?


UNTIL YOU STOP LYING!

Nope. It's going to be over soon.

This isn't about anything but your diversionary ****lies. The kind you
use to keep people off the topic you don't want to discuss.

I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where
it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada.


I know! YOU CAN'T! ;-)

How would you "know?" You a mind reader?

That's a mighty big world out there. Lots of information sources. But
then get together enough monkeys with enough keyboards......R R R R R R

And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that
it's not there.

THAt YOU LIED!

But I didn't say it was there, nor that it wasn't. I am speculating on
your claim, not mine.

So you understand the modifier, "If?" It's the second word in the
sentence right after "and."

I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source.

How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that
statement?

You are rambling! ;-)

No, I am posting in long response to your long rambling attempt to make
me out a liar on no evidence at all. I have not said what the source is,
nor have I said what it isn't.

You are free to speculate and even claim all you want, and I'll not
verify or deny it. Why should I?


Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You are if you use insufficient data to make such a claim. Show my
lie.

Go ahead.

Thus, it's a FALSE statement
no matter where it came from.

Not if it's from somewhere else.


PROVE IT!

No. You prove you have the study.

Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that?

Of course. Didn't you know that's what I wanted to hear?

There is a rough critical mass of information that provides sufficient
correlation for an intelligent person to make significant presumptions
and thus take various related actions.

All I can say to you at this point is, Thank you sincerely from the
bottom of my heart.


[snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane]

Things that show you are a liar. That you are unethical. And that you
are cheat. And propose questions about your mental stability.


Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-)

Doan

I see you are well back into your little monkeyboy cave where you won't
have to debate Embry, Doan. If I can see it, so can others.


Oops! More adhoms! ;-)

Opps, more of your ad homs.
" Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-)"

Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of
"spanking" as part of the study, right?


Showing your STUPIDITY again? ;-)

It's not stupid to expose your stupidity. You made the claim. You got
shown where you were wrong, right from the study you keep shouting about
but don't want to discuss.


Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you.


I have a long live ahead of me. ;-)

Actually that's doubtful. Constant self delusion creates a lot of
stress. Stress is a real killer. High blood pressure, and other stress
related diseases are rampant.

Doan

But then I can wish you a long life. And all that it takes to have one.
Like really really lowering your stress levels.

0:-

Any further correspondance not directly addressing the Embry study
report will be ****canned, Doan.

Let's talk about the "reprimand" thing, shall we?

The reprimand issue was far from the only thing in any conclusions.
Plesae provide a page that supports your claim, and I'll explain (I
already know the page) what it means and why it does not stand alone
with rate of street entries.

Hint: it's not how reprimands effected entry rates so much as how the
program effected both.

Could I hand it to you more beautifully wrapped?

Only Embry could explain it more clearly, I'm sure.

Kane



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Kane wrote:

...........snip old unrelated material.............

I don�t believe there is anything stupid about referring to this study
as an experiment in using non-CP methods to train children to play away
from the street.

Do you find something illogical in my reference to that age old claim by
spankers that they were spanking their child to teach them to stay out
of the street?


It's if you based it on the Embry study! In fact, the quotes I provided
clearly stated that it was about "reprimands", not spanking!

I never claimed it was "about" spanking. Only responded to your claim it
wasn't about spanking 'at all.' CP is tracked. Hence you cannot use the
qualifier 'all.'

You don�t see the connect and presume I�m patronizing you?

By the way, how does one use �stupidity� to patronize?


By being STUPID like you! ;-)

No connection to the debate.....last warning. All such will be excised
in the future, as I promised. Last warning.

And you did not answer my question.

How is it you are not a liar by this tactic, but if I refuse to answer
yours I am then a liar?

Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and
mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine?


Parenting magazine is secondary source, not primary source like the
study!

Yes? And?


It's not what the study said!

One cannot so isolate a report of an experiment and comment upon it with
an assessment of it.

All kinds of things can be brought to the argument. You are fond of
doing so yourself in many other arguments, say on Straus.

If I wish to use another statement of Embry's to compare to his findings
in this study it is perfectly valid for argument. Feel free, of course,
to cite others, or Embry himself to make YOUR argument.

There is NOT such protocol as you'd like to force here, for debate or
review of someone's experimental work. And of course I won't adhere to
your rules.

