Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

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.

Hihihi! Wrong analogy, STUPID!

Keep your story straight, Kane! ;-)

Stop pretending I didn't, Doan.

Stop lying, 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?

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

Then you have a problem since the study didn't support both; it only
support correlation. YOU ARE STUPID!

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:-]

Another STUPID comment! The study showed correlation - not causal!

"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.

Leads = CAUSE!

And Ken did as well.

Yup!

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

Hihihi! Only stupid people like rely on the study like that one!

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

Nope! X leads to Y implied a CAUSAL relation!

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.

Hihihi! But you just said they are BOTH! Keep your story straight!

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?

I am just pointing out your STUPIDIT! ;-)

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.

Hihihi! What the definition of "is", Kane?

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?

But you said it's the title of the study! Keep your story straight, Kane!

The title of the research is different.

Why?

Do you know what it is?

Yup! I read the full study - did you?


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.

Hihihi!

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 LIED, Kane!

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?"

Hihihi! Stop your dodging, Kane!


Doan


Kane

"0:-" wrote in message
news:hqCdnY7WuJGlXSPYnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

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

TWO can play little boy!

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?

YEP right in the title.. "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION." That is a
CAUSAL statement Kane. SOme days you admit it, some days you deny it, youi
can't remember which. And some days you try to claim it is BOTH! All
rtatyher amusing as reaslity shifts in the gravitational field of Planet
Kane!

It will cost you about $29.


I get that stuff for FREE Kane. Sorry YOU have to pay for it.

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


Man you're thick as a brick. WHO posts (100% of the time) from an ANONYMOUS
REMAILER?

Damn we need to update the periodic table. We found a new substance more
DENSE than diamonds!
I wonder what the atomic weight of your brain must be?

"krp" wrote in message
news:j3Jvh.37728$uC6.36492@trnddc02...

"0:-" wrote in message
news:hqCdnY7WuJGlXSPYnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

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

TWO can play little boy!

The only help he is going to get is from the nut wards of the nation.
Pretty much he has trashed his own reputation in every news group he has
posted to more than once, so I just cant see anyone coming to his rescue.
Other than the occasional sock puppet that is.

Ron


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?

YEP right in the title.. "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION." That is a
CAUSAL statement Kane. SOme days you admit it, some days you deny it, youi
can't remember which. And some days you try to claim it is BOTH! All
rtatyher amusing as reaslity shifts in the gravitational field of Planet
Kane!

It will cost you about $29.


I get that stuff for FREE Kane. Sorry YOU have to pay for it.

On Jan 30, 8:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"krp" wrote in message

news:j3Jvh.37728$uC6.36492@trnddc02...



"0:-" wrote in message
news:hqCdnY7WuJGlXSPYnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@scnresearch .com...

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

TWO can play little boy!

I only returned the addy you started the thread with but removed when
things got hot for you, Ken...

When did I add soc.men?


The only help he is going to get is from the nut wards of the nation.
Pretty much he has trashed his own reputation in every news group he has
posted to more than once, so I just cant see anyone coming to his rescue.
Other than the occasional sock puppet that is.

So far I've seen no reputable poster support Ken. Not one. Weird, eh?

Kane



Ron

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?

YEP right in the title.. "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION." That is a
CAUSAL statement Kane. SOme days you admit it, some days you deny it, youi
can't remember which. And some days you try to claim it is BOTH! All
rtatyher amusing as reaslity shifts in the gravitational field of Planet
Kane!

It will cost you about $29.

I get that stuff for FREE Kane. Sorry YOU have to pay for it.

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

Man you're thick as a brick. WHO posts (100% of the time) from an ANONYMOUS
REMAILER?

Moore, I presume you mean to claim.

I've not noticed that stops others from doing so, and apparently you've
been caught at it. Is that not true?

Damn we need to update the periodic table. We found a new substance more
DENSE than diamonds!
I wonder what the atomic weight of your brain must be?

Brains don't have atomic weights assigned to them.

Have these tactics worked against others very well, Ken?

If so I am very upset with people that would back down from you rants,
lies, insinuations, accusations, and reinforce more unethical immoral
behavior from you.

Are you claiming the Anon nym was used and posted under by Moore?

Please explain how you know this?

Because you are so good at making friends a psychic gave you a freebie?

0:-]

Greegor wrote:
DM but information can help with understanding motive.

G Speaking of information and motive, David Moore,
G have you ever been a member of a neo-nazi group?

DM No, I haven't.
I see that you're repeating Ken Pangborn's lies. In this
case, that was actually the lie which got him kicked off
of America Online some years back. Here's a simple
exercise: ask him for proof to back up his claim.
Get back to me when you receive it. I won't hold my breath.

Kane wrote
Are you authorized to invite new members, Greg Hanson?

Kane and Dave: Are you denying that you were a member
of a skinhead or neo-nazi group?

