We don need no steenkin' CPS.

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
I wrote:

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.
To which, Kane replies:

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one of
these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.
Hi, Kane,

You cited USDHHS and claimed 1,000 children died as the result of abuse that
had escalated from spanking.

You were caught at it.

On May 10, 2006, in a post to this thread, you pasted USDHHS data...

Nearly 1,500 a year kill their children. Pretty much year in and year
out. Think how that mounts up in totals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

"Number of Child Fatalities

During 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died (compared to 1,460
children for 2003) from abuse or neglect ..."

And made this claim:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

Your claim above in this post?

"I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug."

You claimed "about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their
parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder." Not one, but
1,000.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.
You pasted the USDHHS data showing a total of 1,490 fatalities due to
neglect and abuse in 2004 and claimed that 2/3 of that total (1,000) were
"disciplined to death." Actually, the data showed 421 of those child
fatalities were the result of all forms of physical abuse. So, your claim
is clearly false.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.
It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.
It WAS your misstatement. Again, from your post of May 10 in this thread:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

That was not a quotation from a source. It was your statement.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.
Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000 COULD
reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.
You did make such a claim. It has been quoted twice in this post for you.
You wrote that about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of
their parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.
No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven as
yet.
YOUR claim was disproven by the very USDHHS data you pasted into the same
post.
So far. And you STILL are avoiding other posts I've made that estimate
that as many as fifteen times more children are abused than are
officially listed.

That wasn't the point! The point was you claiming 1000 children died
as a result of spanking that "escalated"!
No, the entire issue of parents killing their children was THE POINT and
always will be.

Which is already illegal, STUPID!
If you think either I didn't know that, or was arguing against that
fact, then Doan, YOU are the one with the intellectual problems.

And yet you wanted to outlaw spanking, as if it gonna stop
child-abuse. "Intellectual problems" is in your genes! ;-)

"stop child abuse?" I said that?

Nonsense. I've pointed out that it will do NO SUCH THING, but that it
will reduce it. No LAW stops those things cited as violations COMPLETELY.

You are out of your mind again. Take your meds.



Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

I don't know. I am not the one claiming 1000!
No, you don't want to even think about it because you KNOW the number
has to be very high, given human nature, and the various resources I've
provided that discuss this problem from various perspectives.

Hihihi! You meant the sources that turned out to be false?

How can a source be "false" if it exists?

I'd say double your dose, or stop taking those things. They aren't working.

I see you dodged the question though. Again.

What would be logical, or don't you read the comments made by those that
have killed their children and the excuses they provide?
And you believe them?
No, of course not. What I believe is that THEY BELIEVE themselves. Hell,
you've seen it argued in this ng.

Hihihi! So they are not lying?

No, just mistaken factually, if they believe what they claim. It's when
they trip up and say something that clearly shows they do NOT actually
believe what they claim is correct, is in fact correct.

Like saying they are against child abuse and beating of children, but
supporting each other in this newsgroup when just such things have
happened.

Doan
The best dodge of all is to insist that some PART of the issue is the
whole of the issue.

The lies is claiming 1000 where no such number exists! ;-)
There was no lie. There was an estimate. My language is clear. And there
is such a number within the annual reports by authorities, and by
estimates from other sources.

Hihihi! First, it was "every year", then "average", now "estimate"! Oh!
What a tangled web we weaved!

It can't be any or all?

If one says, "Estimated every year on average 1,000 to 2,000" is that a
tangled web statement?

I've listed them. Go and read.

Hihihi! And if they are false or non-existent, it is not your fault,
right?

They aren't. So there is not fault to be found.

It isn't.

Live with your immorality, Doan. Your parents taught it to you with
swats on your butt.

Hihihi! Resorting to adhom again. And your mom taught you that?
Nope. YOU give me license by your use of ad hom, lying, cheating, and
making up people to attempt to get from me a document you lied about
having.

Hihihi! And I PROVED that you lied! Doug knows your M.O.

You proved no such thing because I did not, and I proved YOU were
attempting to mislead by playing with context.

NOW, scream "PROVE IT I DOUBLE DARE YOU."

Hihihi! Can you?

Yep. Will I. Nope. I want you to go years with this hanging, with all
your posts for comparison for anyone that wants to revisit your lying
schemes and you NOT having cleaned them up.

Enjoy.

Anyone that followed the exchange, that wasn't a liar or delusional, as
you are, could see through you easily.

You might want to ask toto! Even she saw through your lies!

About what?

Doan
Adios, muchacho.

Adieu, le petit chien minus nuef!

Doan

It would follow that you speak french, but your spanish was not good
enough to pass muster with a native speaker, Alina.

0:-

0:-



0:-



Why is that Doug?

You seem quite happy in your arguments on various issues to insist that
"surveys" and "reports" based on partial information be used for policy
decisions (Like the Pew Reports).

Why are you avoiding my other posting on this subject and insisting that
ONLY this one statement of mine be considered?

Is it because you are a liar?

I'd say so.

I could, but refuse to use YOUR lying tactics, find numerous things yo
have said over time, take them from context and make the same kinds of
claims you are hung up on right now.

You know and any honest reader knows that I have posted MORE information
than you are claiming.

Hence, you are a liar. Your deception consists of holding the opponent
to only PART of what he has claimed.

Liar.

