Obsessive behavior in 4 year old

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:57:39 -0800, Doan wrote:

........but seems to have forgotten his old friends in
alt.parenting.spanking.

I put the addy in for you, Droany. I knew you really didn't mean to
leave it out.

On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:47:07 -0800, Doan wrote:


How is calling someone "never-spanked" an ad-hom?

Context. Something you carefully keep yourself unaware of.

And just what that context be, Kane?

Happy to share, little boy. Even you can learn.

Tell you what, give me the vilest
context you can give to "never-spanked" and throw it at me.

Okay, but first I need some motivation.

Come on,
Kane9. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! :-)

Ah, there yah go. Thanks. I knew you'd find some really creative,
mature, and thoughtful inspiration for me.

Sure, Droany.

The most obscene and vile context I can think of:

The Droananator claiming he's neutral and for parents and children yet
doing everything in his power, including this diversion of
"never-spanked," avoiding answering The Question, proving his
possession of the Embry Study, and thereby opening debate on it thus
denying parents of what he claimed he wanted them to have, more
knowledge.

Now THAT is a vile context, to my way of thinking.

Or do you think your avoidance of the debate YOU first challenged ME
to but would not follow through on is a lovely hearts and flowers
"context?"

The entire issue is really in YOUR control Droany, and you have
repeatedly blown it. You won't even prove the easily proven claim by
you that you have the study, and I recently posted the page number for
the demographics, my original question to you, from the study to
prove that I had it, and alway have.

That is what you wouldn't give us for proof. Just the page number
where the demographics started. Apparently your claim wasn't imporant
enough for YOU to defend. Now that is "context" Droany.

You can't even come up with a simple page number reference for a
person's name mentioned in the study...a proper noun that has to be
easy for you to find, if you actually have the study. My next request
for proof. Now that is "context," Droany.

You still have no takers on your offer to send the Embry study to
anyone that asks, and I've asked that you send it to LaVonne or Chris
and you haven't responded. Either would forward it to me, or answer
one or two page number questions to prove it exists.

So, tell us. Now that I have proven I have the study (if you have it
you know that the page number, and the quotes I gave in aps from the
title of that section are accurate,) what would be the harm in
following through and sending the study to anyone I named, such as
LaVonne or Chris? Or even answering the proof questions I ask
yourself?

`SmatterCatGotCherTongue?

Chris got your number years ago, little boy, and you've been running
in place ever since. It's pathentic to watch you, but.........

I do admire your stamina, and the level of persistence of your
hysterical blindness.

You are a text book study in denial.

You haven't fooled the people in misc.kids for a moment, Droany.
They'll start letting you know it soon enough....maybe after they've
"played" with YOU just a little. They are kinder than I.

Doan

With sympathy,

Kane