Why are you now addressing me? Are you claiming I've known Moore since
the alleged time frame?

I got one for you. What if he was?

Would that prove what he is now in that regard?

Are you, for instance, still domestically abusing anyone?

Do you wish too?

Does your former convictions mean that you are still doing it secretly?

See your logic bite you in the butt, Greg.

Butt butt butt.

Your cultivation of a known group buster makes it more than obvious what
you are up to in this instance.

Why are you trying to recruit Dave Moore into the Nazi party, Greg?

Hoping the will detract from the fact that the allegations about Ken do
extend forward in time, in that he solicits business using a CV item
that is in fact a diploma mill 'degree' of a master's in psychology?

"0:-" wrote in message
...

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.

Man you're thick as a brick. WHO posts (100% of the time) from an
ANONYMOUS REMAILER?

Moore, I presume you mean to claim.

I've not noticed that stops others from doing so, and apparently you've
been caught at it. Is that not true?

No I nhave NOT been "caught" at it. It's just one more of Moore's
claims. When you actually look at the archives of MY post as it appears in
Google, and the one HE has on his website you'll see he has removed ALL of
the quotes in my original post of the original forgery. He then points to a
subsequent forgery that appeared later. Didn't he just bring up "MESSAGE
LATENCY FEATURE" in his remailers?????

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
...
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.
Man you're thick as a brick. WHO posts (100% of the time) from an
ANONYMOUS REMAILER?
Moore, I presume you mean to claim.

I've not noticed that stops others from doing so, and apparently you've
been caught at it. Is that not true?

It's said the Earnest declared that it sometime was all he could do in a
day to write on good declarative sentence.

While I'm no Hemingway, so I have even more trouble than him and tend to
write questions.

No I nhave NOT been "caught" at it.

Now there's a fine example of a declarative sentence. Good for you, Ken.

I can't prove a question, because it doesn't' declare anything, and
"apparently" is about as far from declarative one can get...being an
adjective and all," but I can ask you to prove your claim.

It's just one more of Moore's
claims. When you actually look at the archives of MY post as it appears in
Google, and the one HE has on his website you'll see he has removed ALL of
the quotes in my original post of the original forgery. He then points to a
subsequent forgery that appeared later. Didn't he just bring up "MESSAGE
LATENCY FEATURE" in his remailers?????

Yes, he did. Virtually anything is possible, but you see as have
repeatedly lied to and about me in these newsgroups, and Moore has not
argued with me, even when I pretty much deep-sixed any possibility of
proving anything at all about some debate between you, and he certainly
had not lied about me, or what I said, I'm coming down a bit to his side
of the ledger you two are maintaining.

Now if you like to, but ONLY if you'd like to you can prove your
declarative statement, and its supporting narrative.

Sans that effort on your part, I'm going to continue to entertain the
stronger possibility you are a charlatan and presume it's quite possible
you do forge posts.

You don't seem to have much in the way of ethics on matters I can
conclusively prove, simply by posting my posts where I made a statement
and your following posts that claimed I said something quite different.

For instance, I never claimed to be even highly talented at photo
interpretation. Just familiar with it. And I do not care, no in fact I
don't intend to EVER care whether or not you were in Cuba, since that
was not the subject of debate, until you dishonest engaged me on it to
avoid dealing with my simple question....could you have sent those posts.

You may find your bed lumpy, not to your liking, and really not want to
sleep in it, Ken, but it most certainly is of your own making.

By the way, I'm waiting for prove of you outright declarations of
Moore's various "sins."

Will I be waiting long, or is that under your sheets?

0;]

freedom wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, "krp" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
...
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.
Man you're thick as a brick. WHO posts (100% of the time) from an
ANONYMOUS REMAILER?
Moore, I presume you mean to claim.
I've not noticed that stops others from doing so, and apparently you've
been caught at it. Is that not true?
No I nhave NOT been "caught" at it. It's just one more of Moore's
claims. When you actually look at the archives of MY post as it appears in
Google, and the one HE has on his website you'll see he has removed ALL of
the quotes in my original post of the original forgery. He then points to a
subsequent forgery that appeared later. Didn't he just bring up "MESSAGE
LATENCY FEATURE" in his remailers?????

Nice feeble attempt to distort the facts. As usual, I'll nail your fat ass
on it. The forgery appeared BEFORE your Verizon post, not later. This was
how everyone knew you did it....either you were the author, or the forger
was able to predict what you would say 8 hours later. And then you tried
to cover your tracks by arguing about the "International Date Line". It's
all in Google for anyone who's interested in proving you a liar.

In all fairness, David, could you not point to the group and thread for us.

Thanks, Kane


http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBRb/45wu6zDezw650EQLOXACdEmPnTC6x5eocWp0q8Vi6EVySEVgAn 232
FNt+T1gzbPUfsoFovgwLyJeh
=ndwv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----