Dennis was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

[Kane]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
>> >> > he interviewed were spanked as children.
>
>Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?

I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work
many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.

Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and
this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by
pro spankers and apologists.

What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else.
I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
they are the victim themselves.

It is an area fraught with obstacles.

I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating
that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
learning and their mental health.

Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
dysfunctional.

A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and
they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
through lack of exercise.

I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods,
but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
intellectual exceller.

>One could do a study of
>most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so
and
>find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young
children.

No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the
chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong
going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving,
to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.

They don't come from being NOT punished.

>What does that study show?

Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
don't you find one?

I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There
is speculation only.

I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.

Have a good one,

Kane

[Dennis Hancock]

Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. One
cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or
psychological abuse.

To attempt to do so is simply wasting your time as you continue to throw out
utter nonsense and use examples which do not apply to the majority of
situations that many of us here wish to address.

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
> >> >> > he interviewed were spanked as children.
> >
> >Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?
>
> I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work
> many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.
>
> Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and
> this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by
> pro spankers and apologists.
>
> What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else.
> I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
> thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
> they are the victim themselves.
>
> It is an area fraught with obstacles.
>
> I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating
> that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
> learning and their mental health.
>
> Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
> learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
> dysfunctional.
>
> A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
> things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and
> they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
> through lack of exercise.
>
> I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods,
> but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
> intellectual exceller.
>
> >One could do a study of
> >most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so
> and
> >find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young
> children.
>
> No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the
> chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
> much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
> maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong
> going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving,
> to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.
>
> They don't come from being NOT punished.
>
> >What does that study show?
>
> Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
> don't you find one?
>
> I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There
> is speculation only.
>
> I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
> above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
> After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
> armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.
>
> Have a good one,
>
> Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:41:06 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

Thank you for interspercing your comments in proximity to my post. It
makes for much more readible and interesting posts to my mind.

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
m...
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Kane" > wrote in message >
>> >> It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
>> >> spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the
>> world
>> >> and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain
and
>> >> humiliation in parenting.
>> >
>> >One can find a 'link' to just about everything,
>>Kane wrote:
>> Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do
very
>> soon in this reply of yours.
>
>No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.

>Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.

It's no mystery or special claim. There is a long history of responses
to the spanking issue by spankers in these negs. I daresay you could
have made the same claim about me. I tend to repost or reuse data and
information that is relevant.

>> Kane wrote:
>> Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
given
>> by that child when she grows up?
>
>I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of
stretching
>a bit aren't you?

I have seen numerous persons make such a claim. You just fail to
recognize it. Many times the unwanted behavior a parent spanks for is
hitting and biting between children or hitting the adult.

My question though wasn't really that narrow in scope. I am, of
course, referring to the fact that many who were spanked do so to
their children, and tend, all too often, as was recently posted to
this ng, escalate to more pain by way of spanking.

>Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
>simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they
can be
>painful.

I agree. Natural consequences are extremely educational, but cause the
object of the pain is the object or action the child touchers or does.
Children get plenty of that, from the very first.

They watch and study with great intensity even the expression and the
body language of their primary parent, usually their mother. Mother's
who are observant notice very subtle responses from their child
according to how the mother presents to them.

>It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
>behavior.

I agree. I doesn't reduce adutlhood pain. I would argue that it does
increase the likelihood of the pain parented child to find MORE pain
in adulthood. Some of it psychological and some behavioral.

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

And your second point: "it reinforces against stupid
behavior" something of a puzzle.

I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

And incident that comes readily to mind was a young polo mare trucked
in for training at a large stable I managed. I'd say she was probably
a 3 year old. Had been range bred and belonged originally to one of
the Rockerfellers. I watched the "trainer" work with her. He was a
quick hand with the polo whip. Ever see one?

It's about three feet long, leather covered with a nylon core, very
springy and stiff. If you took the leather off you could cut a horse
with it...and even with leather it leaves a terrible welt. Very
painful.

She managed to survive all his "training" pretty well...after all
horses if well bred tend to have temperments to cope with and tolerate
man. She was a Thorougbred.

It came time to ship her out to the new owner for her introduction to
the game in scrimmages and practices. The "trainer" was putting her in
the truck, up a short ramp at a kind of steep angle, but one she could
make easily.

She fought going into the truck, a flatbed with high stake sides. He
would get her to the ramp (he was mounted on her) and she would balk
just at the first step, the touch of the wooden ramp. He'd whip her,
hard with that polo whip, and she would immediately start running
backward pretty fast away from the ramp...a very dangerous thing for a
horse to do, what with bystanders, etc.

I was known for teaching horses to trailer and truck very quickly,
usually in 10 or 15 minutes with the lead rope just thrown over their
back. I have a very light touch with animals and children. I just kind
of walk them where they need to be and oddly my gentle approach seems
to work every time...with abused horses or abused children.

And they shortly walk alone where I want them to go, no lead rope at
all.

The "trainer" thought he had one even I couldn't train...and though he
had watched me do it many times...he took a chance this little mare
was so bad I couldn't work with her.

He didn't know that he had trained her for me of course.

I took his whip, mounted up, rode the mare to the ramp, she balked, I
reined her in a quick spin so she was facing away from the truck and
just touched her rump with the polo whip...not hitting.....where he
had been whipping her, and she of course did as trained...she ran
backwards....right up into the truck. I dismounted, tossed him his
whip, pulled off the saddle and bridle and walked down the ramp.

All one has to do to NOT use pain is the think. Is that so very hard?

>>
>> >yet there is a vast
>> >difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'.
>Kane wrote:
>> A claim frequently made and rarely defended with any rigor at all.
>> There is a very fine and tenuous line between the two. Many
variables
>> are involved. The child, the parent, the events, the time of day,
the
>> reasons for the abuse or spanking, even the health of the child,
and
>> much more.
>
>But it is YOU who seem to equate both equally.

Yes I do. It's you folks that want to claim that I'm talking about
comparing a punch in the face with a spanking. I'm not. But I am
saying that there is a degree of abuse to spanking, in fact using
punishment when a child is trying desperately to learn her environment
and needs a willing coach and protector. One to help, the other to
keep her alive and relatively undamaged as she explores.

>There is a hell of a
>difference between a swat on the butt with one's open hand and
beating them
>unconscious with one's fist.

You make is sound as though I am suggesting that abuse is only beating
a child unconscious with one's fist. No, there are abusive elements in
even the mildest punishments. The abuse is to the child's development.

Instead of protecting the child from harm but supporting their
exploration the punishing parent simply tries to stop behavior. I
presume some know to at least present some alternatives to enrich the
child's exploratory attempt, but I don't see anyone claiming they do
that at all when we discuss spanking here. It's always about an
unwanted action being stopped. As though that was all there is to it.

>Apparently, you cannot defferentiate between
>the two in your conclusions that all spanking equals abuse.

Certainly a punch in the face is abuse. Who would argue that.

It is not the only abuse.

I believe that it is abusive not to support a child's learning about
the world and their environment and not protecting them from
harm....simultaneously.

It's not rocket science....honest. It is so easy and fun that when I
teach people how to do it they are delighted to come back later and
tell me how it replaced their punishing ways.....and the payoff was
huge. The child does BETTER at finding alternative ways, safe ways, to
explore, and trusts the parent ... so are not afraid to ask for help.
>
>I wrote:
>> >To try to qualify the link by
>> >using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring
the
>> ever
>> >growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past
twenty
>> years
>> >about the evils of spanking.
>
>Kane wrote:
>> I'm not ignoring it at all. I tend to view it, as I have written,
as
>> weak compared to my observations for over 40 years, in both
>> professional mileu and private life.
>
>Most of the rest of us have had 'observations' for just as long or
longer
>Kane.

Over 40 years? That would be a surprize. How old are you?

>I've observed both spanked and non spanked kids, AND in fact reported
>abusive situations to cps myself.

I do hope you were very careful to differentiate.

>One of the things about personal
>observation is the ability to distinguish between useful spanking and
>outright abuse. We are given minds to make that distinction with.

Some children are very hardy and can easily survive a good deal of
"useful spanking" while others are more sensitive and can be damaged
by too harsh a word.

Now who is, as you accused me of doing, treating all chidlren the
same?

>>
>> >Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state
of
>> the
>> >world today?
>>
>> Doubtful given the prevalence.
>>
>> >Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily.
>>
>Kane wrote:
>> All you must do is come up with a lot of children who weren't
spanked
>> or punished in our prisons and mental wards. Should be easy. Give
it a
>> shot.
>
>Another straw man here Kane?

A straw man argument is one that directs an the argument against a
claim everyone agrees upon or that is weak.

That isn't what I was doing. I am asking you to find children that
weren't spanked or punished in prisons and mental wards. The claim
frequently is that children not disciplined (and we know that means
punished to the spanking set) are at high risk of misbehaving and some
have made a claim that they are more likely to become criminals.

I'm simply asking if you agree and if so please point out the
punishment free inmates. Others have tried and failed for a very good
reason. Punishment is abusive and moreso in the child that needs
support and protection. They sometimes do not have the luck to turn
out well, and the inmates are rich with this population.

>It was YOU who made the claim that spanking
>leads to all these conditions, not I, nor any of the other debaters
in here.

Yes, I know. I also cited a Dr. Fischer who was or is with University
of Chicago School of Social Science that tried to find some unspanked
and I presume unpunished folks in jail and failed....not one. He
couldn't find even one.

Had to give up the study. No population to observe.

>Thus far, you've failed to show credibility in providing that proof.

I have to prove the unpunished children don't go to jail or mental
wards at the rate that the spanked and otherwise punished do?

One can't prove a negative.

On the other hand do YOU think that it's difficult to find unspanked
folks in prison.

I don't need to put my finger in a lightsocket to know what will
happen if I'm grounded, or hit ground and hotside in the socket. I
know the same thing about prisons. I really do trust the folks that
work with that population not to lie to me.

>>
>> Caveat: Note that other researches have gone bust trying to find
them.
>> I never had and I've looked.
>>
>> >Or is that beyond your comprehension.
>>
>> Not in the least. I began at age 19 to consider this issue. Very
>> shortly it became apparent to me that when the unspanked child
still
>> behaved badly it was more likely a product of other more severe
>> emotional or psychological punishments.
>
>You still haven't considered but the tip of the subject.

What a silly thing to say. Not only have I "considered" it, but I've
gone far beyond it doing work to help children recover from it.

>emotional abuse
>can be much worse than physical abuse in many cases. I would much
prefer a
>spanking than being abused emotionally, just as I would prefer a
spanking
>over physical abuse. Again, you fail to look beyond a simple glance
at the
>surface.

That is an assumption of yours. Not the truth.

I have to ask you: Why would you assume that an alternative to
spanking I would use to parent with is emotionally abusive?

I have never posted, and I've posted a lot, to these newsgroups, that
children should not be spanked but must be punished. I've never found
a single behavior of children that I couldn't, either by my superior
control of the environment (like put up a fence around the yard)
redirect into a richer experience.

The child reaching for the counter where the big kitchen knife is
needs two things. The knife needs to be put away....AND...THIS IS
IMPORTANT SO YOU'LL EXCUSE MY YELLING PLEASE....something else to do.

Do you know why Tupperware parties are so wonderfully profitable? R R
R R R R .... ask a mommy what the second most imporant use is for
Tupperware and she'll likely tell you: "To store things in."

They all know what the most imporant use is for the little guys.

>> >I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep
him
>> from
>> >running into the street. Well it doesn't work.
>>
>> There we go again. I do not "'reason'" with small children. I set
up
>> systems, as humans have had to do since the times when small
children
>> were the favorite prey of pack and predatory animals that preyed on
>> the edges of the human pack.
>
>I can tell you have had absolutely no, or very limited contact with
small
>children.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your hubris.

I have had, unless you have been in the same work as I, contact with
thousands of children, both in and out of treatment settings. And from
toddler on up to teen.

>Guess what, many of the grand 'systems' of conduct just don't
>work with some children.

The reason they "don't work" is often that they are misapplied, or not
well enough understood. One of the best for the normal child and
parent is quite hard to learn unless one participates in a training
where one experiences the changes in self and others using the
skillset.

To darn bad too as it is so powerful it should be banned from common
use. More than one psychologist was less than happy with the tools
being released to the public domain. But Tom Gordon knew what he was
doing. Now the tools have become not only common place in parenting
but in human interpersonal relations at many levels. Management uses
them a lot.

Check out Tom Gordon's page at:

http://www.thomasgordon.com/


Tom died earlier this year, but his contribution to better relations
between people and especially his PET for parents and children is a
very real contribution to us all.

>And the parent who truly understands this, knows
>which children need reinforcement and which of their children don't.
Any
>parent who approached teaching all of their children in exactly the
same way
>is surely doomed to fail in their teachings of at least one of them.

Did you mention "straw man" earlier? I think you did. R R R R

I think you are rambling a bit. But then it's the use of a poorly
defined term I guess. What do you mean by "need reinforcement?"

I use a great deal of "reinforcement" with children, just as I did
with animals I trained, though the scope is somewhat different. I
simply didn't find I ever needed pain as a reinforcer.

The strongest reinforcement was proven in research to be intermitant
positive reinforcement...meaning you don't even have to do (like you
do with aversive pain) to use it every time to get the most compliant
response...just doing it from time to time works wonderfully...sounds
like it was made for busy parents, doesn't it? I think nature intended
it and made us responsive to it because that's what was used before
the morality police get ahold of us all.

My onw reinforcement consists of making it clear I am the protector,
and the coach, and the most trustworth and biggest supporter.

Now I presume some of this applies to parents who punish. I know they
don't punish all the time...I just contend they never have to punish
at all and they'll raise more psychologically healthy, eager, and
trusting learners, and in time, adults.

>>
>> Jerry Alborn answered this question most eloquently some time back.
>> I'll point you to his comment:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/rfzq
>>
>> or
>>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22street+entry%22+group:alt.parenting.sp anking.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.parenting.spanking.*&selm=6g3unk%243hta%241%40newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com&rnum=1
>>
>> Not only have I proven to my own satisfaction and written many
times
>> about the method I used to teach children not to run into traffic,
I
>> do know that punishment does not work to keep children from
attempting
>> to make street entries. I've posted this study before, and I'll
post
>> it again just for you, since you appear far more dedicated to
>> discrediting me than to searching for facts that might confound
your
>> locked in belief....three of which you've already shared with us.
>
>No, Im discrediting your beliefs.

You may do that. I am discrediting yours after all.

>I can wager that you never lived in the
>inner city, on a heavily populated street whereby small children run
into
>traffic all the time.

You'd be wrong then. I have lived in just such environments. And I saw
them spanked, jerked around, slapped, yelled at, and they still ran
toward the street. Mamma had to get a harness to keep them safe...what
should have been the solution in the beginning.

>As a child I watched a friend of mine get his head
>crushed by a truck's tire.

You have my sympathy. I lost my best childhood buddy, at 16, under the
weight of a old tricycle steering John Deere tractor on his dad's
contract with an oil or gas lease doing earth moving and road
building.

Was your friend not spanked sufficiently to save his life?

These things happen. He would not have survived no matter how much
spanking he had. Though I don't recall his dad or mom being spankers
or very punishing. Do you suppose he would have known not to get on
the tractor to earn some money had he been spanked properly?

>Of course I suppose it's easy to simply lock the
>small child up all day,

Why would you assume I mean that? Which of us accused the other,
erroneously of using a strawman argument? This is a classic.

>but anyone who has had to chase one around for a few
>hours surely knows that simply telling them something is bad just
simply
>doesn't work.

Again, you assume that not spanking or punishing requires only the
actions you post in the paragraph above. I only need one or two things
that work for me, and neither (though I do tend to include verbal
instruction to lay down the memory track in the child's brain for
later use when they can understand what I meant) would require the
least bit of pain or fear.

And I rarely use the word 'bad' with either children or adults. I may
not like something someone does, but I will say so, not label them bad
or, in fact good. I hate it when I hear someone say to a human child,
"that's a good boy."

Trust me, if I ever say it to you, it's an insult. I have no right to
judge someone else's behavior as morally good or bad, only to judge if
I do not like it, or I like it. I'll tell you when I like what you
say.

>>
>> Let's start with the bonifides of one of those you believe is
spoon-
>> feeding you psychobabble, shall we? Then I'll provide you with a
>> little note about what his observations showed on the very question
>> you bring up:
>>
>> http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Embry%20Biography-1999.html
>>
>>
>> And here is what he had to say about his study:
>>
>> In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
>> writes:
>> "Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project
>> designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged
>> children.
>> (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
>> cause
>> of death to young children in the United States.)
>> "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
>> scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street
>> entries
>> by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect
way
>> to gain parents' attention.
>> "Now there is a promising new educational intervention program,
>> called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are
>> simple:
>>
>> 1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe
>> players play on the grass or sidewalk."
>> 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun
>> than playing dangerously.
>> 3. Praise your child for safe play.
>>
>> "These three principles have an almost instant effect on
>> increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been
spanked
>> many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to
do
>> it.
>> The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe
play,
>> the
>> children stopped going into the street.
>>
>> Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
>> University of Kansas
>> Lawrence Kansas"
>
>Is that supposed to 'impress' someone who has lived in this
situation?

It's been my experience that many people stop learning anything new
after the age of 15 or so. They just extrapolate from what they
learned up to that point.

I don't care if you are impressed or not. I only care if you can
learn.

>I
>say it's total bull****, from another psychologist who simply wants
to get
>his 'finding's published as some caveat.

Apparently he isn't just about being published. These folks paid for
his work:

"Dr. Embry has an international reputation in the area of designing,
testing and disseminating effective large-scale educational campaigns
to increase school and community safety, child safety, family
well-being and health. Those research projects have been contracted
and/or funded by such organizations as the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, U.S. Office of Education, the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety, The Moerk Company Foundation, the W.T. Grant
Foundation, DuPont, IBM and grants from a number of other companies,
non-profit foundations, and foreign governments—particularly as a
National Research Advisory Council Senior Fellow in New Zealand."

I suppose you know better. To what do you attribute your knowledge
being superior to his?

>First of all, giving a swat on the butt for approaching the street is
not
>'NAGGING'.. lol.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was. Hey! He's even a Sunday
School teacher.

>Once you've taught the small child that nearing the street
>is painful, it stops, no need for 'nagging'. Sounds more like the
'talk to
>your child approach' which has caused more children to run into the
streets.

It may sound like it but it is not. Can you support your claim that
"talk to your child" has caused more children to run into the streets?

>Give them a 'positive' way, play on the grass etc? Again, you ASS U
ME that
>the child is old enough to understand.

No, I assume that they can follow directions, and it feels good to a
child to follow directions given by an adult they trust to protect
them. When they are old enough to understand they don't need me to
tell them anything. They can figure out that a large metal body
impacting a small soft human body is painful and or deadly.

>Where I lived, we had a small mound
>of dirt between apartments, surrounded by concrete. Or in the back,
>railroad tracks. Tell me HOW you find a positive play place in that
>situation.

So the only way left to keep them from being run over was to spank
them into submission? I thought you said your friend got run over, his
skull crushed? Are you willing to claim he wasn't spanked
sufficiently?

>LOL.. I can imagine a parent walking up to a child every few minutes
and
>hand them stickers, or say, 'great job playing'.

Why would you imagine that? The conversation is much more specific.
And it only takes a time or two, unlike spanking that seems to go on
for quite some time before it takes, for the child to get it.

>Get real. That scenario
>only assumes that the child already has the ability to comprehend and
is
>already avoiding dangerous situations.

No it doesn't. It assumes the child trusts the adult to instruct them
in safety concerns. Do you think Dr. Embry lied about the results he
said he observed?

Write and tell him. Me, I know he is correct as I've used the same
methods for other safety issues, and with my own children, I simply
kept them safe by where and how I took them around traffic, and when
they were of the right age I gave them The Flat Possum lesson.

>You've only reinforced the nonsense of the pyschobabble just as I
suspected.

Psychobabble is when folks make claims not based on good evidence. I
consider Dr. Embry's evidence quite conclusive, but I still tested it
out myself. I was surprized at how well it worked teaching my children
not to touch the hot wood stove. Though I kept a pretty good barrier
around it my youngest was a very eager explorer of everything.

Yet, when I simply told him and showed him, by using a piece of beef,
what happens when a baby touches his hand to the stove he got it just
fine...what was more important...he trust me completely...as I had
prove to him again and again I could be trusted. I never hit him, nor
punished him.

>>
>> So you see it's not about reasoning with the child as in cause and
>> effect or other abstractions (and they are to the toddler), but to
>> simple management of what abilities they do have...though this does
>> NOT in any way endorse the idea that the child can be left
unattended
>> by a busy street.
>>
>LOL.. now you've done what I predicted you would, portray that the
parent
>simply leaves their child unattended on a busy street.

I just said one does NOT leave a child unattended. Why would you
assume that I claim the parent does?

>For an 'expert' with
>much observation, you apparently have not chased a child down who
decides
>it's fun to 'play' ..

Sure I have, and I enrich their experience immediately with things
that divert them. If they are older my strategy changes.

>example.. I took my sister and her kids camping. My
>two year old nephew decided he needed to go to the restroom and
started
>running towards it. Only problem was, we were behind it and there
was a six
>foot drop off at the retaining wall.

Two year olds should not be running loose. I think you are now making
things up to support an argumentment you know you have lost. Unless
you are disabled a two year old can't outrun you.

>I nearly dropped from exhaustion as I chased him.. calling him only
made him
>laugh and run faster.. I managed to catch him JUST as his one foot
went
>over the edge as he was looking back at me. By applying YOUR
tactics, I
>would have wound up with a dead nephew instead of a near heart
attack.

No, if you had applied my tactics the child would have trusted you at
the first command to stop. Children that are punished tend to do the
kind of things you mentioned.

Are you going to try and tell us now that this child is an unspanked
child?

>> >Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is
>> harmful. A
>> >child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his
>> curiosity,
>>
>> They assumption they won't try again is disproven, and waiting for
>> them to find out when they are too young to be taught with
>> non-punishing methods my and has resulted in serious lifelong scars
>> for the child. I'll pass thank you and supervise my child until she
is
>> old enough to teach and even then I'll supervise.
>
>BULL****.. the fact IS proven, time and time again. Just ask ANYONE
who
>has touched a hot stove, or hot iron and ask if they ever did it
again?

That is a direct natural consequence. Of course we learn not to touch
something that gave us pain.

>Spanked or not spanked.

Who is giving the pain, the stove or the parent? A child too young to
differentiate, and they are at two, your example, is just shown that
the adult is untrustworthy. They still don't know the stove can hurt
them.

They learn it better when it is taught to them by someone they can
trust. I have seen well "disciplined" children (that is taught with
pain) still touch the stove.

>Your assumption that it is not proven shows a disdain for human
>intelligence, even at the most primitive level.

I made NO such assumption or claim. Please point out where I did.
Immediate pain from an action or object will cause and aversive
reaction the next time similar circumstances are encountered.

The probem is that you and other spankers and punishers assume the
child is reacting to the object or action...when they are in fact
reacting to the source of the pain...the parent.

They learn to trust the parent to hurt them.

Isn't that an interesting way to learn about the world?

I believe that much of the criminal and careless and neglegent
behavior in the world is a result of just such betrayal of children by
their parents. The child grows up somewhat compliant, but not to
nature, not to something they have truly learned, and can later reason
out, but only the memory of pain drives them.

Very sad.

>>
>> >and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is
well
>> >worthwhile in the long run.
>>
>> The stove is a direct logical consequence and may serve to teach
the
>> desired behavior (at the risk of a severe burn of course) one
cannot
>> allow the logical teaching consequence of letting a child be hit by
a
>> care to learn not to go into traffic.
>>
>> Before the age of reason it is quite confusing to the child to be
>> running and playing, unaware of any impending danger, and have a
giant
>> swoop one up and lay on with vigor the child's behind.
>
>>
>> The words "car," "traffic," "street," and "don't," are very likely
not
>> going to be processed accurately, and we don't usually when we have
>> sudden pain and fear layed on by someone.
>>
>Nonsense again. The swat on the butt is clearly associated with the
action
>itself.

If they are too young to understand, and that IS the argument for the
use of spanking, then no such association can be argued. A child of
two is just barely into the differentiation of self from environment.
They are unaware of their actions. They do not experience an action as
theirs, only as happening to them. They cannot sort out what you
claim.

>Again, you assume that a child has less intelligence than an animal
>who learns by association the consequences surrounding the event.

Up to a point they do have less intelligence. A child of two is not
the match of a Border Collie that is mature. And they are mature at
about 1.5 years. I've seen Border Collies hide things from children of
two and the child couldn't find it.

A chimpanzee that is an adult is far more intelligent, operationally,
than a child. The child could not feed themselves if food were not
made available. A mature chimp finds it's own food.

>> In fact most mothers that pay attention, and most have to, know
that
>> saying "don't" or "no" to a toddler will very likely result in them
>> doing exactly what they were asked not to do, spank or no spank.
>>
>> Most spankers, especially those that kid themselves, wind up
>> supervising just like we non punishers, and finally getting the
child
>> to the age they get it.....but we don't kid ourselves that it was
>> punishment that did it. As we know it's the passage of time and the
>> developing brain that much more likely turned the trick.
>
>Right.. that's why so many are self indulgent, spoiled little brats
who
>generally wind up bribing their way through life because they had so
much
>success at upsetting the parents and getting exactly what they wanted
in
>order to follow prescribed behavior.

You have described the psychologically punished child (which includes
spanking) very nicely. The fact is you haven't seen what you claim.
Unpunished children do NOT behave in this way. They tend to be
empathetic, helpful, industrious, and out of the news. It's is the
punished child you describe.

>>
>> >I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one
or
>> two year
>> >old,
>>
>> Me to, right along with those that think the child will understand
the
>> logic of being whacked a good'un and had words babbled at him or
her.
>>
>> >and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their
handling
>> >of a situation can truly be.
>>
>> On the contrary. The flaw much more likely arrises in the parent
that
>> believes, because the child froze a few times out of fear with the
>> adult present, that they will do so when danger threatens. The
child
>> under six is going to have a very difficult time connecting the
danger
>> to the freezing because they will not have absorbed with any
meaning
>> what the defined danger actually is.
>
>Your talking in circles again Kane, showing you've truly lost the
logic of
>your debate.

I am not and have not.

>Children are much more intelligent and much more manipulative
>than you can even comprehend.

Nature drives them to explore and experiment. They are not thinking
about manipulating, nor are they "intelligent" in the sense of
abstract thought or cause and effect reasoning. They know things
happen in sequence, but they do not know why, in the sense an adult
knows, until they begin at 6 or 7, applying all those years of data
collecting.

A child that has been punished through their early years is somewhat
crippled at 7 when they try to figure things out, and they have a lot
of pain involved thinking and are well on their way to criminal
thinking.

>They KNOW what they are being spanked for,
>it's not 'freezing'.. and they associate that pain with the action.

The associate pain with YOU, not with their action. How many times
have you seen a child begin to act out a prior behavior they got
spanked for and look at YOU not the object they are approaching. In
fact note that they start looking at YOU for more and more of their
cues.

It makes parents feel powerful and good to see that in a child and
they are sure they are doing right by punishing, but as time passes
they don't see the speed of learning and improvement in wanted
behaviors that the protecting and supportive teaching parent gets,
easily.

>>
>> They will merrily ride their tricycle behind the car backing out of
>> the driveway and be terrified of going toward the street...not
really
>> knowing why.
>
>Truly stretching there huh Kane?

Not in the least. Do you think that the child that walks or rides
their bike behind a backing car did so because they weren't spanked?
In most major cities you get two or three of those a year, sometimes
more. Are you prepared to argue that if they had been spanked to teach
them to stay away from moving cars they would have not walked behind
them?

>And I haven't come up with a fraction of
>the basic logic that some of the others in this debate have thrown
towards
>you.

The "basic logic" is the kind I'm accustomed to from those that
stopped learning anything new at about 15. We are a nation of arrested
adolescence. You only have to look at our favorite entertainments to
notice it.

>Explain your nonsense then... How the hell do you teach a child to
avoid
>traffic .. cars backing out of a driveway???

You teach the child to not go into the driveway without you. You do
that by teaching the all the OTHER places to play that are safe. But
you don't really even have to discuss safety. I do so because I am
laying down the memory tracks for later use when they understand
better.

I DON'T count on my teaching to keep them safe. I also close gates. I
do NOT allow 2 year olds out by themselves.

>If you are too insensitive to teach them to stay out of the street?
Geez..

I am far more sensitive than you. I noticed when I was a young man
that people spanked their chilren and the children still did dangerous
things and got hurt and killed. I determined to find a better way. I
did.

You appear determined to keep repeating what you learned early in life
over and over again.

>Oh yeah, you'll 'talk' to them.

Talking is an adjunctive thing I do to prepare them for later use of
the knowledge. I talk to little children far more than I do to older
ones. Older ones I listen to more, and ask a little question here and
there to encourage them to tap the knowledge they collected from the
supporting protective parent when they were younger.

>Sorry dude, your methods only wind up
>getting more kids killed than most other methods of child rearing.

Sorry dude, you are wrong. You don't know my methods. You haven't
tried to learn them. They are easy once you commit to them and
actually do them. But I think you'd have a very hard time switching
from warden to coach.

>>
>> The fact of the matter is, lessons learned without fear and pain
are
>> far more powerful than those with.
>
>Where's your proof?

I've posted some. You just call them psychobabble.

>Most of your studies have been flawed and result only
>from your personal observations.

When I see the same thing over and over again, year after year, that I
saw in the studies, I start to think maybe the studies have something
to teach me.

I didn't just stand around. I applied what I learned and I saw results
far more effective than punishment.

>And for someone who has done so much
>extensive observing of children, one wonders how you had much time
for
>anything else.

What an odd thing to say. I didn't say I spent all my time observing
children.

>Your credibility is truly lacking here.

Not among those that know what I know. Those that have done
non-punitive parenting are quite aware of the same things I'm
discussing and sharing. They just don't want to be bothered with
trying to educate the uneducable.

They probably think you were spanked, and they know how that cuts off
the desire to learn.

>>
>> But I still, in either case, would not leave my child
>> unsupervised...would you?
>>
>No one has ever said they should, that's another straw man and you
know it.

No, you are wrong yet again. The argument, and you made it here, is
that the child who is spanked to teach them is far safer than the
child that is taught my way. Between the two, if I wanted to argue
which could be left alone with less risk, which do you think would be
the safer and why?

My child doesn't look to me for control after he has learned safe
behavior. Your's still has to.

>The typical mantra of a non spanker, keep your children under lock
and key
>24 hours a day from birth til adulthood else you are a bad parent
should you
>resort to spanking.

I don't recall saying either. I don't consider people bad or good. I
consider them mistaken though, and you are.

I do not believe in locking children up. I do wonder at those that
can't be bothered to pay attention to their children when in hazardous
circumstances and decide to rely on pain to keep the child safer.
>
>> Think you can spank them enough, creatively, to trust them to not
go
>> into traffic without you?

Aren't you going to call this a strawman? It was a classic and I
confess to it. Mostly because you are beyond rediculous into inanity.

>>
>> >
>> >> You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
>> >> nothing dishonest about it.
>> >>
>> >> If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on
my
>> >> part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.
>> >>
>> >> No?
>> >>
>> >> Kane
>> >
>> >It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as
to
>> lessons
>> >learned by experience, even painful experience.
>>
>> Why? The point of the studies is to do just that.
>>
>> >All they can do is measure
>> >the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical
analytical
>> thought
>> >involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event.
>>
>> On dear, one of the poor souls that do not know of the extensive
>> mapping of the brain going on for years now that identifies exactly
>> such thing. They know precisely, for instance, where conscience
>> derives in the brain, down to a small area. It can be tested with
pics
>> and other testing while the subject is having their brain scanned.
>>
>> >Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain
>> >situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their
>> actions.
>>
>> It often takes a number of lessons in animal and human. Even a
>> flatworm, famous in psych 202 college classes, will try a couple of
>> more times to get to food and light at the expense of some pain.
>> Eventually they will learn, but while MY child is learning she may
>> well get to die from the lesson.
>>
>> >Are
>> >you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to
deal
>> with
>> >pain?
>>
>> Actually there isn't much difference in pain responses.
>>
>> Our human superiority is that we can, once we pass out of the
animal
>> linear thinking stage of toddler hood, make reasoned choices based
on
>> an analysis of the situation with all kinds of variables (as well
>> learn by experimentation and later by study of other's work).
>>
>> Animals never get to our ability of abstraction and cause and
effect
>> reasoning. Some of the apes just skirt it but can be confounded by
>> things that a grown human would laugh at if we presented them as a
>> problem.
>
>Of course they don't.. that's why your 'logic' is flawed in believing
that
>you can set limits on a child before the age of reason, and expect
them to
>follow them without reinforcement, both negative and positive.

How does that differ from your belief that pain will teach them?

And what makes you think I don't use reinforcement? I use a more
elegant and successful form than you do. The description of the little
two year old nephew strongly suggests a child that doesn't trust.

>A completely
>positive approach does absolutely nothing, just as a completely
negative
>approach.

You are babbling. A completely positive approach is impossible. The
child lives in a real world where things will sting, burn, bite,
scratch, and even at my best I'm not going to be able to protect her
from some of those lessions.

My job is to protect her from the truly harmful ones, and I will do
that by observing her age and setting things up so she isn't exposed.
It is also my job to create the highest possible level of trust in me
that I an manage.

I cannot do that with pain. I can with protection and age appropriate
teaching.

>You are hung up on only a single aspect on the topic,

I am? How so? Spanking? No, it's not a single topic. I have repeatedly
mentioned punishment, pain and humiliation. So you might assume I am
not limiting myself just to spanking?

Or was that not what you meant? What single aspect then?

>and ignore
>the rest.

What is "the rest" you refer to?

>Which shows your failure to comprehend and apply that
>abstraction.

Please clarify.

>>
>> We know the source and transport of water. Animals cannot figure
that
>> out.
>
>What does that have to do with this subject Kane?

We were discussing how humans operate. You brought up the animal human
difference. I was resonding.

>Animals DO know
>instinctively that they must drink the water, they don't have to know
where
>it's coming from.

But if the faucet isn't turned on they do not know, usually unless
trained, or they are of higher order, like primates, how to get the
water.

>And animals DO learn from painful experience to avoid
>certain things, only proving that short term pain can be a learning
>experience.

Children learn to avoid certain things when adults are present. It
takes a little time, but eventually they get it. Some of the side
effects are, sneakiness, big people get to hit little people and I'll
be a big people one day.

In other words, some of the founation of later criminal thinking.

>> Once we reach the age of reason it is easy, quite, to figure out
how
>> one stays alive by staying out of traffic...I call it "The Flat
Possum
>> Lesson," though all I could ever find for my kids was a flat Racoon
on
>> that particular day.
>>
>> One was old enough for reason, the other old enough to believe his
>> elder when she reactied to the lesson.
>
>Not true at all. Once a child has been spoiled, it becomes difficult
to
>change the pattern of behavior developed very young.

"Spoiled" is one of those throwaway "I learned it at 15 so it is true
for the rest of my life" kind of words. I consider the developmentally
crippled child (from fear of parents) a "spoiled" child.

>A child used to
>getting his/her way for throwing tantrums is not going to simply
'believe'
>his/her elder .. they expect something in return, because this is the
system
>you've already established in them.

What makes you assume that the unpunished child is a tantrum thrower
or that other means than spanking can be used to curtail tantrums?

The one thing a tantruming child gets if they are spanked is exactly
what will reinforce more tantrums. They got attention. If they child
isn't in any pain or risk of harm I can patiently just watch a child
tantrum until they are wrung out. It doesn't happen often after that.

You are assuming that people that don't punish run around giving the
child everything they ask for, including attention when it isn't
warranted.