I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the
magazine. I SAW NONE!

We have no way of knowing precisely what Dr. Embry was referring to as
his source when he made the magazine statement. He did not say.
Apparently he is not able to confine himself to only those researches
and opinions convenient to your needs for argument by failure to accept
YOU have a burden of proof to prove YOUR claims.


So why did you bring up the Embry Study? Why wasted all these years?

I didn't. I brought up the magazine article, as others have done. YOU
brought up the study and challenged me to debate you on it.

I obliged as long as you provided proof you had the study. Until
recently your proof consisted of a two year long evasion. Nothing more.

I don't consider the time wasted. I'm a weasel hunter. We are very
patient. I once took five years to catch one professionally. That one is
permanently out of any job related to public service. For life.

I'm very very patient.

I am aware that he has access, since he cites as most scholarly writers
tend to do, many sources in his report, but would be unlikely to in a
casual non-research study letter to a parenting magazine.

Did he in fact refer to this study in his letter? Did he refer to any,
other than generally speaking, and non-specific?


You tell me! ;-)

No. Show where his comments do NOT reflect his findings in this study.

You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of
his in mid, would you?


You are being STUPID again! Show me where in the study that the data
support the claim made in the magazine.

He apparently tracked the effect of his experimental program on a number
of things that did not include spanking, other than to note it. His
objective was not to study spanking, but to study an alternative.


LOL!

No. You aren't going to get away with that, liar.

Either defend your argument are submit that you cannot.

Doan


I certainly noticed the lack of many instances of it. I would presume,
and I think with ample reason, he assumed the families did in fact use
spanking as part of their parenting strategy.

Otherwise why would he have assigned a tracking code to �Physical
Punishment� which is described in part as �hitting?�

You make no comment. From here on failure to comment, or use a diversion
rather than comment will be taken as your submission to my argument as
true and yours as false.

I see that you have failed entirely to respond to dozens of comments and
points made, and questions to you in the remainder of this post, by me.

This then is presumed concession on your part, on each and very one that
has to do with the study. (Your silliness diversions are ignored.)

You lose by default.

Unless of course you'd care to discuss the fine points of the report?

0:-

............snip......see post prior to this for review if you are so
inclined.........



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doan wrote:

Another STUPID response from ignoranus kane0! ;-)

Doan
AFfromDreamLand

That afraid are you?

That cowardly and sick?

By the way, you are covered on that. Go further and get to find out.

And:

You just conceded every point I made regarding the Embry study.

Feel free to take them up again if you wish.

Happy to debate you on them.

.........snip.......


You can be sure, with or without your presence the Embry study will be
discussed here.

You prefer, I know, being the coward you are, and just proved again, to
dance around the edges and make stupid monkeyboy noises, but we'll
manage, I'm sure.

In fact your presence will lend a more credible air to the proceedings
by comparison.

Or, would you like to stop your cowardly sick little games and actually
debate the study?

Prove you claim that you are neutral and want people to make up their
own mind?

It's up to you.

Kane

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

And delusional too! ;-)

Doan
AFfromDreamLand

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

Another STUPID response from ignoranus kane0! ;-)

Doan
AFfromDreamLand

That afraid are you?

That cowardly and sick?

By the way, you are covered on that. Go further and get to find out.

And:

You just conceded every point I made regarding the Embry study.

Feel free to take them up again if you wish.

Happy to debate you on them.

........snip.......


You can be sure, with or without your presence the Embry study will be
discussed here.

You prefer, I know, being the coward you are, and just proved again, to
dance around the edges and make stupid monkeyboy noises, but we'll
manage, I'm sure.

In fact your presence will lend a more credible air to the proceedings
by comparison.

Or, would you like to stop your cowardly sick little games and actually
debate the study?

Prove you claim that you are neutral and want people to make up their
own mind?

It's up to you.

Kane

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doan wrote:

.....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report.

There is not delusion about what will happen if you follow up on your
implied threat, Doan. None at all.

You already triggered my first response some time ago.

It put you right in there with the nuts.

Keep it up. You too could enjoy their status.

Still too cowardly to debate?

Proving once again that you lie, you bully, you harass, but you do NOT
have a neutral, "let them make up their own mind" reality at all.