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

--
"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 (or someone else)


--
"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 (or someone else)




--
"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 (or someone else)

On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
I wrote:

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.
To which, Kane replies:

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one of
these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.
Hi, Kane,

You cited USDHHS and claimed 1,000 children died as the result of abuse that
had escalated from spanking.

You were caught at it.

On May 10, 2006, in a post to this thread, you pasted USDHHS data...

Nearly 1,500 a year kill their children. Pretty much year in and year
out. Think how that mounts up in totals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

"Number of Child Fatalities

During 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died (compared to 1,460
children for 2003) from abuse or neglect ..."

And made this claim:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

Your claim above in this post?

"I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug."

You claimed "about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their
parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder." Not one, but
1,000.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.
You pasted the USDHHS data showing a total of 1,490 fatalities due to
neglect and abuse in 2004 and claimed that 2/3 of that total (1,000) were
"disciplined to death." Actually, the data showed 421 of those child
fatalities were the result of all forms of physical abuse. So, your claim
is clearly false.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.
It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.
It WAS your misstatement. Again, from your post of May 10 in this thread:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

That was not a quotation from a source. It was your statement.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.
Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000 COULD
reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.
You did make such a claim. It has been quoted twice in this post for you.
You wrote that about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of
their parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.
No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven as
yet.
YOUR claim was disproven by the very USDHHS data you pasted into the same
post.
So far. And you STILL are avoiding other posts I've made that estimate
that as many as fifteen times more children are abused than are
officially listed.

That wasn't the point! The point was you claiming 1000 children died
as a result of spanking that "escalated"!
No, the entire issue of parents killing their children was THE POINT and
always will be.

Which is already illegal, STUPID!
If you think either I didn't know that, or was arguing against that
fact, then Doan, YOU are the one with the intellectual problems.

And yet you wanted to outlaw spanking, as if it gonna stop
child-abuse. "Intellectual problems" is in your genes! ;-)

"stop child abuse?" I said that?

Nonsense. I've pointed out that it will do NO SUCH THING, but that it
will reduce it. No LAW stops those things cited as violations COMPLETELY.

Hihihi! It is already ILLEGAL to abuse your child, STUPID!

You are out of your mind again. Take your meds.

Hihihi! What meds are you on?



Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

I don't know. I am not the one claiming 1000!
No, you don't want to even think about it because you KNOW the number
has to be very high, given human nature, and the various resources I've
provided that discuss this problem from various perspectives.

Hihihi! You meant the sources that turned out to be false?

How can a source be "false" if it exists?

Hihihi! Existence and being false is not mutually exclusive, STUPID!

I'd say double your dose, or stop taking those things. They aren't working.

I see you dodged the question though. Again.

Hihihi! I see you lying again!

What would be logical, or don't you read the comments made by those that
have killed their children and the excuses they provide?
And you believe them?
No, of course not. What I believe is that THEY BELIEVE themselves. Hell,
you've seen it argued in this ng.

Hihihi! So they are not lying?

No, just mistaken factually, if they believe what they claim. It's when
they trip up and say something that clearly shows they do NOT actually
believe what they claim is correct, is in fact correct.

You meant just like you?

Like saying they are against child abuse and beating of children, but
supporting each other in this newsgroup when just such things have
happened.

And like you lying when you said you are telling the truth? ;-)

Doan
The best dodge of all is to insist that some PART of the issue is the
whole of the issue.

The lies is claiming 1000 where no such number exists! ;-)
There was no lie. There was an estimate. My language is clear. And there
is such a number within the annual reports by authorities, and by
estimates from other sources.

Hihihi! First, it was "every year", then "average", now "estimate"! Oh!
What a tangled web we weaved!

It can't be any or all?

It's a lie!

If one says, "Estimated every year on average 1,000 to 2,000" is that a
tangled web statement?

But you did say "estimated every year", did you?


I've listed them. Go and read.

Hihihi! And if they are false or non-existent, it is not your fault,
right?

They aren't. So there is not fault to be found.

So where is that data from the NEJM?


It isn't.

Live with your immorality, Doan. Your parents taught it to you with
swats on your butt.

Hihihi! Resorting to adhom again. And your mom taught you that?
Nope. YOU give me license by your use of ad hom, lying, cheating, and
making up people to attempt to get from me a document you lied about
having.

Hihihi! And I PROVED that you lied! Doug knows your M.O.

You proved no such thing because I did not, and I proved YOU were
attempting to mislead by playing with context.

I PROVED it beyond any reasonable doubt!

NOW, scream "PROVE IT I DOUBLE DARE YOU."

Hihihi! Can you?

Yep. Will I. Nope. I want you to go years with this hanging, with all
your posts for comparison for anyone that wants to revisit your lying
schemes and you NOT having cleaned them up.

You are lying agian! ;-)

Enjoy.

Hihihi!


Anyone that followed the exchange, that wasn't a liar or delusional, as
you are, could see through you easily.

You might want to ask toto! Even she saw through your lies!

About what?

About the your lying? Remember the Embry STudy and it's only available
from Dr. Embry? ;-)

Doan
Adios, muchacho.

Adieu, le petit chien minus nuef!

Doan

It would follow that you speak french, but your spanish was not good
enough to pass muster with a native speaker, Alina.

But she was able to get a copy of the Embry Study from you! ;-)

Doan

0:-

0:-



0:-



Why is that Doug?

You seem quite happy in your arguments on various issues to insist that
"surveys" and "reports" based on partial information be used for policy
decisions (Like the Pew Reports).

Why are you avoiding my other posting on this subject and insisting that
ONLY this one statement of mine be considered?

Is it because you are a liar?

I'd say so.

I could, but refuse to use YOUR lying tactics, find numerous things yo
have said over time, take them from context and make the same kinds of
claims you are hung up on right now.

You know and any honest reader knows that I have posted MORE information
than you are claiming.

Hence, you are a liar. Your deception consists of holding the opponent
to only PART of what he has claimed.

Liar.

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

--
"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 (or someone else)


--
"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 (or someone else)




--
"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 (or someone else)

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....snip....asked and responded to in attribution......

And yet you wanted to outlaw spanking, as if it gonna stop
child-abuse. "Intellectual problems" is in your genes! ;-)
"stop child abuse?" I said that?

Nonsense. I've pointed out that it will do NO SUCH THING, but that it
will reduce it. No LAW stops those things cited as violations COMPLETELY.

Hihihi! It is already ILLEGAL to abuse your child, STUPID!

Yep. And that allows for a child to be taken and protected. Or the
perpetrator removed. Without that law the abuse can continue.

The same goes for corporal. Various penalties would ensue. Up to and
including removing the perp or the child.

And we will see civil suits following criminal charges and convictions,
or even acquittals, because children deserve as much right to protection
from assault as an adult.

See my endnotes**

You are out of your mind again. Take your meds.

Hihihi! What meds are you on?

None.

Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

I don't know. I am not the one claiming 1000!
No, you don't want to even think about it because you KNOW the number
has to be very high, given human nature, and the various resources I've
provided that discuss this problem from various perspectives.

Hihihi! You meant the sources that turned out to be false?
How can a source be "false" if it exists?

Hihihi! Existence and being false is not mutually exclusive, STUPID!

Non sequitur. The issue is a source false, or is the information at the
source false.

Which did you mean? If the source exists, it is not false. It's just a
source. If the information is false, then you can make THAT claim.

I get tired of giving you language lessons.

I'd say double your dose, or stop taking those things. They aren't working.

I see you dodged the question though. Again.

Hihihi! I see you lying again!

Oh, you answered the question? Where?


What would be logical, or don't you read the comments made by those that
have killed their children and the excuses they provide?
And you believe them?
No, of course not. What I believe is that THEY BELIEVE themselves. Hell,
you've seen it argued in this ng.

Hihihi! So they are not lying?
No, just mistaken factually, if they believe what they claim. It's when
they trip up and say something that clearly shows they do NOT actually
believe what they claim is correct, is in fact correct.

You meant just like you?

I'm not you.

Like saying they are against child abuse and beating of children, but
supporting each other in this newsgroup when just such things have
happened.

And like you lying when you said you are telling the truth? ;-)

I'm not lying. But you are. Because you are intentionally attempting to
deceive. Making claims another is "lying" when you have no proof of
intent is in itself a lie, an intention to deceive.

Doan
The best dodge of all is to insist that some PART of the issue is the
whole of the issue.

The lies is claiming 1000 where no such number exists! ;-)
There was no lie. There was an estimate. My language is clear. And there
is such a number within the annual reports by authorities, and by
estimates from other sources.

Hihihi! First, it was "every year", then "average", now "estimate"! Oh!
What a tangled web we weaved!
It can't be any or all?

It's a lie!

Only if deliberately intended to deceive. I have not done that and
nothing so far indicates the originators, or the interviewing author
intended that.

If one says, "Estimated every year on average 1,000 to 2,000" is that a
tangled web statement?

But you did say "estimated every year", did you?

Darned if I remember.

Have you a better set of data that would give more accurate information?

If so, and you are serious about this issue, why continue to harass? Why
not simply provide the data?

I've listed them. Go and read.

Hihihi! And if they are false or non-existent, it is not your fault,
right?
They aren't. So there is not fault to be found.

So where is that data from the NEJM?

Darned if I know. Yet.

It isn't.

Live with your immorality, Doan. Your parents taught it to you with
swats on your butt.

Hihihi! Resorting to adhom again. And your mom taught you that?
Nope. YOU give me license by your use of ad hom, lying, cheating, and
making up people to attempt to get from me a document you lied about
having.

Hihihi! And I PROVED that you lied! Doug knows your M.O.
You proved no such thing because I did not, and I proved YOU were
attempting to mislead by playing with context.

I PROVED it beyond any reasonable doubt!

You are delusional, but then you always have been.


NOW, scream "PROVE IT I DOUBLE DARE YOU."

Hihihi! Can you?
Yep. Will I. Nope. I want you to go years with this hanging, with all
your posts for comparison for anyone that wants to revisit your lying
schemes and you NOT having cleaned them up.

You are lying agian! ;-)

Enjoy.

Hihihi!

Your posting now, and always, has demonstrated your lack of concern
about the issues of corporal punishment. You participation is simply to
indulge yourself and harass others.

As I said, enjoy.

Anyone that followed the exchange, that wasn't a liar or delusional, as
you are, could see through you easily.
You might want to ask toto! Even she saw through your lies!
About what?

About the your lying? Remember the Embry STudy and it's only available
from Dr. Embry? ;-)

At that time that was the information I had. Error is not a lie.

And Dr. Embry himself in an e-mail exchange told me he didn't think it
was still available from any other source, and that's why he had sent me
copies.

You are lying, Doan. You didn't have a copy. You didn't know where to
get it either, at the time.


Doan
Adios, muchacho.

Adieu, le petit chien minus nuef!

Doan
It would follow that you speak french, but your spanish was not good
enough to pass muster with a native speaker, Alina.

But she was able to get a copy of the Embry Study from you! ;-)

You tried to convince me, using your Alina sock that 'Doan' wanted 'her'
to pay postage so 'she' wasn't in a hurry. Then 'Alina' faded away. When
I pointed out, a year later, that she had never posted again, gosh golly
gee, but suddenly she popped up in the middle of a thread, one short
post, and once again disappeared.

Yer a phony, Doan.

....snip....completed correspondence.......


** The Rationale of The Spanking Compulsive Doan

If I understand Doan correctly the reason hitting and adult and hitting
a child are different and the latter can be called legally sanctioned
'spanking' is the age difference.

Something about the child being hittable because they are different than
adults.

I have offered to debate this by asking Doan what the details and
reasoning are for spanking being a useful and legal tool when used on
children, but if used without consent on an adult illegal.

Like The Question of where the line between abuse and non-injurious
disciplinary CP might be, this too has gone unanswered.

My own view?

Between the two, it would be more likely to get intellectual
understanding from the adult than from the child, were spanking used on
both.

But we hit the child, knowing she is less likely to understand (actually
children do NOT have full understanding...or we could not call them
children and treat them differently at all than an adult).

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 (or someone else)

On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
I wrote:

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.
To which, Kane replies:

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one of
these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.
Hi, Kane,

You cited USDHHS and claimed 1,000 children died as the result of abuse that
had escalated from spanking.

You were caught at it.

On May 10, 2006, in a post to this thread, you pasted USDHHS data...

Nearly 1,500 a year kill their children. Pretty much year in and year
out. Think how that mounts up in totals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

"Number of Child Fatalities

During 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died (compared to 1,460
children for 2003) from abuse or neglect ..."

And made this claim:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

Your claim above in this post?

"I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug."

You claimed "about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their
parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder." Not one, but
1,000.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.
You pasted the USDHHS data showing a total of 1,490 fatalities due to
neglect and abuse in 2004 and claimed that 2/3 of that total (1,000) were
"disciplined to death." Actually, the data showed 421 of those child
fatalities were the result of all forms of physical abuse. So, your claim
is clearly false.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.
It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.
It WAS your misstatement. Again, from your post of May 10 in this thread:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

That was not a quotation from a source. It was your statement.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.
Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000 COULD
reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.
You did make such a claim. It has been quoted twice in this post for you.
You wrote that about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of
their parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.
No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven as
yet.
YOUR claim was disproven by the very USDHHS data you pasted into the same
post.
So far. And you STILL are avoiding other posts I've made that estimate
that as many as fifteen times more children are abused than are
officially listed.

That wasn't the point! The point was you claiming 1000 children died
as a result of spanking that "escalated"!

No, the entire issue of parents killing their children was THE POINT and
always will be.

And the NEJM said is started with a spanking right? ;-) LIAR! LIAR!
PANTS ON FIRE! ;-)

Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

What yours number, Kane? ;-)

What would be logical, or don't you read the comments made by those that
have killed their children and the excuses they provide?

"excuses"???

Doan


Doan

The best dodge of all is to insist that some PART of the issue is the
whole of the issue.

It isn't.

Live with your immorality, Doan. Your parents taught it to you with
swats on your butt.

0:-




Why is that Doug?

You seem quite happy in your arguments on various issues to insist that
"surveys" and "reports" based on partial information be used for policy
decisions (Like the Pew Reports).

Why are you avoiding my other posting on this subject and insisting that
ONLY this one statement of mine be considered?

Is it because you are a liar?

I'd say so.

I could, but refuse to use YOUR lying tactics, find numerous things yo
have said over time, take them from context and make the same kinds of
claims you are hung up on right now.

You know and any honest reader knows that I have posted MORE information
than you are claiming.

Hence, you are a liar. Your deception consists of holding the opponent
to only PART of what he has claimed.

Liar.

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




--
"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 (or someone else)

On Tue, 23 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
....snip....asked and responded to in attribution......

And yet you wanted to outlaw spanking, as if it gonna stop
child-abuse. "Intellectual problems" is in your genes! ;-)
"stop child abuse?" I said that?

Nonsense. I've pointed out that it will do NO SUCH THING, but that it
will reduce it. No LAW stops those things cited as violations COMPLETELY.

Hihihi! It is already ILLEGAL to abuse your child, STUPID!

Yep. And that allows for a child to be taken and protected. Or the
perpetrator removed. Without that law the abuse can continue.

Which is current law, STUPID!

The same goes for corporal. Various penalties would ensue. Up to and
including removing the perp or the child.

So it would be up to removing over 90% of children from their parents???
ARE YOU SO STUPDI???

And we will see civil suits following criminal charges and convictions,
or even acquittals, because children deserve as much right to protection
from assault as an adult.

Hihihi! They are already protected from "assault", STUPID! Spanking
is not assault!

See my endnotes**

More lies??? ;-)


You are out of your mind again. Take your meds.

Hihihi! What meds are you on?

None.

There is your problem! ;-)

Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

I don't know. I am not the one claiming 1000!
No, you don't want to even think about it because you KNOW the number
has to be very high, given human nature, and the various resources I've
provided that discuss this problem from various perspectives.

Hihihi! You meant the sources that turned out to be false?
How can a source be "false" if it exists?

Hihihi! Existence and being false is not mutually exclusive, STUPID!

Non sequitur. The issue is a source false, or is the information at the
source false.

BOTH, STUPID!

Which did you mean? If the source exists, it is not false. It's just a
source. If the information is false, then you can make THAT claim.

I get tired of giving you language lessons.

Hahaha! The same as effects without cause? You are too STUPID to give
anyone language lessons! What is that about "average" and "every" again?

I'd say double your dose, or stop taking those things. They aren't working.

I see you dodged the question though. Again.

Hihihi! I see you lying again!

Oh, you answered the question? Where?

You didn't see it, STUPID? It's in the "archives"! ;-)

Doan


What would be logical, or don't you read the comments made by those that
have killed their children and the excuses they provide?
And you believe them?
No, of course not. What I believe is that THEY BELIEVE themselves. Hell,
you've seen it argued in this ng.

Hihihi! So they are not lying?
No, just mistaken factually, if they believe what they claim. It's when
they trip up and say something that clearly shows they do NOT actually
believe what they claim is correct, is in fact correct.

You meant just like you?

I'm not you.

Like saying they are against child abuse and beating of children, but
supporting each other in this newsgroup when just such things have
happened.

And like you lying when you said you are telling the truth? ;-)

I'm not lying. But you are. Because you are intentionally attempting to
deceive. Making claims another is "lying" when you have no proof of
intent is in itself a lie, an intention to deceive.

Doan
The best dodge of all is to insist that some PART of the issue is the
whole of the issue.

The lies is claiming 1000 where no such number exists! ;-)
There was no lie. There was an estimate. My language is clear. And there
is such a number within the annual reports by authorities, and by
estimates from other sources.

Hihihi! First, it was "every year", then "average", now "estimate"! Oh!
What a tangled web we weaved!
It can't be any or all?

It's a lie!

Only if deliberately intended to deceive. I have not done that and
nothing so far indicates the originators, or the interviewing author
intended that.

If one says, "Estimated every year on average 1,000 to 2,000" is that a
tangled web statement?

But you did say "estimated every year", did you?

Darned if I remember.

Have you a better set of data that would give more accurate information?

If so, and you are serious about this issue, why continue to harass? Why
not simply provide the data?

I've listed them. Go and read.

Hihihi! And if they are false or non-existent, it is not your fault,
right?
They aren't. So there is not fault to be found.

So where is that data from the NEJM?

Darned if I know. Yet.

It isn't.

Live with your immorality, Doan. Your parents taught it to you with
swats on your butt.

Hihihi! Resorting to adhom again. And your mom taught you that?
Nope. YOU give me license by your use of ad hom, lying, cheating, and
making up people to attempt to get from me a document you lied about
having.

Hihihi! And I PROVED that you lied! Doug knows your M.O.
You proved no such thing because I did not, and I proved YOU were
attempting to mislead by playing with context.

I PROVED it beyond any reasonable doubt!

You are delusional, but then you always have been.


NOW, scream "PROVE IT I DOUBLE DARE YOU."

Hihihi! Can you?
Yep. Will I. Nope. I want you to go years with this hanging, with all
your posts for comparison for anyone that wants to revisit your lying
schemes and you NOT having cleaned them up.

You are lying agian! ;-)

Enjoy.

Hihihi!

Your posting now, and always, has demonstrated your lack of concern
about the issues of corporal punishment. You participation is simply to
indulge yourself and harass others.

As I said, enjoy.

Anyone that followed the exchange, that wasn't a liar or delusional, as
you are, could see through you easily.
You might want to ask toto! Even she saw through your lies!
About what?

About the your lying? Remember the Embry STudy and it's only available
from Dr. Embry? ;-)

At that time that was the information I had. Error is not a lie.

And Dr. Embry himself in an e-mail exchange told me he didn't think it
was still available from any other source, and that's why he had sent me
copies.

You are lying, Doan. You didn't have a copy. You didn't know where to
get it either, at the time.


Doan
Adios, muchacho.

Adieu, le petit chien minus nuef!

Doan
It would follow that you speak french, but your spanish was not good
enough to pass muster with a native speaker, Alina.

But she was able to get a copy of the Embry Study from you! ;-)

You tried to convince me, using your Alina sock that 'Doan' wanted 'her'
to pay postage so 'she' wasn't in a hurry. Then 'Alina' faded away. When
I pointed out, a year later, that she had never posted again, gosh golly
gee, but suddenly she popped up in the middle of a thread, one short
post, and once again disappeared.

Yer a phony, Doan.

...snip....completed correspondence.......


** The Rationale of The Spanking Compulsive Doan

If I understand Doan correctly the reason hitting and adult and hitting
a child are different and the latter can be called legally sanctioned
'spanking' is the age difference.

Something about the child being hittable because they are different than
adults.

I have offered to debate this by asking Doan what the details and
reasoning are for spanking being a useful and legal tool when used on
children, but if used without consent on an adult illegal.

Like The Question of where the line between abuse and non-injurious
disciplinary CP might be, this too has gone unanswered.

My own view?