You are wrong. I've seen many a spanker give attention to a child at
exactly the wrong time. I've seen many a nonpunisher simply not give
the child the candy bar, or toy, or even attention, and low and behold
the tantrumming or fussy behavior goes away on its own.

Or the child has something organically malfunctioning and needs that
taken care of.

>> I assume you know now to research a little, so why not do so next
time
>> out?
>
>I have researched Kane.. much more than you and it appears much less
>believing in psychobabble which has been shown to be nothing more
than
>nonesense.

No you haven't. You are running off at the mouth. Common to those that
stopped learning anything new at 15 or so.

So tell me. What research have you done? Observations? Books? Studies?
Teaching spanked children that they are safe now and won't be hit or
hurt again?

>I come from a large family, and being the oldest, have 'observed'
many more
>issues among young children than you seem to be portraying in your
vast
>'experiences'.

I have seen do about everything you can imagine. I've seen toddlers
smear their feces on the wall, poke a cats eye out with a pencil, put
the waterhose in a car's gas tank, light a house on fire, and I've
helped them all get over the punishment parenting that helped produce
such behaviors.

>>
>> The Embry Street Entry study is just one of those that give us more
>> than a little hint that thousands of years of thumpin' butt may
just
>> not have been entirely in the best interests of our race.
>>
>> Check out Tom Edison....not only not spanked but pulled by his
mother
>> from school because of the hitting done to him by a teacher. I do
not
>> think Albert Einstein was spanked. At least the info about him from
>> his teen years showed a remarkably indulgent family that pulled him
>> from Gymnasium (HS) were he was failing mathematics, and sent him
off
>> to Italy to family friends to wander the sunny roads there and have
>> what later was identified as his epiphany of E=MC2.
>>
>> All of our children who are spanked and punished, I estimate, has
some
>> portion, sometimes significant portions, of their development
>> displaced into survival reactivity.
>>
>> It's a fascinating study. I hope you'll join in.
>>
>> The very first thing you need to do though is admit that there
might
>> be the slightest possibility that the spankers have erred. I don't
>> think you can even entertain it as speculation, but I tried.
>
>No Kane, your nonsense is complete and utter bull****, and you want
to
>believe it so badly, that you tend to put down everyone else.

I am not putting anyone down. I am telling you you are ignorant and
married to it. That's not a putdown. It's a cold observation if you
are telling the truth here.

>It is YOU who
>want to try to discredit others, simply because you've run out of
logic, and
>been shown to be a complete fraud time and time again on this
newsgroup.

Self defensive babble by someone that has lost and knows it and can't
live with it.

You've offered no logic, and you are a fraud if ever I've seen one.

>>
>> Step two is easier if you have managed step one. Get a book on the
>> stages of childhood development and project all the behaviors of
>> children you know into that list.
>
>Kane, guess what? There were NO books on childhood development in
the
>earlier stages of our history, and people fared quite well.

I recall some not faring so well. Did you not have history books in
your school?

>You want a list
>of names to try to 'impress" people with, well, just open a history
book and

I have. Most of the people that are lauded in history books won, and
got to write the history books. Even some of our current heroes have
turned out to be not such nice folks after all.

>Im quite sure that you will find that 90 percent or better of our
greatest
>leaders had been spanked as children.

So, name a few of our greatest, and I'll see if I can find out if they
were spanked or not.

>Understand something before it's too late, or with you, it probably
is.

No, I'm always open to learning. Teach me.

>There are NO manuals on being a parent, and anyone who thinks they
can read
>bull**** from psychologists who most likely never had children are
kidding
>themselves.

I have used books myself and passed them on to people trying to parent
children that were abused. They were relying on what they had learned
as children and it wasn't working. I've had cards, letters,
phonecalls, emails from those people thanking me as now they were more
successful after having read and learned and applied what the books
had to say.

And in the 70's I taught classes to people that were just ordinary
folks that were not satisified with their parenting...they didn't like
what they were seeing in the punishment model, and they too thanked me
for helping them learn to support and protect their children.

>>
>> In other words, instead of thinking of children in terms of adult
>> understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, evil, willful,
etc.
>> try thinking in terms of all behavior, before the age of 6, as
being
>> driven by nature...forced compulsive exploration of the
environment,
>> which you are just a part of to the child, once she does that 1.5
to 2
>> year old definition of self separate from the environment and YOU.
>>
>> Best of luck..
>>
>> Kane
>
>LOL.. Kane, you truly amuse me. It is YOU who tend to treat children
as
>adults with reasoning power.. I think you've completely lost it
here.

On the contrary. I find those that declare themselves the winners are
usually whistling past the graveyard.

And I do not treat children as having more reasoning power than they
actually do have. I recognize they have different mentation at
different ages. I've said so.

It's you that clearly expect something from children they cannot give,
an understanding of the source of pain being other than yourself when
you hit and hurt them.

And unlike you, I am not driven to LOL. I am not amused by you. I am
worried for humankind now and in the future if you your cohorts should
accidently prevail.

I am heartened to know that efforts to stop the pain, the punishing
parenting, is healthy and growing and succeeding around the plantet
and most especially in our schools. Tom Gordon has sold millions and
millions of copies of PET worldwide and in many languages, and
everywhere people are glad to learn how to grow healthier human
beings.

Thanks for the post.

Kane

>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
> >> >> > he interviewed were spanked as children.
> >
> >Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?
>
> I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work
> many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.
>
> Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and
> this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by
> pro spankers and apologists.

No, the inability to distinguish between the two has been the weakness of
the anti spankers as they, like you refuse to accept that there IS quite a
difference.


>
> What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else.
> I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
> thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
> they are the victim themselves.

Caning was a prevalent practice in earlier centuries and still used in some
countries, but the majority of parents would never consider that, and to use
or ignore the vast differences is being intellectually dishonest on your
part.

>
> It is an area fraught with obstacles.
>
> I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating
> that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
> learning and their mental health.

You have not shown that in any of your statements. By attempting to do so,
you insult the human intelligence, even at a very young age.

If one were to follow your logic, you can use 'reason' and set 'limits' for
a child who, by your own definitions does not even have the basic instictive
facilities of Pavlov's dog. You are being quite elusive in your tactics and
quite inconsistent.

>
> Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
> learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
> dysfunctional.
>
> A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
> things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and
> they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
> through lack of exercise.

Again, total and complete bull**** Kane. HOW, do you teach a child things
such as gravity, light, sound and other physical phenomena, when in your own
words, their minds are not developed enough until the magical age of 6?

You continue to throw out straw men, showing that you are having problems
with some of the 'weak, inconsentency' of us 'apologists'..

>
> I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods,
> but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
> intellectual exceller.

Again Kane, more nonsense. I have followed this thread from the beginning,
and NO single person has stated that physical punishment can be used for
intellectual purposes. It seems that only you have that hang up, and it's a
very weak argument considering the reasons many have given supporting
spanking as a method of reinforcing acceptable beahvior.
..

>
> >One could do a study of
> >most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so
> and
> >find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young
> children.
>
> No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the
> chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
> much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
> maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong
> going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving,
> to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.
>
Where are your studies on this Kane? You cannot disprove a simple fact that
spanking, caning, and even beating has been a well accepted principle
throughout the history of the world as a whole. To deny that is to bury
one's head in the sand and say ONLY the great leaders were not spanked, when
that is a present day condition, only pounced upon by psychologists and
doomsayers as to the evils of corporal punishment.

> They don't come from being NOT punished.
>
> >What does that study show?
>
> Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
> don't you find one?
>
> I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There
> is speculation only.
>
No Kane.. I can do MY observations, which seems to be the only thing you
have going for you. MY observations has shown that the lack of discipline
at early ages (ie 'talking' to a child without reinforcement) leads to young
adults who are not ready for life in the real world. They are used to
bribing and whining and getting their way without consequences. Hardly
helping the child in the long run.

> I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
> above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
> After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
> armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.
>
> Have a good one,
>
> Kane

I think it has been defended quite well Kane, considering you continue to
throw out straw men, and sidestep the issues.

I certainly have not attempted to try to 'impress' others with an
intellectual approach or outright stretches of the imagination through your
own delusions, but simply stated the facts as seen through my own
observations. It took quite a long while before you finally admitted you
are quite the b/ser and are only misreading flawed reports and using your
own observations to base your opinions on.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:41:06 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> Thank you for interspercing your comments in proximity to my post. It
> makes for much more readible and interesting posts to my mind.
>
> >
> >"Kane" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Kane" > wrote in message >
> >> >> It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
> >> >> spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the
> >> world
> >> >> and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain
> and
> >> >> humiliation in parenting.
> >> >
> >> >One can find a 'link' to just about everything,
> >>Kane wrote:
> >> Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do
> very
> >> soon in this reply of yours.
> >
> >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
> exist.
>
> No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
> in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
> well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
> children.

Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
continue with it? You keep talking about your own long history of
observation and treatment of abused children, funny, I never thought that
was the duty of an Air Force professional. I think you make things up as
you go along.
>
> >Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.
>
> It's no mystery or special claim. There is a long history of responses
> to the spanking issue by spankers in these negs. I daresay you could
> have made the same claim about me. I tend to repost or reuse data and
> information that is relevant.

Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
spanking is abusive. They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

Talking in circles and contradicting oneself is not 'posting and resuing
data and information that is relevant', it's stretching to prove to yourself
that you are right, no matter what others might think.

>
> >> Kane wrote:
> >> Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
> given
> >> by that child when she grows up?
> >
> >I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of
> stretching
> >a bit aren't you?
>
> I have seen numerous persons make such a claim. You just fail to
> recognize it. Many times the unwanted behavior a parent spanks for is
> hitting and biting between children or hitting the adult.

Wrong, I've followed the thread from the beginning and nowhere can I find
anywhere that anyone has made such a claim. Your saying it here doesn't
make it so, it is only your interpretation, which has been stretched quite a
bit as it is, such as your continuing statements that you cannot 'teach'
mathematics or writing through pain, which again, no one has claimed..

>
> My question though wasn't really that narrow in scope. I am, of
> course, referring to the fact that many who were spanked do so to
> their children, and tend, all too often, as was recently posted to
> this ng, escalate to more pain by way of spanking.

People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
differentiate between abuse and spanking, or show proof that those who spank
for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very
young age actually do 'escalate' the pain..

>
> >Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
> >simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they
> can be
> >painful.
>
> I agree. Natural consequences are extremely educational, but cause the
> object of the pain is the object or action the child touchers or does.
> Children get plenty of that, from the very first.
>
> They watch and study with great intensity even the expression and the
> body language of their primary parent, usually their mother. Mother's
> who are observant notice very subtle responses from their child
> according to how the mother presents to them.
>
> >It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
> >behavior.
>
> I agree. I doesn't reduce adutlhood pain. I would argue that it does
> increase the likelihood of the pain parented child to find MORE pain
> in adulthood. Some of it psychological and some behavioral.
>
> In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
> with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
> involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the non
spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite problematic
as they grow older.

>
> And your second point: "it reinforces against stupid
> behavior" something of a puzzle.
>
> I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
> interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
> deal of it.
>
Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do. By 'stupid'
behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child grows
older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all the
consequences.

> And incident that comes readily to mind was a young polo mare trucked
> in for training at a large stable I managed. I'd say she was probably
> a 3 year old. Had been range bred and belonged originally to one of
> the Rockerfellers. I watched the "trainer" work with her. He was a
> quick hand with the polo whip. Ever see one?
>
> It's about three feet long, leather covered with a nylon core, very
> springy and stiff. If you took the leather off you could cut a horse
> with it...and even with leather it leaves a terrible welt. Very
> painful.
>
> She managed to survive all his "training" pretty well...after all
> horses if well bred tend to have temperments to cope with and tolerate
> man. She was a Thorougbred.
>
> It came time to ship her out to the new owner for her introduction to
> the game in scrimmages and practices. The "trainer" was putting her in
> the truck, up a short ramp at a kind of steep angle, but one she could
> make easily.
>
> She fought going into the truck, a flatbed with high stake sides. He
> would get her to the ramp (he was mounted on her) and she would balk
> just at the first step, the touch of the wooden ramp. He'd whip her,
> hard with that polo whip, and she would immediately start running
> backward pretty fast away from the ramp...a very dangerous thing for a
> horse to do, what with bystanders, etc.
>
> I was known for teaching horses to trailer and truck very quickly,
> usually in 10 or 15 minutes with the lead rope just thrown over their
> back. I have a very light touch with animals and children. I just kind
> of walk them where they need to be and oddly my gentle approach seems
> to work every time...with abused horses or abused children.
>
> And they shortly walk alone where I want them to go, no lead rope at
> all.
>
> The "trainer" thought he had one even I couldn't train...and though he
> had watched me do it many times...he took a chance this little mare
> was so bad I couldn't work with her.
>
> He didn't know that he had trained her for me of course.
>
> I took his whip, mounted up, rode the mare to the ramp, she balked, I
> reined her in a quick spin so she was facing away from the truck and
> just touched her rump with the polo whip...not hitting.....where he
> had been whipping her, and she of course did as trained...she ran
> backwards....right up into the truck. I dismounted, tossed him his
> whip, pulled off the saddle and bridle and walked down the ramp.
>
> All one has to do to NOT use pain is the think. Is that so very hard?

And now let's put that same comparison to use in the REAL world of humans.
It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of corporal
punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition of
society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for the
most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric. When I went to
public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at the
condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been banned.

Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers and
they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all it
will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no discipline.


We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything negative
to a child as it might hurt their psyche.. but what we have created is a
generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with even
the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums. While
positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to deal
with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are denied
that, are emotionally crippled for life.


Do you honestly believe that the Columbine kids were the only children in
history who were outcast by their classmates, or that the violence in school
is a result of 'spanking' by parents 50 or 60 years ago, when conditions
were much better.

You still don't get it do you. You are completely blinded to reality by
living in a world of 'studies' and 'observations' of such limited structure
that you don't realize the damage you and those who think like you have
truly done.

I do not argue passionately for spanking, only to combat the nonsense spoon
fed us by those 'professionals', many of whom have never had children, which
has led us down the path of ruin, and damaged the emotional health of
children forever.

As an Air Force professional, you certainly appear to know little or nothing
about the importance of discipline, or how badly your logic has degraded it
in the real world, not only in the armed forces.

Continue to make your wild claims and believe that you are doing good. Most
parents realize that people like you are the reasons for many of today's
problems and deal with their children on a one to one basis depending upon
their needs.

For one, I will let you wallow in your self righeousness and drop from this
discussion. You have shown yourself to be completely closed minded.. as you
have tried to portray myself and others who have debated you.

However, IF you truly have been a lurker here, you will note that I have on
several occassions reversed my opinion when presented with honest fact and
reasoning for how others believe or perceive things. But I will not buy
into talking in circles and contradictions, something which is more harmful
to society than taking charge of the upbringing of ones children to be well
rounded and emotionally stable in dealing with the world around us.

[LaVonne Carlson]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. One
> cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
> dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or
> psychological abuse.

In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punmishment for
any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is considered
physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive. For
some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt from this
protection.

What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little children to be
victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered physically,
emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child turns 18.

This is weird logic, Dennis.

LaVonne

[Kane]

"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
news:<W8anb.40826$Tr4.84191@attbi_s03>...
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:41:06 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for interspercing your comments in proximity to my post. It
> > makes for much more readible and interesting posts to my mind.
> >
> > >
> > >"Kane" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"Kane" > wrote in message >
> > >> >> It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
> > >> >> spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the
> world
> > >> >> and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain
> and
> > >> >> humiliation in parenting.
> > >> >
> > >> >One can find a 'link' to just about everything,
> > >>Kane wrote:
> > >> Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do
> very
> > >> soon in this reply of yours.
> > >
> > >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
> > exist.
> >
> > No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
> > in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
> > well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
> > children.
>
> Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
> continue with it?

Really? Please show me where my knowledge has proven faulty.

So far as I've seen the only challenges I've had were opinions. No response to
the body of knowledge.

> You keep talking about your own long history of
> observation and treatment of abused children, funny, I never thought that
> was the duty of an Air Force professional.

It wasn't. I didn't work with children during my tour of duty. What makes you
think I made a profession out of it? I never made that claim. You seem to be
taking things I say out of context and assigning whatever meanings you fancy.

> I think you make things up as
> you go along.

No, but you obviously are doing so about me.

> >
> > >Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.
> >
> > It's no mystery or special claim. There is a long history of responses
> > to the spanking issue by spankers in these negs. I daresay you could
> > have made the same claim about me. I tend to repost or reuse data and
> > information that is relevant.
>
> Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
> spanking is abusive.

Really? With citation after citation of studies for many years, anecdotal
materials, their own observations. The only nonsense here is your ignorance.

You seem to know what you know and that is the end of the matter. You don't
debate anything, just make declarations. I've posted half a dozen citations or
so to various research sources.

What you have you posted to support your position except nonsense parrotted
for years by the ignorant?

> They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
> that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

A classic projection. If anyone is bothering to study the issue it is the
proponent of non-cp parenting methods. While you diddlywads keep relying on
history and "we always did it that way and we turn out okay...hyuk hyuk."

> Talking in circles and contradicting oneself is not 'posting and resuing
> data and information that is relevant', it's stretching to prove to yourself
> that you are right, no matter what others might think.

Then you should spend so much of your posting doing that. Show me where I've
contradicted myself. I'll be happy to show you were you have, repeatedly.

> > >> Kane wrote:
> > >> Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
> given
> > >> by that child when she grows up?
> > >
> > >I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of
> stretching
> > >a bit aren't you?
> >
> > I have seen numerous persons make such a claim. You just fail to
> > recognize it. Many times the unwanted behavior a parent spanks for is
> > hitting and biting between children or hitting the adult.
>
> Wrong, I've followed the thread from the beginning and nowhere can I find
> anywhere that anyone has made such a claim.

You are not answering the question. That's a ploy as ancient as Mathusalah.
The question was,

> > >> Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
> given
> > >> by that child when she grows up?

I am not making a claim. I am asking a question.

And in fact that claim by you folks is implied in your aversive parenting. You
do hit your child and I presume you would do so for hitting other children. Am
I incorrect, or are you going to try and weasel out of answer THIS question as
well?

> Your saying it here doesn't
> make it so, it is only your interpretation, which has been stretched quite a
> bit as it is, such as your continuing statements that you cannot 'teach'
> mathematics or writing through pain, which again, no one has claimed..

I wasn't saying that other's made the claim. I was answering the claim made by
others that pain is a good means of teaching.

You fail on two counts.

> >
> > My question though wasn't really that narrow in scope. I am, of
> > course, referring to the fact that many who were spanked do so to
> > their children, and tend, all too often, as was recently posted to
> > this ng, escalate to more pain by way of spanking.
>
> People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
> themselves.

You are correct. Please define the dividing line between spanking and abuse.
We have lots of time so don't rush yourself.
And while you are at it please include how one tells which child will
experience abuse rather than "spanking discipline" at what point in the
abuse-spanking continuium.

> It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
> differentiate between abuse and spanking,

No, I DO differentiate. It's you and your cohort that fail to do that. I
consider any action that falls short of supporting the child learning and
being protected as abusive.

The pain of CP is NOT conducive to learning anything. If a child is about to
do an action or is doing an action I do not want them to it is my
responsibility to protect them first from any dangerous consequences, then it
is my responsibility to teach them at the level of development they are in at
the moment. If they are just crawling I'm not going to do much but physically
remove them from the site of the action and distract them.

If they are toddlers I am going to likely do both remove them and I am going
to divert to instruction as often as possible, most especially if they are
about to do something dangerous to themselves and others.

> or show proof that those who spank
> for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very
> young age actually do 'escalate' the pain..

I have provided citations. These ngs are full of such citations. Google will
take you to citations. In other words you are shuckin' and jivin' like crazy
here.

But let's give you something to do besides babble..

Children whose parents use corporal punishment to control antisocial behavior
show more antisocial behavior themselves over a long period of time,
regardless of race and socioeconomic status, and regardless of whether the
mother provides cognitive stimulation and emotional support (Gunnoe & Mariner,
1997; Kazdin, 1987; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Straus, Sugarman, &
Giles-Sims, 1997).

A consistent pattern of physical abuse exists that generally starts as
corporal punishment, and then gets out of control (Kadushin & Martin, 1981;
Straus & Yodanis, 1994).

Adults who were hit as children are more likely to be depressed or violent
themselves (Berkowitz, 1993; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Straus,
1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992).

The more a child is hit, the more likely it is that the child, when an adult,
will hit his or her children, spouse, or friends (Julian & McKenry, 1993;
Straus, 1991; Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992;
Widom, 1989; Wolfe, 1987).

Corporal punishment increases the probability of children assaulting the
parent in retaliation, especially as they grow older (Brezina, 1998).

Corporal punishment sends a message to the child that violence is a viable
option for solving problems (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus,
Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).

Corporal punishment is degrading, contributes to feelings of helplessness and
humiliation, robs a child of self-worth and self-respect, and can lead to
withdrawal or aggression (Sternberg et al., 1993; Straus, 1994).

Corporal punishment erodes trust between a parent and a child, and increases
the risk of child abuse; as a discipline measure, it simply does not decrease
children's aggressive or delinquent behaviors (Straus, 1994).

Children who get spanked regularly are more likely over time to cheat or lie,
be disobedient at school, bully others, and show less remorse for wrongdoing
(Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).

Corporal punishment adversely affects children's cognitive development.
Children who are spanked perform poorly on school tasks compared to other
children (Straus & Mathur, 1995; Straus & Paschall, 1998).

and when you are finished with your critique of these studies you can start on
(never ask me for proof little boy):

http://hugse9.harvard.edu/gsedata/Resource_pkg.profile?vperson_id=335 will
give you a start with one of the more preeminant researchers in the brain-mind
cognitive learning area. His book with Dawson is worth the money. (Human
Behavior and the Developing Brain (with G. Dawson) (1994) )

I really have to thank you for taking this discussion between us to the level
you have. I thought you'd never get around to it.

It gives me a wonderful excuse to provide even MORE data and methods for child
rearing without pain.

Any interested folks looking for non-punitive and non-pain parenting methods
and support for same couldn't go wrong looking at this source:

http://www.cpirc.org/tips/braindev.htm

Quite a bibliography.

And also:

http://childparenting.miningco.com/library/weekly/topicsub2.htm?iam=mt

and;

http://childparenting.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa011599.htm


> >
> > >Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
> > >simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they
> can be
> > >painful.
> >
> > I agree. Natural consequences are extremely educational, but cause the
> > object of the pain is the object or action the child touchers or does.
> > Children get plenty of that, from the very first.
> >
> > They watch and study with great intensity even the expression and the
> > body language of their primary parent, usually their mother. Mother's
> > who are observant notice very subtle responses from their child
> > according to how the mother presents to them.
> >
> > >It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
> > >behavior.
> >
> > I agree. I doesn't reduce adutlhood pain. I would argue that it does
> > increase the likelihood of the pain parented child to find MORE pain
> > in adulthood. Some of it psychological and some behavioral.
> >
> > In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
> > with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
> > involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.
>
> Where does that inference come in?

You don't believe then that we are a product of our experiences?

> My observations have been that the non
> spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
> actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite problematic
> as they grow older.

Do you mean "non-spanked" completely or the sometimes spanked and randomly
spanked? I have seen such behavior commonly in that population. The completely
nonspanked child is usually skilled at negotiating, and fairly at that.

It's a common part of the life-skills set of non-punitive raised children.

> >
> > And your second point: "it reinforces against stupid
> > behavior" something of a puzzle.
> >
> > I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
> > interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
> > deal of it.
> >
> Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do. By 'stupid'
> behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
> EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child grows
> older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions.

That is inevitable with or without a pain parenting adult present. It isn't
like a child is placed in cottonwool by non pain parenting children. I think
that such children actually have a higher incidence of interacting with the
enviroment consequencially....their parents tend NOT to do a lot of stopping
of behaviors with threats of pain or pain and let the child have the
experience as long as it isn't painful. I see a lot of spanking for behaviors
that are simply annoying to the parent or "because I said so."

> Something
> many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all the
> consequences.

Well, it is impossible to do that. The real world delivers more than enough
consequences to the child doing her ordinary exploring. And "many of your
thinking" are quite comfortable with natural consequences being educational
for a child.

Many of YOUR thinking seem to miss that and assume things about nonCP using
families that simply aren't true. It appears to be no more than a defensive
reaction of folks of YOUR thinking rather than a well thought out rebuttal.

> > And incident that comes readily to mind was a young polo mare trucked
> > in for training at a large stable I managed. I'd say she was probably
> > a 3 year old. Had been range bred and belonged originally to one of
> > the Rockerfellers. I watched the "trainer" work with her. He was a
> > quick hand with the polo whip. Ever see one?
> >
> > It's about three feet long, leather covered with a nylon core, very
> > springy and stiff. If you took the leather off you could cut a horse
> > with it...and even with leather it leaves a terrible welt. Very
> > painful.
> >
> > She managed to survive all his "training" pretty well...after all
> > horses if well bred tend to have temperments to cope with and tolerate
> > man. She was a Thorougbred.
> >
> > It came time to ship her out to the new owner for her introduction to
> > the game in scrimmages and practices. The "trainer" was putting her in
> > the truck, up a short ramp at a kind of steep angle, but one she could
> > make easily.
> >
> > She fought going into the truck, a flatbed with high stake sides. He
> > would get her to the ramp (he was mounted on her) and she would balk
> > just at the first step, the touch of the wooden ramp. He'd whip her,
> > hard with that polo whip, and she would immediately start running
> > backward pretty fast away from the ramp...a very dangerous thing for a
> > horse to do, what with bystanders, etc.
> >
> > I was known for teaching horses to trailer and truck very quickly,
> > usually in 10 or 15 minutes with the lead rope just thrown over their
> > back. I have a very light touch with animals and children. I just kind
> > of walk them where they need to be and oddly my gentle approach seems
> > to work every time...with abused horses or abused children.
> >
> > And they shortly walk alone where I want them to go, no lead rope at
> > all.
> >
> > The "trainer" thought he had one even I couldn't train...and though he
> > had watched me do it many times...he took a chance this little mare
> > was so bad I couldn't work with her.
> >
> > He didn't know that he had trained her for me of course.
> >
> > I took his whip, mounted up, rode the mare to the ramp, she balked, I
> > reined her in a quick spin so she was facing away from the truck and
> > just touched her rump with the polo whip...not hitting.....where he
> > had been whipping her, and she of course did as trained...she ran
> > backwards....right up into the truck. I dismounted, tossed him his
> > whip, pulled off the saddle and bridle and walked down the ramp.
> >
> > All one has to do to NOT use pain is the think. Is that so very hard?
>
> And now let's put that same comparison to use in the REAL world of humans.
> It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of corporal
> punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition of
> society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
> actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
> prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

You failed again. There isn't that much lack of spanking. And areas that have
reduced spanking are enjoying an improvement in child behaviors of all kinds.
Schools change from spanking to non-spanking are a good example.

And yes, I think child rearing methods MUST be considered when one judges a
society's moral models. And were spanking is more prevalent there is more
violence all and all. Check into child rearing methods in some of the worlds
most violent societies.

If they aren't physically punishing they have a sophisticated psychologically
abusive parenting method.

> In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for the
> most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric. When I went to
> public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
> paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at the
> condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been banned.

It is currently the safest place for children. The rate of injuries is higher
in families than in schools. I went to those paddling schools of old and I can
tell you that crime and deliquency were common. And I wasn't an inner city kid
either...but that is yet another point to ponder.

The only reason it wasn't noted as much at the time as prosecution of juvenile
crime was much less than today. I did things myself that would and should have
had law enforcement on my tail. Things we laughed but that could and sometimes
did escalate into serious offenses and injury to others. I saw a lot of
behavior that strongly suggested kids acting out as they had been taught to
act out by punishing parents.

> Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious.

Only a fool could refuse to look outside their own immediate experience, and
also miss the truth in that experience. I can't guess where you went to school
that was so nicey nice, but I went to both urban rural schools and I saw
plenty of juvenile crime. And plenty of paddling didn't reduce it one bit.

> That we have created a
> generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
> retribution.

Baloney. Check out juvenile crime stats. They are low and have remained low
for the last few years. DOJ has a nice page for you to study. Even teen
pregnancies are down.

> There are no consequences.

Really?

I see kids having consequences all the time. You are really saying they aren't
in pain, aren't you....and you are still wrong.

>Try your approach with teenagers and
> they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not.

The kids that have been brought up by brute parenting methods with lots of
pain sure will. Teens brought up with support and teaching...true
teaching...don't do any such thing. I confront teens all the time just because
I like to talk with them and see what's up. My favorite is to get on public
transport for a ride...not really going anywhere sometimes, and look for the
punkiest looking kids possible and chat them up.

I find they aren't a bit like the media image they are dressed like. We
dressed unlike our parents when I was a kid too and our parents made all kinds
of assumptions about us that weren't really true of the majority. Same old
stuff is going on.

You ever run across that public notice put out in ancient Greece or Rome about
how the young were running rampant etc etc. You would have thought is was a
current day rant until you got to the bottom of the text and saw the date and
location.

> For why not, all it
> will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no discipline.

When I worked with emotionally disturbed youth we kept them in public school
easily. If they got in trouble and were sent home to the residential facility
we had a nice little "schoolroom" set up in the dining room. It wasn't
punishing in any way...just a continuation of the school they were missing.

I taught the local junior high folks how to do away with suspensions and such
and put in a working program that actually taught kids. It was so popular that
I got called by the elementary school to work with their teachers in special
ed to do something similar. Hey, we taught each other...and the most difficult
kids were easily dealt with effectively without any punishment at all...but
there were "consequences."
>
> We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything negative
> to a child as it might hurt their psyche..

We have? I've never listened to it. I tell kids negative things all the time
as a consequence of their unwanted behavior. It's not rocket science. I do it
in such a way that they aren't punished by my statements and they are invited
to problem solve with me to fix the situation. They respond really well, and
learn, when they aren't humiliated and upset and reactive emotionally. Funny
how that works.

> but what we have created is a
> generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with even
> the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.

Can't say who you are hanging around with but that is not the least like my
experience. I see children that are punished liberally through childhood that
are emotional cripples. I see children with strong psychological foundations
from being parented with love, gentleness and support...with out deliberate
pain applied by their parents.

> While
> positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to deal
> with reality and that there are negatives which arise.

Why would you continue to assume, considering I've told you better a number of
times, that parents who do not punish fail to allow their children to
experience negatives? Negatives do not have to be delivered by
parents....though it actually is more healthy to do so on the interpersonal
issues...like if my child curses at me (never had it happen) I'm certainly not
going to run over and give them a hug. I'm going to tell them it hurt with my
voice and my facial expression and my body language. Congruence is most
important and insures that my child experiences a wide range of
effects..consequences...for their behaviors.

> Those who are denied
> that, are emotionally crippled for life.

I doubt that you can find any child that is denied the experience of negatives
in their lives. I do see children with many temperments where some handle the
negatives well, and some do not..but spanking or not does not change those
differences in constitution of the child. In fact for the child that doesn't
handle negatives very well it's pretty much assured they will do a poorer job
if they are pain parented.

> Do you honestly believe that the Columbine kids were the only children in
> history who were outcast by their classmates,

I didn't mention they were outcast. I don't actually consider that the base or
primary cause of their going off like they did. There could be many factors,
and I suspect they were adequately pain parented. Given the prevalence of pain
parenting in our society I'd say the odds were heavy that they were, and
unlikely they were parented as I've suggested here.

If you have anything other than idle speculation about their parenting
experience you'll post it for us I presume.

>or that the violence in school
> is a result of 'spanking' by parents 50 or 60 years ago, when conditions
> were much better.

That is a dream. A careful assessment of old news media will show you that
there were problems back then too. And considering the old men that were
raised then and are now in power I don't think I'd be stretching much to
suggest the we look closely at the possiblilty of some spanking causal factors
in the violence in the world today...including that which we, as Americans,
perpetrate.

> You still don't get it do you.

Sure I do. I get it that you are starting to babble and your arguments are
empty. Nothing new in that.

> You are completely blinded to reality by
> living in a world of 'studies' and 'observations' of such limited structure
> that you don't realize the damage you and those who think like you have
> truly done.

On the contrary.

If you are one of those that have decided that academic research isn't going
to effect your opinion, then you belong to a large crowd of losers. Enjoy.

> I do not argue passionately for spanking,

Sure you do. You are doing so now. And most of your argument is emotion based,
as in "passionate."

> only to combat the nonsense spoon
> fed us by those 'professionals',

Do you have a witch doctor look after your health needs? Or so you prefer
someone with opinions about health? Personally I like, when I have a health
concern, to ask a trained professional to attend me.

> many of whom have never had children,

What an odd claim. Who do you know that gives professional advice, does child
development research, or in other ways are professionally involved that do not
have children?

And how does not having children disqualify them? I let a doctor set my broken
leg back in 1966 who had never had so much as a broken bone himself. Many
people routinely send their children off to school to be taught by unmarried
people and people without children of their own.

I tend ot look at quality and credentials in results produced. Do you think
Catholics should not take advice about their marriage and child rearing
because they haven't experienced those things?

> which
> has led us down the path of ruin, and damaged the emotional health of
> children forever.

No, you certainly "do not argue passionately for spanking."

> As an Air Force professional, you certainly appear to know little or nothing
> about the importance of discipline,

On the contrary. I know the importance of not only knowing how to follow
orders, but more, how to command one's self. When I taught E&E I taught that
very skill. Self discipline under extremely trying conditions.

> or how badly your logic has degraded it
> in the real world, not only in the armed forces.

I wonder how I managed to raise two, and my wife her two by the same methods,
children that were and are very successful and very much self determined and
honest. They should be in jail according to you.

I also wonder how I managed to turn around the hundreds of teens I worked with
and help them become responsible citizens without punishing them?

> Continue to make your wild claims and believe that you are doing good.

Given the state of the world and the preponderance of folks like you raising
children I'd have to say you are the one making the wild claims. But that's
nothing new for spanking afficianados. They have been doing it for a very long
time. And things haven't gotten better. Well, except where spanking is being
curtailed.

> Most
> parents realize that people like you are the reasons for many of today's
> problems

Ah, the "people like you" claim. People like you make people like you claims
all the time and cannot back it up in any fashion except in their dreams. I've
had to pull far too many children out of the misery created by pain parenting
not to be acutely aware of the "people like you" claims.

> and deal with their children on a one to one basis depending upon
> their needs.

You seem to be suggesting that I am the one with a one trick solution to
parenting, when in fact it's the punishing parents that so often have few if
any skills beyond pain or the threat of pain.

> For one, I will let you wallow in your self righeousness and drop from this
> discussion.

Crawfish.

>You have shown yourself to be completely closed minded.. as you
> have tried to portray myself and others who have debated you.

You aren't closed minded then? You are willing to entertain the idea that
children might need the kind of parenting I describe?

I used to believe your kind of parenting was the right kind. I was so "closed
minded" I changed my mind based on evidence and observation. Let's see you try
my way for awhile.

> However, IF you truly have been a lurker here, you will note that I have on
> several occassions reversed my opinion when presented with honest fact and
> reasoning for how others believe or perceive things.

I must have missed that. I don't follow your posting career. Are you
suggesting that if I could just present you with "honest fact and reasoning
for how others believe or perceive things" you'd be open to changing your
mind?

I find the difficult to believe. I think you have more than a small interest
in maintaining your particular reality and wouldn't give it up no matter how
much data or honest fact and reasoning I might present.

> But I will not buy
> into talking in circles and contradictions,

Then why do you do so very much of it instead of offering something cogent?

I've asked you to point out those times I've done either when you've made that
claim before. You haven't responded except to repeat the claim. That isn't
very good for your credibility. And it talking in circles and contradictions.

>something which is more harmful
> to society than taking charge of the upbringing of ones children to be well
> rounded and emotionally stable in dealing with the world around us.

Odd, all the children I've worked with and raised are extremely well rounded.

And please explain how pain parenting is determined to accomplish that well
rounding and emotional stablility...given the state of the world and the
behaviors of adults who were pain parented as children.

Kane

[Doan]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

>
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. One
> > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
> > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or
> > psychological abuse.
>
> In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punmishment for
> any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is considered
> physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive. For
> some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt from this
> protection.
>
LOL! Are you saying that cp is allowed in the juvenile justice system????

> What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
> children to be victimized by the exact same behavior that is
> considered physically, emotionally, and psychologically abusive once
> that little child turns 18.
>
So spanking is the same as being flogged as a criminal???

> This is weird logic, Dennis.
>
Yup! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive???
:-)

Doan

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> "Kane" > wrote in message

> > >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
> > exist.
> >
> > No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
> > in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
> > well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
> > children.
>
> Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
> continue with it?

I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post it again?

> Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
> spanking is abusive.

Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof offered. Care to
back up your words?

> They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
> that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So it's people
who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful treatment of
children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain, punishment,
humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again, anything to
back up what you insist upon believing?

> People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
> themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
> differentiate between abuse and spanking,

Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one generation to the
next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is propogated
multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking somehow propogates
itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse works that way?

> or show proof that those who spank
> for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very
> young age

What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance of time and
loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and catering to
their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy motivating
them to exhibit bad behavior?

> > In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
> > with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
> > involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.
>
> Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the non
> spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
> actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite problematic
> as they grow older.

Instead of manipulative, don't you really mean "going after their own needs and
interests instead of caving to the needs of the self-centered authoritative
adult's?"

I've noticed that it's often problematic to neurotic adults when they see people
(kids and adults) who don't share in their neurosis. Like those who find it
problematic when kids openly express their real feelings instead of covering
them up, for the benefit of the neurotic adult [who couldn't express his real
feelings as a child and, hence, now can't stand it when other children do
express their feelings (displeasure, etc.) appropriately].

> > I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
> > interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
> > deal of it.
> >
> Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do.

Does this mean you don't believe in spanking children whose minds are still
developing and are too young to reason very well - like those who are ~3 and
younger?

> By 'stupid'
> behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
> EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child grows
> older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
> many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all the
> consequences.

Are you speaking of consequences for not gracefully caving to an adult's needs?
You seem to be speaking of imposing consequences rather than allowing natural
consequences to occur. What do imposed consequences teach, other than that
larger, stronger and more powerful beings get to have their way over the
smaller, weaker and less powerful? Like the toddler who gets a sore butt for
complaining that he has to miss out on the last half of Sesame Street (so that
the mother could bend him to her needs and get him to the sitter in time to make
her bridge game).

<some snippage>

> It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of corporal
> punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition of
> society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
> actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
> prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.
>
> In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for the
> most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric.

Haven't you ever wondered why humankind hasn't yet gotten to the point where the
majority sees the painful treatment of children the same way - barbaric?

> When I went to
> public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
> paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at the
> condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been banned.

What do you think the percentage of non-spanked kids (non-spanked at home) is in
an average public school?

Do you think school kids who enjoy freedom from cp in school are unaffected by
the pain and punishment they grew up with at home.

Do you think non-cp at school is either supposed to be a cure-all that will fix
the problems the child brings from home, or should be again replaced with cp?

> Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
> generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
> retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers and
> they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all it
> will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no discipline.

And I suppose you'll assert that such kids were raised in a non-spank,
non-punitive environment in their earliest years when their attitudes and values
were being firmly established?

> We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything negative
> to a child as it might hurt their psyche.

What do you mean by negative? Care to give a couple examples?

> but what we have created is a
> generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with even
> the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.

I'm not sure what children you think you're talking about. FYI, to the best of
my knowledge, the majorityof children in the US are still spanked in early
childhood.

Did you ever wonder why criticism is painful to some people and not to others?

> While
> positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to deal
> with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are denied
> that, are emotionally crippled for life.

Again, care to back up your belief with some kind of substantiation?

-Jerry-

[Dennis Hancock]

"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Kane" > wrote in message
>
> > > >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
> > > in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
> > > well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
> > > children.
> >
> > Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
> > continue with it?
>
> I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post it
again?
>

*I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively backed
down on his claims. Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled
down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations upon
further questioning by myself and others.



> > Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
> > spanking is abusive.
>
> Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof offered. Care
to
> back up your words?

Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers spanking as
abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a toddler
who could not comprehend right from wrong.

>
> > They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
> > that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.
>
> Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So it's
people
> who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful treatment of
> children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain, punishment,
> humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again,
anything to
> back up what you insist upon believing?

Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the complete
breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has been done.

The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all punishment
which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and unusual'
punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout society.

I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after centuries
of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that THAT is now
responsible for the condition of society today, even considering the fact
that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past thirty or
forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their child may
need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a stigma on
even the mildest of discipline?

>
> > People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
> > themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
> > differentiate between abuse and spanking,
>
> Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one generation
to the
> next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is propogated
> multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking somehow
propogates
> itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse works that
way?

Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse. Then please explain
how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public schools,
that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with it.

Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to generation, but
any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children react to
outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking while others
may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and Kane, you
can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no consequences
for the child.

>
> > or show proof that those who spank
> > for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a
very
> > young age
>
> What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance of time
and
> loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and
catering to
> their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy
motivating
> them to exhibit bad behavior?

WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and try to
put words into my mouth?
>
> > > In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
> > > with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
> > > involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.
> >
> > Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the
non
> > spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
> > actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite
problematic
> > as they grow older.
>
> Instead of manipulative, don't you really mean "going after their own
needs and
> interests instead of caving to the needs of the self-centered
authoritative
> adult's?"

NOPE.. not at all. Bull**** plain and simple. If you do not understand
that children learn, at a very young age to manipulate their parents to get
what they want, then I pity your child. It's not always the needs of a
self centered authoritive adult, it's called PROTECTING a child and teaching
them right from wrong. IF spanking on a limited basis achieves this, then
so be it, but you are trying the exact same nonsense that Kane is and it
isn't working. You cannot differentiate between abuse and discipline, and
therefore are just as intellectually dishonest as he is by attempting to put
down any and all efforts by parents to maintain what they feel is best for
their own child.

>
> I've noticed that it's often problematic to neurotic adults when they see
people
> (kids and adults) who don't share in their neurosis. Like those who find
it
> problematic when kids openly express their real feelings instead of
covering
> them up, for the benefit of the neurotic adult [who couldn't express his
real
> feelings as a child and, hence, now can't stand it when other children do
> express their feelings (displeasure, etc.) appropriately].

Oh, so now anyone who disagree's with your position is neurotic? LOL.
Quite a stretch. No, I followed this thread for a long time before I
stepped in, watching Kane attempt to impress others with questionable
credentials and contradict himself time and time again in order to somehow
put himself on moral high ground.

To attempt to portray any and all spanking as abuse is simply not being
honest and to attempt to being condescending as Kane has tried to be does
indeed cause one to respond in kind.

>
> > > I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
> > > interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
> > > deal of it.
> > >
> > Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do.
>
> Does this mean you don't believe in spanking children whose minds are
still
> developing and are too young to reason very well - like those who are ~3
and
> younger?

Since all the above quotes were by Kane, why don't you ask him that
question. If you've followed the thread closely, you'll note that he even
allowed his young daughter to be in direct danger (didn't supervise her
close enough) and did nothing but talk to her afterwards.

I think this makes my point that his continual 'close supervision'
statements which attempt to portray any parent whose child receives any kind
of pain (such as touching something hot) is somehow negligent is quite
incorrect on his part.

>
> > By 'stupid'
> > behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
> > EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child
grows
> > older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
> > many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all
the
> > consequences.
>
> Are you speaking of consequences for not gracefully caving to an adult's
needs?

What adult's needs? You act as if you personally have been the victim of a
brutal adult. MOST adult's don't have a 'need' to punish their child, but
anyone who cannot understand setting limits and teaching the child there are
consequences for exceeding those limits is fooling themselves. I have yet
to see ANY child who does not test the limits. It's called being a parent
and teaching your child right from wrong.

> You seem to be speaking of imposing consequences rather than allowing
natural
> consequences to occur. What do imposed consequences teach, other than that
> larger, stronger and more powerful beings get to have their way over the
> smaller, weaker and less powerful? Like the toddler who gets a sore butt
for
> complaining that he has to miss out on the last half of Sesame Street (so
that
> the mother could bend him to her needs and get him to the sitter in time
to make
> her bridge game).

Or the child who is so used to getting their way that they dart out into a
busy street, or the natural consequences of letting them go ahead and put
their finger in a light socket and see if it hurts them?

Get real... the world is fraught with dangers, and to attempt to make it
somehow an adult's 'need' to punish for the hell of it is ignoring the issue
and attempting to do the same thing that Kane is doing. IF you let your
child follow 'natural consequences' then you most assuredly are negligent in
your duties as a parent in teaching them to avoid many things which are
harmful.

>
> <some snippage>
>
> > It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of
corporal
> > punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition
of
> > society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
> > actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
> > prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.
> >
> > In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for
the
> > most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric.
>
> Haven't you ever wondered why humankind hasn't yet gotten to the point
where the
> majority sees the painful treatment of children the same way - barbaric?
>
Nope, not at all. I am quite willing to distinguish the difference between
'spanking' as a teaching method and later as a disciplinary tool, and
outright abuse.

OF COURSE 'painful' treatment of children is barbaric, but for the most
part, a reasonable parent's disciplinary action of swatting a child's butt
usually results more in a mild reinforcement than outright pain. Again,
keep on trying to use the words to portray any and all spanking as abuse and
you continue to ignore the real issues.

> > When I went to
> > public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
> > paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at
the
> > condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been
banned.
>
> What do you think the percentage of non-spanked kids (non-spanked at home)
is in
> an average public school?

Doesn't matter what the percentage is. The plain fact is they can tell you
to go to hell, and there are no consequences at school. You have reinforced
a complete breakdown in discipline, and it shows.

>
> Do you think school kids who enjoy freedom from cp in school are
unaffected by
> the pain and punishment they grew up with at home.

Has no bearing. Children who are abused at home will still bear that
stigma. Those who have been taught discipline, either thru spankings or non
spankings will show that same discipline at school. But many will bow to
peer pressure, and those that don't have just been as abused by the system
because they have been subjected to complete chaos, brought on by those who
cannot distinguish between discipline and abuse who have set the standards.

>
> Do you think non-cp at school is either supposed to be a cure-all that
will fix
> the problems the child brings from home, or should be again replaced with
cp?
>
What about the child who brings NO problems from home??? Isn't he or she
allowed to get an education, or are they to simply sit back and watch the
complete breakdown of discipline ruin their chances at an education?


> > Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
> > generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
> > retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers
and
> > they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all
it
> > will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no
discipline.
>
> And I suppose you'll assert that such kids were raised in a non-spank,
> non-punitive environment in their earliest years when their attitudes and
values
> were being firmly established?

Many were indeed. I wasn't raised in a vacuum. Again, you seem to be
following the same logic as Kane and beleive that somehow each and every
child can be treated in the exact same manner. Sorry, this is the real
world. Just ask anyone who has dealt with hyperactive children or children
who have truly been abused. Even those who weren't, be it spanked or non
spanked children, they all need an individual approach. Your one size fits
all approach doesn't work, and the attempt to portray anyone who disciplines
their child as abusive doesn't work well either.

>
> > We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything
negative
> > to a child as it might hurt their psyche.
>
> What do you mean by negative? Care to give a couple examples?

Never criticize a child.. always use positive reinforcement. It is quite
true that one's self esteem can be greatly damaged by continual put down's,
but it's come to the point that if you do not use some kind of positive
reinforcment or praise for every thing a child does, then one is some kind
of abusive creature.

Kane has pointed that out quite well in his ramblings.. note he has stated
that he never tells his children what to do or where to play, or that
something is wrong, but always tries to 'give them a safe place to play, a
grassy playground' etc.. or tells them how good they were (even when his
child was in a very dangerous situation).. how many 'examples' do you
need?

>
> > but what we have created is a
> > generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with
even
> > the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.
>
> I'm not sure what children you think you're talking about. FYI, to the
best of
> my knowledge, the majorityof children in the US are still spanked in early
> childhood.

How far does that knowledge extend? If you listen to Kane, he's been
around many non spanking parents for all his 70 years. Over the past twenty
or thirty years, we've been bombarded with 'parenting' books and 'studies'
which attempt to portray spanking as completely abusive. The numbers of
those who use absolutely no spanking has been growing steadily.

>
> Did you ever wonder why criticism is painful to some people and not to
others?

Criticism when done constructively should never be painful. When one has
never experienced criticism in their entire life, then they don't know how
to deal with it.

The only way criticism is painful is when one has been so abused mentally
that their self esteem is at an all time low. Hardly what we are talking
about here, taking things to the extreme as Kane has attempted throughout
this entire thread.

>
> > While
> > positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to
deal
> > with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are
denied
> > that, are emotionally crippled for life.
>
> Again, care to back up your belief with some kind of substantiation?
>
> -Jerry-

Not a belief but a fact of life which should be apparent to anyone with a
bit of common sense. How many more school shootings, or attempted school
shootings will convince you?

The kids at Columbine, and the growing numbers of those who attempt to wreck
havoc on classmates because of being ridiculed or outcast by their peers has
been growing by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Do you think this
is a new concept? Have we only recently had cliques in schools, or kids
who have been ridiculed or outcast by others?

Or could it be that we are creating a generation of emotional cripples as I
suggest. No, of course not. Let's ignore the fact that in times past, we
had the exact same conditions and kids learned to deal with it. Why do you
suppose that is?

Maybe they didn't have everything sugarcoated and spoon fed to them that the
world was such a great place, and they were such good people and that the
world revolves around them.

Maybe they realized that there would be consequences for their actions if
they decided to act upon their egotistical delights.

Again, learn to distinguish between abuse and discipline and teaching a
child right from wrong and we can have a meaningful discourse.

[Dennis Hancock]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue.
One
> > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
> > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional
or
> > psychological abuse.
>
> In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punmishment
for
> any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
considered
> physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive.
For
> some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt from
this
> protection.
>
> What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little children
to be
> victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered physically,
> emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child turns 18.
>
> This is weird logic, Dennis.
>
> LaVonne

LaVonne.. not true at all.

Corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punishment by anyone
outside the family, at ANY age. Our judicial system does not use corporal
punishment as a punishment for crimes, nor does our juvenile system.

But take a closer look. Pain and suffering IS an acceptable method of
discipline in the armed forces and guess what, the majority are at the adult
stages of their lives.

So, to be honest, your assertions simply are not well founded here.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> >
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
issue. One
> > > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
> > > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
emotional or
> > > psychological abuse.
> >
> > In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual
punmishment for
> > any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
considered
> > physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive.
For
> > some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt
from this
> > protection.
> >
> LOL! Are you saying that cp is allowed in the juvenile justice system????

Doan, that was LaVonne Carleson's statement, not mine.
>
> > What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
> > children to be victimized by the exact same behavior that is
> > considered physically, emotionally, and psychologically abusive once
> > that little child turns 18.
> >
> So spanking is the same as being flogged as a criminal???
>
> > This is weird logic, Dennis.

Doan, again you are attributing Lavonne's ludicrous statements to me and
they are not mine.
> >
> Yup! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive???
> :-)
>
> Doan

Hardly. Especially when the anti spanking zealots try to attribute the
nonsense of one of their own to me.
>
>

[Dennis Hancock]

Sorry Doan, I thought you were trying to put Lavonne's words into my mouth.
I misread your intentions there.

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> >
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
issue. One
> > > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
> > > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
emotional or
> > > psychological abuse.
> >
> > In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual
punmishment for
> > any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
considered
> > physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive.
For
> > some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt
from this
> > protection.
> >
> LOL! Are you saying that cp is allowed in the juvenile justice system????
>
> > What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
> > children to be victimized by the exact same behavior that is
> > considered physically, emotionally, and psychologically abusive once
> > that little child turns 18.
> >
> So spanking is the same as being flogged as a criminal???
>
> > This is weird logic, Dennis.
> >
> Yup! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive???
> :-)
>
> Doan
>
>

[Kane]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:50:17 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
>> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>>
>> > "Kane" > wrote in message
>>
>> > > >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do
not
>> > > exist.
>> > >
>> > > No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing
research
>> > > in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my
sources. As
>> > > well as my own long history of observation and treatment of
abused
>> > > children.
>> >
>> > Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and
you
>> > continue with it?
>>
>> I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post
it
>again?
>>
>
>*I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively
backed
>down on his claims.

"Effectively backdown?" Is that weaselspeak for "I couldn't debate him
fairly"

>Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled
>down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations upon
>further questioning by myself and others.

Apparently you missed the many citations of researchers, but that's
okay. It's common for the victims of intergenerational cp to be
neurotically selective and hysterically blind to anything that brings
into question their carefully built artifice that preserves their
world view.

>
>> > Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim
that
>> > spanking is abusive.
>>
>> Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof
offered. Care
>to
>> back up your words?
>
>Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers
spanking as
>abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a
toddler
>who could not comprehend right from wrong.

You are correct. I do not think Alborn was asking you to give proof of
what I said. Obviously you have some crawfish DNA grafted into yours.

>>
>> > They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
>> > that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.
>>
>> Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So
it's
>people
>> who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful
treatment of
>> children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain,
punishment,
>> humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again,
>anything to
>> back up what you insist upon believing?
>
>Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the complete
>breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has been
done.

A good long hard look will show you that there is NO such thing at
all. Children are safer in school than they are at home. There are
more injuries and deaths that take place at the hands of their parents
and caregivers than by school personnel or fellow students.

You are a media casualty. Don't feel bad we all fall for it from time
to time.

Any search of relevant data on the safety of children, mortality
tables, etc. especially from the CDC and the DOJ will show you to be
miles from the truth.

Now just like Alborn I'm going to ask you to support your contention
that there is a "complete breakdown in discipline" vis a vis the
schools with some proof.
You make the claim, you accept responsibility for proof or show
yourself as ignorant or a liar. Your choice.

>The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all
punishment
>which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and
unusual'
>punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout
society.

I do not recall using the "cruel and unusual" punishment argument. I
will say it is cruel. It isn't hard to see that it is when you take a
150 to 200 pound adult whalin' on a 30 to 40, or less, child. It's
bullying.

As for "unusual" I don't think spanking is unusual. I think it is far
too usual.

>I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after
centuries
>of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that THAT
is now
>responsible for the condition of society today, even considering the
fact
>that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past thirty
or
>forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their child
may
>need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a stigma
on
>even the mildest of discipline?

I have seen postings again and again that even in the US, a supposedly
enlightened nation, over 90 percent, sometimes even 98 percent of
parents spank or adults say they were spanked. With numbers like that
how can you possibly defend that non-spanking is the culprit for yoru
imagined breakdown in discipline?

In fact teens, a good indicator, have shown a steady decline in
criminal behavior over the past decade and before...all the while as
non-spanking grows and teachers and others, including parents, strive
to develop skills at non-punitive parenting.

>>
>> > People who were physically abused generally resort to physical
abuse
>> > themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
>> > differentiate between abuse and spanking,
>>
>> Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one
generation
>to the
>> next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is
propogated
>> multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking
somehow
>propogates
>> itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse
works that
>way?
>
>Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse.


Non of us are confused except you spanking freaks in denial. You and
other just like you continually claim that pain teachs, yet deny that
spanking is painful. Or you seem to when you claim it isn't "abuse."
Pain inflicted to get your way is nothing BUT abuse. More especially
non-pain, non-punitive methods have been shown to be superior
repeatedly.

Your denial of Embry's work is a perfect example of your frantic
scramble to protect your sick model of parenting.

>Then please explain
>how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public
schools,
>that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with it.

Do you not think it odd that exactly where cp in the schools prevail
they have the worst records of behavior and the lowest academic
scores? Take a look at Texas, one of the hot for paddling state, for
instance. Or try Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.

>Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to
generation, but
>any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children react
to
>outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking while
others
>may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and
Kane, you
>can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no
consequences
>for the child.

You neglected, in the beginning of this article to acknowledge my
claims to have worked with children who had been spanked and punished.
I noticed that.

I worked with children so screwed up by parenting NOT fit or allowed
to be used on animals that they had become dangerous to themselves and
others. I turned them around with gentle and non-punitive methods.

They were so screwed up it took longer for them to get that I wasn't
punishing them than it did for them to turn around when they finally
accepted I wasn't.

The hardest part was getting them over thugs like you.

>> > or show proof that those who spank
>> > for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior
at a
>very
>> > young age
>>
>> What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance
of time
>and
>> loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and
>catering to
>> their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy
>motivating
>> them to exhibit bad behavior?
>
>WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and
try to
>put words into my mouth?

He isn't suggesting it's wrong or not. He's suggesting using it, and
if you missed that you are truly in sad shape.

Although I think I can see how you just managed to weasel out of
answering the meat of his question. Why spank if you have all those
other things going for you? Sounds like he expects you to be a good
parent that DOES use those things. Me, I'm not so sure about you at
this point. You are too wedded to abuse for my taste, and trying to
deny it by calling it something else.

They used to say that slavery was good for the darkies too. And that
women, by their natures, just couldn't think for themselves.

We seem to have gotten over that, but it took a damn war. I'd like you
assholes to wake up before the there has to be laws to do it for you.

>> > > In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that
interfer
>> > > with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
>> > > involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.
>> >
>> > Where does that inference come in? My observations have been
that the
>non
>> > spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of
his/her
>> > actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite
>problematic
>> > as they grow older.
>>
>> Instead of manipulative, don't you really mean "going after their
own
>needs and
>> interests instead of caving to the needs of the self-centered
>authoritative
>> adult's?"
>
>NOPE.. not at all. Bull**** plain and simple.

You certainly are.

>If you do not understand
>that children learn, at a very young age to manipulate their parents
to get
>what they want, then I pity your child.

Awww...poor widdle parents.

>It's not always the needs of a
>self centered authoritive adult, it's called PROTECTING a child and
teaching
>them right from wrong.

I have taught many children and protected them at the same time
without using punishment, pain, humiliation. They want to learn but
the first time you hit them or punish them you start the clock on them
becoming manipulative to try and survive your nonsense and still learn
what nature compelles them to learn.

>IF spanking on a limited basis achieves this, then
>so be it, but you are trying the exact same nonsense that Kane is and
it
>isn't working.

What in heaven's name is "spanking on a limited basis?" Is that like
getting just a little bit pregnant?

>You cannot differentiate between abuse and discipline,

I have, and I suspect Alborn is even more skilled at, no trouble
differentiating between them. I disciplined every child I worked with
and the children I raised. And I am one tough disciplinarian. I am as
tough on me and other caregivers of children as I was on the children.

One has to have a clear moral purpose and a deep understanding of
child development to satisfy me if they are going to claim to be
disciplining.

You do NOT discipline when you spank. YOu simply punish. The two even
come from different root words. There is NO connection between them.

>and
>therefore are just as intellectually dishonest

Someone who claims that hitting a child to cause pain is just
"spanking" therefor something different is calling others
"intellectually dishonest?"

Pot, kettle, black.

>as he is by attempting to put
>down any and all efforts by parents to maintain what they feel is
best for
>their own child.

I don't put down any and all efforts by parents. I put down the idea
that pain teaches what we want to teach....well, unless we are busy
raising the next generation of failures, emotionally crippled, and
criminal thinkers.

>>
>> I've noticed that it's often problematic to neurotic adults when
they see
>people
>> (kids and adults) who don't share in their neurosis. Like those who
find
>it
>> problematic when kids openly express their real feelings instead of
>covering
>> them up, for the benefit of the neurotic adult [who couldn't
express his
>real
>> feelings as a child and, hence, now can't stand it when other
children do
>> express their feelings (displeasure, etc.) appropriately].
>
>Oh, so now anyone who disagree's with your position is neurotic?
LOL.

No, not anyone. I have some people that disagree with me on this issue
who I consider very healthy and thoughtful people. It depends on how
honest they are. You aren't. That appears neurotic to me.

>Quite a stretch. No, I followed this thread for a long time before I
>stepped in, watching Kane attempt to impress others with questionable
>credentials and contradict himself time and time again in order to
somehow
>put himself on moral high ground.

And what do you have to offer in the way of credentials or experience?
Or even cogent argument? You've just babbled away about your beliefs
and continually offered attacks against the one you debate.

>To attempt to portray any and all spanking as abuse is simply not
being
>honest

Is unecessary pain administered to someone involuntarily abusive?

>and to attempt to being condescending as Kane has tried to be does
>indeed cause one to respond in kind.

I don't condescend except to those that earn it. You are building up a
huge account.
>>
>> > > I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
>> > > interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did
a great
>> > > deal of it.
>> > >
>> > Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do.
>>
>> Does this mean you don't believe in spanking children whose minds
are
>still
>> developing and are too young to reason very well - like those who
are ~3
>and
>> younger?
>
>Since all the above quotes were by Kane, why don't you ask him that
>question.

What question? Why don't you answer my questions?

>If you've followed the thread closely, you'll note that he even
>allowed his young daughter to be in direct danger (didn't supervise
her
>close enough) and did nothing but talk to her afterwards.

All children will sooner or later get out of the direct control of
their parents. That was, you might note, an extreme rarity. And you'll
also note that they not only never did it again, after we talked about
it, but she increased her vigilance of ME when exploring, to see if
she was on the right track or could use some help.

Had I spanked her the Embry effect likely would have been put in
place...as nature intended....exploring is in a child's nature. They
will do it when you are there and can help, or if they are afraid of
you, when you are NOT there later when you can't stop them.

That is the cause of all that lack of discipline you whine about.
Spanked children being forced to explore dangerously on their own by
YOU and the other spankers and punishers.

>I think this makes my point that his continual 'close supervision'
>statements which attempt to portray any parent whose child receives
any kind
>of pain (such as touching something hot) is somehow negligent is
quite
>incorrect on his part.

I made no such claim. I merely stated it is the responsibility to
supervise, not that it was required they be perfect. How neurotic of
you.

>>
>> > By 'stupid'
>> > behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to
them.
>> > EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a
child
>grows
>> > older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions.
Something
>> > many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken
away all
>the
>> > consequences.
>>
>> Are you speaking of consequences for not gracefully caving to an
adult's
>needs?
>
>What adult's needs? You act as if you personally have been the
victim of a
>brutal adult.

Certainly. Not intentionally but because most adults do not KNOW they
are being brutal when they punish.

>MOST adult's don't have a 'need' to punish their child,

R R R R sure.

>but
>anyone who cannot understand setting limits and teaching the child
there are
>consequences for exceeding those limits is fooling themselves.

I had not the least difficulting in doing just that. My logical and
natural consequence was simply that they had to attend my talk with
them..which they willingly did because there was NO shaming,
humiliting, hurtful namecalling, nothing painful in talking with me.
We worked out limits that they either followed, younger, because they
trusted me, or later in life because they understood the information I
shared with them and helped them explore.

>I have yet
>to see ANY child who does not test the limits.

Me either. I've also never seen a child, and that includes the very
sick ones I worked with, that couldn't operate inside the limits if I
thoughtfully parented him or her respectfully.

>It's called being a parent
>and teaching your child right from wrong.

Tell me about it. I did tons of it.

>> You seem to be speaking of imposing consequences rather than
allowing
>natural
>> consequences to occur. What do imposed consequences teach, other
than that
>> larger, stronger and more powerful beings get to have their way
over the
>> smaller, weaker and less powerful? Like the toddler who gets a sore
butt
>for
>> complaining that he has to miss out on the last half of Sesame
Street (so
>that
>> the mother could bend him to her needs and get him to the sitter in
time
>to make
>> her bridge game).
>
>Or the child who is so used to getting their way that they dart out
into a
>busy street,

Wherever did you get the idea that children that aren't punished get
their own way all the time, or even most of the time?

One of the first things I teach children is how to negotiate fairly
and equitabley with others. They love it. They don't feel powerless
and overwhelmed but empowered and respected within the limits of their
capacity.

>or the natural consequences of letting them go ahead and put
>their finger in a light socket and see if it hurts them?

YOU might do that. Neither Alborn or I would. Nor would we need to hit
them to make them stop. If they are too little to know we simple don't
have any light sockets handy. If they are older we can demonstrate
with batteries in series or a transformer. I've done that with a
child. But then we homeschooled and our lives were filled with all
kinds of experiments that included risks we taught the child to attend
to.

It's very easy when the child trusts you. It's very HARD when they
don't.

>Get real... the world is fraught with dangers, and to attempt to make
it
>somehow an adult's 'need' to punish for the hell of it is ignoring
the issue
>and attempting to do the same thing that Kane is doing.

The need to punish you exhibit is very plain. Your belief that
children can't learn without, obvious. You are simply wrong. You
taught your own children NOT to learn without pain. Nice work.

>IF you let your
>child follow 'natural consequences' then you most assuredly are
negligent in
>your duties as a parent in teaching them to avoid many things which
are
>harmful.

Where did you see Alborn or myself make such a claim? Why would I
mention supervision at all if I believed that unfettered natural
consequences were the only way to teach a child not to do something
risky?

You complained about others putting words in your mouth. Are you
unaware of how blatantly you just did that?

>>
>> <some snippage>
>>
>> > It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type
of
>corporal
>> > punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the
condition
>of
>> > society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note,
we've
>> > actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been
much more
>> > prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past
history.
>> >
>> > In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent..
Now, for
>the
>> > most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric.
>>
>> Haven't you ever wondered why humankind hasn't yet gotten to the
point
>where the
>> majority sees the painful treatment of children the same way -
barbaric?
>>
>Nope, not at all. I am quite willing to distinguish the difference
between
>'spanking' as a teaching method and later as a disciplinary tool, and
>outright abuse.

Of course you are. That is the nature of neurosis. You have to protect
yourself from the knowledge that spanking is pain and pain is abusive.
YOu do it by considering, I'd wager, that since children learn from
natural consequences that YOU can apply consequences (but you of
course forget the "natural" part).

>OF COURSE 'painful' treatment of children is barbaric, but for the
most
>part, a reasonable parent's disciplinary action of swatting a child's
butt
>usually results more in a mild reinforcement than outright pain.

Oh please. You just refuted, or attempted to refute, the whole point
of using spanking. Spankers that start this nonsense prove
conclusively they are out of their ****ing minds.

"Don't try to call spanking hitting." I've heard it again and again.
When I ask if they will give me permission to "spank" them they seem
to back right off and start babbling this bull**** you just came up
with.

To a child what you think is a mild little swat is as jarring as if a
linebacker nailed you with his fist.

>Again,
>keep on trying to use the words to portray any and all spanking as
abuse and
>you continue to ignore the real issues.

Please. Not this old saw again. If it isn't painful what is the point?
I can get a child's attention in many ways that do not include
"spanking." A simple touch on the shoulder, her name, stepping in
front of them...but then I have the child's trust.

I wonder why YOU have to use spanking to get that attention I get so
easily?

>
>> > When I went to
>> > public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a
wooden
>> > paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long
look at
>the
>> > condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has
been
>banned.
>>
>> What do you think the percentage of non-spanked kids (non-spanked
at home)
>is in
>> an average public school?
>
>Doesn't matter what the percentage is. The plain fact is they can
tell you
>to go to hell, and there are no consequences at school. You have
reinforced
>a complete breakdown in discipline, and it shows.

What they "can" do and what they do are two different things. My
children, and the children I worked with, once turned around, wouldn't
think of speaking to others that way. Well, unless they were nutcases
that were going to try and spank them. I did have one child leave
school and come and find me when he was told he was going to be
spanked. Smart little kid. 4th grader.

We put a stop to that, and the supposed bad behavior, which he hadn't
done anyway (got the wrong kid), never happened.

>>
>> Do you think school kids who enjoy freedom from cp in school are
>unaffected by
>> the pain and punishment they grew up with at home.
>
>Has no bearing.

Beg your pardon? What planet are you living on?

>Children who are abused at home will still bear that
>stigma. Those who have been taught discipline, either thru spankings
or non
>spankings will show that same discipline at school.

R R R R You really are a dunce aren't you? The worst acting kids I
knew when I was a schoolboy were the kids MOST spanked at home.

But I will grant you, if the discipline is NOT punishment based, but
true discipline...teaching....you are correct. I proved that
repeatedly and taught other parents to do it as well, and they too
succeeded.

>But many will bow to
>peer pressure,

I love this one. It's the punished child that will, when confronted
with the fear of punishment from their parent, take that toke, let the
boy in her pants, spray graffiti, steal that lipstick.

It's the parent that has raised the child with a constantly growing
trust that the child will hear and see in her mind when tempted and
who she cannot bear to cause pain to.

By the time a child is a teen they aren't afraid of their parents no
matter how much "disciplining" by pain and fear they have had. It is
the child that lives free of fear of pain that can't bear to hurt
others, and most especially their parent.

>and those that don't have just been as abused by the system
>because they have been subjected to complete chaos, brought on by
those who
>cannot distinguish between discipline and abuse who have set the
standards.

You just indicted yourself completely. YOU are unable to distinguish
between discipline and punishment. And that is the problem. Big time.

That is the chaos that you set upon your children. Just when they need
to think you want them to do a kneejerk conditioned response to
you...and as a teen they WILL NOT DO IT FOR LONG. They will fight
it...even younger children will, and they will learn to sneak or they
will wait until they are bigger than you.

>>
>> Do you think non-cp at school is either supposed to be a cure-all
that
>will fix
>> the problems the child brings from home, or should be again
replaced with
>cp?
>>
>What about the child who brings NO problems from home???

Check out who is bringing the problems from home. It's isn't the
punished child. It is the much punished child that is the most
disruptive in the classroom.

>Isn't he or she
>allowed to get an education,

Yes, so stop spanking your children and driving them to act out away
from you in their desparation to learn what they are trying to learn.

>or are they to simply sit back and watch the
>complete breakdown of discipline ruin their chances at an education?

Tell me again about this complete breakdown and the 90% of children
that are spanked. See if you can sort out your logic just a bit.

>> > Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have
created a
>> > generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no
fear of
>> > retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with
teenagers
>and
>> > they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why
not, all
>it
>> > will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no
>discipline.
>>
>> And I suppose you'll assert that such kids were raised in a
non-spank,
>> non-punitive environment in their earliest years when their
attitudes and
>values
>> were being firmly established?
>
>Many were indeed.

Bull****. There are so few that are so raised that the odds are
extremely against you ever seeing one. Or knowing one when you did.

>I wasn't raised in a vacuum. Again, you seem to be
>following the same logic as Kane and beleive that somehow each and
every
>child can be treated in the exact same manner.

Odd you should mention that yet again. I answered you once on this. It
is YOU that think that. That pain is applicable to teaching. Fear and
humiliation are not required for teaching. It's a construct of the
neurotic that is a product of intergenerational cp.

>Sorry, this is the real
>world. Just ask anyone who has dealt with hyperactive children or
children
>who have truly been abused.

YOU? Tell us your experience.

Those are the very children that will react the most dramatically by
acting out MORE if they are spanked. Even punishment is virtually
useless with them...they are eitehr incapable of reacting in the way
you want (hyperactivity) or they are abused and have had it all done
to them. They'll just keep you on a cycle with them in charge.

You'll punish for some transgression, usually some apparently wanton
destruction or injury to others...everything will calm down for a few
days, they slowly the tension will build to the next event of wanton
destruction or disobedience, and you'll whack'em again, and
congratulate yourself because things will be calm again...and the ...
well, you get the idea.

The child owns your behavior at that point. They can MAKE you spank
them any time they wish it...and an abused child wishes to have
control over that very much...that way they can plan their life with
much more of a feeling of control.

Of course it is sick and they'll do it to their kids.