What a sad little cowardly twit you are.

0:-)


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report.

So we are now "debating"? ;-) What about your "promise"?
Such a stupid liar!

Doan
AFfromDreamLand

Doan,

I wouldn't worry too much about pseudo-K. He posts from obscurity
because he is obscure. He makes false claims about anyone who doesn't
agree with his diatribe and punishes those with empty accusations when
he has no proof. Keep giving him hell (he's very predictable)---he
deserves it for advancing the use of tasers on children and then
claiming that is less harsh an intervention than other forms of CP (or
reasonable force).

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX

-Come out from hiding PK! . . . ;-)

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report.


So we are now "debating"? ;-)

This is your "debate?"

What about your "promise"?

What about it?

Are we actually debating?

Right now you are not. In most all your postings recently you have not
been. When I attempted to you went off in just such directions as this
to avoid debating.

Such a stupid liar!

See, just like always.

My promise was to not debate you if a deadline passed without you
proving you had the same report I do.

I decided to move the deadline. It's today.

And it wasn't a lie, it was a ploy to kick your filthy lying immoral
unethical ass right out in the open. Let's debate, shall we?

I'm free to do any damn thing I want in regards to the Embry study
because YOU broke the deadline.

Or do I need to "dare" you, you chicken****?

You dared me and now are running, posting this kind of crap. How's that
for lying?

Doan
AFfromDreamLand

Who is AFfromDreamLand, Doan?

Other than a childish threat by you?

You are such a little coward.

Kane

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

wrote:
Doan,

I wouldn't worry too much about pseudo-K. He posts from obscurity
because he is obscure. He makes false claims about anyone who doesn't
agree with his diatribe and punishes those with empty accusations when
he has no proof.

Who am I punishing and what are my empty accusations?

If you don't say so, then guess who is attacking me (to punish?) and is
not providing proof of the accusation you are making.

So, don't do what you are accusing ME of. Provide the accusations and
the punishments meted out by me.

Keep giving him hell (he's very predictable)---

Doan? Give ME hell? R R R R R... a dancing monkeyboy that makes a
complete fool of himself every day he posts here? Come now.

he
deserves it for advancing the use of tasers on children

I've never done that. I readily admit that if there were better ways
they should be used. Arguing a position in a debate does not prove that
I recommended it over other means when the other means were less likely
to injure. In fact my argument was the opposite. The other means
available put both the child and the one(s) intervening at greater risk
of injury or death. How many children have died from the use of a taser
to subdue them? How many in various holds, or from being shot as they
attacked?

and then
claiming that is less harsh an intervention than other forms of CP (or
reasonable force).

I made no such claim. The use of tasers was not in any instance I
responded to, Corporal Punishment. They were used as they are intended
to be use, not to teach, but to immobilize.

The issue wasn't to teach the child, but to subdue him or her in
situations where either there was NO other choice, like a drunk preteen
girl running into traffic, or a child slashing himself with broken glass
and trying to cut the school staff and police officers, while sawing
away at himself.

You are of course demonstrating your usual moral deficiencies by making
a lying claim such as that.

Prove I recommended the use of Taser for discipline or corporal punishment.

Non-spanker by choice,

Still not admitting you have no children I see.

Chris C.
TX

-Come out from hiding PK! . . . ;-)

Why. I have family to protect from other posters here that are only
marginally more dangerous than you.

I've plainly stated so. Do you wish to threaten my and my family's
physcial safety?

That could put you in a far more embarassing and risky position than you
got yourself into with the cut and paste unethical nonsense.

My life has been threatened before. That threat was very severely
neutralized, and you could be a part of that if you wish.

Do you so wish?

Doan seems to want to play with it. How about you?

You that cowardly and sick in the head you can't debate me honestly, and
live with your mistakes and learn from them?

Now you want vengeance, do you?

Come dance with me you stupid assed little ****ant.

I'll show you some steps you'll remember to your grave.

Ask some of your old buddies here about visits from LE and instructions
from my attorney.

Treaten me or my family and watch what it will get you, stupid.

Your games, the both of you, are childishly dangerous for YOU. Not for
me. I have my protection in place. YOU don't.

Didn't your parents slap your hands for trying to play with fire?

Kane

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin