Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

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

On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.
He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Debate what? Which article?

Pretense of ignorance duly noted, Ken.

FACTS KANE! Those damn FACTS!

Pretense of ignorance as to which article founders on my quoting were
your first used X leads to Y, and "International study."

You are stupid, but you are that stupid.

Brain rot perhaps.

Years of feeding others your crap only to find you have ingested more of
it than you got into anyone else successfully.

0.-]

krp wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.
He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane? Please double check your
attribution.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim. That is a fact! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous. Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!

He STILL thinks the statement is a correlation! He's just had his
ass whipped so badly on it he's afraid to say so again.

No, here it is. X leads to Y is a correlation.

X leads to Y, is, as I said before, also used for a cause based outcome.

You could not find, in the study, that it supported your claim about
what the title must mean, your claim that it claimed the study was causal.

So you lingered and hid behind a silly argument about causal and
correlation that was already settled in the article.

Doan does it better than you, but you were still dodging.

The beauty is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your
STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?

Kane STILL can't tell the difference in this case between correlation
and causation.

Sure I can. I defined it very clearly indeed. It's you that failed when
you claimed that X leads to Y can't be a correlation.

And only a causal outcome applies to it.

That's nonsense, and I quoted research reports using X leads to Y =
correlation.

You just can't debate the content of the article.

If you can't, say so.

It's a manly thing to admit your defeat.

0.-]

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:5OSdnY31O5jw1SDYnZ2dnUVZ_rWnnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Where on Moore's website has he displayed those account numbers as the
poster, "anonymous bounce' posted them? That is the issue that brought
this to ascps.

Are you DENYING they are on Moore's website?

Nope.

I'm denying he displayed them prominently in the format Anon...etc. did
whose message you used to cross post the thread into ascps.

Go look as what I said about.

"Where on Moore's website has he displayed those account numbers as the
poster, "anonymous bounce' posted them?"

"As the poster..."

Do you and Greg and Doan sit around in a daisy chain of brick to head
slamming so you won't be tempted if a thought should actually come into
your collective or separate heads?

Did you see me deny anything?

0:-]

"0:-" wrote in message
news:Gr6dnesMX8uCoyPYnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane? Please double check your
attribution.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim. That is a fact! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous. Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!

He STILL thinks the statement is a correlation! He's just had his
ass whipped so badly on it he's afraid to say so again.

No, here it is. X leads to Y is a correlation.



KANE -- KLOWN!!! X leads to Y is a statement of CAUSATION! PERIOD! It is
NOT a "correlation."


That is the same as saying "X CAUSES Y." Sorry Kane - it IS!

"0:-" wrote in message
news:rfGdnebqbozz3iPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Where on Moore's website has he displayed those account numbers as the
poster, "anonymous bounce' posted them? That is the issue that brought
this to ascps.

Are you DENYING they are on Moore's website?

Nope.

Small progress.

I'm denying he displayed them prominently in the format Anon...etc. did
whose message you used to cross post the thread into ascps.

He doesn't need to. He's the repository fore them. NOTE - IDIOT - that
the page for that isn't on his SITE MAP!
DUHHH!

But then since you PERSONALLY invented the computer and then the Internet -
I'd expect that to be of some small significance to you.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.
He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane?

You.

Please double check your
attribution.

Okay, here's your post addressing me.

Ok. Thanks, I lost track.

"On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane. The proven LIAR here is YOU!
He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression. The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

Doan
"

Got it yet?


He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim.

Yes it is.

But you were arguing that it's not! Keep your story straight, Kane! ;-)

That is a fact

Yep.

! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous.

"Otherwise?" You mean I claimed it WASN'T a causal claim?

Yup! Now you said it is?

Odd, that's not what my posts on the subject claim. I claimed and cited
sources of researchers using "X leads to Y" for both.

Yup! It cannot be separated.

And as you said yourself, causal outcomes include correlations.

Yup!

But I included correlations that were in fact outcomes, by researchers,
of "X leads to Y."

That would causal!

Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!

No, it's not.

How can a "tactic" be a 'lie?'

Because the result doesn't support your conclusion. I pointed it out to
you.

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)
The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?

It did, though you have shortened the title of the study:

"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm"

Are you that is the tittle of the study? If so, then it it is claiming
a CAUSAL relationship. Did you read read study in full or just gleaming
off google again?

Doan

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Gr6dnesMX8uCoyPYnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?
Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane? Please double check your
attribution.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!s pamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc07.POSTED! a8b0d61d!not-for-mail
From: "krp"
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
References: .com .com xfHth.1088$FN1.878@trnddc08 icnuh.3267$R65.3088@trnddc01 m ASJuh.1653$lk3.585@trnddc04 m 9e1vh.604$Ss1.0@trnddc07 m cCqvh.1031$Ss1.287@trnddc07 m
Subject: RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
Lines: 42
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID: Gwrvh.1052$Ss1.598@trnddc07
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:01:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.21.97.222
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trnddc07 1170097318 63.21.97.222 (Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:01:58 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:01:58 EST
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:100949 alt.parenting.spanking:160367 alt.support.foster-parents:43027


"0:-" wrote in message
news:Q9SdnY34prqO3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of
the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that
of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which
is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of
education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you
chose to not read the information I offered and of course without
a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is
why we have not debated it.
And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use
of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until
you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it.
Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess
sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR
scientifically validated.
The issue isn't in the question you ask.
I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted
in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its
specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association
or its speciality subdivisions.
AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task.
To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually
abused. BONG!!!! I win!
You won what I agreed with?
Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now.
No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have
speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification.

Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged.

I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken.

No Kane you have taken the PRO- SAC dolls side, the anti-SAC dolls side and
everything orbiting around it.

If you don't provide proof, Ken I can assume you are, as usual, lying.

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:rfGdnebqbozz3iPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Where on Moore's website has he displayed those account numbers as the
poster, "anonymous bounce' posted them? That is the issue that brought
this to ascps.
Are you DENYING they are on Moore's website?

Nope.

Small progress.

None at all. But I am denying they are in the same attention calling
format of the Anonymous poster I'm becoming more suspicious was you.

He posted your bankruptcy filing as far as I can tell.

I'm denying he displayed them prominently in the format Anon...etc. did
whose message you used to cross post the thread into ascps.

He doesn't need to. He's the repository fore them. NOTE - IDIOT - that
the page for that isn't on his SITE MAP!
DUHHH!

So then, what is your beef....yawn "duh."

But then since you PERSONALLY invented the computer and then the Internet -
I'd expect that to be of some small significance to you.

Little about you is of any significance, Ken. You are a joke here. Comic
relief.

You can stop a debate, but you can't carry one.

Dodging isn't debating. It's just dishonest.

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.
He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane?
You.

Please double check your
attribution.
Okay, here's your post addressing me.

Ok. Thanks, I lost track.

"On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane. The proven LIAR here is YOU!
He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression. The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

Doan
"

Got it yet?

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim.
Yes it is.

But you were arguing that it's not!

If you hold up and Orange and say it's citrus, and I say it's fruit, I
did not deny it's an orange or argue that it is not.

Keep your story straight, Kane! ;-)

Stop pretending I didn't, Doan.


That is a fact

Yep.

! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous.
"Otherwise?" You mean I claimed it WASN'T a causal claim?

Yup! Now you said it is?

You know perfectly well I said it's both and proved it's both.

Odd, that's not what my posts on the subject claim. I claimed and cited
sources of researchers using "X leads to Y" for both.

Yup! It cannot be separated.

So you are claiming that the study in question shows causal
relationships in spanking leading to aggression and anxiety? 0:-]

"First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
is bogus!"

The claim you made is what's bogus, Doan.

And Ken did as well.

He, and you, are terrified of the actual study in question.

Because, it does indeed meet the criteria. X leads to Y.






And as you said yourself, causal outcomes include correlations.

Yup!

But I included correlations that were in fact outcomes, by researchers,
of "X leads to Y."

That would causal!

Nope. I provided cites by researchers that did not claim they were doing
a causation study.

And for the argument from Ken, it would not matter.

He did not prove that the researchers were claiming the study had a
causal outcome.

Or don't you, or he, wish to go there?

Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!
No, it's not.

How can a "tactic" be a 'lie?'

Because the result doesn't support your conclusion. I pointed it out to
you.

That's your definition of lie?

Please show any definition that agrees with you.

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)
The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?
It did, though you have shortened the title of the study:

"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm"

Are you that is the tittle of the study?

It's the title of the article. Are you losing track?

The title of the research is different.

Do you know what it is?


This is good time to stop and take stock, Doan.

Many times in the past have thought you were leading me down your path
only to discover I went along for a purpose.

I did here.

Can you think what that might be?

Hint: give strong consideration to the term causal and where you might
have taken it yourself.

If so, then it it is claiming
a CAUSAL relationship.

Interesting thought, isn't it though? 0.-]

Did you read read study in full or just gleaming
off google again?

I don't speak "Doan," Doan.

You'll have to clarify.

By the way, do you believe Ken's claim is valid:

"... There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can produce
sociopathy in children?"


Doan


Kane

soc.men, ken? Who you callin' to help you?




krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Gr6dnesMX8uCoyPYnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?
Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane? Please double check your
attribution.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.
Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim. That is a fact! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous. Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!
He STILL thinks the statement is a correlation! He's just had his
ass whipped so badly on it he's afraid to say so again.

No, here it is. X leads to Y is a correlation.



KANE -- KLOWN!!! X leads to Y is a statement of CAUSATION! PERIOD! It is
NOT a "correlation."


That is the same as saying "X CAUSES Y." Sorry Kane - it IS!

Okay.

And you will be.

Are you claiming the article says the report says that X causes Y?

Have you read the report?

It will cost you about $29.

Let me know when you have it.

And I will ask you to prove it. So, just as Doan has, you an stretch
this out for years by simply gaming and refusing to prove you have it.

Which will be proof you do not wish to debate on facts, simply your
opinion.

You've damned the study without even knowing what the terms actually
mean...like "survey."

There is a world of difference in opinion poll surveys, interviews, and
scientific surveys based on standard interview instruments...questionaires.

You sure you want to claim that a "survey" was performed that was not up
to scientific standards for "interviewing?"

Without seeing the instruments, and how they were applied, scientifically?

Think carefully.

0;-]