>Even those who weren't, be it spanked or non
>spanked children, they all need an individual approach. Your one
size fits
>all approach doesn't work, and the attempt to portray anyone who
disciplines
>their child as abusive doesn't work well either.

So tell us how leaving out spanking and punishment and using the vast
repertoire of non-punitive methods is a one size fits all approach?

Some of the children I raised I would never even gently jostle..they
were so sensitive, while others I had to do "airplane" and "buzzybee"
with daily or they wondered if I loved them...r r r

Some I'd have to chase down and grab up to talk with, while others the
mere lifting of my eyebrow was enough to get their attention.

Don't you think it's about time you stopped the nonsense with this
'one size fits all' nonsense?

>>
>> > We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say
anything
>negative
>> > to a child as it might hurt their psyche.
>>
>> What do you mean by negative? Care to give a couple examples?
>
>Never criticize a child.. always use positive reinforcement.

I beg your pardon? I don't know what you have found from Gerald's
posts but I defy you to find any such claim in any of mine. My
criticism isn't, just like with adults, meant to hurt or punish
though. It would be pointless. With an adult it might get me a poke in
the nose, but with the child all it does it shut them down..they can't
think, they can't chose a better action, they can't trust me.

And as for reinforcement...r r r r . You forget, I'm quite content
with natural consequences as long as their is no psychic or physical
injury involved.

And I have been known, when a child is doing something I don't like
and watching me out of the corner of their eye, to simply turn away.
Children are tuned into adults.

The lighter the touch the more reactive the child, if one knows what
one is doing.

I learned that doing Dressage work with horses. You don't get a horse
into a Levade, Passage, or even Capriole with brutality. You do it
with gradually decreasing intensity of cues so the horse is watching
you like a hawk for the next cue.

Children are, if their sensitivity isn't dulled by cp, even more
reactive than horses.

>It is quite
>true that one's self esteem can be greatly damaged by continual put
down's,
>but it's come to the point that if you do not use some kind of
positive
>reinforcment or praise for every thing a child does, then one is some
kind
>of abusive creature.

Don't know where you get your information, but I suspect you are
looking at what you read with **** colored glasses. Dobson the dog
trainer does that a lot. A child performing a simple act of
exploratory behavior is transformed into a guerilla warrior out to
carry off your entire fortune and rape you to boot.

I detect just a bit of that viewpoint in you.

"manipulate the parent" r r r r ....poor widdle parent.

>Kane has pointed that out quite well in his ramblings.. note he has
stated
>that he never tells his children what to do or where to play, or
that
>something is wrong, but always tries to 'give them a safe place to
play, a
>grassy playground' etc.. or tells them how good they were (even when
his
>child was in a very dangerous situation).. how many 'examples' do
you
>need?

You need to reread that. Of course I told her she was good at what she
was doing...climbing...because that is the truth. Now was that the
only thing I told her, or discussed with her? Hmmmm...now was it?

**** colored glasses viewpoint. Nice going.

>> > but what we have created is a
>> > generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal
with
>even
>> > the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.
>>
>> I'm not sure what children you think you're talking about. FYI, to
the
>best of
>> my knowledge, the majorityof children in the US are still spanked
in early
>> childhood.
>
>How far does that knowledge extend? If you listen to Kane, he's
been
>around many non spanking parents for all his 70 years.

Nope, but most of it. You are putting words in my mouth...tsk tsk tsk.

>Over the past twenty
>or thirty years, we've been bombarded with 'parenting' books and
'studies'
>which attempt to portray spanking as completely abusive.

You are such a big strong man to resist this horrible attack on you. I
so admire your resiliance and persistence.

>The numbers of
>those who use absolutely no spanking has been growing steadily.

Oh, not nearly as fast as it will be comin' at you soon.

It's about like the long struggle for abolishion. All the real action
took place in about 20 years, after a couple of hundred years of
agitatin'

And it's going to happen with spanking. Soon afterward, when parents
are forced to give more thought to dropping cp they'll have to then
look at non-cp punishment...because it doesn't work all that well
either unless backed by the threat of cp.

And the gain will be immense. More and more people will understand the
need to pursue peaceful means of resolving human conflict. I suspect
I'll be dead and gone, but I'm heartened to see the progress made, and
the strong likelihood of success just a small way ahead.

>>
>> Did you ever wonder why criticism is painful to some people and not
to
>others?
>
>Criticism when done constructively should never be painful. When one
has
>never experienced criticism in their entire life, then they don't
know how
>to deal with it.

Do you think that children that haven't been spanked and haven't been
punished then have not experienced criticism?

>The only way criticism is painful is when one has been so abused
mentally
>that their self esteem is at an all time low.

No, it is more likely to be a difference in perception and reaction to
the environment. I was remarking to a collegue not long ago that when
I ran the physical plant in a small hospital I was always stopping by
the nursery to gaze at the newborns. Not much meds used for childbirth
in the out of the way place I lived. And the children were as
different from each other as adults are.

Some were sleepy and dreamy. Some where wide awake and wiggling like
they couldn't get to exploring soon enough. Others were looking about
silently like it was all too much stimuli for them. Others were so
****ed off they were livid with rage and screamed about it.

>Hardly what we are talking
>about here, taking things to the extreme as Kane has attempted
throughout
>this entire thread.

I have taken things to extremes? r r r

It's extreme to call spanking for pain abusive?

I think I have been very self controlled. My rage at you assholes is
monumental, but I contain myself for the most part.

I can understand how YOU might feel, what with your sick views being
attacked, as though it's extreme.

I should hope you'd have some extreme feelings. Children that are hit
do, with varying negative results.
>>
>> > While
>> > positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to
learn to
>deal
>> > with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who
are
>denied
>> > that, are emotionally crippled for life.
>>
>> Again, care to back up your belief with some kind of
substantiation?
>>
>> -Jerry-
>
>Not a belief but a fact of life which should be apparent to anyone
with a
>bit of common sense.

What "common sense" are you referring to here...that spanking is not
hitting?

>How many more school shootings, or attempted school
>shootings will convince you?

It would take about 10 done by children that were raised without pain
parenting to convince me. Line them up. I'll bet with careful
examination we'll find in fact there was pain parenting involved.

Are you aware that at least two of the instances of school shootings
included a recent school paddling of the perps? Are you aware that
some were children that had no real parenting...no one home...parents
already violent people?

>The kids at Columbine, and the growing numbers of those who attempt
to wreck
>havoc on classmates because of being ridiculed or outcast by their
peers has
>been growing by leaps and bounds in the past few years.

All spanked I'd wager. All punished.

>Do you think this
>is a new concept? Have we only recently had cliques in schools, or
kids
>who have been ridiculed or outcast by others?

Nope. We've always had them and they have shot up the schools before.
You need to do a little history checking.

>Or could it be that we are creating a generation of emotional
cripples as I
>suggest.

Yes, spanking does that. I consider you a great example.

>No, of course not. Let's ignore the fact that in times past, we
>had the exact same conditions and kids learned to deal with it. Why
do you
>suppose that is?

R R R R R

Look up how old most of the most notorious cut throats, highwaymen,
and otherwise badass in the Old West were when they started. They came
right out of those old schoolhouses where the paddled ruled.

Germany prior to its adventure in fascism was a notoriously pain
parenting state.

>Maybe they didn't have everything sugarcoated and spoon fed to them
that the
>world was such a great place, and they were such good people and that
the
>world revolves around them.

I don't recall that children currently have such treatment.

>Maybe they realized that there would be consequences for their
actions if
>they decided to act upon their egotistical delights.

And yet they produced their own murderers, bandits, and big time
colonizing thugs that exploited others heavily. Read some history.

Were is this utopian past you claim?

I lived in much of it and I don't recall seeing all this sweetness and
light you claim. The jails were full. Murder was common, and in many
instances more so than today.

We had no lack of violence back then, nor of children that were out of
control.

>Again, learn to distinguish between abuse and discipline and teaching
a
>child right from wrong and we can have a meaningful discourse.

Learn to distinguish between discipline and punishment and you could
be right.

Kane

[Kane]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:53:34 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>>
>> > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
issue.
>One
>> > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive
behavior in
>> > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
emotional
>or
>> > psychological abuse.
>>
>> In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual
punmishment
>for
>> any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
>considered
>> physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically
abusive.
>For
>> some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is
exempt from
>this
>> protection.
>>
>> What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
children
>to be
>> victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered
physically,
>> emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child
turns 18.
>>
>> This is weird logic, Dennis.
>>
>> LaVonne
>
>LaVonne.. not true at all.
>
>Corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punishment by
anyone
>outside the family, at ANY age. Our judicial system does not use
corporal
>punishment as a punishment for crimes, nor does our juvenile system.

LaVonne, in all her posts, and I've read most, has never claimed that
it does. Her point is that it DOESN'T and that is one of the things
that makes the use of pain on children so barbaric.

>But take a closer look. Pain and suffering IS an acceptable method
of
>discipline in the armed forces and guess what, the majority are at
the adult
>stages of their lives.

One: no superior, officer or non-com or trainer may even touch the
clothing of a recruit, let alone hit or otherwise inflict unjury, no
matter how slight.

Two: until there is conscription all such are volunteers.

Three: Since they are adults they have recourse. Children do not.

>
>So, to be honest, your assertions simply are not well founded here.
>

So be honest, your assertions are simply more bs.

Kane

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > "Kane" > wrote in message

I've noticed that you make a lot of claims, yet offer nothing to substantiate
any of them, even claiming that Kane's knowledge is faulty and that he's backed
down on all his claims, etc. You offer nothing to support your positions except
for a tight (even seemingly desperate) grip on your beliefs.

Did you ever consider taking a long hard look at why you are so compelled to
simply accept your beliefs about parenting and spanking, etc., without coming
out into the fresh air, smelling the coffee and asking yourself why you must
simply accept, without question, that your beliefs constitute a model of pure,
unadultrated truth that all should live by?

Twenty years ago, I had essentially the same attitude you have. I was a spanking
parent. I saw no reason to question it or my belief that it was the way children
needed to be parented. Then, at a friend's urging, I ended up in a Parenting
Effectiveness Training (PET) class.

A short time afterward, I started to ask questions about my firmly rooted
beliefs. I started to look into the whys and the hows of parenting, etc. I must
admit that I didn't have an open mind about this before then. Since then, I have
had a yearning to know more about it, how emotions work, what developmental and
emotional needs are, how children's needs are so often violated by traditional
parenting methods, what motivates people (including children) to behave as they
do, and how parenting is blindly passed from one generation to the next without
so much as a question or a passing thought about it. These and many more
questions never come to the surface of a person's mind when one has a grip on
beliefs that is as firm as yours. In all fields of life, a firm grip on
preserving the ways of the past offers little benefit for the future.

We didn't go to the moon using the technology of the 1800's. People are creative
beings with energy, imagination, and drive for the advancement of knowledge to
better understand our world and to better our lives. We spend trillions on
learning about the world, about the universe, and about life and how to make it
better - in many ways. But, when it comes to raising children, the ways of past
generations is good enough and no one has any business questioning any of it.
Apparently it might offend one's parents and grandparents to not blindly accept
their ways and carry those ways forward into future generations. So, knowledge
about parenting, and how the minds of little children work during their crucial
years of early development, is not an arena where most people want to or care to
visit or to make any changes or advancements?

Dennis, are all your beliefs so firmly rooted that I may as well assume they are
cast in concrete, such that there is no chance for changing them?

Is everything you disbelieve "nonsense?"

-Jerry-

[Dennis Hancock]

No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the absolute
nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which has been
acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to substantiate
that it is not???

KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually
boiled down to his own limited observations.

KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children,
(based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) and wants proof
that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked. Common
sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not stray from
acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature points out
that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which DID in fact,
use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.

Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind with
the open hand as a means of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill discipline,
with outright abuse.

I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused and non
abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group can tell you
that each child responds differently and no one single method works for
every child, even within the same family.

No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and Kane seem to
try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by avoiding the
distinction between abuse and spanking.

I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that people like
yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by avoiding the
separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral ground.

And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like you have
created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline in their
lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not being able to
deal with reality.



"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Kane" > wrote in message
>
> I've noticed that you make a lot of claims, yet offer nothing to
substantiate
> any of them, even claiming that Kane's knowledge is faulty and that he's
backed
> down on all his claims, etc. You offer nothing to support your positions
except
> for a tight (even seemingly desperate) grip on your beliefs.
>
> Did you ever consider taking a long hard look at why you are so compelled
to
> simply accept your beliefs about parenting and spanking, etc., without
coming
> out into the fresh air, smelling the coffee and asking yourself why you
must
> simply accept, without question, that your beliefs constitute a model of
pure,
> unadultrated truth that all should live by?
>
> Twenty years ago, I had essentially the same attitude you have. I was a
spanking
> parent. I saw no reason to question it or my belief that it was the way
children
> needed to be parented. Then, at a friend's urging, I ended up in a
Parenting
> Effectiveness Training (PET) class.
>
> A short time afterward, I started to ask questions about my firmly rooted
> beliefs. I started to look into the whys and the hows of parenting, etc. I
must
> admit that I didn't have an open mind about this before then. Since then,
I have
> had a yearning to know more about it, how emotions work, what
developmental and
> emotional needs are, how children's needs are so often violated by
traditional
> parenting methods, what motivates people (including children) to behave as
they
> do, and how parenting is blindly passed from one generation to the next
without
> so much as a question or a passing thought about it. These and many more
> questions never come to the surface of a person's mind when one has a grip
on
> beliefs that is as firm as yours. In all fields of life, a firm grip on
> preserving the ways of the past offers little benefit for the future.
>
> We didn't go to the moon using the technology of the 1800's. People are
creative
> beings with energy, imagination, and drive for the advancement of
knowledge to
> better understand our world and to better our lives. We spend trillions on
> learning about the world, about the universe, and about life and how to
make it
> better - in many ways. But, when it comes to raising children, the ways of
past
> generations is good enough and no one has any business questioning any of
it.
> Apparently it might offend one's parents and grandparents to not blindly
accept
> their ways and carry those ways forward into future generations. So,
knowledge
> about parenting, and how the minds of little children work during their
crucial
> years of early development, is not an arena where most people want to or
care to
> visit or to make any changes or advancements?
>
> Dennis, are all your beliefs so firmly rooted that I may as well assume
they are
> cast in concrete, such that there is no chance for changing them?
>
> Is everything you disbelieve "nonsense?"
>
> -Jerry-
>

[Dennis Hancock]

Kane, if all you can do is spout insults, then you have truly lost your
argument.

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:50:17 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Kane" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > > >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do
> not
> >> > > exist.
> >> > >
> >> > > No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing
> research
> >> > > in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my
> sources. As
> >> > > well as my own long history of observation and treatment of
> abused
> >> > > children.
> >> >
> >> > Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and
> you
> >> > continue with it?
> >>
> >> I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post
> it
> >again?
> >>
> >
> >*I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively
> backed
> >down on his claims.
>
> "Effectively backdown?" Is that weaselspeak for "I couldn't debate him
> fairly"

EXACTLY. You've attempted to twist at every turn, you've attempted to put
words into the mouths of others, and in fact backpeddled on many issues.

>
> >Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled
> >down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations upon
> >further questioning by myself and others.
>
> Apparently you missed the many citations of researchers, but that's
> okay. It's common for the victims of intergenerational cp to be
> neurotically selective and hysterically blind to anything that brings
> into question their carefully built artifice that preserves their
> world view.

Your research was shown to be nothing but nonsense, brain scans cannot
measure emotions or other factors. And it's blindness not to see the
generation of misfits your thinking has brought into being.

>
> >
> >> > Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim
> that
> >> > spanking is abusive.
> >>
> >> Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof
> offered. Care
> >to
> >> back up your words?
> >
> >Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers
> spanking as
> >abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a
> toddler
> >who could not comprehend right from wrong.
>
> You are correct. I do not think Alborn was asking you to give proof of
> what I said. Obviously you have some crawfish DNA grafted into yours.

Bull**** Kane, he WAS asking ME to give proof, which has already been posted
here by others. As for crawfish, you'll note that I haven't backed down a
bit in my position, nor have I weaseled around and contradicted myself as
many times as you have in this debate.

>
> >>
> >> > They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
> >> > that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.
> >>
> >> Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So
> it's
> >people
> >> who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful
> treatment of
> >> children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain,
> punishment,
> >> humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again,
> >anything to
> >> back up what you insist upon believing?
> >
> >Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the complete
> >breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has been
> done.
>
> A good long hard look will show you that there is NO such thing at
> all. Children are safer in school than they are at home. There are
> more injuries and deaths that take place at the hands of their parents
> and caregivers than by school personnel or fellow students.

Again, your ignorance of the facts are showing Kane. Children are NOT safer
in school, not even with the narcs on campus, or the metal detectors at the
entrance ways.

This is the typical liberal bull**** that is attempting to take away ALL
parental rights by the bogus claims that children are injured more at home
by 'caregivers' and parents than at school. How about the schools which
cover up incidents of abuse? I personally know of several cases involving
lawsuits where children have been abused in the schools. We've had several
incidents recently where a teacher taped children's mouths shut with duct
tape.

And then you tend to forget the emotional abuse which occurs.. No Kane,
some parents DO abuse their children and injure them, but you cannot
possibly show any true statistics to back up those claims that they are
'safer' in the public schools. Nor even in the private schools, given the
history of abuse by priests in the Catholic church in this country.

>
> You are a media casualty. Don't feel bad we all fall for it from time
> to time.
>
*I* am a media casualty?? LOL.. YOU my friend are a casualty of nonsensical
doublespeak by psychologists who think they can analyze children and apply a
single rule to all.

Anyone who thinks they can learn parenting from a book is bound to
eventually realize that they can throw the book away once they realize their
children are not exactly alike. Perhaps you lack some bit of common sense
in your background because apparently, you failed to learn that lesson.

> Any search of relevant data on the safety of children, mortality
> tables, etc. especially from the CDC and the DOJ will show you to be
> miles from the truth.

Post your facts then if you have them. It is YOU who are making the claim.

>
> Now just like Alborn I'm going to ask you to support your contention
> that there is a "complete breakdown in discipline" vis a vis the
> schools with some proof.

How many metal detectors did you see when you were in school? How many
'narcs' and school police were routinely placed on campus as a matter of
common nature?

How many riots took place on campus in our day? How many shootings by
students occurred. I can tell you, EXACTLY NONE. Nationwide.

And you need more proof?


> You make the claim, you accept responsibility for proof or show
> yourself as ignorant or a liar. Your choice.

NO, you are showing yourself as a complete ass who cannot face reality.

>
> >The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all
> punishment
> >which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and
> unusual'
> >punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout
> society.
>
> I do not recall using the "cruel and unusual" punishment argument. I
> will say it is cruel. It isn't hard to see that it is when you take a
> 150 to 200 pound adult whalin' on a 30 to 40, or less, child. It's
> bullying.
>

Bull**** Kane.. You are again confusing spanking and abuse. Quite a
difference. You are dishonest and your ONLY reason for posting your
nonsense is to attempt to take away parental rights. I consider it abusive
NOT to instill discipline in a child or to give a small child a swat to keep
them out of harms way.

> As for "unusual" I don't think spanking is unusual. I think it is far
> too usual.
>
> >I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after
> centuries
> >of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that THAT
> is now
> >responsible for the condition of society today, even considering the
> fact
> >that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past thirty
> or
> >forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their child
> may
> >need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a stigma
> on
> >even the mildest of discipline?
>
> I have seen postings again and again that even in the US, a supposedly
> enlightened nation, over 90 percent, sometimes even 98 percent of
> parents spank or adults say they were spanked. With numbers like that
> how can you possibly defend that non-spanking is the culprit for yoru
> imagined breakdown in discipline?

Where are those statistics Kane? Apparently, you are backpeddling again
since YOU personally have claimed that the rich and powerful do not spank,
and doubt they ever spanked throughout history.

You've been around non spanking parents for most of your nearly 70 years..
YOUR OWN WORDS. Now then, you either admit you are a damned liar, or your
'experience' and 'observations' were very limited indeed.

>
> In fact teens, a good indicator, have shown a steady decline in
> criminal behavior over the past decade and before...all the while as
> non-spanking grows and teachers and others, including parents, strive
> to develop skills at non-punitive parenting.

Actually, the stats I recall from memory is that crime has declined steadily
overall, but teen crime has risen slightly.

>
> >>
> >> > People who were physically abused generally resort to physical
> abuse
> >> > themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
> >> > differentiate between abuse and spanking,

> >>
> >> Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one
> generation
> >to the
> >> next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is
> propogated
> >> multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking
> somehow
> >propogates
> >> itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse
> works that
> >way?
> >
> >Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse.
>
>
> Non of us are confused except you spanking freaks in denial. You and
> other just like you continually claim that pain teachs, yet deny that
> spanking is painful. Or you seem to when you claim it isn't "abuse."
> Pain inflicted to get your way is nothing BUT abuse. More especially
> non-pain, non-punitive methods have been shown to be superior
> repeatedly.

Bull**** and your use of the word 'freaks' shows how truly biased and bull
headed you are.

Your losing it dude.

>
> Your denial of Embry's work is a perfect example of your frantic
> scramble to protect your sick model of parenting.

LOL.. your denial of Pavlov's work shows that you consider young children
not as intelligent as a dog.

>
> >Then please explain
> >how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public
> schools,
> >that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with it.
>
> Do you not think it odd that exactly where cp in the schools prevail
> they have the worst records of behavior and the lowest academic
> scores? Take a look at Texas, one of the hot for paddling state, for
> instance. Or try Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.

Sorry, again another outright lie. CP has been banned in ALL states of the
union. Nice try but it aint working.

And before your lil buddy jumps in wanting my proof, again, it is YOU who
made the outlandish claim, not I.

>
> >Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to
> generation, but
> >any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children react
> to
> >outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking while
> others
> >may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and
> Kane, you
> >can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no
> consequences
> >for the child.
>
> You neglected, in the beginning of this article to acknowledge my
> claims to have worked with children who had been spanked and punished.
> I noticed that.

And you neglected all along to ignore my claims that I too have worked with
children from both sides of the fence.. also with abused children as well.

And I WAS in a position where I had complete control and had to instill
discipline in a class setting and learned quite readily which ones been
spanked, which ones had been abused, and which ones were adapt at dealing
with control and discipline.

>
> I worked with children so screwed up by parenting NOT fit or allowed
> to be used on animals that they had become dangerous to themselves and
> others. I turned them around with gentle and non-punitive methods.

Ahh, there's the kicker Kane, and you are too stupid to see it. I have a
nephew who was physically abused by his father. He did not respond to
spanking, even light spanking it only made him angrier, so yes, your
approach did work quite well with him. That is where you are screwed up,
you cannot differentiate between children and their needs. You seem to
think that the exact same treatment can be used on all.. believe me, it
cannot. You have never worked with hyperactive children have you, well I
have.

>
> They were so screwed up it took longer for them to get that I wasn't
> punishing them than it did for them to turn around when they finally
> accepted I wasn't.

Of course it will work with some. Especially those who were abused. But
try it with a child who has merely been swatted on the butt with the open
hand as punishement and it seldom works. They learn they can 'get away'
with something.

You seem confused Kane. You don't realize that children learn at a very
young age how to play parents against each other. If one is of your ilk,
and the other a spanker, they would drive you crazy. No, I seriously doubt
you've had very much 'experience' in dealing with children, perhaps a few,
but not the 'wealth' of experience you try to lead us to believe.

>
> The hardest part was getting them over thugs like you.

LOL.. there you go, losing it again guy. For a supposed retired Air Force
Colonel, I suppose you kissed the guys asses to get em to do their work.

>
> >> > or show proof that those who spank
> >> > for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior
> at a
> >very
> >> > young age
> >>
> >> What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance
> of time
> >and
> >> loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and
> >catering to
> >> their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy
> >motivating
> >> them to exhibit bad behavior?

LOL.. what a moron you are proving to be. Treat them respectfully and they
will have no pent up energy? LOL You truly keep digging yourself deeper
into a hole here.

> >
> >WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and
> try to
> >put words into my mouth?
>
> He isn't suggesting it's wrong or not. He's suggesting using it, and
> if you missed that you are truly in sad shape.

Apparently, you cannot read well,OR comprehend.



>
> Although I think I can see how you just managed to weasel out of
> answering the meat of his question. Why spank if you have all those
> other things going for you? Sounds like he expects you to be a good
> parent that DOES use those things. Me, I'm not so sure about you at
> this point. You are too wedded to abuse for my taste, and trying to
> deny it by calling it something else.

LOL.. you are a moron Kane. You still confuse spanking with abuse. You are
so dead in your mindset that you cannot possibly see reality.
>
> They used to say that slavery was good for the darkies too. And that
> women, by their natures, just couldn't think for themselves.

There you go again, wild, outlandish claims attempting to claim the high
moral ground by being dishonest. I wondered when the race issue would enter
the picture.
>
> We seem to have gotten over that, but it took a damn war. I'd like you
> assholes to wake up before the there has to be laws to do it for you.

LOL.. DUH.. there should be a law against assholes like yourself who
haven't got enough sense to deal with the real world. You do more damage
than good and are too stupid to relaize it.

There ARE laws against abuse Kane. But YOU apparently seem to want to
control everyone's ability to rear their children as they see fit and
consider anything other than what you consider acceptable as unacceptable.
You are a closed minded asshole who deserves no further responses.

**rest snipped and unread as being the irrelevent rantings of a luncatic**

Have a nice day asshole.

[Dennis Hancock]

Yawn.

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:53:34 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >>
> >> > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
> issue.
> >One
> >> > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive
> behavior in
> >> > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
> emotional
> >or
> >> > psychological abuse.
> >>
> >> In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual
> punmishment
> >for
> >> any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
> >considered
> >> physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically
> abusive.
> >For
> >> some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is
> exempt from
> >this
> >> protection.
> >>
> >> What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
> children
> >to be
> >> victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered
> physically,
> >> emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child
> turns 18.
> >>
> >> This is weird logic, Dennis.
> >>
> >> LaVonne
> >
> >LaVonne.. not true at all.
> >
> >Corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punishment by
> anyone
> >outside the family, at ANY age. Our judicial system does not use
> corporal
> >punishment as a punishment for crimes, nor does our juvenile system.
>
> LaVonne, in all her posts, and I've read most, has never claimed that
> it does. Her point is that it DOESN'T and that is one of the things
> that makes the use of pain on children so barbaric.
>
> >But take a closer look. Pain and suffering IS an acceptable method
> of
> >discipline in the armed forces and guess what, the majority are at
> the adult
> >stages of their lives.
>
> One: no superior, officer or non-com or trainer may even touch the
> clothing of a recruit, let alone hit or otherwise inflict unjury, no
> matter how slight.
>
> Two: until there is conscription all such are volunteers.
>
> Three: Since they are adults they have recourse. Children do not.
>
> >
> >So, to be honest, your assertions simply are not well founded here.
> >
>
> So be honest, your assertions are simply more bs.
>
> Kane

[Dennis Hancock]

Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical
punishment'.. lol


"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:53:34 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >>
> >> > Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
> issue.
> >One
> >> > cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive
> behavior in
> >> > dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
> emotional
> >or
> >> > psychological abuse.
> >>
> >> In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual
> punmishment
> >for
> >> any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
> >considered
> >> physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically
> abusive.
> >For
> >> some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is
> exempt from
> >this
> >> protection.
> >>
> >> What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
> children
> >to be
> >> victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered
> physically,
> >> emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child
> turns 18.
> >>
> >> This is weird logic, Dennis.
> >>
> >> LaVonne
> >
> >LaVonne.. not true at all.
> >
> >Corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punishment by
> anyone
> >outside the family, at ANY age. Our judicial system does not use
> corporal
> >punishment as a punishment for crimes, nor does our juvenile system.
>
> LaVonne, in all her posts, and I've read most, has never claimed that
> it does. Her point is that it DOESN'T and that is one of the things
> that makes the use of pain on children so barbaric.
>
> >But take a closer look. Pain and suffering IS an acceptable method
> of
> >discipline in the armed forces and guess what, the majority are at
> the adult
> >stages of their lives.
>
> One: no superior, officer or non-com or trainer may even touch the
> clothing of a recruit, let alone hit or otherwise inflict unjury, no
> matter how slight.
>
> Two: until there is conscription all such are volunteers.
>
> Three: Since they are adults they have recourse. Children do not.
>
> >
> >So, to be honest, your assertions simply are not well founded here.
> >
>
> So be honest, your assertions are simply more bs.
>
> Kane

[Kane]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:22:31 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>Kane, if all you can do is spout insults, then you have truly lost
your
>argument.
>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:50:17 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Kane" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > > >No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which
do
>> not
>> >> > > exist.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing
>> research
>> >> > > in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my
>> sources. As
>> >> > > well as my own long history of observation and treatment of
>> abused
>> >> > > children.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty
and
>> you
>> >> > continue with it?
>> >>
>> >> I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to
post
>> it
>> >again?
>> >>
>> >
>> >*I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively
>> backed
>> >down on his claims.
>>
>> "Effectively backdown?" Is that weaselspeak for "I couldn't debate
him
>> fairly"
>
>EXACTLY. You've attempted to twist at every turn, you've attempted
to put
>words into the mouths of others, and in fact backpeddled on many
issues.
>
>>
>> >Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled
>> >down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations
upon
>> >further questioning by myself and others.
>>
>> Apparently you missed the many citations of researchers, but that's
>> okay. It's common for the victims of intergenerational cp to be
>> neurotically selective and hysterically blind to anything that
brings
>> into question their carefully built artifice that preserves their
>> world view.
>
>Your research was shown to be nothing but nonsense, brain scans
cannot
>measure emotions or other factors. And it's blindness not to see the
>generation of misfits your thinking has brought into being.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> > Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who
claim
>> that
>> >> > spanking is abusive.
>> >>
>> >> Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof
>> offered. Care
>> >to
>> >> back up your words?
>> >
>> >Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers
>> spanking as
>> >abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a
>> toddler
>> >who could not comprehend right from wrong.
>>
>> You are correct. I do not think Alborn was asking you to give proof
of
>> what I said. Obviously you have some crawfish DNA grafted into
yours.
>
>Bull**** Kane, he WAS asking ME to give proof, which has already been
posted
>here by others. As for crawfish, you'll note that I haven't backed
down a
>bit in my position, nor have I weaseled around and contradicted
myself as
>many times as you have in this debate.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> > They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
>> >> > that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.
>> >>
>> >> Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children?
So
>> it's
>> >people
>> >> who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful
>> treatment of
>> >> children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain,
>> punishment,
>> >> humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage?
Again,
>> >anything to
>> >> back up what you insist upon believing?
>> >
>> >Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the
complete
>> >breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has
been
>> done.
>>
>> A good long hard look will show you that there is NO such thing at
>> all. Children are safer in school than they are at home. There are
>> more injuries and deaths that take place at the hands of their
parents
>> and caregivers than by school personnel or fellow students.
>
>Again, your ignorance of the facts are showing Kane. Children are
NOT safer
>in school, not even with the narcs on campus, or the metal detectors
at the
>entrance ways.
>
>This is the typical liberal bull**** that is attempting to take away
ALL
>parental rights by the bogus claims that children are injured more at
home
>by 'caregivers' and parents than at school. How about the schools
which
>cover up incidents of abuse? I personally know of several cases
involving
>lawsuits where children have been abused in the schools. We've had
several
>incidents recently where a teacher taped children's mouths shut with
duct
>tape.
>
>And then you tend to forget the emotional abuse which occurs.. No
Kane,
>some parents DO abuse their children and injure them, but you cannot
>possibly show any true statistics to back up those claims that they
are
>'safer' in the public schools. Nor even in the private schools,
given the
>history of abuse by priests in the Catholic church in this country.
>
>>
>> You are a media casualty. Don't feel bad we all fall for it from
time
>> to time.
>>
>*I* am a media casualty?? LOL.. YOU my friend are a casualty of
nonsensical
>doublespeak by psychologists who think they can analyze children and
apply a
>single rule to all.
>
>Anyone who thinks they can learn parenting from a book is bound to
>eventually realize that they can throw the book away once they
realize their
>children are not exactly alike. Perhaps you lack some bit of common
sense
>in your background because apparently, you failed to learn that
lesson.
>
>> Any search of relevant data on the safety of children, mortality
>> tables, etc. especially from the CDC and the DOJ will show you to
be
>> miles from the truth.
>
>Post your facts then if you have them. It is YOU who are making the
claim.
>
>>
>> Now just like Alborn I'm going to ask you to support your
contention
>> that there is a "complete breakdown in discipline" vis a vis the
>> schools with some proof.
>
>How many metal detectors did you see when you were in school? How
many
>'narcs' and school police were routinely placed on campus as a matter
of
>common nature?
>
>How many riots took place on campus in our day? How many shootings
by
>students occurred. I can tell you, EXACTLY NONE. Nationwide.
>
>And you need more proof?
>
>
>> You make the claim, you accept responsibility for proof or show
>> yourself as ignorant or a liar. Your choice.
>
>NO, you are showing yourself as a complete ass who cannot face
reality.
>
>>
>> >The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all
>> punishment
>> >which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and
>> unusual'
>> >punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout
>> society.
>>
>> I do not recall using the "cruel and unusual" punishment argument.
I
>> will say it is cruel. It isn't hard to see that it is when you take
a
>> 150 to 200 pound adult whalin' on a 30 to 40, or less, child. It's
>> bullying.
>>
>
>Bull**** Kane.. You are again confusing spanking and abuse. Quite a
>difference. You are dishonest and your ONLY reason for posting your
>nonsense is to attempt to take away parental rights. I consider it
abusive
>NOT to instill discipline in a child or to give a small child a swat
to keep
>them out of harms way.
>
>> As for "unusual" I don't think spanking is unusual. I think it is
far
>> too usual.
>>
>> >I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after
>> centuries
>> >of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that
THAT
>> is now
>> >responsible for the condition of society today, even considering
the
>> fact
>> >that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past
thirty
>> or
>> >forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their
child
>> may
>> >need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a
stigma
>> on
>> >even the mildest of discipline?
>>
>> I have seen postings again and again that even in the US, a
supposedly
>> enlightened nation, over 90 percent, sometimes even 98 percent of
>> parents spank or adults say they were spanked. With numbers like
that
>> how can you possibly defend that non-spanking is the culprit for
yoru
>> imagined breakdown in discipline?
>
>Where are those statistics Kane? Apparently, you are backpeddling
again
>since YOU personally have claimed that the rich and powerful do not
spank,
>and doubt they ever spanked throughout history.
>
>You've been around non spanking parents for most of your nearly 70
years..
>YOUR OWN WORDS. Now then, you either admit you are a damned liar, or
your
>'experience' and 'observations' were very limited indeed.
>
>>
>> In fact teens, a good indicator, have shown a steady decline in
>> criminal behavior over the past decade and before...all the while
as
>> non-spanking grows and teachers and others, including parents,
strive
>> to develop skills at non-punitive parenting.
>
>Actually, the stats I recall from memory is that crime has declined
steadily
>overall, but teen crime has risen slightly.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> > People who were physically abused generally resort to physical
>> abuse
>> >> > themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse
to
>> >> > differentiate between abuse and spanking,
>
>> >>
>> >> Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one
>> generation
>> >to the
>> >> next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is
>> propogated
>> >> multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking
>> somehow
>> >propogates
>> >> itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse
>> works that
>> >way?
>> >
>> >Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse.
>>
>>
>> Non of us are confused except you spanking freaks in denial. You
and
>> other just like you continually claim that pain teachs, yet deny
that
>> spanking is painful. Or you seem to when you claim it isn't
"abuse."
>> Pain inflicted to get your way is nothing BUT abuse. More
especially
>> non-pain, non-punitive methods have been shown to be superior
>> repeatedly.
>
>Bull**** and your use of the word 'freaks' shows how truly biased and
bull
>headed you are.
>
>Your losing it dude.
>
>>
>> Your denial of Embry's work is a perfect example of your frantic
>> scramble to protect your sick model of parenting.
>
>LOL.. your denial of Pavlov's work shows that you consider young
children
>not as intelligent as a dog.
>
>>
>> >Then please explain
>> >how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public
>> schools,
>> >that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with
it.
>>
>> Do you not think it odd that exactly where cp in the schools
prevail
>> they have the worst records of behavior and the lowest academic
>> scores? Take a look at Texas, one of the hot for paddling state,
for
>> instance. Or try Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.
>
>Sorry, again another outright lie. CP has been banned in ALL states
of the
>union. Nice try but it aint working.
>
>And before your lil buddy jumps in wanting my proof, again, it is YOU
who
>made the outlandish claim, not I.
>
>>
>> >Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to
>> generation, but
>> >any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children
react
>> to
>> >outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking
while
>> others
>> >may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and
>> Kane, you
>> >can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no
>> consequences
>> >for the child.
>>
>> You neglected, in the beginning of this article to acknowledge my
>> claims to have worked with children who had been spanked and
punished.
>> I noticed that.
>
>And you neglected all along to ignore my claims that I too have
worked with
>children from both sides of the fence.. also with abused children as
well.
>
>And I WAS in a position where I had complete control and had to
instill
>discipline in a class setting and learned quite readily which ones
been
>spanked, which ones had been abused, and which ones were adapt at
dealing
>with control and discipline.
>
>>
>> I worked with children so screwed up by parenting NOT fit or
allowed
>> to be used on animals that they had become dangerous to themselves
and
>> others. I turned them around with gentle and non-punitive methods.
>
>Ahh, there's the kicker Kane, and you are too stupid to see it. I
have a
>nephew who was physically abused by his father. He did not respond
to
>spanking, even light spanking it only made him angrier, so yes, your
>approach did work quite well with him. That is where you are screwed
up,
>you cannot differentiate between children and their needs. You seem
to
>think that the exact same treatment can be used on all.. believe me,
it
>cannot. You have never worked with hyperactive children have you,
well I
>have.
>
>>
>> They were so screwed up it took longer for them to get that I
wasn't
>> punishing them than it did for them to turn around when they
finally
>> accepted I wasn't.
>
>Of course it will work with some. Especially those who were abused.
But
>try it with a child who has merely been swatted on the butt with the
open
>hand as punishement and it seldom works. They learn they can 'get
away'
>with something.
>
>You seem confused Kane. You don't realize that children learn at a
very
>young age how to play parents against each other. If one is of your
ilk,
>and the other a spanker, they would drive you crazy. No, I
seriously doubt
>you've had very much 'experience' in dealing with children, perhaps a
few,
>but not the 'wealth' of experience you try to lead us to believe.
>
>>
>> The hardest part was getting them over thugs like you.
>
>LOL.. there you go, losing it again guy. For a supposed retired Air
Force
>Colonel, I suppose you kissed the guys asses to get em to do their
work.
>
>>
>> >> > or show proof that those who spank
>> >> > for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct
behavior
>> at a
>> >very
>> >> > young age
>> >>
>> >> What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an
abundance
>> of time
>> >and
>> >> loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully,
and
>> >catering to
>> >> their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional
energy
>> >motivating
>> >> them to exhibit bad behavior?
>
>LOL.. what a moron you are proving to be. Treat them respectfully
and they
>will have no pent up energy? LOL You truly keep digging yourself
deeper
>into a hole here.
>
>> >
>> >WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and
>> try to
>> >put words into my mouth?
>>
>> He isn't suggesting it's wrong or not. He's suggesting using it,
and
>> if you missed that you are truly in sad shape.
>
>Apparently, you cannot read well,OR comprehend.
>
>
>
>>
>> Although I think I can see how you just managed to weasel out of
>> answering the meat of his question. Why spank if you have all those
>> other things going for you? Sounds like he expects you to be a good
>> parent that DOES use those things. Me, I'm not so sure about you at
>> this point. You are too wedded to abuse for my taste, and trying to
>> deny it by calling it something else.
>
>LOL.. you are a moron Kane. You still confuse spanking with abuse.
You are
>so dead in your mindset that you cannot possibly see reality.
>>
>> They used to say that slavery was good for the darkies too. And
that
>> women, by their natures, just couldn't think for themselves.
>
>There you go again, wild, outlandish claims attempting to claim the
high
>moral ground by being dishonest. I wondered when the race issue
would enter
>the picture.
>>
>> We seem to have gotten over that, but it took a damn war. I'd like
you
>> assholes to wake up before the there has to be laws to do it for
you.
>
>LOL.. DUH.. there should be a law against assholes like yourself
who
>haven't got enough sense to deal with the real world. You do more
damage
>than good and are too stupid to relaize it.
>
>There ARE laws against abuse Kane. But YOU apparently seem to want
to
>control everyone's ability to rear their children as they see fit and
>consider anything other than what you consider acceptable as
unacceptable.
>You are a closed minded asshole who deserves no further responses.
>
>**rest snipped and unread as being the irrelevent rantings of a
luncatic**

I am not a "lunicatic."

>Have a nice day asshole.

It is certainly fun to watch you jump up and down and froth at the
mouth. By the way, you posted a series of lies about me, but hey, we
expect that from the spanking freak folks. They don't have anything
else going for them, and they know it.

By the way, I think I recall that you opened this blathering tirade
with the snappy homily:

"Kane, if all you can do is spout insults, then you have truly lost
your
argument."

Can we count on your promise: "You are a closed minded asshole who
deserves no further responses."

R R R R R R

Bingo bango bongo

Stoneman

[Kane]

"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
> Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical
> punishment'.. lol

As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a child
doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.

By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your
style hasn't changed in all these years.

It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an
old iJones number from years ago.

But it was fun while it lasted.

Who trolled who..r r r r

Kane

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the absolute
> nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which has been
> acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to substantiate
> that it is not???

The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's
knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't faulty, you
are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by showing how
you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The only
next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not
consistent with my beliefs!"

So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you have
nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout history,
which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does that
validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been around for
a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?

> KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually
> boiled down to his own limited observations.

For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of experience
associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience runs counter
to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the knowledge he has
gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent with my
beliefs," doesn't cut it.

> KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children,
> (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) and wants proof
> that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked.

From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced spanking, but the
ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and unreasonable
with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less powerful,
etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people >>never<< spank? From
real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if you could
show me where Kane actually said that.

> Common
> sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not stray from
> acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature points out
> that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which DID in fact,
> use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.

Show me where Kane said the rich and powerful never spank.

> Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind with
> the open hand as a means of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
> situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill discipline,
> with outright abuse.

The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous situation you
teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is dangerous and that
the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's going to do
behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the perceived danger
(the parent) isn't present.

Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the street, and
thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the street. You
can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them if they're too
young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety is >>your<<
responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature enough to
accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to be spanked
to accept that.

> I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused and non
> abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group can tell you
> that each child responds differently and no one single method works for
> every child, even within the same family.

Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes parenting and life
easier for the parent?" Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?" Or,
"makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows the parent
to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is probably quite
different from yours. What's your definition?

Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no shortcut
that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my children to be
non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid pain. I preferred
them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves. What's the real
point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on behavioral "acts" in
your presence and for your benefit?

> No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and Kane seem to
> try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by avoiding the
> distinction between abuse and spanking.

Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between abuse and
spanking?

> I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that people like
> yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by avoiding the
> separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral ground.

Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between abuse and
spanking. How do >>you<< define abuse?

> And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like you have
> created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline in their
> lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not being able to
> deal with reality.

But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply rooted,
misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're certainly not looking
at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you must maintain
a tight grip on your beliefs.

Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure science, as
much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a child's
behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of feelings, including
anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do. Your beliefs about
the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU were raised as
a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up motivated to pass it
on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle.

-Jerry-

[Dennis Hancock]

"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the
absolute
> > nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which has
been
> > acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to
substantiate
> > that it is not???
>
> The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's
> knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
faulty, you
> are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
showing how
> you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The
only
> next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not
> consistent with my beliefs!"
>
> So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you
have
> nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout
history,
> which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does
that
> validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been
around for
> a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
>
Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do
you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you
believe as they do?

I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over again,
and he has flip flopped time and time again.

YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. and by doing so,
are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.


> > KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually
> > boiled down to his own limited observations.
>
> For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of
experience
> associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience runs
counter
> to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the knowledge
he has
> gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent with my
> beliefs," doesn't cut it.

BULL****.. He's been shown to be a liar time and time again. I have worked
in with children for ages.

Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer.. and
he's 'worked' with children of the rich and powerful. IF that's true, they
must not be so rich and powerful if they allow a horse trainer to tend to
the emotional needs of their children.

How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group?

A 'retired Air Force Colonel', who has also spent his life working with
children, who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works. Give
me a break.

>
> > KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children,
> > (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) and wants
proof
> > that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked.
>
> From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced spanking, but
the
> ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and
unreasonable
> with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less
powerful,
> etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people >>never<< spank?
From
> real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if you
could
> show me where Kane actually said that.

Just google back and you'll see that he has repeatedly made the claim that
he's 'known and associated with the rich and powerful for many years and
that there is no evidence that they ever embraced spanking or corporal
punishment for their children'.

Of course, for one who only reads what they want to read, and interprets it
as they see fit, you certainly would miss a lot of the nonsense he has put
forth.

>
> > Common
> > sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not stray from
> > acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature points
out
> > that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which DID in
fact,
> > use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.
>
> Show me where Kane said the rich and powerful never spank.

LOL.. are you blind? He has stated it in several recent posts.

>
> > Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind
with
> > the open hand as a means of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
> > situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill
discipline,
> > with outright abuse.
>
> The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous situation
you
> teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is dangerous
and that
> the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's going to do
> behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the perceived
danger
> (the parent) isn't present.

No, again you are completely dishonest. You want to portray ALL spanking as
abuse, and TRY to portray that there is no difference. It was YOU who came
up with the complete nonsense that disciplining a child or trying to keep
them from dangerous situations is 'imposing the will of a controlling adult'
on them... such utter nonsense. I don't know why anyone even bothers with
your OR Kane.

>
> Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the street,
and
> thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the street.
You
> can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them if
they're too
> young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety is
>>your<<
> responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature enough to
> accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to be
spanked
> to accept that.

LOL.. You my friend are the fool if you think you can 'talk' to a two year
old and keep them from venturing into the street. You, like Kane seem to
think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many animals
exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something can be
injurious to them.

Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by sitting
back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence, in clear cut
jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing .... ANY parent
worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way immediately,
even if it meant putting themselves in danger.



> > I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused and non
> > abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group can tell
you
> > that each child responds differently and no one single method works for
> > every child, even within the same family.
>
> Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes parenting
and life
> easier for the parent?"

Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a lame
assed question.


Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"

Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make every
decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any decent
parent's viewpoint.

Or,
> "makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows the
parent
> to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is probably
quite
> different from yours. What's your definition?

YOu sir are a complete and utter ass. Apparently, you are more concerned
with YOUR needs than your childs.

Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into the
street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous to that
child. You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away with.

>
> Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no shortcut
> that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my children to be
> non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid pain.

No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you did not
do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations.

I preferred
> them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.

You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get their way
and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care enough to
discipline them or set limits for them.


What's the real
> point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on behavioral
"acts" in
> your presence and for your benefit?

Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense of
rationality.

>
> > No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and Kane seem
to
> > try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by avoiding
the
> > distinction between abuse and spanking.
>
> Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between abuse
and
> spanking?

DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what constitutes
abuse and corporal punishment. Any striking of the child with anything
other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind is
abusive.

Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said you and
Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly
accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have repeatedly
stated that I am not in favor of abuse, but by attempting to lump the two
together, you think it will make your position more viable. You are too
obvious.

>
> > I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that people
like
> > yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by avoiding
the
> > separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral ground.
>
> Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between abuse
and
> spanking. How do >>you<< define abuse?

I already have.. Time and time again. You continue to show your complete
lack of reading comprehension.

>
> > And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like you have
> > created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline in their
> > lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not being able
to
> > deal with reality.
>
> But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply rooted,
> misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're certainly not
looking
> at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you must
maintain
> a tight grip on your beliefs.

Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue
everything that is said, flip flop back and forth and try to put up straw
men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your bull****
claims, which you and he have made.

If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I have
changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a logical
and reasonable reason for their beliefs. But people like you and Kane
continue to lie and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
abusive.. it is not.. NOT to discipline a child or set limits is the truly
abusive thing, you are living in a fairy tale world. Keep on believing it
because I doubt you are swaying anyone to your nonsense.

>
> Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure science,
as
> much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a child's
> behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of feelings,
including
> anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do.
Yawn.. what the hell makes you think anyone gets 'angry' simply because
they discipline their child? Oh yeah, right.. just sit back calmly while
your child dashes into the street, or sits on a fence and is approached by
an angry bull and your a 'good parent'.


Your beliefs about
> the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU were
raised as
> a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up motivated to
pass it
> on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle.
>
> -Jerry-

Bull**** Jerry. *I* was never abused as a child. I was spanked, there is a
huge difference that only a fool or a liar can ignore.

You have no moral high ground to stand on.. you only show your complete and
utter ignorance of children and their differences. Keep on reading all the
psychobabble and learn parenting from Dr. Ruth and pretend you have all the
answers. You don't.

>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
>
> Can we count on your promise: "You are a closed minded asshole who
> deserves no further responses."


YES.. so long as you stop throwing the lame insults my way and stop
attempting to justify your bull**** by attacking every sentence I write with
more flip flops and babble.

I will respond in kind to lame attacks and am not completely unschooled in
'flame wars' if the nonsense continues.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
> > Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical
> > punishment'.. lol
>
> As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a child
> doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
> punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.


Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What you
see is what you get fella.

> By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your
> style hasn't changed in all these years.

Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these newsgroups
'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.

Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin boards and
since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've ever engaged
you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions to try to
uphold your convictions.

> It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an
> old iJones number from years ago.

Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN. My name on here is my real
name, I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior
to this one. Period.

>
> But it was fun while it lasted.
>
> Who trolled who..r r r r
>
> Kane

Apparently, you.. dumbass.

[Kane]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:28 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
>> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>>
>> > No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the
>absolute
>> > nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which
has
>been
>> > acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to
>substantiate
>> > that it is not???
>>
>> The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that
Kane's
>> knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
>faulty, you
>> are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
>showing how
>> you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is
faulty. The
>only
>> next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is
not
>> consistent with my beliefs!"
>>
>> So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement
because you
>have
>> nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable
throughout
>history,
>> which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how
does
>that
>> validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have
been
>around for
>> a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
>>
>Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating,
or do
>you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as
you
>believe as they do?

What is it in Alborn's post that suggests his debate lacks relevance?

>I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over
again,
>and he has flip flopped time and time again.

I found no such showing of faulty logic. Nor have I flip flopped. If
one could pursuade me I might change my mind, but not otherwise.

>YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse..

There is no confusion involved. You simply refuse to answer those
logical questions I've posed. YOU may not think it abusive but others
do. More and more evidence, some of which I've offered, is coming down
on the side of unecessary injury being part of "spanking."

150-200 lb adults "spanking" 40 lb children comes to mind, and you
haven't responded to that example with anything but hubrus filled
nonsense statements.

>and by doing so,
>are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.

Rather a lot of research and debate has been made here and in other
forums to an argument you claim has no merit.

>> > KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it
eventually
>> > boiled down to his own limited observations.

My observations aren't limited.

>> For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of
>experience
>> associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience
runs
>counter
>> to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the
knowledge
>he has
>> gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent
with my
>> beliefs," doesn't cut it.
>
>BULL****.. He's been shown to be a liar time and time again.

You can show my lies? So far you simply make the claim. No proof even
when it should be readily available in these ngs.

>I have worked
>in with children for ages.

I find that difficult to believe. But of you say so.

That doesn't mean that you have done good or effective work with
children. Some teachers and practitioners are the instigators and
source for some very abusive attacks on children in the name of
discipline.

>Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer..

Was. I haven't trained horses since about 1968.

>and
>he's 'worked' with children of the rich and powerful. IF that's
true, they
>must not be so rich and powerful if they allow a horse trainer to
tend to
>the emotional needs of their children.

Try to imagine time as a continuum, not all happening at once, and you
might figure out that I've done different things at different times.
Sometimes overlapping, sometimes not. Interestingly, the rich and
powerful entrusted their charges to me when I was a horse trainer and
coach. I don't recall any confusion about what my task was at that
time with my tasks later in life after different education and a
career change.

>How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group?

Most don't descend to your level of stupidity. And I'm completely
unable to gauge the exact level of yours, but you are providing
considerably more data to work with as you continue.

>A 'retired Air Force Colonel',

You were very smart to put that in single inverted commas rather than
double quotes.

It might be construed, though you are misusing them, to mean that you
aren't making a direct quote. As apostrophes they do not apply, and as
single quotes they are inaccurate unless used to quote a quote inside
a string that is double inverted commas, our common "quotation marks."


And: I never claimed to be a colonel in the USAF. Where did you find a
rank for me mentioned? Even a corporal can be in command and that is
all I mentioned that could be possibly construed as a rank.

>who has also spent his life working with
>children,

Except for when I was a child myself that is close to true. Either
that or teaching others who work with children later in life.

>who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works.

On the contrary. I've spent a good deal of my professional life doing
just that. Even when I was a horse trainer and a riding coach I had to
give a great deal of consideration to how children learn and how to
teach them. I was paid rather well by their parents to do so.

Why do I get the impression that you confuse "discipline" to teach,
with "punishment" to hurt?

>Give
>me a break.

Consider yourself broken.

>>
>> > KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their
children,

I've asked you to point out where I said "never spanked." You have
failed to find such a statement by me. It's becoming pretty apparent
you have no credibility and will lie for just about any reason that
suits you.

>> > (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime)

I've lived a very long time, and I have associated with and been among
the wealthy myself. Now I'm just very comfortable. The latter half of
my life was spent in service and that's not often as profitable as my
earlier business ventures.

>and wants
>proof
>> > that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being
spanked.

Well? So far, nothing from you but blather.

>>
>> From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced
spanking, but
>the
>> ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and
>unreasonable
>> with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less
>powerful,
>> etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people >>never<<
spank?
>From
>> real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if
you
>could
>> show me where Kane actually said that.
>
>Just google back and you'll see that he has repeatedly

How many repeats did I do?

>made the claim that
>he's 'known and associated with the rich and powerful for many years
and
>that there is no evidence that they ever embraced spanking or
corporal
>punishment for their children'.

Is that a direct quote? If so why the inverted single commas again?

I believe you are lying. Misquoting me.

>Of course, for one who only reads what they want to read, and
interprets it
>as they see fit, you certainly would miss a lot of the nonsense he
has put
>forth.

R R R R R R .. goodun'

>>
>> > Common
>> > sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not
stray from
>> > acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature
points
>out
>> > that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which
DID in
>fact,
>> > use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.
>>
>> Show me where Kane said the rich and powerful never spank.
>
>LOL.. are you blind? He has stated it in several recent posts.

I doubt Gerald is blind but I am concerned you might be losing your
sight.

Surely you can, instead of the evasive weaseling, you can come up with
a post, point to it, and quote it where I say that the rish and
powerful never spank.

We are waiting.

>>
>> > Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the
behind
>with
>> > the open hand as a means

Where is this the only description of spanking? I've seen everything
from the minimalist definition you just offered to outright beating
with a wooden paddle defined as spanking.

On the other hand I've also asked you do show where hitting a child,
regardless of what you rename it, does NOT risk unwanted side effects,
and I've asked you to explain the Embry study with something other
than your perposterious claim that the researcher just said anything
he liked to get published.

He risked negative peer review, and I'm unable to find any. Often that
suggests that his peers couldn't find any problem with methodology or
outcome.

>> of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
>> > situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill
>discipline,
>> > with outright abuse.

It is. And pain to a small child equates only with the most immediate
and proximal objects in the enviroment...and when you hit YOU are the
closest to the child. They don't learn to fear the street, they learn
to fear YOU.

>>
>> The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous
situation
>you
>> teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is
dangerous
>and that
>> the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's
going to do
>> behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the
perceived
>danger
>> (the parent) isn't present.
>
>No, again you are completely dishonest.

Oh? I think Gerald is reflecting both his experience and the study of
researchers. Even the behaviorists recognize that pain is not a useful
motivator in most circumstances.

>You want to portray ALL spanking as
>abuse,

The argument could be made, and research is pursuing that direction.
The problem with "spanking" is that you are confining yourself to YOUR
definition and ignoring that others have quite different ones. Though
even your definition might not work for different children.

Would you, for instance, use spanking with an autistic child? Some
people have tried it. Would you use it with a child who is bi-polar,
or suffering from clinical depression?

Can you tell, without professional assessment, when a child might
suffer from developmental delays or disabilities or mental illness?

My point being: why spank even if other methods were only equal to
spanking in effectiveness? (And the prove in studies to be superior.)

>and TRY to portray that there is no difference.

That has not been the thrust of my argument. I have said that there
are similar characteristics. There is a difference of course. The
spankers lie to themselves and the world that there is little no
chance of damage. Read yourself in this thread.

>It was YOU who came
>up with the complete nonsense that disciplining a child or trying to
keep
>them from dangerous situations is 'imposing the will of a controlling
adult'
>on them... such utter nonsense.

It is imposing the will of a controlling adult. So are all forms of
discipline. The problem is not the controlling, but the intent.

>I don't know why anyone even bothers with
>your OR Kane.

Do you think yourself so well regarded in these ngs that your opinion
will sway the thoughtful reader from giving our argument
consideration?

>>
>> Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the
street,
>and
>> thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the
street.
>You
>> can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them
if
>they're too
>> young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety
is
>>>your<<
>> responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature
enough to
>> accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to
be
>spanked
>> to accept that.
>
>LOL.. You my friend are the fool if you think you can 'talk' to a
two year
>old and keep them from venturing into the street.

I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'" to
a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so
they have information stored up for later when they can understand and
make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her
develomental progress.

The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as the
model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly.

Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find the
place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself.

>You, like Kane seem to
>think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many
animals
>exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something
can be
>injurious to them.

I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in
fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up to
the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the child
is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course. Nature
drives the child to it.

>Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by
sitting
>back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence,

I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out
that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or later
get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and
usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got to
do a little exploring.

>in clear cut
>jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing ....

Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I DID
NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so that
they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue to
maintain her balance.

>ANY parent
>worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way
immediately,
>even if it meant putting themselves in danger.

My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into the
pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have
been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He
already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention.

>> > I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused
and non
>> > abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group
can tell
>you
>> > that each child responds differently and no one single method
works for
>> > every child, even within the same family.
>>
>> Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes
parenting
>and life
>> easier for the parent?"
>
>Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a
lame
>assed question.

Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond to.
You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you?

> Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"
>
>Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make
every
>decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any
decent
>parent's viewpoint.

What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of
letting a child make every decision for themselves? Children make many
decisions without any input from others.

He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning
situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or by
request, or by necessity.

>Or,
>> "makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows
the
>parent
>> to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is
probably
>quite
>> different from yours. What's your definition?
>
>YOu sir are a complete and utter ass.

The braying seem to be coming out of yours.

>Apparently, you are more concerned
>with YOUR needs than your childs.

He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the
time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and humiliation.

>Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into
the
>street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous
to that
>child.

Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and is
so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any other
possibilities.

If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread by
discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own
children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he
thought best for his children.

Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made it
very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and very
likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found exactly
the same thing.

>You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
>children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away
with.

On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent,
especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they received.
It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your
delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success?

I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally,
highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because they
feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were children
who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those I
turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting.
>>
>> Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no
shortcut
>> that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my
children to be
>> non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid
pain.
>
>No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you
did not
>do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations.

I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to, driven
by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them to
handle more effectively.

You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't
you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and feelings
I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust herself
more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to me,
that our relationship was far more important in her development than
strick adherence to my control of her.

> I preferred
>> them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.
>
>You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get
their way
>and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care
enough to
>discipline them or set limits for them.

Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned out
that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be
around.

>What's the real
>> point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on
behavioral
>"acts" in
>> your presence and for your benefit?
>
>Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense
of
>rationality.

If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation of
the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any sense
of rationality."
>>
>> > No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and
Kane seem
>to
>> > try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by
avoiding
>the
>> > distinction between abuse and spanking.
>>
>> Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between
abuse
>and
>> spanking?
>
>DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what
constitutes
>abuse and corporal punishment.

Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for
ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their
application from place to place and time to time.

>Any striking of the child with anything
>other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind
is
>abusive.

There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school
personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do
NOT rule out the use of objects.

The criteria is damage caused, not objects used.

>Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said
you and
>Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly
>accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have
repeatedly
>stated that I am not in favor of abuse,

You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse by
failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact you
mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar or
neurotic.

>but by attempting to lump the two
>together, you think it will make your position more viable.

Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you
prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some
children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong, I'd
say you are the one straining at your stool.

>You are too
>obvious.

I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for
Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this issue
and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a very
long time.

>>
>> > I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that
people
>like
>> > yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by
avoiding
>the
>> > separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral
ground.
>>
>> Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between
abuse
>and
>> spanking. How do >>you<< define abuse?
>
>I already have.. Time and time again.

And your definition doesn't stand up.

>You continue to show your complete
>lack of reading comprehension.

On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very
well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You
miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is an
ancient practice that should stand on that alone.

So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was
the idea that objects have spirits inside them.

>>
>> > And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like
you have
>> > created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline
in their
>> > lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not
being able
>to
>> > deal with reality.
>>
>> But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply
rooted,
>> misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're
certainly not
>looking
>> at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you
must
>maintain
>> a tight grip on your beliefs.
>
>Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue
>everything that is said,

Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued.

>flip flop back and forth

And my flips and flops.

>and try to put up straw
>men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your
bull****
>claims, which you and he have made.

I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own
experience, do so.

>If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I
have
>changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a
logical
>and reasonable reason for their beliefs.

No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but I
don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this
discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from
non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but
you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the rabid
pro spanking faction.

>But people like you and Kane

What are we like?

>continue to lie

Point out the lie please.

>and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
>abusive..

Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such thing.
We point out that our parenting is also discipline.

If you wish to claim that we portray punishment as questionable you
might start a real argument, but you fail on your weaseling.

>it is not.. NOT to discipline a child or set limits is the truly
>abusive thing,

It would be if that were what we were suggesting. I am not. I do not
believe Alborn is doing so either. Teaching is by definition
discipline.

Do you think we do not teach, or have not taught, our children?

>you are living in a fairy tale world.

The idea that children are manipulative evil little self serving
creatures by nature is the real fairy tale. Been reading Dobson, have
you?

>Keep on believing it
>because I doubt you are swaying anyone to your nonsense.

We can only put out what we know. It's up to them to decide for
themselves. On the other hand, I've swayed at the very least,
hundreds, more likely thousands, to a non-punitive parenting model,
and there seems to be no followup of children dying under the wheels
of traffic on streets they run into. Wonder why that is?
>>
>> Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure
science,
>as
>> much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a
child's
>> behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of
feelings,
>including
>> anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do.

>Yawn.. what the hell makes you think anyone gets 'angry' simply
because
>they discipline their child?

What makes you think they don't?

>Oh yeah, right.. just sit back calmly while
>your child dashes into the street, or sits on a fence and is
approached by
>an angry bull and your a 'good parent'.

Gettin' kind of frothy around the mount there, aren't we, Dennis?

Even the casual reader wouldn't fall for those examples. Or do you
have data that shows that most of the children that die in street
entry accidents weren't spanked?

> Your beliefs about
>> the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU
were
>raised as
>> a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up
motivated to
>pass it
>> on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle.
>>
>> -Jerry-
>
>Bull**** Jerry. *I* was never abused as a child.

We have your word on that?

>I was spanked,

Obviously.

>there is a
>huge difference that only a fool or a liar can ignore.

My bet is that Jerry was spanked as well. And likely not "abused" as
you mean it. Interesting that he could come to a different conclusion
than you though, eh? Something to do with intelligence and good mental
health maybe? For him, not you.

>You have no moral high ground to stand on..

He figured out how to successfully parent his children by switching
from switching and you haven't and you claim he doesn't have the high
moral ground?

Interesting take on the issue.

>you only show your complete and
>utter ignorance of children and their differences.

Interesting that he would expand his parenting repertoire and find
spanking and punishment methods lacking but you claim he is ignorant.

What is it about using all the methods (and there are many) for
parenting without pain and humiliation that would lead you to believe
that he, or I, would not notice or respect the differences between
children?

>Keep on reading all the
>psychobabble and learn parenting from Dr. Ruth

I don't recall a Dr. Ruth in the pantheon of child development
researchers. Can you referrence please?

>and pretend you have all the
>answers. You don't.

Since he found more than punitive parenting as an answer to how he
wished to and parented his children it would be pretty obvious that he
knows he doesn't have all the answers. Neither do I, but I do know
what I've found so far works.

Now maybe you can point us to some other things that work, that have
such a low risk to the child as non-punitive parenting. I for one and
open to learning still.

For instance, it would be impossible for me to damage a mentally ill
child, or a developmentally disabled or delayed child by
spanking...and surely you would agree spanking would be
contraindicated for such. Those who spank take a terrible risk their
child could be undiagnosed with these or other problems.

It used to believed that deaf children were stupid. Many a deaf child
ended up in an institution for mentally ill or developmentally
disabled children when all they needed was the modern testing methods
to show they had only hearing as a problem.

Should we have spanked them into hearing? Many tried.

We await your response.

Jonesie, you are getting even better with age.

Kane

[Kane]

"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03>...
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
> news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
> > > Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical
> > > punishment'.. lol
> >
> > As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a child
> > doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
> > punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.

So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such
things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are you
prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference to
the post where I said it?

> Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What you
> see is what you get fella.

Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to bluff
it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or
rather what he was. A troll.

You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see how
many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very new
poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie has
had many names.

If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.

> > By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your
> > style hasn't changed in all these years.
>
> Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these newsgroups
> 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.

Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only 171
posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon hundreds
before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record for
number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was in
talk.politics.guns as I recall.

> Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin boards and
> since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've ever engaged
> you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions to try to
> uphold your convictions.

Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.

> > It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an
> > old iJones number from years ago.
>
> Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.

Sounds just like Jonesie.

What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.

> My name on here is my real
> name,

Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you can't
portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written
autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really are.

> I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior
> to this one. Period.

That's nice. I don't believe you.

> >
> > But it was fun while it lasted.
> >
> > Who trolled who..r r r r
> >
> > Kane
>
> Apparently, you.. dumbass.

Kinda losing it, eh?

I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?

Kane

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's
> > knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
> faulty, you
> > are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
> showing how
> > you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The
> only
> > next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not
> > consistent with my beliefs!"
> >
> > So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you
> have
> > nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout
> history,
> > which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does
> that
> > validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been
> around for
> > a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
> >
> Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do
> you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you
> believe as they do?

You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what appears to
be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of
substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their face,
sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your
statement?

Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you established that
it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I questioned
your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict you'll
continue dancing.

> I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over again,
> and he has flip flopped time and time again.

It really appears you are confusing the "faulty logic of others" with knowledge
that "runs contrary to your firmly-rooted beliefs," as I was saying before.

I haven't read every post here over the past six months. If you've shown that
Kane's knowledge is faulty, and I seriously doubt that you have, it shouldn't be
that difficult to post it again. I've known Kane on this ng for several years
and I've never glimpsed any faulty logic nor lies nor false information coming
from him. Your statement apparently cannot be validated. Is that why you're
trying to switch the focus of this discussion?

> YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. and by doing so,
> are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.

>From reading ahead in your post, I already see why you're confusing spanking
with abuse. You're relying on legal definition. That only holds up in a place
where spanking is legal and abuse is defined as hurting children to a degree
worse than some arbitrary limit, set by the lawmakers of a particular place. It
has nothing to do with true abuse: causing damage, either physical or emotional.
Are you really content with damage caused to children, as long as the law allows
it?

> How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group?

I haven't fully assessed that yet.

> A 'retired Air Force Colonel', who has also spent his life working with
> children, who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works.

Dennis, you need to be more careful when you post false claims. Some of us can
see right through you.

I've had enough of your nonsense for one day.

-Jerry-

[Doan]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's
> > > knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
> > faulty, you
> > > are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
> > showing how
> > > you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The
> > only
> > > next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not
> > > consistent with my beliefs!"
> > >
> > > So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you
> > have
> > > nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout
> > history,
> > > which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does
> > that
> > > validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been
> > around for
> > > a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
> > >
> > Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do
> > you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you
> > believe as they do?
>
> You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what appears to
> be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of
> substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their face,
> sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your
> statement?
>
> Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you established that
> it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I questioned
> your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict you'll
> continue dancing.
>
Hi, Gerald. You might want to look at some of Kane's posts regarding the
Maurer study. He even claimed that spanking is NOT physical punishment!

Doan

[Steve Saus]

I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).

http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Bill B. Johnson]

In article >, Steve Saus
> wrote:

> I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
> posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
> thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).
>
> http://tinyurl.com/u6ht
>
> Steve
> ----
> See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
> http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
> See permissions for reposting at
> http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm


It was interesting reading the various posts on this subject. However, the
sad truth is that many state and federal court judges don't pay any
attention to the Constitution or "original intent"--they just make rulings
based upon their liberal thinking processes. The best example is Roe vs.
Wade--the Supreme Court judges determined that abortion was legal.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution but the judges made up the
"right to privacy" and even that right is not mentioned in the
Constitution.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that
Kane's
> > > knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
> > faulty, you
> > > are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
> > showing how
> > > you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty.
The
> > only
> > > next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is
not
> > > consistent with my beliefs!"
> > >
> > > So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because
you
> > have
> > > nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout
> > history,
> > > which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how
does
> > that
> > > validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been
> > around for
> > > a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
> > >
> > Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or
do
> > you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as
you
> > believe as they do?
>
> You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what
appears to
> be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of
> substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their
face,
> sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your
> statement?

DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves.
His 'brain scan' studies were shown to be completely false by Michael
Morris, and his psychological studies come straight from non spanking
websites which clearly have an agenda and are completely biased.

HE made the assertions, and through basic common sense, I have disputed
them. He has flip flopped back and forth, and yet you ask ME to disprove
what HE has claimed. Sorry guy, THAT is not the way debates work. Only a
complete fool or moron would simply accept what someone 'claims' to be fact
as truth, and ask those disputing it for 'proof'.

Besides, life itself has shown anyone with a bit of common sense that his
logic is completely flawed.

>
> Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you
established that
> it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I
questioned
> your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict
you'll
> continue dancing.

Dancing? LOL> Are you even a parent, or have you ever even HAD a child.
Faulty logic #!... one cannot 'talk' to a one or two year old, and even Kane
claims that their brains are not developed enough until the age of 6.
(where the hell he got that number is unknown, as I've seen many able to
formulate concise thought and reasoning at a younger age).

Faulty logic #2...That a parent can possibly just sit by and watch as his
child climbs a fence where an angry bull is and HOPE that nothing happens,
and calmy 'talk to them' afterwards.. LOL..

Faulty logic #3..that one can combine spanking with abuse and treat them the
same. That there is no 'difference' or the differences are so subtle that
he wants to ignore them. An attempt to gain high moral ground through
dishonesty.

Faulty logic #4...that one can simply give their very young child a safe
place to play.. avoids the issue that most (if not all) children are very
inquisitive and many are hyperactive and are surely not going to stay in
place.. that one can 'show' their child not to do things which are unsafe
when he clearly admits their little brains are not fully developed..