Between the two, it would be more likely to get intellectual
understanding from the adult than from the child, were spanking used on
both.

But we hit the child, knowing she is less likely to understand (actually
children do NOT have full understanding...or we could not call them
children and treat them differently at all than an adult).

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 (or someone else)

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
I wrote:

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.
To which, Kane replies:

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one of
these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.
Hi, Kane,

You cited USDHHS and claimed 1,000 children died as the result of abuse that
had escalated from spanking.

You were caught at it.

On May 10, 2006, in a post to this thread, you pasted USDHHS data...

Nearly 1,500 a year kill their children. Pretty much year in and year
out. Think how that mounts up in totals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

"Number of Child Fatalities

During 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died (compared to 1,460
children for 2003) from abuse or neglect ..."

And made this claim:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

Your claim above in this post?

"I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug."

You claimed "about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their
parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder." Not one, but
1,000.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.
You pasted the USDHHS data showing a total of 1,490 fatalities due to
neglect and abuse in 2004 and claimed that 2/3 of that total (1,000) were
"disciplined to death." Actually, the data showed 421 of those child
fatalities were the result of all forms of physical abuse. So, your claim
is clearly false.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.
It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.
It WAS your misstatement. Again, from your post of May 10 in this thread:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

That was not a quotation from a source. It was your statement.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.
Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000 COULD
reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.
You did make such a claim. It has been quoted twice in this post for you.
You wrote that about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of
their parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.
No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven as
yet.
YOUR claim was disproven by the very USDHHS data you pasted into the same
post.
So far. And you STILL are avoiding other posts I've made that estimate
that as many as fifteen times more children are abused than are
officially listed.

That wasn't the point! The point was you claiming 1000 children died
as a result of spanking that "escalated"!
No, the entire issue of parents killing their children was THE POINT and
always will be.

And the NEJM said is started with a spanking right? ;-)

I didn't say they said so. I said someone else said so. I told the
truth. I quoted an interview.

LIAR! LIAR!
PANTS ON FIRE! ;-)

Childish and a hater of children.

A supporter of abuse of children. How pitiful you are.


Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

What yours number, Kane? ;-)

Other than I quoted someone else as claiming?

I think this may be one of the most under reported crimes in America.

The police agree, the medical profession agrees, and CPS agrees.

Only YOU and a few of your desperate cronies, caught up in your defense
of the indefensible because it was done to you but you survived, Doan,
don't agree about this under reporting and the incidence of spanking
escalating to homicide.

Your denial is perfectly in alignment with the immorality you were
trained to do and the immoral person you have been taught to be.

What would be logical, or don't you read the comments made by those that
have killed their children and the excuses they provide?

"excuses"???

Just how stupid are you? You use the word all the time but fail to see
how stupid YOU really are.

But I'll play your game, hold your hand, and show you and any readers
just how immoral and stupid you can be.

People that kill their children make excuses. The most common one is
that they were "just trying to stop the child from ... (fill in the
blank)."


Doan


Yet another demonstration of your denial and your delusions about
yourself and what and who you are.

0:-

Doan
The best dodge of all is to insist that some PART of the issue is the
whole of the issue.

It isn't.

Live with your immorality, Doan. Your parents taught it to you with
swats on your butt.

0:-



Why is that Doug?

You seem quite happy in your arguments on various issues to insist that
"surveys" and "reports" based on partial information be used for policy
decisions (Like the Pew Reports).

Why are you avoiding my other posting on this subject and insisting that
ONLY this one statement of mine be considered?

Is it because you are a liar?

I'd say so.

I could, but refuse to use YOUR lying tactics, find numerous things yo
have said over time, take them from context and make the same kinds of
claims you are hung up on right now.

You know and any honest reader knows that I have posted MORE information
than you are claiming.

Hence, you are a liar. Your deception consists of holding the opponent
to only PART of what he has claimed.

Liar.

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


--
"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 (or someone else)




--
"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 (or someone else)

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
....snip....asked and responded to in attribution......

And yet you wanted to outlaw spanking, as if it gonna stop
child-abuse. "Intellectual problems" is in your genes! ;-)
"stop child abuse?" I said that?

Nonsense. I've pointed out that it will do NO SUCH THING, but that it
will reduce it. No LAW stops those things cited as violations COMPLETELY.

Hihihi! It is already ILLEGAL to abuse your child, STUPID!
Yep. And that allows for a child to be taken and protected. Or the
perpetrator removed. Without that law the abuse can continue.

Which is current law, STUPID!

Since we agree, you then are calling who "stupid?"

Your claim was that laws against spanking won't stop child abuse, is
that not correct?

Do you wish to debate, or dodge?

The same goes for corporal. Various penalties would ensue. Up to and
including removing the perp or the child.

So it would be up to removing over 90% of children from their parents???

And you have produced this percentage from where? You can see into the
future, can you?

ARE YOU SO STUPDI???

No, are you? You think 90% of the people will still continue to spank
their children, and that laws don't effect behaviors?

How many black Americans are still slaves?

How many women cannot enter into a financial contract without a male
representative?

How many times may a man hit his wife with a stick no thicker than his
thumb?

Laws do work.

And we will see civil suits following criminal charges and convictions,
or even acquittals, because children deserve as much right to protection
from assault as an adult.

Hihihi! They are already protected from "assault", STUPID! Spanking
is not assault!