How much more evidence do you want that he is nothing more than a
bull****ter? In my eyes, and Im quite sure the majority of parents here, HE
is the abuser or at the very least, a very negligent parent based upon HIS o
wn stories about his child and the bull. Im sure he would have had second
thoughts had the bull charged his daughter.. his lame assed ideas wouldn't
have worked now would they?

>
> > I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over
again,
> > and he has flip flopped time and time again.
>
> It really appears you are confusing the "faulty logic of others" with
knowledge
> that "runs contrary to your firmly-rooted beliefs," as I was saying
before.

No, that appears to be exactly what YOU are doing. Any idiot who asks
someone to show proof for their claims while blindly accepting the claims of
others as truth, even when they have been challenged time and time again by
others.

>
> I haven't read every post here over the past six months. If you've shown
that
> Kane's knowledge is faulty, and I seriously doubt that you have, it
shouldn't be
> that difficult to post it again. I've known Kane on this ng for several
years
> and I've never glimpsed any faulty logic nor lies nor false information
coming
> from him. Your statement apparently cannot be validated. Is that why
you're
> trying to switch the focus of this discussion?
>
If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost
them for your benefit? That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
for your browing

I am not the one trying to switch the focus of this discussion, it is you.
If you are to come in at the end of a discussion and want to join in, isnt
it YOUR responsibility to see that you have all the facts to back up your
statements? Aren't YOU the one who claimed that Kane has a wealth of
'experience' in this field?

> > YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. and by doing
so,
> > are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.
>
> >From reading ahead in your post, I already see why you're confusing
spanking
> with abuse. You're relying on legal definition. That only holds up in a
place
> where spanking is legal and abuse is defined as hurting children to a
degree
> worse than some arbitrary limit, set by the lawmakers of a particular
place. It
> has nothing to do with true abuse: causing damage, either physical or
emotional.
> Are you really content with damage caused to children, as long as the law
allows
> it?
>
No.. again, you want to portray anyone who uses spanking as either a
teaching method for toddlers, or a disciplinary method for older children as
some kind of monster, just as Kane has unsuccessfully attempted.

What it boils down to is that people like you and Kane will hang onto every
word by anyone who wants to get published and push it as fact.. in an
attempt to take away parental rights to raise their children as they see
fit. (and this does NOT include abuse outside of the legal definitions)..

See, YOU have done the exact same thing that Kane has attempted.. to refuse
to accept the legal definition of abuse as what myself and many many others
consider abusive as well. You thought you could squeeze some sort of flip
flopping out of me by asking for a definition, but that ploy didn't work.


> > How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group?
>
> I haven't fully assessed that yet.

Apparently, you have since you come into a homeschool newsgroup and try to
ursurp parental rights to raise their children in the way they see fit.

>
> > A 'retired Air Force Colonel', who has also spent his life working with
> > children, who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works.
>
> Dennis, you need to be more careful when you post false claims. Some of us
can
> see right through you.

DUH.. Jerry, KANE is the one who made those claims, not I.. YOU made the
claims that he has so much 'experience'.. and that I was ignoring it. Kane
has repeatedly attempted to try to impress people with his credentials, but
they have been questioned time and time again only to have him weasle his
way around and flip flop back and forth.

a retured Air force colonel, who raised a family, raised dogs, trained
horses, slummed with the 'rich and powerful' who never spank, and he has
used his methods on their children.. LOL.. Grow up and learn to realize
when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.

>
> I've had enough of your nonsense for one day.
>
> -Jerry-

Then stay the hell out of the discussion if you don't like it. I've had
enough of your nonsense as well. You blindly follow a fool who makes wild
claims, then ask others to post proof that his claims are not valid..
>

[Dennis Hancock]

He's too blinded Doan. He wants US to disprove Kane's claims, and is too
lazy to go back and read the nonsense for himself.

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:
>
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> > >
> > > > The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that
Kane's
> > > > knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
> > > faulty, you
> > > > are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
> > > showing how
> > > > you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty.
The
> > > only
> > > > next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is
not
> > > > consistent with my beliefs!"
> > > >
> > > > So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because
you
> > > have
> > > > nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable
throughout
> > > history,
> > > > which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how
does
> > > that
> > > > validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have
been
> > > around for
> > > > a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
> > > >
> > > Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or
do
> > > you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as
you
> > > believe as they do?
> >
> > You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what
appears to
> > be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind
of
> > substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their
face,
> > sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for
your
> > statement?
> >
> > Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you
established that
> > it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I
questioned
> > your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict
you'll
> > continue dancing.
> >
> Hi, Gerald. You might want to look at some of Kane's posts regarding the
> Maurer study. He even claimed that spanking is NOT physical punishment!
>
> Doan
>
>

[Dennis Hancock]

Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him
and hangs on kane's every word. Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
kane himself using an alter ego.


"Steve Saus" > wrote in message
...
> I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in
your
> posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
> thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).
>
> http://tinyurl.com/u6ht
>
> Steve
> ----
> See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
> http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
> See permissions for reposting at
> http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:28 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >>
> >> > No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the
> >absolute
> >> > nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which
> has
> >been
> >> > acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to
> >substantiate
> >> > that it is not???
> >>
> >> The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that
> Kane's
> >> knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
> >faulty, you
> >> are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
> >showing how
> >> you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is
> faulty. The
> >only
> >> next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is
> not
> >> consistent with my beliefs!"
> >>
> >> So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement
> because you
> >have
> >> nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable
> throughout
> >history,
> >> which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how
> does
> >that
> >> validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have
> been
> >around for
> >> a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?
> >>
> >Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating,
> or do
> >you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as
> you
> >believe as they do?
>
> What is it in Alborn's post that suggests his debate lacks relevance?
>
> >I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over
> again,
> >and he has flip flopped time and time again.
>
> I found no such showing of faulty logic. Nor have I flip flopped. If
> one could pursuade me I might change my mind, but not otherwise.
>
> >YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse..
>
> There is no confusion involved. You simply refuse to answer those
> logical questions I've posed. YOU may not think it abusive but others
> do. More and more evidence, some of which I've offered, is coming down
> on the side of unecessary injury being part of "spanking."
>
> 150-200 lb adults "spanking" 40 lb children comes to mind, and you
> haven't responded to that example with anything but hubrus filled
> nonsense statements.
>
> >and by doing so,
> >are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.
>
> Rather a lot of research and debate has been made here and in other
> forums to an argument you claim has no merit.
>
> >> > KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it
> eventually
> >> > boiled down to his own limited observations.
>
> My observations aren't limited.
>
> >> For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of
> >experience
> >> associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience
> runs
> >counter
> >> to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the
> knowledge
> >he has
> >> gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent
> with my
> >> beliefs," doesn't cut it.
> >
> >BULL****.. He's been shown to be a liar time and time again.
>
> You can show my lies? So far you simply make the claim. No proof even
> when it should be readily available in these ngs.
>
> >I have worked
> >in with children for ages.
>
> I find that difficult to believe. But of you say so.
>
> That doesn't mean that you have done good or effective work with
> children. Some teachers and practitioners are the instigators and
> source for some very abusive attacks on children in the name of
> discipline.
>
> >Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer..
>
> Was. I haven't trained horses since about 1968.
>
> >and
> >he's 'worked' with children of the rich and powerful. IF that's
> true, they
> >must not be so rich and powerful if they allow a horse trainer to
> tend to
> >the emotional needs of their children.
>
> Try to imagine time as a continuum, not all happening at once, and you
> might figure out that I've done different things at different times.
> Sometimes overlapping, sometimes not. Interestingly, the rich and
> powerful entrusted their charges to me when I was a horse trainer and
> coach. I don't recall any confusion about what my task was at that
> time with my tasks later in life after different education and a
> career change.
>
> >How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group?
>
> Most don't descend to your level of stupidity. And I'm completely
> unable to gauge the exact level of yours, but you are providing
> considerably more data to work with as you continue.
>
> >A 'retired Air Force Colonel',
>
> You were very smart to put that in single inverted commas rather than
> double quotes.
>
> It might be construed, though you are misusing them, to mean that you
> aren't making a direct quote. As apostrophes they do not apply, and as
> single quotes they are inaccurate unless used to quote a quote inside
> a string that is double inverted commas, our common "quotation marks."
>
>
> And: I never claimed to be a colonel in the USAF. Where did you find a
> rank for me mentioned? Even a corporal can be in command and that is
> all I mentioned that could be possibly construed as a rank.
>
> >who has also spent his life working with
> >children,
>
> Except for when I was a child myself that is close to true. Either
> that or teaching others who work with children later in life.
>
> >who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works.
>
> On the contrary. I've spent a good deal of my professional life doing
> just that. Even when I was a horse trainer and a riding coach I had to
> give a great deal of consideration to how children learn and how to
> teach them. I was paid rather well by their parents to do so.
>
> Why do I get the impression that you confuse "discipline" to teach,
> with "punishment" to hurt?
>
> >Give
> >me a break.
>
> Consider yourself broken.
>
> >>
> >> > KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their
> children,
>
> I've asked you to point out where I said "never spanked." You have
> failed to find such a statement by me. It's becoming pretty apparent
> you have no credibility and will lie for just about any reason that
> suits you.
>
> >> > (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime)
>
> I've lived a very long time, and I have associated with and been among
> the wealthy myself. Now I'm just very comfortable. The latter half of
> my life was spent in service and that's not often as profitable as my
> earlier business ventures.
>
> >and wants
> >proof
> >> > that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being
> spanked.
>
> Well? So far, nothing from you but blather.
>
> >>
> >> From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced
> spanking, but
> >the
> >> ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and
> >unreasonable
> >> with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less
> >powerful,
> >> etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people >>never<<
> spank?
> >From
> >> real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if
> you
> >could
> >> show me where Kane actually said that.
> >
> >Just google back and you'll see that he has repeatedly
>
> How many repeats did I do?
>
> >made the claim that
> >he's 'known and associated with the rich and powerful for many years
> and
> >that there is no evidence that they ever embraced spanking or
> corporal
> >punishment for their children'.
>
> Is that a direct quote? If so why the inverted single commas again?
>
> I believe you are lying. Misquoting me.
>
> >Of course, for one who only reads what they want to read, and
> interprets it
> >as they see fit, you certainly would miss a lot of the nonsense he
> has put
> >forth.
>
> R R R R R R .. goodun'
>
> >>
> >> > Common
> >> > sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not
> stray from
> >> > acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature
> points
> >out
> >> > that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which
> DID in
> >fact,
> >> > use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.
> >>
> >> Show me where Kane said the rich and powerful never spank.
> >
> >LOL.. are you blind? He has stated it in several recent posts.
>
> I doubt Gerald is blind but I am concerned you might be losing your
> sight.
>
> Surely you can, instead of the evasive weaseling, you can come up with
> a post, point to it, and quote it where I say that the rish and
> powerful never spank.
>
> We are waiting.
>
> >>
> >> > Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the
> behind
> >with
> >> > the open hand as a means
>
> Where is this the only description of spanking? I've seen everything
> from the minimalist definition you just offered to outright beating
> with a wooden paddle defined as spanking.
>
> On the other hand I've also asked you do show where hitting a child,
> regardless of what you rename it, does NOT risk unwanted side effects,
> and I've asked you to explain the Embry study with something other
> than your perposterious claim that the researcher just said anything
> he liked to get published.
>
> He risked negative peer review, and I'm unable to find any. Often that
> suggests that his peers couldn't find any problem with methodology or
> outcome.
>
> >> of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
> >> > situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill
> >discipline,
> >> > with outright abuse.
>
> It is. And pain to a small child equates only with the most immediate
> and proximal objects in the enviroment...and when you hit YOU are the
> closest to the child. They don't learn to fear the street, they learn
> to fear YOU.
>
> >>
> >> The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous
> situation
> >you
> >> teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is
> dangerous
> >and that
> >> the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's
> going to do
> >> behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the
> perceived
> >danger
> >> (the parent) isn't present.
> >
> >No, again you are completely dishonest.
>
> Oh? I think Gerald is reflecting both his experience and the study of
> researchers. Even the behaviorists recognize that pain is not a useful
> motivator in most circumstances.
>
> >You want to portray ALL spanking as
> >abuse,
>
> The argument could be made, and research is pursuing that direction.
> The problem with "spanking" is that you are confining yourself to YOUR
> definition and ignoring that others have quite different ones. Though
> even your definition might not work for different children.
>
> Would you, for instance, use spanking with an autistic child? Some
> people have tried it. Would you use it with a child who is bi-polar,
> or suffering from clinical depression?
>
> Can you tell, without professional assessment, when a child might
> suffer from developmental delays or disabilities or mental illness?
>
> My point being: why spank even if other methods were only equal to
> spanking in effectiveness? (And the prove in studies to be superior.)
>
> >and TRY to portray that there is no difference.
>
> That has not been the thrust of my argument. I have said that there
> are similar characteristics. There is a difference of course. The
> spankers lie to themselves and the world that there is little no
> chance of damage. Read yourself in this thread.
>
> >It was YOU who came
> >up with the complete nonsense that disciplining a child or trying to
> keep
> >them from dangerous situations is 'imposing the will of a controlling
> adult'
> >on them... such utter nonsense.
>
> It is imposing the will of a controlling adult. So are all forms of
> discipline. The problem is not the controlling, but the intent.
>
> >I don't know why anyone even bothers with
> >your OR Kane.
>
> Do you think yourself so well regarded in these ngs that your opinion
> will sway the thoughtful reader from giving our argument
> consideration?
>
> >>
> >> Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the
> street,
> >and
> >> thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the
> street.
> >You
> >> can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them
> if
> >they're too
> >> young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety
> is
> >>>your<<
> >> responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature
> enough to
> >> accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to
> be
> >spanked
> >> to accept that.
> >
> >LOL.. You my friend are the fool if you think you can 'talk' to a
> two year
> >old and keep them from venturing into the street.
>
> I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'" to
> a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so
> they have information stored up for later when they can understand and
> make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her
> develomental progress.

But you have repeatedly stated that their brains are not developed enough
for reasoned thinking. So, let's see, you are proposing 'brainwashing'
techniques on small children?

This again, another flip flop. YOU have stated that studies show that
nagging a child not to do something encourages them to do it first chance
they get. Digging your hole deeper guy.

>
> The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as the
> model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly.
>
> Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find the
> place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself.

And you simply stand by when they leave that safe place and put themselves
in danger as you did with your daughter?

Again, I will repeat, I am happy that your child did not suffer severe
injury, but you provided ample evidence that your theories do not always
work.

>
> >You, like Kane seem to
> >think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many
> animals
> >exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something
> can be
> >injurious to them.
>
> I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in
> fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up to
> the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the child
> is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course. Nature
> drives the child to it.

And your recollections of your daughter's incident shows that your theories
can be just as dangerous and deadly.

>
> >Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by
> sitting
> >back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence,
>
> I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out
> that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or later
> get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and
> usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got to
> do a little exploring.
>
But, you were quite quick to point out, when I and others brought up the
topic that you give a safe place to play and closely supervise them. The
inference was clearly there that if the child wandered off, the parent was
somehow negligent, yet you cannot even see that same fact in your own
example.

> >in clear cut
> >jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing ....
>
> Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I DID
> NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so that
> they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue to
> maintain her balance.

You were frozen with fear then?

You did not state that you did anything to save her, only that you calmly
talked to her afterwards. I'm sure you are greatful that nothing happened,
but from what little you've given us, we have nothing to show that your
'methods' had anything to do with saving her life.

>
> >ANY parent
> >worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way
> immediately,
> >even if it meant putting themselves in danger.
>
> My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into the
> pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have
> been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He
> already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention.
>
I would certainly hope so. As with my example, my young nephew was running
full blast towards a six foot drop onto a concrete slab, looking back and
thinking it was fun. I did not have the luxury of standing back and
watching for if I had, he would surely have crushed his skull.

Did I give him a swat on the butt after I caught him, just as his foot went
over the edge.. You bet I did.

> >> > I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused
> and non
> >> > abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group
> can tell
> >you
> >> > that each child responds differently and no one single method
> works for
> >> > every child, even within the same family.
> >>
> >> Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes
> parenting
> >and life
> >> easier for the parent?"
> >
> >Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a
> lame
> >assed question.
>
> Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond to.
> You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you?

No, it WAS a lame question. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child is
simply imposing a controlling will on them is way out in space somewhere.

>
> > Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"
> >
> >Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make
> every
> >decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any
> decent
> >parent's viewpoint.
>
> What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of
> letting a child make every decision for themselves?

Gee Kane, your comprehensive skills are as lacking as his. Do you even
****ing know what a rhetorical question is?

Any attempt at parenting is called imposing one's will on them.. lol..

Children make many
> decisions without any input from others.

Yawn.. again, your attempt at attacking every single sentence in the hopes
of obscuring the issues is quite weak indeed. OF COURSE THEY DO.. how the
hell is that relevent to this discussion, unless of course you want to
abrigate your parental duties and let the child raise himself?

>
> He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning
> situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or by
> request, or by necessity.

no, you are mistaken.. again.
>
> >Or,
> >> "makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows
> the
> >parent
> >> to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is
> probably
> >quite
> >> different from yours. What's your definition?
> >
> >YOu sir are a complete and utter ass.
>
> The braying seem to be coming out of yours.

At least my head's not stuck in it as yours appears to be.

>
> >Apparently, you are more concerned
> >with YOUR needs than your childs.
>
> He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the
> time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and humiliation.

LOL.. no, he doesn't want to be bothered with the child. YOu sure love
those words pain, fear and humiliation don't you..

>
> >Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into
> the
> >street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous
> to that
> >child.
>
> Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and is
> so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any other
> possibilities.
>
Yep, sounds like you indeed. Close minded and linear thinking. One size
fits all.

> If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread by
> discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own
> children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he
> thought best for his children.

And had he found that not spanking didn't work, that would be his choice and
his parental rights. But to attempt to portray all spankers as abusers and
simply imposing a controlling will on a child, as both you and he have tried
to do is completely dishonest and an attempt to shove your concepts on
parenting upon others.

>
> Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made it
> very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and very
> likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found exactly
> the same thing.
>
Again, a claim you do not substantiate. "others" attempts to assume that
everyone or most follow and agree with your assertions. Just as I can most
assuredly state that "Others" have found that non spanking does not produce
the results they desire and that some children are much more manipulative
than others.

> >You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
> >children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away
> with.
>
> On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent,
> especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they received.
> It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your
> delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success?

LOL.. another flip flop. Now you admit that children test the limits.. yet
most psychologists claim that children actually WANT limits to be set, and
that by avoiding that, and avoiding the imposition of any consequences is
dangerous and makes them feel unloved.

When non spanking and positive encourgement do not work, I suppose you just
give up and let the child do as they please? And you consider that a
success?



>
> I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally,
> highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because they
> feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were children
> who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those I
> turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting.

I was a martial arts instructor for well over 25 years and most of the
children and adults I worked with respected me and did not fear me. I
imposed phyiscal hardships on them in training for disciplinary purposes,
but they soon learned that I was not abusive nor would I purposely injure
them.

So what is your point? Do you make your child do pushups if they are bad?
Or do you pat them on the head and say please don't do it again.

> >>
> >> Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no
> shortcut
> >> that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my
> children to be
> >> non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid
> pain.

You assume they do not have the ability to learn that there are consequences
associated with their actions. You demean them as less than animals if you
think they simply respond to pain and simply learning to fear you. That is
again, only dealing with the truly abusive parent and not applicable to this
discussion. You attempt continually to portray all spanking as abuse.

> >
> >No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you
> did not
> >do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations.
>
> I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to, driven
> by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them to
> handle more effectively.

A weasle answer if I ever heard one.

>
> You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't
> you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and feelings
> I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust herself
> more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to me,
> that our relationship was far more important in her development than
> strick adherence to my control of her.

That would have done a hell of a lot of good had she been gored by the bull
while you sat back and watched.

Perhaps had you given her a swat on the butt, she may not have climbed that
fence to begin with.

>
> > I preferred
> >> them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.
> >
> >You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get
> their way
> >and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care
> enough to
> >discipline them or set limits for them.
>
> Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned out
> that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be
> around.
>
Well, we have to accept your word on that now don't we?

> >What's the real
> >> point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on
> behavioral
> >"acts" in
> >> your presence and for your benefit?
> >
> >Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense
> of
> >rationality.
>
> If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation of
> the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any sense
> of rationality."

There comes the hurt and humiliation bull**** again. Sound like a broken
record. People get humilitated throughout their lives. Its when they dont
learn to handle it, we have explosive situations occur.

Poor *******s like yourself cannot understand the harm you are doing, and
want to portray yourself as some kind of hero to the child and everyone else
is an abusive ass.. You are pathetic.

> >>
> >> > No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and
> Kane seem
> >to
> >> > try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by
> avoiding
> >the
> >> > distinction between abuse and spanking.
> >>
> >> Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between
> abuse
> >and
> >> spanking?
> >
> >DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what
> constitutes
> >abuse and corporal punishment.
>
> Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for
> ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their
> application from place to place and time to time.
>
> >Any striking of the child with anything
> >other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind
> is
> >abusive.
>
> There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school
> personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do
> NOT rule out the use of objects.

Name them please, or show me a link which states they exist.

>
> The criteria is damage caused, not objects used.
>
> >Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said
> you and
> >Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly
> >accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have
> repeatedly
> >stated that I am not in favor of abuse,
>
> You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse by
> failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact you
> mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar or
> neurotic.
>

AHH.. there it is folks.. I am promoting abuse.. another lie by Kane which
shows his true nature.

He asks for a definition then refuses to accept it. It doesn't fit with his
mentality that any kind of discipline is not necessarily abuse.

> >but by attempting to lump the two
> >together, you think it will make your position more viable.
>
> Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you
> prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some
> children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong, I'd
> say you are the one straining at your stool.

ahh. but it IS defined in my narrow way. It is defined LEGALLY. Again I
repeat since your tiny brain cannot assimilate the information, anyone who
exceeds the legal definition of corporal punishment is criminally negligent
and should be brought to task.

Kinda blows you off your moral high horse don't it?


>
> >You are too
> >obvious.
>
> I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for
> Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this issue
> and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a very
> long time.

Maybe you should stop examining and take a look at real life.

>
> >>
> >> > I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that
> people
> >like
> >> > yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by
> avoiding
> >the
> >> > separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral
> ground.
> >>
> >> Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between
> abuse
> >and
> >> spanking. How do >>you<< define abuse?
> >
> >I already have.. Time and time again.
>
> And your definition doesn't stand up.

It stands up in any court of law throughout the nation.

Again, you prove time and time again that you are a liar and an agenda here.

>
> >You continue to show your complete
> >lack of reading comprehension.
>
> On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very
> well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You
> miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is an
> ancient practice that should stand on that alone.

I fail to make sense? LOL. You've twisted, turned and backpeddled on every
issue. You think taking every sentence and attacking it, or trying to use
the same wording to somehow give validity as your stance is going to sway
anyone.

>
> So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was
> the idea that objects have spirits inside them.

Yawn, more nonsense.

>
> >>
> >> > And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like
> you have
> >> > created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline
> in their
> >> > lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not
> being able
> >to
> >> > deal with reality.
> >>
> >> But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply
> rooted,
> >> misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're
> certainly not
> >looking
> >> at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you
> must
> >maintain
> >> a tight grip on your beliefs.

I'm blinded? lol

> >
> >Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue
> >everything that is said,
>
> Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued.
>
> >flip flop back and forth
>
> And my flips and flops.
>
I tire of your nonsense.. I think most here have recognized them as i've
pointed them out time and time again.

> >and try to put up straw
> >men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your
> bull****
> >claims, which you and he have made.
>
> I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own
> experience, do so.

yeah, funny YOU claimed you had so much 'experience'.

>
> >If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I
> have
> >changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a
> logical
> >and reasonable reason for their beliefs.
>
> No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but I
> don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this
> discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from
> non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but
> you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the rabid
> pro spanking faction.

Yawn.. then you prove yourself to be a liar as well as you've claimed to be
'lurking' here for a long time now.

>
> >But people like you and Kane
>
> What are we like?
>
> >continue to lie
>
> Point out the lie please.
>
> >and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
> >abusive..
>
> Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such thing.
> We point out that our parenting is also discipline.

You have yet to show that in any way.

>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
news:<aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03>...
> > "Kane" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
> > news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
> > > > Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
'pysical
> > > > punishment'.. lol
> > >
> > > As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a child
> > > doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
> > > punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.
> Kane said:
> So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such
> things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are you
> prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference to
> the post where I said it?

Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that statement and
you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the poster
claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I stated
that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an enlisted man
in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does indeed
exist as a discipline in the armed services.

I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile hikes
with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show how much
of a weasel you can be.



>
> > Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What
you
> > see is what you get fella.
>
Kane stated:
> Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to bluff
> it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or
> rather what he was. A troll.

Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined 'nemesis' you
encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own position.

I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not shown or
admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool newsgroup
an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that category
quite clearly.

>
> You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see how
> many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very new
> poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie has
> had many names.

Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol.. what a
lame assed attempt. Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of
switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's..

I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like yourself
posting nonsense.

>
> If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.

I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few clones
yourself.

>
> > > By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your
> > > style hasn't changed in all these years.
> >
> > Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these
newsgroups
> > 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.
>
> Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only 171
> posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon hundreds
> before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record for
> number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was in
> talk.politics.guns as I recall.

Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself? DUH..

IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record for
posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name? LOL..

I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I DO
however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some
nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's your
****ing problem guy.

>
> > Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin boards
and
> > since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've ever
engaged
> > you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions to try
to
> > uphold your convictions.
>
> Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.

My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse? Paranoia
running rampant?

>
> > > It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an
> > > old iJones number from years ago.
> >
> > Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.
>
> Sounds just like Jonesie.

Then he musta been onto you just as I am.

>
> What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.
>
> > My name on here is my real
> > name,
>
> Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
> electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you can't
> portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written
> autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really are.

No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and met
enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand that than
most.

What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am somehow your
old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics?

>
> > I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior
> > to this one. Period.
>
> That's nice. I don't believe you.

Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a liar and
a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted.

>
> > >
> > > But it was fun while it lasted.
> > >
> > > Who trolled who..r r r r
> > >
> > > Kane
> >
> > Apparently, you.. dumbass.
>
> Kinda losing it, eh?
>
> I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?
>
> Kane

You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop.

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what
> appears to
> > be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of
> > substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their
> face,
> > sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your
> > statement?
>
> DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves.

Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what
you've asserted.

> If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost
> them for your benefit?

Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't repost what
isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity is. Let's
just leave it at that.

> That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
> for your browing

FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a retired Air Force
Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever saying such a thing.
It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to substantiate
your statements.

> Grow up and learn to realize
> when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.

I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you.

-Jerry-

[Kane]

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:05:03 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...

snip.........

>> I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'"
to
>> a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so
>> they have information stored up for later when they can understand
and
>> make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her
>> develomental progress.
>
>But you have repeatedly stated that their brains are not developed
enough
>for reasoned thinking.

Apparently you use terms you do not understand. The only "reasoning"
that children below six do is linear and to please the parent,
especially if the parent wants to think their child has the cognitive
ability to reason abstractly.

>So, let's see, you are proposing 'brainwashing'
>techniques on small children?


I don't see anything in my statement that suggests "'brainwashing'"
specifically or in general.

Do you consider it "brain washing" to provide your child with new
information?

>This again, another flip flop.

Please explain.

>YOU have stated that studies show that
>nagging a child not to do something encourages them to do it first
chance
>they get. Digging your hole deeper guy.

I do not believe, since I don't know of any such studies, I said that.
I believe I mentioned that parents, and when I say this I usually say
"mothers," observe that young children tend to do what they are asked
NOT to do.

How would I be digging myself a deeper hole when I havent' said what
you claim?

Simple observation shows that toddlers tend to not hear the
instruction just the linear referrences. "Don't jump on the bed" seems
to be heard as "jump on the bed," etc.

>>
>> The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as
the
>> model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly.
>>
>> Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find
the
>> place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself.
>
>And you simply stand by when they leave that safe place and put
themselves
>in danger as you did with your daughter?

Why would I just stand by? What in my post suggests that I would do
such a thing other than your ardent wish that I would and my child be
killed so you could be proved correct?

My child is alive. I probably would have been accused of being a
hovering parent in that I supervised very well. I pointed out to you,
and you apparently can't see certain words in my posts, that even the
most attentive of parents will occasionally have a child get away from
them.

>Again, I will repeat, I am happy that your child did not suffer
severe
>injury, but you provided ample evidence that your theories do not
always
>work.

Nothing is 100%. I don't believe your concern for my child.

My theories are not theories. They are proven practices not only by me
but others. It is an extreme rarity to find a child raised without
punishment and with support and respect of their developmental needs
in jail. It is rare one can find an unspanked child in prison.

>>
>> >You, like Kane seem to
>> >think that children don't even have the instictive sense which
many
>> animals
>> >exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that
something
>> can be
>> >injurious to them.
>>
>> I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in
>> fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up
to
>> the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the
child
>> is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course.
Nature
>> drives the child to it.
>
>And your recollections of your daughter's incident shows that your
theories
>can be just as dangerous and deadly.

You do not understand what you read apparently. They are proof. ALL
children, even and sometimes more, the most punished, will get into
potentially risky situations. My child was able, after that incident,
to more carefully assess events and outcomes.

Did you see me say that I supervised her LESS afterward? Not so, since
I knew perfectly well that children of that age (three) do NOT
understand WHY, but only how to put events in a sequence they know.

In other words I taught her a sequence that could result in danger
again and taught her a sequence that would be safer should she want to
climb again, or look at the bulls again.

You, who would have spanked, I presume, would have made her afraid of
YOU, thus more likely ending her natural exploration while YOU were
around.

>>
>> >Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by
>> sitting
>> >back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence,
>>
>> I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out
>> that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or
later
>> get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and
>> usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got
to
>> do a little exploring.
>>
>But, you were quite quick to point out, when I and others brought up
the
>topic that you give a safe place to play and closely supervise them.

That's correct.

>The
>inference was clearly there that if the child wandered off, the
parent was
>somehow negligent, yet you cannot even see that same fact in your own
>example.

How would I be calling the parent negligent if it was something that
happens in the normal course of every day?

It sounds to me as though you are proposing locking the child up
either physically or psychologically, for safety sake.

>> >in clear cut
>> >jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing ....
>>
>> Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I
DID
>> NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so
that
>> they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue
to
>> maintain her balance.
>
>You were frozen with fear then?

Hardly. What an odd supposition.

>You did not state that you did anything to save her, only that you
calmly
>talked to her afterwards.

On the contrary. NOT running toward her screaming or otherwise
distracting her left her for a few more seconds relying on her own
good balance.

You seem terribly ignorant of human reactions.

>I'm sure you are greatful that nothing happened,

I don't believe that for a second.

>but from what little you've given us, we have nothing to show that
your
>'methods' had anything to do with saving her life.

Nothing I could have done at the time, other than not startle or
distract her, could have saved her life. In fact any untoward action
on my part would more likely have endangered her further by
distraction.

What my "'methods'" did do was drastically lower the odds of her
putting herself in such danger again. Spanking her might have well
made her afraid enough of me so that next time she chose to
explore...anything risky (which of course she can't really judge) she
might do so furtively...something spanked children are very accustomed
to doing.

>>
>> >ANY parent
>> >worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way
>> immediately,
>> >even if it meant putting themselves in danger.
>>
>> My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into
the
>> pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have
>> been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He
>> already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention.
>>
>I would certainly hope so. As with my example, my young nephew was
running
>full blast towards a six foot drop onto a concrete slab, looking back
and
>thinking it was fun. I did not have the luxury of standing back and
>watching for if I had, he would surely have crushed his skull.
>
>Did I give him a swat on the butt after I caught him, just as his
foot went
>over the edge.. You bet I did.

Of course you did, thus distracting him from the lessons you should
have been teaching. Now he has, from you, yet another reason not to
trust adults. He'll show you when he's in his teens if you and his
parents keep disrupting the instruction he needs.

Your example is perfect. Fear of heights is one of the few naturally
instinctive fears humans are born with. Just taking him to the edge
and showing him and expressing your concern would have been more than
enough. Now he has the confusion of pain from you.

When he is a teen he'll again be tempted to run toward dangerous
things, and in resistance to the pain he felt as a child, and because
he's had one of likely many interferences with thinking things through
and collecting data, the odds will be against him thinking through the
use of drugs, engaging in unprotected sex, driving recklessly, etc.

My children were taught to think. Yours to try and figure out how to
get around you pain applications.

>> >> > I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both
abused
>> and non
>> >> > abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this
group
>> can tell
>> >you
>> >> > that each child responds differently and no one single method
>> works for
>> >> > every child, even within the same family.
>> >>
>> >> Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes
>> parenting
>> >and life
>> >> easier for the parent?"
>> >
>> >Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such
a
>> lame
>> >assed question.
>>
>> Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond
to.
>> You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you?
>
>No, it WAS a lame question. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child
is
>simply imposing a controlling will on them is way out in space
somewhere.

As I said. You didn't read or understand apparently. I doubt he would
ever assume that you were claiming that teaching is simply impossing
on another. He's very knowledgable.

You spend a good deal of time misunderstanding. Why is that? Spanked
much as a child?

I've heard it claimed it can interfere with thinking capacity later in
life.

>>
>> > Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"
>> >
>> >Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child
make
>> every
>> >decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from
any
>> decent
>> >parent's viewpoint.
>>
>> What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of
>> letting a child make every decision for themselves?
>
>Gee Kane, your comprehensive skills are as lacking as his. Do you
even
>****ing know what a rhetorical question is?

Sure. That wasn't one. It was an attempt that failed.

It was a fair shot at sarcasm though. Amateurish, but a shot.

>Any attempt at parenting is called imposing one's will on them..
lol..

Nope. Attempts at parenting by force, fear, pain, humiliation, those
are imposing one's will. Alborn parented, so did I. We deliberately
chose NOT to use those methods you appear to champion.

He was pointing out the difference in different parenting methods.
>
>Children make many
>> decisions without any input from others.
>
>Yawn.. again, your attempt at attacking every single sentence in the
hopes
>of obscuring the issues is quite weak indeed. OF COURSE THEY DO..
how the
>hell is that relevent to this discussion, unless of course you want
to
>abrigate your parental duties and let the child raise himself?

"abrogate." To abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by
authority.

A bit strong for the usage you attempted.

What makes you think that a parent that doesn't spank or otherwise
hurt or humiliate his or her child is expecting the child to raise him
or herself?

In fact I've found on average a much higher level of interaction
between child and parent among those that don't use punishment
parenting methods.

And thankfully, less with parents that do.

>>
>> He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning
>> situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or
by
>> request, or by necessity.
>
>no, you are mistaken.. again.

About what?
>>
>> >Or,
>> >> "makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or,
"allows
>> the
>> >parent
>> >> to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works"
is
>> probably
>> >quite
>> >> different from yours. What's your definition?
>> >
>> >YOu sir are a complete and utter ass.
>>
>> The braying seem to be coming out of yours.
>
>At least my head's not stuck in it as yours appears to be.

You began that ad hom. Did you expect me to just smile and agree?

>>
>> >Apparently, you are more concerned
>> >with YOUR needs than your childs.
>>
>> He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the
>> time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and
humiliation.
>
>LOL.. no, he doesn't want to be bothered with the child. YOu sure
love
>those words pain, fear and humiliation don't you..

So a parent that goes to the trouble to use methods other than pain
and humiliation parenting "doesn't want to be bothered with the
child?"

How would that work?

Are you, like so many of the spanking crowd, assuming less involvement
by parents that don't spank?

>>
>> >Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go
into
>> the
>> >street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and
dangerous
>> to that
>> >child.
>>
>> Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and
is
>> so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any
other
>> possibilities.
>>
>Yep, sounds like you indeed. Close minded and linear thinking. One
size
>fits all.

The use of pain parenting has far more close mindedness and linear
thinking involved.