How stupid are you to depart from the point that the law would make it
assault?

Are you stupid, or just simple?

See my endnotes**

More lies??? ;-)

Why ask? Why not read and comment?

You are out of your mind again. Take your meds.

Hihihi! What meds are you on?
None.

There is your problem! ;-)

No, it's yours. You are compromised, apparently, and I'm not.

Would you care to provide us with an exact number on how many thought
they were disciplining their children?

2? 10? 500? What's YOUR number, Doan?

I don't know. I am not the one claiming 1000!
No, you don't want to even think about it because you KNOW the number
has to be very high, given human nature, and the various resources I've
provided that discuss this problem from various perspectives.

Hihihi! You meant the sources that turned out to be false?
How can a source be "false" if it exists?

Hihihi! Existence and being false is not mutually exclusive, STUPID!
Non sequitur. The issue is a source false, or is the information at the
source false.

BOTH, STUPID!

Illogical. How is the source "false?" If it exists it cannot be "false."

Which did you mean? If the source exists, it is not false. It's just a
source. If the information is false, then you can make THAT claim.

See, you were unable to respond.


I get tired of giving you language lessons.

Hahaha! The same as effects without cause? You are too STUPID to give
anyone language lessons! What is that about "average" and "every" again?

What is it you claim by that question?

I'd say double your dose, or stop taking those things. They aren't working.

I see you dodged the question though. Again.

Hihihi! I see you lying again!
Oh, you answered the question? Where?

You didn't see it, STUPID? It's in the "archives"! ;-)

URL please.

Doan


.....snip, outdated .....

Yer a phony, Doan.

...snip....completed correspondence.......


** The Rationale of The Spanking Compulsive Doan

If I understand Doan correctly the reason hitting and adult and hitting
a child are different and the latter can be called legally sanctioned
'spanking' is the age difference.

Something about the child being hittable because they are different than
adults.

I have offered to debate this by asking Doan what the details and
reasoning are for spanking being a useful and legal tool when used on
children, but if used without consent on an adult illegal.

Like The Question of where the line between abuse and non-injurious
disciplinary CP might be, this too has gone unanswered.

My own view?

Between the two, it would be more likely to get intellectual
understanding from the adult than from the child, were spanking used on
both.

But we hit the child, knowing she is less likely to understand (actually
children do NOT have full understanding...or we could not call them
children and treat them differently at all than an adult).

Kane

As I suspected. Unable to enter in to debate, answer challenges, or
behave with any honor.

And obviously here for no other reason that to harass and play at the
same narcissistic games of the typical Troll.

Sad case, Doan. I'm sorry for you.

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 (or someone else)

How could I question your morality Kane?
Would it be the fact you are an atheist?
Or would it be the year plus that you gratuitously
and openly posted profanity in a newsgroup
on the world wide web?
Could it be your delusions of grandeur or your
Megalomania?

But when you got caught quoting something
second hand that was false, you apologized
so profusely. (NOT!)

Greegor wrote:
How could I question your morality Kane?

Have you?

Would it be the fact you are an atheist?

Atheists are de facto immoral? I have found them exceedingly so. Some of
my religious friends were annoyed first at me, and later at themselves,
upon reflection, at how very much more moral than they I am.

I have no "escape plan" like so many "life after death" theists have. I
have to conduct myself morally...I have only this ONE chance to do so.

Or would it be the year plus that you gratuitously
and openly posted profanity in a newsgroup
on the world wide web?

Is profanity and obscenity (I pride myself on having carefully employed
the latter well and fully for my purposes) in and of itself immoral? If
so, please explain.

Could it be your delusions of grandeur or your
Megalomania?

Since I have neither, then the answer IS neither.

But when you got caught quoting something
second hand that was false, you apologized
so profusely. (NOT!)

I cannot apologize for another whose statement has not been proven or
disproved. The author quoted, citing the one she interviewed, has not
returned my post. She may be busy, or simply watching to see how many
times, and in what forms, she or her subject, Sue, is called a liar.

And none of you have followed through, after having called Sue a liar
as well. None have bothered to confront her, even though I gave an email
addy. Cowards?

I think so. And that would be consistent with your reported behavior and
your behavior here, Greg.

I guess when it comes to morality you have an embarrassment of shortage,
you folks.

Now back to your questions of MY morality, based on not being a theist,
and using profanity.

Can you explain, please?

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 (or someone else)

Darn, here's that "pest," Sue Lawrence, again.

And you'll find this entire thread, on this web page most informative.
It makes plain the mentality of the spanking compulsives.

And what the data is on various things. See my comments, after Ms
Lawrence's.

http://www.nospank.net/dutton.htm

SUSAN LAWRENCE

From: The Lawrences
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:24 PM
To: Harold Dutton
Subject: HB 383

Dear Mr. Dutton,

Clearly being spanked a lot didn't make you a polite, or empathetic
person.