>> If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread
by
>> discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own
>> children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he
>> thought best for his children.
>
>And had he found that not spanking didn't work, that would be his
choice and
>his parental rights.

But he found the opposite. Throwing in maybe's and possibilities
against what he did learn seems a very weak argument.

>But to attempt to portray all spankers as abusers and
>simply imposing a controlling will on a child,

He and I would assume that it isn't 24/7, but then injury doesn't have
to happen 24/7 for it to have a 24/7 impact.

I'm trying to find a way for you to defend the notion that spanking a
child is NOT imposing one's will on them. So far no luck.

Help me out please.

>as both you and he have tried
>to do is completely dishonest

Since neither of us tried to do that you apparently misunderstand or
we fail in our attempts to get you to understand.

>and an attempt to shove your concepts on
>parenting upon others.

Neither of us have any authority over your browser, computer, or this
ng. No one here is forced to read what I say, or what anyone else
says.

One of the characteristics of the spanked seems to be a inordinate
sense of being manipulated by others....in fact of having the others
will forced on them.

You must have been spanked a lot. Or it effected you immensely.

>> Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made
it
>> very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and
very
>> likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found
exactly
>> the same thing.
>>
>Again, a claim you do not substantiate. "others" attempts to assume
that
>everyone or most follow and agree with your assertions.

Why would that be. "Others" has never meant "everyone" in my lexicon.

Does it to you?

>Just as I can most
>assuredly state that "Others" have found that non spanking does not
produce
>the results they desire and that some children are much more
manipulative
>than others.

I am aware that "others" would include some who got different results
from different methods. Perfectly logical.

Did you think I wouldn't know that?

>> >You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
>> >children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get
away
>> with.
>>
>> On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent,
>> especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they
received.
>> It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your
>> delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success?
>
>LOL.. another flip flop.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by flip flop.

>Now you admit that children test the limits..

Can you find a single instance where I would have suggested they
didn't? Of course they do. It's I that keep referring to nature and
the force of developmental exploration.

>yet
>most psychologists claim that children actually WANT limits to be
set,

I've always laughed at that. The immediate response so often is that
"limits" means restraint. It means "show me how to do this so I can
learn it." In other words, movable and flexible boundaries.

>and
>that by avoiding that, and avoiding the imposition of any
consequences is
>dangerous and makes them feel unloved.

Why do the boundaries and limits have to be pain related? I set
boundaries and limits with my children without the use of humiliation
and pain. Apparently they worked extremely well.

>When non spanking and positive encourgement do not work, I suppose
you just
>give up and let the child do as they please?

Why would I do that?

On the other hand it's so rare as to be negligible. A pattern was
begun early in my children's lives of cooperation and support in
learning and developing.

My children could trust me NOT to hurt or humiliate them
intentionally. Hence they knew that they could expect assistance and
guidance and would come for it willingly.

>And you consider that a
>success?

Not if it failed.

It didn't.

And it grew more and more effective the more I used non-punitive
methods. Rapidly.

>> I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally,
>> highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because
they
>> feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were
children
>> who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those
I
>> turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting.
>
>I was a martial arts instructor for well over 25 years and most of
the
>children and adults I worked with respected me and did not fear me.
I
>imposed phyiscal hardships on them in training for disciplinary
purposes,
>but they soon learned that I was not abusive nor would I purposely
injure
>them.

Yes, thus proving my point. What makes you think I didn't impose
stringent and sometimes physically hard instruction on my children?

I simply didn't humilate or hurt them. They sought out challenges
themselves.

>So what is your point? Do you make your child do pushups if they are
bad?

No. I asked them if pushups would be relevant and if so why not do
them? But that rarely came up since I was never that out of touch with
reality and logic. I would much more likely point out the possible
consequences of their less than useful behavior, like climbing where
it was dangerous instead of where it was safer.

I often included talking about the actual consequences as well, such
as my fear they would be hurt. They were respectful of my feelings
because I was of theirs, and of their need to explore somehow.

>Or do you pat them on the head and say please don't do it again.

I might include that if it was relevant. My children tended to care a
great deal about my requests.

>> >>
>> >> Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's
no
>> shortcut
>> >> that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my
>> children to be
>> >> non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid
>> pain.
>
>You assume they do not have the ability to learn that there are
consequences
>associated with their actions.

That would be impossible for me to do. The real world doesn't work
like that. My children lived with consequences all the time just like
other children.

You are apparently assuming that pain and humiliation are the only
useful consequences. Humans have much more going on than that.

>You demean them as less than animals if you
>think they simply respond to pain and simply learning to fear you.

So when YOU hit them or otherwise cause pain it's soooooo special that
it doesn't demean them?

>That is
>again, only dealing with the truly abusive parent and not applicable
to this
>discussion.

Nice try. No cigar.

> You attempt continually to portray all spanking as abuse.

Yes. It is. Possibly in play it wouldn't be, but when used for
teaching it is abusive. It interfers with the learning underway and
more especially with learning later in life. It sets up a pattern I
did not want my children trapped in.

>> >
>> >No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you
>> did not
>> >do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous
situations.
>>
>> I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to,
driven
>> by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them
to
>> handle more effectively.
>
>A weasle answer if I ever heard one.

Are you suggesting they are more likely to live if they are spanked?

What would be weasely about my opinion?

>>
>> You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't
>> you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and
feelings
>> I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust
herself
>> more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to
me,
>> that our relationship was far more important in her development
than
>> strick adherence to my control of her.
>
>That would have done a hell of a lot of good had she been gored by
the bull
>while you sat back and watched.

Why are you attempting to make people think I would have simply sat
back and watched? I didn't nor did I describe the events as though I
had.

You are terribly dishonest.

>Perhaps had you given her a swat on the butt, she may not have
climbed that
>fence to begin with.

For what would I have given her a swat on the butt that would have
told her that climbing that fence was verboten? She was three. She
might have well been drawn, as three year olds often are, to the very
thing forbidden. And been shakey and frightened while following
nature's plan for her to explore and learn to control her environment.

No, my children were bold and adventurous, yet highly skilled in their
exlorations, then and now. Still haven't been gored. And they have
developed very well indeed.
>>
>> > I preferred
>> >> them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.
>> >
>> >You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get
>> their way
>> >and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care
>> enough to
>> >discipline them or set limits for them.
>>
>> Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned
out
>> that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be
>> around.
>>
>Well, we have to accept your word on that now don't we?

Isn't that the case for both of us?

>> >What's the real
>> >> point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on
>> behavioral
>> >"acts" in
>> >> your presence and for your benefit?
>> >
>> >Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any
sense
>> of
>> >rationality.
>>
>> If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation
of
>> the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any
sense
>> of rationality."
>
>There comes the hurt and humiliation bull**** again. Sound like a
broken
>record.

That little tirade doesn't answer my statement. So, do you believe
that children raised without deliberate hurt and humiliation by their
parent...their primary teacher...produces manipulative adults?

>People get humilitated throughout their lives.

No question about it, though I notice children raised without a diet
of it from their most trusted parent/teacher tend to not be easy to
humiliate. They seem to think attempts to do so rather silly and a
failing of the one making the attempt, not of themselves.

>Its when they dont
>learn to handle it, we have explosive situations occur.

And spanking teaches them to handle humiliation how?

And avoids a build up to an explosive situation how?

>Poor *******s like yourself cannot understand the harm you are doing,
and
>want to portray yourself as some kind of hero to the child and
everyone else
>is an abusive ass.. You are pathetic.

What a sad commentary.

It flies in the face of reality but you are unable to see it. This is
a near perfect example of the harm spanking can do to people's
capacity to think clearly and factually.
>> >>
>> >> > No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and
>> Kane seem
>> >to
>> >> > try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by
>> avoiding
>> >the
>> >> > distinction between abuse and spanking.
>> >>
>> >> Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is
between
>> abuse
>> >and
>> >> spanking?
>> >
>> >DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what
>> constitutes
>> >abuse and corporal punishment.
>>
>> Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for
>> ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their
>> application from place to place and time to time.
>>
>> >Any striking of the child with anything
>> >other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the
behind
>> is
>> >abusive.
>>
>> There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school
>> personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do
>> NOT rule out the use of objects.
>
>Name them please, or show me a link which states they exist.

Actually the article below is a pretty good read on what is what in
this nation about spanking stats.

http://www.yrfire.com/story/2002/11/8/233317/208

Poll: Most Americans approve of spanking kids

By brian, Section News
Posted on Thu Nov 14th, 2002 at 09:26:32 PM PST

..........

"The U.S. Department of Education has reported that school-sanctioned
spanking is most prevalent in Southern states - Mississippi, Arkansas,
Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana. There are no state laws
against spanking, although 27 states have policies against the
practice and this year Pennsylvania is debating becoming the 28th.
Spanking in schools is currently allowed in 23 states (although in
many districts parents who object can withhold permission for school
personnel to spank their kids)."

There are dozens more links with this information. I was off by one
state, but then I did say "about."

Here, have a look for yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22spanking+in+schools%22+Department+of+Educatio n

Know of course that a few sex oriented sites will pop up in the list
since spanking is a sexual fetish to some. Ever wonder where that
comes from?

>>
>> The criteria is damage caused, not objects used.
>>
>> >Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said
>> you and
>> >Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by
dishonestly
>> >accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have
>> repeatedly
>> >stated that I am not in favor of abuse,
>>
>> You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse
by
>> failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact
you
>> mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar
or
>> neurotic.
>>
>
>AHH.. there it is folks.. I am promoting abuse.. another lie by Kane
which
>shows his true nature.

Of course you promote abuse. That you might be ignorant of your
promoting is what is up for question now.

>He asks for a definition then refuses to accept it.

Refuses to accept what? I haven't seen your post where you defined
spanking as yet. I've seen you say a little tap on the butt, as I
recall, or words to that effect, but that isn't everyone's definition
of spanking, now is it?

The great problem with spanking is that what YOU might call spanking,
might not be what others do. That's the problem with "spanking."

And supporting the practice, without a far too complex caveat defining
YOUR meaning most carefully, can easily result in someone ELSE
following your thinking and spanking according to their definition,
which might be highly abusive.

Thus, you promote abuse. I am not lying.

>It doesn't fit with his
>mentality that any kind of discipline is not necessarily abuse.

Since I used discipline with my children all the time, but did not
hurt or humiliate them deliberately (and very rarely indeed
unintentionally) it kind of follows that my mentality would not fit
your claim above.

>> >but by attempting to lump the two
>> >together, you think it will make your position more viable.
>>
>> Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you
>> prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some
>> children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong,
I'd
>> say you are the one straining at your stool.
>
>ahh. but it IS defined in my narrow way.

Show me.

>It is defined LEGALLY.

Show me.

You asked for my citations. You go them. I don't believe I've ever
gotten one from you when I asked for proof. Just more babbling.

>Again I
>repeat since your tiny brain cannot assimilate the information,
anyone who
>exceeds the legal definition of corporal punishment is criminally
negligent
>and should be brought to task.

Interesting that even the law is inconsistent, isn't it? One one state
you cannot leave a mark that lasts over x number of hours. In another
you can leave marks that will last for life.

So there is no single definition, now is there?

>Kinda blows you off your moral high horse don't it?

Not in the least. But then I don't mount up. You appear to be
backwards on your mule though.

>>
>> >You are too
>> >obvious.
>>
>> I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for
>> Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this
issue
>> and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a
very
>> long time.
>
>Maybe you should stop examining and take a look at real life.

I am examining real life. The data is out there. The prisons are full
of the results of your kind of parenting. We are still fighting wars
based on the same kind of thinking.

Injuries to children have been and are being done by people that are
sure they are not abusing their children when later examination proves
they have and did.

>>
>> >>
>> >> > I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that
>> people
>> >like
>> >> > yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by
>> avoiding
>> >the
>> >> > separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high
moral
>> ground.
>> >>
>> >> Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is
between
>> abuse
>> >and
>> >> spanking. How do >>you<< define abuse?
>> >
>> >I already have.. Time and time again.
>>
>> And your definition doesn't stand up.
>
>It stands up in any court of law throughout the nation.

You haven't cited a single law yet. Just babbled. Show us some. I'll
show you dozens I've collected that show that the law doesn't really
know what they hell spanking is or isn't.

If you google on "spanking in schools" you'll see what I mean.

You haven't really researched this have you? Just got your own opinion
and that's all that matters, right?

>Again, you prove time and time again that you are a liar and an
agenda here.

Point out my lies please.

And yes, I certainly do have an agenda.

What are YOU doing here?
>>
>> >You continue to show your complete
>> >lack of reading comprehension.
>>
>> On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very
>> well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You
>> miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is
an
>> ancient practice that should stand on that alone.
>
>I fail to make sense? LOL.

Yes, you do. LOL.

>You've twisted, turned and backpeddled on every
>issue.

Please point out specific instances.

>You think taking every sentence and attacking it,

I have not taken every sentence and attacked it. Please show where I
have. There are large tracts of characters in our posts I haven't
responded to.

>or trying to use
>the same wording to somehow give validity as your stance is going to
sway
>anyone.

I guess I have to leave the success or failure of my arguments up to
the reader, now don't I?

I can see that YOU are not swayed. I expected that. Though I always
have hope. Even dedicated spankers, as Alborn was once, can and do
learn better.
>>
>> So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was
>> the idea that objects have spirits inside them.
>
>Yawn, more nonsense.

I don't think so. It is nonsense to claim that something is validated
as true and correct just because it has been done for a long time by a
lot of people.

Yawn.

>>
>> >>
>> >> > And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people
like
>> you have
>> >> > created a generation of children who lack respect or
discipline
>> in their
>> >> > lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not
>> being able
>> >to
>> >> > deal with reality.
>> >>
>> >> But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply
>> rooted,
>> >> misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're
>> certainly not
>> >looking
>> >> at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why
you
>> must
>> >maintain
>> >> a tight grip on your beliefs.
>
>I'm blinded? lol

'Fraid so.

>> >
>> >Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to
misconstrue
>> >everything that is said,
>>
>> Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued.
>>
>> >flip flop back and forth
>>
>> And my flips and flops.
>>
>I tire of your nonsense.. I think most here have recognized them as
i've
>pointed them out time and time again.

I don't know. Ask them. I'm sure you can muster at least a few, and
they will be part of the 90% or so that already say they spank in this
country. So you'll have to come up with 9 or every one I come up with
to offset that statistical advantage, now won't you?

>> >and try to put up straw
>> >men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your
>> bull****
>> >claims, which you and he have made.
>>
>> I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own
>> experience, do so.
>
>yeah, funny YOU claimed you had so much 'experience'.

I do and did. I said I don't have to get others to "try," as others
already "do" back me up.

>>
>> >If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know
I
>> have
>> >changed my position on several major issues when others have shown
a
>> logical
>> >and reasonable reason for their beliefs.
>>
>> No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but
I
>> don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this
>> discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from
>> non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but
>> you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the
rabid
>> pro spanking faction.
>
>Yawn..

Oxygen deprived? Thought so.

>then you prove yourself to be a liar as well as you've claimed to be
>'lurking' here for a long time now.

You claimed you have been able to change when presented with valid
argument. I challenged that claim. You haven't produced any evidence
that you do as you claimed.

Case close?

Or will you pull a rabbit out of a hat and prove me wrong with posts
of yours and others showing your willingness to change when presented
with a good argument?

I doubt it.

>> >But people like you and Kane
>>
>> What are we like?
>>
>> >continue to lie
>>
>> Point out the lie please.
>>
>> >and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
>> >abusive..
>>
>> Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such
thing.
>> We point out that our parenting is also discipline.
>
>You have yet to show that in any way.

Is "discipline" teaching? If it is NOT then you are correct. If it is
then I am correct and have offered you many examples of discipline.

Kane

[Kane]

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:20:00 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
>news:<aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03>...
>> > "Kane" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
>> > news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
>> > > > Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not
a
>'pysical
>> > > > punishment'.. lol
>> > >
>> > > As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a
child
>> > > doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
>> > > punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.
>> Kane said:
>> So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such
>> things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are
you
>> prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference
to
>> the post where I said it?
>
>Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that
statement and
>you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the
poster
>claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I
stated
>that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an
enlisted man
>in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does
indeed
>exist as a discipline in the armed services.

This isn't your statement that opens this post:

"Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
'pysical punishment'.. lol"

Obviously you were responding to something I said about physical
punishment, were you not?

Are you not accusing me of claiming such things aren't physical
punishment?

>
>I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile
hikes
>with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show
how much
>of a weasel you can be.

No, this is precisely what you said (and it's even attributed
correctly to you in this very post above):

"Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
'pysical punishment'.. lol"

In other words it sounds very like you are claiming that I am claiming
something, no?

And I know precisely what the discussion was about. It was that
punishment is not required to teach someone something.

And by the way, having participated in many forced marches in both
training and combat I know precisely what it is meant to do. It is
meant to physically harden the troop. It is meant to familiarize him
with hardship.

And my statement still stands. If a troop is either voluntarily or by
law required to undergo such training he or she STILL has recourse a
child does not. If there is an injury most adults will know it and
make it known. Children often do NOT know when they have been injured
or assume that is correct because the parent did it to them.

>>
>> > Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous
name. What
>you
>> > see is what you get fella.
>>
>Kane stated:
>> Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to
bluff
>> it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or
>> rather what he was. A troll.
>
>Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined
'nemesis' you
>encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own
position.

This is a particulary Jonseish response.

>I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not
shown or
>admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool
newsgroup
>an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that
category
>quite clearly.

Less than 200 though I think recently you have raised your number to
close to that just in this tread, though it appears you posted a
couple of times elsewhere. That still is very few posts for someone
that claims he can has changed his position on an issue here by
admitting someone had a superior argument.

You still haven't, after my second request, managed to show that claim
of yours.

I'm waiting.

>>
>> You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see
how
>> many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very
new
>> poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie
has
>> had many names.
>
>Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol..
what a
>lame assed attempt.

And I notice you still haven't managed to explain why you have only
200 or less posts in just a few weeks yet you claim to have a history
long enough that you engaged in argument and had your mind changed by
facts.

I'm waiting.

>Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of
>switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's..

I don't recall accusing you of posting under another name. Only that
you could be Jonesie. He posted under many names.

If you think I'm posting as someone else and it's relevant to your
argument that spanking is superior for parenting then non-painful
parenting please show the connection.

>I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like
yourself
>posting nonsense.

You seldom come anywhere in Usenet. Unless you are using a new name.
>>
>> If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.

>I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few
clones
>yourself.

Nope. And we have each other's word on it. R R R R

>>
>> > > By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back.
Your
>> > > style hasn't changed in all these years.
>> >
>> > Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these
>newsgroups
>> > 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.
>>
>> Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only
171
>> posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon
hundreds
>> before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record
for
>> number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was
in
>> talk.politics.guns as I recall.
>
>Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself?
DUH..
>
>IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record
for
>posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name?
LOL..

Everyone has to start somewhere. The point of his record wasn't that
HE posted, but that OTHERS posted, even after he declared, very late
in the game, that he was a troll.

>I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I
DO
>however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some
>nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's
your
>****ing problem guy.

Actually you have posted in 5 groups that I've found. And your
earliest post is
"
Search Result 178
From: Dennis Hancock )
Subject: Re: Home Schooling Done Wrong???
View: Complete Thread (33 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc
Date: 2003-07-03 07:14:07 PST
"

Now possibly google is not working properly, but I've always found it
doing its job.

July 3 this year is only a bit over 4 months. And 178 posts are hardly
supportive of your claims.

Frankly I don't particularly care who you are, only that you are a
stupid little man who abused or abuses his children. And is busy
trying to justify it.

>>
>> > Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin
boards
>and
>> > since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've
ever
>engaged
>> > you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions
to try
>to
>> > uphold your convictions.
>>
>> Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.
>
>My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse?
Paranoia
>running rampant?

It's not showing up before July this year.

What makes you think my name is not pokahuyakokane? It is.

>>
>> > > It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me
of, an
>> > > old iJones number from years ago.
>> >
>> > Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.
>>
>> Sounds just like Jonesie.
>
>Then he musta been onto you just as I am.

You onto me? r r r r

>
>>
>> What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.
>>
>> > My name on here is my real
>> > name,
>>
>> Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
>> electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you
can't
>> portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written
>> autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really
are.
>
>No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and
met
>enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand
that than
>most.

Yes. That's good.
>
>What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am
somehow your
>old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics?

In order: very little to do with it really. No, I'm not.

>>
>> > I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate
prior
>> > to this one. Period.
>>
>> That's nice. I don't believe you.
>
>Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a
liar and
>a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted.

You may think what you wish. I think you are a dangerous parent and a
dangerous human being. Those that fool themselves into thinking that
spanking isn't harmful tend to be.

>>
>> > >
>> > > But it was fun while it lasted.
>> > >
>> > > Who trolled who..r r r r
>> > >
>> > > Kane
>> >
>> > Apparently, you.. dumbass.
>>
>> Kinda losing it, eh?
>>
>> I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?
>>
>> Kane
>
>You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop.

Blew what? You are still posting in reply, and you are still making a
fool of yourself.

And there's very little I'm afraid of. Neither you, nor Jonesie.

Kane

[Kane]

"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
> Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
> doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him

No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
strange little side trip.

> and hangs on kane's every word.

He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?

> Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
> kane himself using an alter ego.

Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
before me. You can google and see for yourself.

>
> "Steve Saus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in
> your
> > posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
> > thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

The link above takes one to the following message:


From: Raymond Besse )
Subject: [soc.religion.quaker] crybabies
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet
Date: 2003-11-02 15:25:01 PST


[Submitter's note: the message was posted during a spell of rather
ill-tempered posts.]

Subject: crybabies
From: William Ehrich >
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker

Echos of sounds heard while going down the stairs from my
apartment:

Mommy, she called me a bad name
He's a liar
Mommy, she called me a liar
Make him stop
Make her stop
He copied my homework
I did not
You did too
I did not
You did too
She won't follow the rules
He never listens
I do too
You do not
I do too
You do not
....

Enough already. Me out of the building for a quiet walk.

--
Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria
posted
in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the
responsibility
of the submitter. Submit articles to . To write to
the
moderators, send mail to .
end....................

Header, body, and sig line complete. Nothing deleted or changed. Can
you show me please how this might show what you seem to be claiming,
or am I misunderstanding you?

Were you just hoping and praying for a way out of the corner you've
painted yourself into?

You certainly are losing it badly.

I'm sure you can explain all this somehow, kind of like you explain
spanking is not abuse.

By the way, figured out the problem with the law defining abuse yet?

They have a minimal definition. One can do a lot of damange without it
being called abuse. Do you wish to stick with the legal definition of
abuse to excuse spanking that you claim is nonabusive?

Kane



> >
> > Steve
> > ----
> > See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
> > http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
> > See permissions for reposting at
> > http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Gerald Alborn]

Kane wrote:

> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
> > Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
> > doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him
>
> No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
> unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
> strange little side trip.
>
> > and hangs on kane's every word.
>
> He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
> months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?

I went into lurk mode in early February, when I left the ranks of the unemployed (around the same time
when I realized that Doan was a lost cause). I didn't do any ng posting until recently. I'm still not
planning on going all out on posting to the ng like I used to. It simply devours too much time.

> > Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
> > kane himself using an alter ego.
>
> Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
> before me. You can google and see for yourself.

I think it was around mid-1995 when I first came to this ng. Several years prior (~1991), some of us here
debated about the ills of spanking on a parenting bulletin board on Prodigy.

-Jerry-

[Steve Saus]

On 9 Nov 2003 14:03:36 -0800, (Kane) wrote:

>"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
>> Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
>> doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him
>
>No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
>unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
>strange little side trip.

No, I'm not supporting anyone. I'm just tired of seeing more posts
referring to "spanking" in a homeschool froup than in alt.sex.kinky.wierdos .



Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Kane]

Steve Saus > wrote in message >...
> On 9 Nov 2003 14:03:36 -0800, (Kane) wrote:
>
> >"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
> >> Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
> >> doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him
> >
> >No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
> >unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
> >strange little side trip.
>
> No, I'm not supporting anyone.

I don't see that anyone accused of doing so, but then, it's perfectly
okay to. You support whoever you want, Steve. It's your right.

> I'm just tired

Try some dietary supplements. Worked for me.

> of seeing more posts
> referring to "spanking" in a homeschool froup

Got a clue for you. Two in fact. Learn to use a filter, and when that
fails you, don't look. You won't see.

> than in alt.sex.kinky.wierdos .

How would you know what is in such a newsgroup Steve?

I mean not that this isn't a free country and you can look at or not
look at anything you wish, but on my....tsk.

> Steve

You figgered out what's up yet?

Kane



> ----
> See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
> http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
> See permissions for reposting at
> http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Dennis Hancock]

"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what
> > appears to
> > > be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some
kind of
> > > substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on
their
> > face,
> > > sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for
your
> > > statement?
> >
> > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat
themselves.
>
> Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what
> you've asserted.
>

And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with absolutely no
question.

> > If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost
> > them for your benefit?
>
> Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't repost
what
> isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity is.
Let's
> just leave it at that.
>

For someone who hasn't bothered to go back and read the posts.. YOU can
claim they aren't there? LOL.. You sure your not Kane in drag?

> > That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
> > for your browing
>
> FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a retired Air
Force
> Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever saying such a
thing.
> It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to
substantiate
> your statements.

You apparently didn't google the challenges to Kane's background by several
others who seemed quite convinced he was this same person using another
name, who had made that claim. OR his nonsensical denials that someone was
reposting under his name in other newsgroups to attempt to discredit him.

>
> > Grow up and learn to realize
> > when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.
>
> I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you.
>
> -Jerry-

Apparently not. Im quite certain that if I had made up some fictional
nonsense that you just happened to agree with, you would be asking others to
disprove it (while ignoring all who did), and harp on how my 'stated'
experience was so great.

>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:20:00 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
> >news:<aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03>...
> >> > "Kane" > wrote in message
> >> > om...
> >> > > "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
> >> > news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
> >> > > > Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not
> a
> >'pysical
> >> > > > punishment'.. lol
> >> > >
> >> > > As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a
> child
> >> > > doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
> >> > > punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.
> >> Kane said:
> >> So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such
> >> things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are
> you
> >> prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference
> to
> >> the post where I said it?
> >
> >Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that
> statement and
> >you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the
> poster
> >claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I
> stated
> >that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an
> enlisted man
> >in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does
> indeed
> >exist as a discipline in the armed services.
>
Kane:
> This isn't your statement that opens this post:
>
> "Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
> 'pysical punishment'.. lol"


Thank you Kane, for showing how illiterate you truly are. Do you not even
understand SARCASM when it's directed at you when you deliberately attempt
to disavow what I stated that there indeed "was physical punishment in the
armed forces"? You simpy attempted to lie your way thru it by saying that
one cannot physically strike an enlisted man, while ignoring the fact that
there ARE indeed physical punishments associated with discipline.

> Obviously you were responding to something I said about physical
> punishment, were you not?
>
> Are you not accusing me of claiming such things aren't physical
> punishment?

I am accusing you of attempting to weasel out of it by limiting physical
punishment to actually striking another, when you knew I had completely
destroyed the other person's argument that adults in the service aren't
subjected to physical punishment, while children are.

You like to attempt the play on words don't you?

>
> >
> >I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile
> hikes
> >with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show
> how much
> >of a weasel you can be.
>
> No, this is precisely what you said (and it's even attributed
> correctly to you in this very post above):

As I have said before, you have very little comprehension ability, or an
ability to understand sarcasm. Re read it again.. several times. Only your
little parrot in here would possibly have construed it as my saying that YOU
SAID such and such, when I directed it to you as a sarcastic question.

>
> "Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
> 'pysical punishment'.. lol"
>
> In other words it sounds very like you are claiming that I am claiming
> something, no?
>
> And I know precisely what the discussion was about. It was that
> punishment is not required to teach someone something.

You have also injected into the discussion the use of punishment as a
disciplinary method as well. Or do we deny that the topic has ranged from
the very small toddler to the older child being disciplined?

Or do we pick and choose selectively which topic we're discussing and apply
various sentences to only that one? Apparently so.

>
> And by the way, having participated in many forced marches in both
> training and combat I know precisely what it is meant to do. It is
> meant to physically harden the troop. It is meant to familiarize him
> with hardship.
>
> And my statement still stands. If a troop is either voluntarily or by
> law required to undergo such training he or she STILL has recourse a
> child does not. If there is an injury most adults will know it and
> make it known. Children often do NOT know when they have been injured
> or assume that is correct because the parent did it to them.

"Chidren often do NOT know when they ahve been injured?" See, I can choose
and pick thru your nonsense as well.

See how easily it is to misquote someone, but your meaning and inuendos are
perfectly clear.

> >> > Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous
> name. What
> >you
> >> > see is what you get fella.
> >>
> >Kane stated:
> >> Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to
> bluff
> >> it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or
> >> rather what he was. A troll.
> >
> >Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined
> 'nemesis' you
> >encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own
> position.
>
> This is a particulary Jonseish response.

Another of your delusions Kane? I would ask anyone who still bothers to
read your nonsense, exactly HOW many people have seen someone actually admit
in a newsgroup that they're just a troll.. lol..

And of course, You post your beliefs which try to portray ANYONE who uses a
physical disciplinary method on their child as monsters or child abusers and
you think you are not considered a troll?

>
> >I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not
> shown or
> >admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool
> newsgroup
> >an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that
> category
> >quite clearly.
>
> Less than 200 though I think recently you have raised your number to
> close to that just in this tread, though it appears you posted a
> couple of times elsewhere. That still is very few posts for someone
> that claims he can has changed his position on an issue here by
> admitting someone had a superior argument.

Perhaps my limited number of posts show that I only jump into topics which
gain my attention...(hmm, I thought trolls attempted to flood newsgroups
with their nonsense in a lame attempt to start flame wars and raise
controversy among the users)..

Since there are so few for you to read thru, amazing you haven't noted the
ones where I accepted as logical and natural the reasons many objected to
the pledge as being religious in nature, or the ones that I quite readily
accepted that the attacks on it were not indeed simply attacks on religion.

Oh, but now I suppose I'll be accused of being a religious fundy, when
indeed I have never posted anything other than people be allowed to believe
or not believe whatever they choose..

Ahh,, but I sense Im wasting my time with a closed and empty mind.

>
> You still haven't, after my second request, managed to show that claim
> of yours.
>
> I'm waiting.

It's there guy.. IF you can read. Besides, since it seems you've posted
nearly as many posts on THIS thread alone, my mere less thean 200 posts it
should be quite easily to find.

YOU, on the other hand refuse to accept studies that others have posted,
Doan for one, as mere propoganda..

>
> >>
> >> You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see
> how
> >> many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very
> new
> >> poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie
> has
> >> had many names.

LOL.. how many names have you had on these newsgroups Kane? Seems you are
the one hiding behind an acronym.
Weak and lame arguments or accusations of someone stalking you to try to
discredit you only made you look more the fool that you truly are.

> >
> >Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol..
> what a
> >lame assed attempt.
>
> And I notice you still haven't managed to explain why you have only
> 200 or less posts in just a few weeks yet you claim to have a history
> long enough that you engaged in argument and had your mind changed by
> facts.

Again, the liar in you.. I've claimed that I ran a computer bulletin board
and was very active on local bbs's.. you DO know what those are don't you?
I have NEVER stated that I have a "history long enough" for anything, other
than I HAVE changed my opinions by factual and honest positions of others..
Something you apparently cannot comprehend.

>
> I'm waiting.

Don't need to wait long asshole.. They're all googled for your reference,
and since they're so 'ew'.. you shouldn't have much problem finding em.

Kinda reminds me of a lame assed debate on the old bbs's when I got the
better of someone I disagreed with, they claimed I was 'new' here and thus
had no 'right' to an opinion. I have every right to my opinion and to
state it, whether it's right or wrong. Again, you show yourself the fool
you truly are.

>
> >Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of
> >switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's..
>
> I don't recall accusing you of posting under another name. Only that
> you could be Jonesie. He posted under many names.

You CALLED me Jonsie in your responses.. Another weasel attempt to back
off of your wild fantasies again?

>
> If you think I'm posting as someone else and it's relevant to your
> argument that spanking is superior for parenting then non-painful
> parenting please show the connection.
>
> >I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like
> yourself
> >posting nonsense.
>
> You seldom come anywhere in Usenet. Unless you are using a new name.

Bull****.. I've read your nonsense on another political sub Im on. And I
don't use different names as well. Besides, I will ask you again, WHAT IS
THE RELEVANCE as to how often I post.. Does it make you worried that you
can't brainwash an adult as you would like to think you are capable of?

> >>
> >> If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.
>
> >I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few
> clones
> >yourself.
>
> Nope. And we have each other's word on it. R R R R

Then I suppose it was someone else posting under your name, the denials that
you made certain posts? That someone was posting the same lame arguments
you are posting under your name to try to discredit you? Again, for
clarification, NOTE THE QUESTION MARK!! (I need to clarify because of your
lack of comprehension ability)...

>
> >>
> >> > > By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back.
> Your
> >> > > style hasn't changed in all these years.
> >> >
> >> > Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these
> >newsgroups
> >> > 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.
> >>
> >> Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only
> 171
> >> posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon
> hundreds
> >> before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record
> for
> >> number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was
> in
> >> talk.politics.guns as I recall.

Ahh.. figures, your one of those anti gun freaks too.

> >
> >Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself?
> DUH..
> >
> >IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record
> for
> >posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name?
> LOL..
>
> Everyone has to start somewhere. The point of his record wasn't that
> HE posted, but that OTHERS posted, even after he declared, very late
> in the game, that he was a troll.

LOL... now anyone who posts opposing your position is influenced by MY
posting? Gee, thanks for all the credit guy. You are still living in a
fantasy world of your own.

>
> >I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I
> DO
> >however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some
> >nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's
> your
> >****ing problem guy.
>
> Actually you have posted in 5 groups that I've found. And your
> earliest post is

I don't even read 5 groups, seeing most of them as total nonsense, but I
could easily have made a post or two on a topic which caught my eye.
> "
> Search Result 178
> From: Dennis Hancock )
> Subject: Re: Home Schooling Done Wrong???
> View: Complete Thread (33 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc
> Date: 2003-07-03 07:14:07 PST
> "
>
> Now possibly google is not working properly, but I've always found it
> doing its job.
>
> July 3 this year is only a bit over 4 months. And 178 posts are hardly
> supportive of your claims.

WHAT CLAIMS? You think it takes 1000 posts to convince someone that
another person's opinions are valid, or to change their position on
something? You sir are a very strange person. Again, what the hell is the
relevance?
>
> Frankly I don't particularly care who you are, only that you are a
> stupid little man who abused or abuses his children. And is busy
> trying to justify it.

No, you are an obnoxious old fool who knows nothing about me, only your wild
assumptions that anyone who uses any sort of physical punishment is a
"monster" who abuses his children.

You are a fraud and a liar whose entire premise falls upon attempting to
confuse abuse with discipline, anyone who uses any sort of physical
discipline HAS to be abusive, else you have no case. That's why you so
adamantly refuse to accept ANY definition of spanking because it blows your
entire case to shreds.

If you cannot portray anyone who spanks as an abusive monster, then your own
little idyllic version of life is reduced to the fact that many parents use
a variety of methods on their children, until they find what works. You
cannot accept any deviation from your own beliefs that you must villify any
who disagree with you.


>
> >>
> >> > Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin
> boards
> >and
> >> > since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've
> ever
> >engaged
> >> > you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions
> to try
> >to
> >> > uphold your convictions.
> >>
> >> Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.


LOL.. Since you are apparently the old experienced expert, wonder how many
names you've come up with? Or perhaps you just continue to use the name
kane to troll as many ng's as possible with your nonsense.

> >My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse?
> Paranoia
> >running rampant?
>
> It's not showing up before July this year.

Thats because I seldom visited ng's before this year. DUH..