You are ignorant of the facts about hitting children. According to
the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, "85% of all cases of
physical abuse results from some form of over-discipline through the use
of corporal punishment". According to testimony submitted to the House
of Representatives (E1032--Congressional Record) March 21, 1991 by Major
R. Owens of NY:

"In most cases, fortunately, the physical injuries children
experience are relatively minor -- some redness and soreness of the skin
-- and do not require medical treatment. But the vulnerability of young
children's bodies is such that the potential for causing more severe
injuries is great, including hematomas, ruptured blood vessels, massive
fat emboli, sciatic nerve damage, muscle damage, and brain hemorrhage.
Every year we hear of children across the United States who are
seriously injured and even permanently disabled as a result of corporal
punishment. As Prof. John R. Cryan of the Association for Childhood
Education International noted in a 1987 article:

'Adults plainly underestimate the amount of force they are capable
of producing. Sometimes children are injured during even the mildest
punishment when they jerk away and the blow lands off target, or when
they fall against the sharp edge of some object. Eyes, ears and brains
may be permanently damaged as a result of paddling. Whiplash injuries
may result from shaking. Injuries from blows to the chest and abdomen
are life threatening. Bones are easily fractured and even the slightest
whack may produce a jolt to the brain through the bony spinal column and
spinal cord, resulting in significant swelling or bleeding."

In addition, according to the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse &
Neglect,"...the use of corporal punishment is intrinsically related to
child maltreatment. It contributes to a climate of violence, it implies
that society approves of the physical violation of children, it
establishes an unhealthy norm. Its outright abolition throughout the
nation must occur immediately." Finally, more than 40 national
organizations favor abolition of corporal punishment. Here are just a few:

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association,
American Medical Association,American Psychiatric Association, American
Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America,National
Association of State Boards of Education, National Association of Social
Workers, National Education Association and the National PTA.

In addition, over 100 research studies have shown psychological
problems, behavior problems, and learning problems from spanking. There
is not one study shows ANY benefit to spanking, that cannot be achieved
by non-hitting forms of discipline.

Why you want children to be hurt more, and adults to be legally
protected for hitting them, is puzzling in the extreme. Perhaps you want
children to suffer as you did, perhaps it's unnerving to you that
children might be treated more gently than you were. Or perhaps it's
simply the unthinking compulsion to repeat what was done to you, and to
continue the long and dreary habit of whipping black slaves, even though
slavery is outlawed.

My daughter has never been hit, and she is far more polite and
empathetic than you are! And she's highly gifted, bilingual, healthy,
happy, and affectionate. She says "I love you" several times, every day,
to me, I don't ask her to, she does it of her own free will. I wouldn't
dream of hitting her! I decided long ago, as a teenager, to never hit a
child. I have kept my promise. It is sad and strange that you have not
evolved, and moved away from violence to children.

I'm sorry you were beaten so much as a child. It must have affected
your brains, children who are hit have lower IQs, research shows.

Susan Lawrence
Arlington, MA
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org

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

From the cited page, various commentary:

.... "Children Services said Boyle no longer has contact with the
girls.Crow, the director of the agency, said parents often try to
disguise child abuse as discipline.

"Ninety-five percent of the time we see child abuse, it's explained as
an accident or [parents say,] 'The child was out of control. I was
disciplining my child, and that's within my right,' Crow said. " ...

http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html
" * Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking.
* Spanking hinders the development of empathy remorse or
compassion. The child focuses on the pain, rather than the effect of his
or her own behavior on others.
* Corporal punishment, used at the toddler age, can reduce the
degree to which children develop a conscience. "

"A.M. Graziano, J.L. Hamblen, W.A. Plante, Department of Psychology,
State University of New York at Buffalo, NY. "Subabusive violence in
child rearing in middle-class American families." Pediatrics, Oct. 1996;
98:845-848 Found that 85% of parents surveyed expressed moderate to high
anger, remorse, and agitation while administering corporal punishment to
their children, and say they would rather not spank if they had an
alternative in which they believed. This refutes the common admonishment
to parents to refrain from spanking in anger. 1-800-422-4633 or
1-888-463-6874 to order issue. Not online!"

T.G. Power, M.L. Chapieski, University of Houston, TX. "Childrearing and
impulse control in toddlers: A naturalistic investigation."
Developmental Psychology, 1986 22:271-275. Toddlers who were observed to
be subject to mild physical punishment were more likely to ignore
maternal prohibitions, to manipulate breakable objects, and to show low
levels of nonverbal competence 7 months later, than toddlers who were
not hit.
http://www.psycinfo.com/psycarticles...toc&jrn=dev&vo
l=22&iss=2 (scroll to no.17)"

"J.F. Geddes, G.H. Vowles, A.K. Hackshaw, C.D. Nickols, I.S. Scott, H.L.
Whitwell, Department of Histopathology and Morbid Anatomy, Royal London
Hospital, Whitechapel, London, UK. "Neuropathology of inflicted head
injury in children: II. Microscopic brain injury in infants." Brain,
200l 124:1299-1306 Found that babies can be injured and killed from even
mild shaking or hitting, primarily from damage to the part of the brain
that controls breathing.
http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/con...axtoshow=&HITS
=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=and&ando rexacttitleabs=and&ful
ltext=shaking+babies&andorexactfulltext=and&search id=1104436255059_1533&
stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fda te=5/1/2001&tdate=7/31
/2001&journalcode=brain"

"J. L. Sheline, B.J. Skipper, W.E. Broadhead, Department of Community
and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. "Risk
factors for violent behavior in elementary school boys: have you hugged
your child today?" American Journal of Public Health, 1994
April;84(4):661-3 Found that parents of violent boys were more likely
than those of matched control students to use spanking for discipline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=8154575"

There's about 30 more cited references in the note from Ms Lawrence.

Enjoy.

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 (or someone else)