>
> What makes you think my name is not pokahuyakokane? It is.
>
> >>
> >> > > It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me
> of, an
> >> > > old iJones number from years ago.

WHO is the clown attempting to portray someone who disagrees with them as a
"troll"? Does it do anything to enhance your arguments? I think not.


> >> >
> >> > Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.
> >>
> >> Sounds just like Jonesie.


> >
> >Then he musta been onto you just as I am.
>
> You onto me? r r r r

Yep. Like flies on ****.
>
> >
> >>
> >> What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.
> >>
> >> > My name on here is my real
> >> > name,
> >>
> >> Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
> >> electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you
> can't
> >> portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written
> >> autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really
> are.
> >
> >No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and
> met
> >enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand
> that than
> >most.
>
> Yes. That's good.
> >
> >What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am
> somehow your
> >old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics?
>
> In order: very little to do with it really. No, I'm not.
>
> >>
> >> > I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate
> prior
> >> > to this one. Period.
> >>
> >> That's nice. I don't believe you.
> >
> >Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a
> liar and
> >a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted.
>
> You may think what you wish. I think you are a dangerous parent and a
> dangerous human being. Those that fool themselves into thinking that
> spanking isn't harmful tend to be.
>
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > But it was fun while it lasted.
> >> > >
> >> > > Who trolled who..r r r r
> >> > >
> >> > > Kane
> >> >
> >> > Apparently, you.. dumbass.
> >>
> >> Kinda losing it, eh?
> >>
> >> I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?
> >>
> >> Kane
> >
> >You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop.
>
> Blew what? You are still posting in reply, and you are still making a
> fool of yourself.
>
> And there's very little I'm afraid of. Neither you, nor Jonesie.
>
> Kane

Then why the smokescreens? Why the paranoid accusations that I am someone
else? Face it, you are dangerous. You have made lame accusations which you
cannot back up. Your own posts shows you to be a negligent parent and only
lucky that your child was not injured. Only a fool would think that somehow
justifies a position one has taken on parenting.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
> > Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
> > doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for
him
>
> No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
> unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
> strange little side trip.
>
> > and hangs on kane's every word.
>
> He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
> months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?
>
> > Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
> > kane himself using an alter ego.
>
> Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
> before me. You can google and see for yourself.
>
> >
> > "Steve Saus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in
> > your
> > > posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for
each
> > > thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/u6ht
>
> The link above takes one to the following message:
>
>
> From: Raymond Besse )
> Subject: [soc.religion.quaker] crybabies
> This is the only article in this thread
> View: Original Format
> Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet
> Date: 2003-11-02 15:25:01 PST
>
>
> [Submitter's note: the message was posted during a spell of rather
> ill-tempered posts.]
>
> Subject: crybabies
> From: William Ehrich >
> Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>
> Echos of sounds heard while going down the stairs from my
> apartment:
>
> Mommy, she called me a bad name
> He's a liar
> Mommy, she called me a liar
> Make him stop
> Make her stop
> He copied my homework
> I did not
> You did too
> I did not
> You did too
> She won't follow the rules
> He never listens
> I do too
> You do not
> I do too
> You do not
> ...
>
> Enough already. Me out of the building for a quiet walk.
>
> --
> Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria
> posted
> in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the
> responsibility
> of the submitter. Submit articles to . To write to
> the
> moderators, send mail to .
> end....................
>
> Header, body, and sig line complete. Nothing deleted or changed. Can
> you show me please how this might show what you seem to be claiming,
> or am I misunderstanding you?
>
> Were you just hoping and praying for a way out of the corner you've
> painted yourself into?
>
> You certainly are losing it badly.

*I* am losing it badly? LOL. Again, your comprehension is sorely lost in
your fairy tale world. I said "I would not be surprised if it weren't kane
himself using an alter ego".. Please explain in your limited mind HOW that
is any kind of accusation? Especially in the light that YOU are the one who
has made that accusation directed towards me.

No, you are clutching at straws here. LOL.. not only a liar, but an idiot as
well.

>
> I'm sure you can explain all this somehow, kind of like you explain
> spanking is not abuse.

Only a tiny mind such as your own lacks comprehension. And thank you for
admitting that you are so limited in comprehension that your entire argument
HAS to consider any spanking as abuse.. you've truly lost except for those
few whose thinking is the same as yours.

>
> By the way, figured out the problem with the law defining abuse yet?

There's a 'problem' with the law defining abuse? Try telling that to the
judge..

>
> They have a minimal definition. One can do a lot of damange without it
> being called abuse. Do you wish to stick with the legal definition of
> abuse to excuse spanking that you claim is nonabusive?

No, and you refuse to accept the fact that there is also emotional abuse,
which is non physical which can do GREATER harm.

You don't have a clue guy. You are stuck in this non spanking mode of yours
and nothing will change it. To you, everyone who spanks or uses any
disicpline has to be a monster. You've truly taken on trollish ideology
here.

>
> Kane
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Steve
> > > ----
> > > See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
> > > http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
> > > See permissions for reposting at
> > > http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Dennis Hancock]

Gerald, you don't have to explain your absence, I was being facetious due to
Kane's nonsensical accusation that I was an old nemesis who had trolled him
in the past, somehow deluding himself into thinking it makes his position
right or somehow better.

I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on your
children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do attempt
many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.. and quite
often, use different methods for different siblins.

My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE who
uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who
abuses children, and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
refuses to accept any definitions given to him.

He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both positive
and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come up
with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of
posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and let
him continue his rantings and ravings.

"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Kane wrote:
>
> > "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
> > > Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but
I
> > > doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things
for him
> >
> > No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
> > unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
> > strange little side trip.
> >
> > > and hangs on kane's every word.
> >
> > He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
> > months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?
>
> I went into lurk mode in early February, when I left the ranks of the
unemployed (around the same time
> when I realized that Doan was a lost cause). I didn't do any ng posting
until recently. I'm still not
> planning on going all out on posting to the ng like I used to. It simply
devours too much time.
>
> > > Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
> > > kane himself using an alter ego.
> >
> > Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
> > before me. You can google and see for yourself.
>
> I think it was around mid-1995 when I first came to this ng. Several years
prior (~1991), some of us here
> debated about the ills of spanking on a parenting bulletin board on
Prodigy.
>
> -Jerry-
>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Steve Saus" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Nov 2003 14:03:36 -0800, (Kane)
wrote:
>
> >"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
news:<c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03>...
> >> Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
> >> doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things
for him
> >
> >No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
> >unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
> >strange little side trip.
>
Steve wrote:
> No, I'm not supporting anyone. I'm just tired of seeing more posts
> referring to "spanking" in a homeschool froup than in
alt.sex.kinky.wierdos .

Steve, I wasn't thanking you for supporting me, as I know we have disagreed
in the past, but thanking you for posting the link so I didn't have to
repeat myself.

I tire of the nonsense being posted as well and apologize for allowing
myself to be dragged to kane's level by responding to his continual attacks
on each and every sentence.

[Kane]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 03:08:47 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:20:00 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Kane" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
>> >news:<aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03>...
>> >> > "Kane" > wrote in message
>> >> > om...
>> >> > > "Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message
>> >> > news:<jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51>...
>> >> > > > Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is
not
>> a
>> >'pysical
>> >> > > > punishment'.. lol
>> >> > >
>> >> > > As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a
>> child
>> >> > > doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T
physical
>> >> > > punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.
>> >> Kane said:
>> >> So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that
such
>> >> things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are
>> you
>> >> prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with
reference
>> to
>> >> the post where I said it?
>> >
>> >Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that
>> statement and
>> >you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby
the
>> poster
>> >claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I
>> stated
>> >that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an
>> enlisted man
>> >in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment
does
>> indeed
>> >exist as a discipline in the armed services.
>>
>Kane:
>> This isn't your statement that opens this post:
>>
>> "Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
>> 'pysical punishment'.. lol"
>
>
>Thank you Kane, for showing how illiterate you truly are. Do you not
even
>understand SARCASM when it's directed at you when you deliberately
attempt
>to disavow what I stated that there indeed "was physical punishment
in the
>armed forces"?

Nice try. You know perfectly I did no such thing. What I did do was
point out, as you seem to have avoided responding to so far, that any
"physical punishment" metted out to an adult has repercussions, up to
and including refusal to participate. Children have no such recourse.

Let's see if you respond to that finally in this reply.

>You simpy attempted to lie your way thru it

I lie? R R R

>by saying that
>one cannot physically strike an enlisted man, while ignoring the fact
that
>there ARE indeed physical punishments associated with discipline.

The enlisted man, or woman, volunteered. And they have recourse a
child does not. The child does not have informed consent. The adult,
who enlists, or even who is drafted, has a number of choices whether
or not to subject themself to physical "punishment."

And my claim still stands very nicely, thank you. One still cannot hit
a soldier to punish him, or her.

>> Obviously you were responding to something I said about physical
>> punishment, were you not?
>>
>> Are you not accusing me of claiming such things aren't physical
>> punishment?
>
>I am accusing you of attempting to weasel out of it by limiting
physical
>punishment to actually striking another,

Actually I don't. Especially in the case of children. Nor did I make
any such attempt. You claimed, I countered, you used sarcasm to avoid
the issue I countered with...that children do not have recourse
against physical punishment and adults do.

>when you knew I had completely
>destroyed the other person's argument that adults in the service
aren't
>subjected to physical punishment,

You destroyed nothing. The difference between a child and adult vis a
vis punishment was the point of the poster, and my point, and you
still haven't answered it.

>while children are.

Of course children are subjected to it, and they should not be, as
they have no recourse. Adults do.

>You like to attempt the play on words don't you?

Not in the least. I'm trying to get you to stop doing so. And you
simply refuse to answer what is asked.

>>
>> >
>> >I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20
mile
>> hikes
>> >with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You
show
>> how much
>> >of a weasel you can be.
>>
>> No, this is precisely what you said (and it's even attributed
>> correctly to you in this very post above):
>
>As I have said before, you have very little comprehension ability, or
an
>ability to understand sarcasm.

I have no trouble understanding sarcasm at all, expecially when it is
used to mislead the reader away from the point and the issue. Adults
cannot be legally subjected to the same punishments as children.

It is you that is weaseling.

>Re read it again.. several times. Only your
>little parrot in here would possibly have construed it as my saying
that YOU
>SAID such and such, when I directed it to you as a sarcastic
question.

And I answered it and I am waiting for a response from you that
addresses my response, not your continual fiddling about hoping no one
will notice you haven't answered the claim.

>>
>> "Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a
>> 'pysical punishment'.. lol"
>>
>> In other words it sounds very like you are claiming that I am
claiming
>> something, no?
>>
>> And I know precisely what the discussion was about. It was that
>> punishment is not required to teach someone something.
>
>You have also injected into the discussion the use of punishment as a
>disciplinary method as well.

I didn't inject it. YOU did, by the use of the word "discipline"
connect to spanking. Spanking isn't discipline (teaching) it's just
terrorising and punishment.

>Or do we deny that the topic has ranged from
>the very small toddler to the older child being disciplined?

Why would I deny it. I never brought it up. Why are you doing so now,
except that you haven't responded to the claims and questions given
and asked of you.

>Or do we pick and choose selectively which topic we're discussing and
apply
>various sentences to only that one? Apparently so.

It doesn't matter to me if we have a closely proscribed discussion or
a wide and far ranging one. You'll still fight to avoid facing the
brutality you've apparently visited on children and defend.

>> And by the way, having participated in many forced marches in both
>> training and combat I know precisely what it is meant to do. It is
>> meant to physically harden the troop. It is meant to familiarize
him
>> with hardship.
>>
>> And my statement still stands. If a troop is either voluntarily or
by
>> law required to undergo such training he or she STILL has recourse
a
>> child does not. If there is an injury most adults will know it and
>> make it known. Children often do NOT know when they have been
injured
>> or assume that is correct because the parent did it to them.
>
>"Chidren often do NOT know when they ahve been injured?" See, I can
choose
>and pick thru your nonsense as well.

That is correct. A child usually has no concept of psychological
injury, for instance. You can destroy their capacity to think and
explore and they may never no it even as an adult. Though it is
possible they will discover it and come back for the perpetrator.

>See how easily it is to misquote someone, but your meaning and
inuendos are
>perfectly clear.

Except for a couple of typos you quoted me just fine. The quote stands
for what I said as well as the whole thing.

The meaning of your statement, "but your meaning and inuendos are
perfectly clear" are not perfectly clear to me. What do you think my
inuendos and meanings are?

I don't usually pull any punches on child abusers such as you. I say
it right out and have from the first.

If I have any meanings you'll tell me what they are, not what you know
them perfectly clearly, won't you?

>> >> > Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous
>> name. What
>> >you
>> >> > see is what you get fella.
>> >>
>> >Kane stated:
>> >> Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to
>> bluff
>> >> it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was,
or
>> >> rather what he was. A troll.
>> >
>> >Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined
>> 'nemesis' you
>> >encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own
>> position.
>>
>> This is a particulary Jonseish response.
>
>Another of your delusions Kane? I would ask anyone who still bothers
to
>read your nonsense, exactly HOW many people have seen someone
actually admit
>in a newsgroup that they're just a troll.. lol..

Are you kidding? Those that do not are not true trolls. Trolls,
dispite their bad press and ill repute actually have a code of
conduct. Once you call them out they have to admit it. They can then
choose to stay and be subjected to the abuse of posters (their
arguments are all nullified by their confession of false posting) or
if clever, as Jonesie was, continue to engage poster after poster that
can't resist the quality or outrageousness of the trolls argument.

They score points that way, and they have groups of their own
(private) they go to and brag and show how they counted coup on the
dumb posters in USENET.

>And of course, You post your beliefs which try to portray ANYONE who
uses a
>physical disciplinary method on their child as monsters or child
abusers and
>you think you are not considered a troll?

If I were I'd have to admit it if you asked me. I am not one. And a
troll cannot declare they are not a troll...all they can do is either
say nothing or if challenged confess.

You are a monster, and you are a child abuser. You've just conned
yourself into a neurotic self protective rationalization to defend the
practice and make it sanctioned by history, law, and your own self
definition of it.

Brutes commonly do this.

And most were made brutes by similar treatment as children by THEIR
parents...and of course they cannot reject the parenting they got, as
in the simple mind of a child their parents were right to parent them
as they did.

>> >I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not
>> shown or
>> >admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool
>> newsgroup
>> >an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that
>> category
>> >quite clearly.
>>
>> Less than 200 though I think recently you have raised your number
to
>> close to that just in this tread, though it appears you posted a
>> couple of times elsewhere. That still is very few posts for someone
>> that claims he can has changed his position on an issue here by
>> admitting someone had a superior argument.
>
>Perhaps my limited number of posts show that I only jump into topics
which
>gain my attention...(hmm, I thought trolls attempted to flood
newsgroups
>with their nonsense in a lame attempt to start flame wars and raise
>controversy among the users)..

You do not understand trolls. The skilled don't care what kind of
exchange is made, though some like the delicate touch, while other's
will indulge in flame to get hits on their posts. Whatever it takes is
the name of the game.

You seem to be rambling all over the place, and that is why I
suspected you are a troll. So....ARE YOU A TROLL?

>Since there are so few for you to read thru, amazing you haven't
noted the
>ones where I accepted as logical and natural the reasons many
objected to
>the pledge as being religious in nature, or the ones that I quite
readily
>accepted that the attacks on it were not indeed simply attacks on
religion.

I don't recall them but then I don't read everything someone has
posted. Your claim was they changed your mind with logical and factual
argument. If you don't mind, why not point me to those threads and
I'll have a chance to see if you are telling the truth...that you had
your mind made up one way and then changed it with good argument by
others.

>Oh, but now I suppose I'll be accused of being a religious fundy,

I don't know. Are you? That might explain a lot.

>when
>indeed I have never posted anything other than people be allowed to
believe
>or not believe whatever they choose..

Ooooo...careful there Dennis. A lot of what you have argued about the
responsibility of the parent toward the child is exactly that....that
people are required to believe something very special indeedy.

>Ahh,, but I sense Im wasting my time with a closed and empty mind.

Your closed and empty mind isn't my problem. It's yours.

>>
>> You still haven't, after my second request, managed to show that
claim
>> of yours.
>>
>> I'm waiting.
>
>It's there guy.. IF you can read. Besides, since it seems you've
posted
>nearly as many posts on THIS thread alone, my mere less thean 200
posts it
>should be quite easily to find.

No, I don't play that game. You made the claim, you support it or blow
the tiny bit of remaining credibility you are leaking out your ass
right now.

>YOU, on the other hand refuse to accept studies that others have
posted,
>Doan for one, as mere propoganda..

I never said they were "mere propoganda" [sic]. Some of them are
quite sophisticated propaganda but based on very poor assumptions.

The worst is they don't test the actually issue. No account, for
instance, it taken of any variables in punishment outside of Corporal
Punishment...usually meant spanking. One cannot judge the compliance
and learning of a child subjected to CP alone when it's obvious other
kinds of pain and humiliation would have a high probability of being
also in the repertoire of the punishing parent.

>>
>> >>
>> >> You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see
>> how
>> >> many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a
very
>> new
>> >> poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name.
Jonesie
>> has
>> >> had many names.
>
>LOL.. how many names have you had on these newsgroups Kane?

Only pohakuyakokane and stoneman, which if one speaks the language is
something of each other.

>Seems you are
>the one hiding behind an acronym.

Nope. Speak my name in the right circles and everyone there will know
of who you speak...and I haven't seen some of those folks in 40 years.

>Weak and lame arguments or accusations of someone stalking you to try
to
>discredit you only made you look more the fool that you truly are.

That is entirely outside this exchange of ours. I was interested in
seeing if you were him. I simply noted that you post like he did, and
asked you.

That is not the behavior of a fool, but of a cautious and thoughtful
person.

>> >
>> >Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character..
Lol..
>> what a
>> >lame assed attempt.
>>
>> And I notice you still haven't managed to explain why you have only
>> 200 or less posts in just a few weeks yet you claim to have a
history
>> long enough that you engaged in argument and had your mind changed
by
>> facts.
>
>Again, the liar in you..

What in the statement above is a lie?

>I've claimed that I ran a computer bulletin board
>and was very active on local bbs's.. you DO know what those are don't
you?

Yes. I had one myself.

>I have NEVER stated that I have a "history long enough" for anything,

No, you stated you had had your mind changed through debate, argument
by others with you. I assume that you didn't change your mind in one
or two posts, even 10. But you can enlighten us by posting an URL to
the message threads.

>other
>than I HAVE changed my opinions by factual and honest positions of
others..
>Something you apparently cannot comprehend.

Odd statement. And you call me a liar. Hmmmm...interesting.

How do you know whether or not I could comprehend changing of ones
mind by factual honest positions stated by others?

You'd have to really be stretching to assume that, now wouldn't you?

>>
>> I'm waiting.
>
>Don't need to wait long asshole.. They're all googled for your
reference,
>and since they're so 'few'.. you shouldn't have much problem finding
em.

Not going to point to them, eh? Thought so.

>Kinda reminds me of a lame assed debate on the old bbs's when I got
the
>better of someone I disagreed with, they claimed I was 'new' here and
thus
>had no 'right' to an opinion.

I've always been interested in the opinion of folks new to a debate or
issue. And I've always thought they had a right to them.

You don't think I don't think ou have a right to your opinions, do
you? You are stupid, and ill informed, and probably abused as a child,
but you certainly have all the rights anyone has to an opinion.
Such as it is.

>I have every right to my opinion and to
>state it, whether it's right or wrong. Again, you show yourself the
fool
>you truly are.

I'd be a fool if I denied you the right to your opinion. But your
attempt to suggest I wouldn't is the language of the true fool.

>>
>> >Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of
>> >switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's..
>>
>> I don't recall accusing you of posting under another name. Only
that
>> you could be Jonesie. He posted under many names.
>
>You CALLED me Jonsie in your responses.. Another weasel attempt to
back
>off of your wild fantasies again?

I don't have wild fantasies. You don't know Jonesie.

>>
>> If you think I'm posting as someone else and it's relevant to your
>> argument that spanking is superior for parenting then non-painful
>> parenting please show the connection.
>>
>> >I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like
>> yourself
>> >posting nonsense.
>>
>> You seldom come anywhere in Usenet. Unless you are using a new
name.
>
>Bull****.. I've read your nonsense on another political sub Im on.

Really. Which one? I only post to a few. And I don't recall any of
them being political. Where did you see me post? Was it a real
contribution or simply a checkin...a post or two at most?

>And I
>don't use different names as well. Besides, I will ask you again,
WHAT IS
>THE RELEVANCE as to how often I post..

It has relevance only in the context I asked it. You claimed you had
had debates with others and out of those honest and factual positions
of others you had had your mind changed.

I found it difficult to believe you had done that in just a few posts
(and it would be highly unlikely, now wouldn't it?) and surfed your
posts a bit and didn't find any such threads. And I noted that you
also hadn't posted to Usenet all that much, making it even more
unlikely that you were telling us the truth.

You can prove me wrong easily. I wish you would. I might make our
debate more relevant and cogent.

>Does it make you worried that you
>can't brainwash an adult as you would like to think you are capable
of?

Are you worried I might?

Let me assure you that if I wished to and had you handy it wouldn't be
difficult at all. You are a prime subject, given your highly defensive
posture. You've fallen all over yourself without a bit of help from
me. Imagine what could happen if I assisted you?

But I have no desire to brainwash you or anyone. I'm in this debate
fair and square and the nature of the Web limits my ability to
influence beyond the squiggles on the screen you can read or ignore at
your pleasure.

How could I possibly hope to brainwash you since you have your
powerful free will at your disposal?

Or are you lending yourself to the chance I could and want it to
happen? You have been slavishly reading me when you could twit filter
as easily as I. With your experience on the internet surely you know
how to and can use a filter, right?

>> >> If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.
>>
>> >I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a
few
>> clones
>> >yourself.
>>
>> Nope. And we have each other's word on it. R R R R
>
>Then I suppose it was someone else posting under your name, the
denials that
>you made certain posts? That someone was posting the same lame
arguments
>you are posting under your name to try to discredit you? Again, for
>clarification, NOTE THE QUESTION MARK!! (I need to clarify because
of your
>lack of comprehension ability)...

As you might imagine, I've made a few enemies since my old BBS days
when I made it my hobby and duty to deflate pompous asses such as you.
They occasionally follow me about making asses of themselves yet
again. The one most recently has just lost his ISP. That will be his
6th in a year at my pleasure. My little gift to him.

He'll be back.

>> >> > > By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts
back.
>> Your
>> >> > > style hasn't changed in all these years.
>> >> >
>> >> > Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in
these
>> >newsgroups
>> >> > 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.
>> >>
>> >> Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have
only
>> 171
>> >> posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon
>> hundreds
>> >> before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the
record
>> for
>> >> number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It
was
>> in
>> >> talk.politics.guns as I recall.
>
>Ahh.. figures, your one of those anti gun freaks too.

RRRRR..... me with a Remington Marine 12 gauge magnum loaded and no
more than 10 feet from me, a Glock Model 22 .40 SW with two 15 round
extended magazines (pre-ban) even closer, and trophies from the USAF
pistol(.45 1911 model) team, with my name on them...? You are a card.

And that's just my casual arms. You should see the heavy duty stuff.

You misread just about everything, don't you.

Nope, I'm a pro-gun freak and an anti-spanking freak. Try to keep it
sorted out.

I must drive those who stereotype everything and everyone out of their
little gourds...r r r .
>> >
>> >Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of
yourself?
>> DUH..
>> >
>> >IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a
record
>> for
>> >posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name?
>> LOL..
>>
>> Everyone has to start somewhere. The point of his record wasn't
that
>> HE posted, but that OTHERS posted, even after he declared, very
late
>> in the game, that he was a troll.
>
>LOL... now anyone who posts opposing your position is influenced by
MY
>posting?

I don't recall saying that? From what would you draw such a
conclusion?

>Gee, thanks for all the credit guy. You are still living in a
>fantasy world of your own.

Well, you ARE just squiggles on my monitor, after all.

>>
>> >I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion.
I
>> DO
>> >however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about
some
>> >nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then
that's
>> your
>> >****ing problem guy.
>>
>> Actually you have posted in 5 groups that I've found. And your
>> earliest post is
>
>I don't even read 5 groups, seeing most of them as total nonsense,
but I
>could easily have made a post or two on a topic which caught my eye.

Someone may have crossposted you. Happens.


>> "
>> Search Result 178
>> From: Dennis Hancock )
>> Subject: Re: Home Schooling Done Wrong???
>> View: Complete Thread (33 articles)
>> Original Format
>> Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc
>> Date: 2003-07-03 07:14:07 PST
>> "
>>
>> Now possibly google is not working properly, but I've always found
it
>> doing its job.
>>
>> July 3 this year is only a bit over 4 months. And 178 posts are
hardly
>> supportive of your claims.
>
>WHAT CLAIMS? You think it takes 1000 posts to convince someone
that
>another person's opinions are valid, or to change their position on
>something? You sir are a very strange person. Again, what the hell
is the
>relevance?

You claimed a plural of arguments. You claimed others convinced you by
their truth and honesty.

Can you share with us how you did that in just a post or two then?
Espcially when we aren't offered the chance to see them unless we go
to all the trouble to try and find them.

If they exist you could lead us right to them with hardly more than a
few keystrokes to show the way.

Why won't you?

>>
>> Frankly I don't particularly care who you are, only that you are a
>> stupid little man who abused or abuses his children. And is busy
>> trying to justify it.
>
>No, you are an obnoxious old fool who knows nothing about me, only
your wild
>assumptions that anyone who uses any sort of physical punishment is a
>"monster" who abuses his children.

Yes. I hereby declare that those that use physical punishment on a
child to "teach" them is a monster by definition. Some are monsters
are made. I think you may have been. Am I wrong?

>You are a fraud

What have I said that was fraudulent?

>and a liar

What have I lied about?

>whose entire premise falls upon attempting to
>confuse abuse with discipline,

On the contrary. You attempt to define discipline using pain as
nonabusive. Pain used on a child is abusive.

>anyone who uses any sort of physical
>discipline HAS to be abusive, else you have no case.

That is correct. And so, I do have a case.

>That's why you so
>adamantly refuse to accept ANY definition of spanking because it
blows your
>entire case to shreds.

Instead of offering one you simply claim I wouldn't accept one, or
don't. I accept ALL definitions of spanking as spanking. I also know
they are abuse. They are designed to give pain. Pain deliberately
administered by an adult against a child is abuse.

That is my definition of abuse. It happens to encompass spanking.
Sorry `bout that.

You are by my definition a monster who hurts children deliberately.
You may be not at fault given that I suspect you were created.

>If you cannot portray anyone who spanks as an abusive monster, then
your own
>little idyllic version of life is reduced to the fact that many
parents use
>a variety of methods on their children, until they find what works.

I don't have an idyllic version of life. I do have a sensible one that
does not assign parents the responsibility of hurting their child to
attempt to teach them.

I suppose to someone that was hurt as a child by their own parents my
view might appear wildly and mistakenly idyllic, but I assure you,
among those that don't use pain parenting methods it's just common and
ordinary.

I'll admit it's fun though. A lot of fun. Everyday with my children as
they grew, and was the primary parent, was a joy. No day ended without
our resolving any problems in a loving and caring way for each other.

Does that sound idyllic?

Why not try it. What if it works?

>You
>cannot accept any deviation from your own beliefs that you must
villify any
>who disagree with you.

Who's doing the villifying here. You are a monster, and I'm very sorry
you are. Frankly I'm not much of a believer in 'evil.' Most people
that others find evil and assume it is deliberate I find are wrong.
The 'evil' ones have no idea they are evil at all.

In fact they define themselves as heroic or some other rationale for
their horrible behavior, the pain they bring others, the fear they
instill and the damage to the world they create by it.

And usually it is because someone made them what they became.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin
>> boards
>> >and
>> >> > since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time
I've
>> ever
>> >engaged
>> >> > you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more
delusions
>> to try
>> >to
>> >> > uphold your convictions.
>> >>
>> >> Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.
>
>
>LOL.. Since you are apparently the old experienced expert, wonder
how many
>names you've come up with? Or perhaps you just continue to use the
name
>kane to troll as many ng's as possible with your nonsense.

Since I post almost exclusively to only about 5 ngs, that would make
me a failure as a troll by your definition above.

My 'nonsense' is simply a very serious attempt to wake people up to
the fact they can raise children more effectively, that is reach the
desired goals (assuming they want the best for their children) by
other methods than fear, pain, and humiliation.

Actually I'm not doing too well when it comes to the number of places
I could post to, but I do my best.

>> >My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse?
>> Paranoia
>> >running rampant?
>>
>> It's not showing up before July this year.
>
>Thats because I seldom visited ng's before this year. DUH..

That's nice. So, could you lead us to that arguments that changed your
mind that brought on my questioning that it could be done in so few
posts? Thank you very much.

>>
>> What makes you think my name is not pokahuyakokane? It is.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > > It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused
me
>> of, an
>> >> > > old iJones number from years ago.
>
>WHO is the clown attempting to portray someone who disagrees with
them as a
>"troll"?

Since all you have to do to determine you are not IJones and not a
troll is say so I'd hardly be "attempting" to portray you as anything
at all. Trolls will confess immediately upon challenge and a direct
question, ARE YOU A TROLL?

You haven't answered. What am I to think? It is the only defense
against discovery by a suspicious poster they have...not to answer.

>Does it do anything to enhance your arguments? I think not.

I agree. It wasn't posed to do that. Only to explore a possibility.

>> >> >
>> >> > Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds just like Jonesie.
>
>
>> >
>> >Then he musta been onto you just as I am.
>>
>> You onto me? r r r r
>
>Yep. Like flies on ****.

You are attracted to ****?

>> >
>> >>
>> >> What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.
>> >>
>> >> > My name on here is my real
>> >> > name,
>> >>
>> >> Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
>> >> electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you
>> can't
>> >> portray what you are really like in this mode. People have
written
>> >> autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really
>> are.
>> >
>> >No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough
and
>> met
>> >enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand
>> that than
>> >most.
>>
>> Yes. That's good.
>> >
>> >What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am
>> somehow your
>> >old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics?
>>
>> In order: very little to do with it really. No, I'm not.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate
>> prior
>> >> > to this one. Period.
>> >>
>> >> That's nice. I don't believe you.
>> >
>> >Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are
a
>> liar and
>> >a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted.
>>
>> You may think what you wish. I think you are a dangerous parent and
a
>> dangerous human being. Those that fool themselves into thinking
that
>> spanking isn't harmful tend to be.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But it was fun while it lasted.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Who trolled who..r r r r
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Kane
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently, you.. dumbass.
>> >>
>> >> Kinda losing it, eh?
>> >>
>> >> I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?
>> >>
>> >> Kane
>> >
>> >You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop.
>>
>> Blew what? You are still posting in reply, and you are still making
a
>> fool of yourself.
>>
>> And there's very little I'm afraid of. Neither you, nor Jonesie.
>>
>> Kane
>
>Then why the smokescreens?

I don't see any.

>Why the paranoid accusations

I'm not paranoid.

What makes you think so? Other than your need for me to be, that is?

>that I am someone
>else?

All you have to say is that you are not. That is hardly an indication
of me being paranoid, now is it? I'd be having fantasies that you are
him and you are after me and voices in my head are instructing
me...etc etc etc. None of that is happening.

I'm just asking you.

>Face it, you are dangerous.

I am?

In what way?

>You have made lame accusations which you
>cannot back up.

Which accusations?

>Your own posts shows you to be a negligent parent and only
>lucky that your child was not injured.

How was I negligent? Well, any more than all parents who lose track of
their three year old for a couple of seconds? I don't call them
monsters, nor accuse them of anything, but you seem to have an
inordinate need to avoid the lessons in my little story.

>Only a fool would think that somehow
>justifies a position one has taken on parenting.

Let me see if I understand this:

According to you my own posts show that I am a negligent parent and
that I would use that to justify my position on parenting. Is that
correct?

If I've misunderstood your meaning you'll explain it to me won't you?

And if I'm correct in what you meant.....R R R R

Yah gotta be kiddin' dumbass.

RRRRR

Too much.

Kane

[Kane]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:02:51 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Julie Pascal" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Julie Pascal wrote:
>> >
>> > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
>> > > >
>> > > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice
not to
>own
>> > > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
anti-slavery
>> and
>> > > > zealots about it."
>> > >
>> > > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
side.
>> >
>> > My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
>youngest
>> > and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
>> considered
>> > not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault
for
>anyone
>> > over the age of 18.
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>> And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
>> of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
>> infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
>> if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
>> Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
>> infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
>> there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
>> punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
>> swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
>> TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.
>>
>> Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
>> is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
>> manipulation and guilt.
>>
>> --Julie
>
>Absolutely Julie. These anti spanking zealots who attempt to push
their
>theories and practices on everyone else simply ignore the emotional
damage
>that they tend to do to children and refuse to accept that that is
usually
>much more damaging and much more lasting than a swat on the butt.

Why would you and Julie, apparently, assume that those who don't use
spanking or physcial punishments still would use other punishments
more damaging?

I, and most non-spankers agree with you to the point they don't use
psychological punishment either.

I understand it's very hard for folks that have been punished as
children themselves, and have given themselves over to the concept
that pain is valid and important and even irreplaceable tool for
teaching, but trust me, to understand that children, people, can learn
all the lessons there are to learn without pain.

I think you both are treading water fast as you can, but getting
nowhere fast.

Most nonspankers, virtually all of them, tend not to be punishers.
They are too busy having fun with and enjoying their child's
development.

For a guy that was going to filter me you certainly seem stuck on me
as a subject of discussion.

Just doing your civic duty are yah, for the dangerous old codger that
doesn't believe in whippin' his kids?

Kane

[Kane]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:22:27 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Kanga Mum" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
>...
>> [ ]
>> > Spanking IS a last resort.
>> >
>> > Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT
while
>you're
>> > angry.
>> >
>> > Best, Dan
>>
>> Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.'
>>
>> In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see
>> elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on
circumstances
>> outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last
resort
>> may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if
Dad
>> is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation
>> totally unrelated to the child's behavior.
>>
>> The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be
>> repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed
by
>> external factors.
>>
>> If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own
protection
>> and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort'
>> doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the
>> boundaries are.
>>
>> In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children
that
>> the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their
>> protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how
not
>> to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day
>> through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding,
>> leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a
child
>> anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or
not
>> get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last
>> resort method truly is random.
>>
>> I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same
>> behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental
>> breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results.
This
>> seems to teach the children that what they have no control in
whether
>> or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked
for
>> the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience,
>> which they can.
>>
>>
>> For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means
>> that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors.
People
>> like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry.
I
>> disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank
>> _because_ we are angry.
>>
>> For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not
jump
>> on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be
spanked,
>> not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that
>> disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a
>> child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether
he
>> is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has
>> made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally
>> knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry.
>>
>> Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank.
It
>> should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should
it
>> be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is
>> determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating
a
>> well-known rule.
>>
>> I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank
that
>> you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you
>> are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's
behavior-
>> none of these things should be permitted to influence how many
swats
>> on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the
child
>> disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined
>> consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was
>> determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and
you
>> simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations.
>>
>>
>> So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the
child's
>> backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because
a
>> child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a
>> safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have
>> nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Kanga
>
>I agree with much of what you wrote Kanga, that it should be a
natural
>consequence of inappropriate behavior when used as discipline.

Silly boy. That is not a natural consequence. What is natural about
getting hit for jumping on the bed? It's a consequence, yes, but not
natural. It would be "natural" if she fell on her ass and hurt
herself. I'd rather she didn't so I have interventions that solve the
problem without pain from nature or parent.

>However, the
>level of one's anger can and should be a determining factor indeed.

That's a scary statement. How, exactly?

>I think the difference is decided upon the age of a child. A toddler
should
>be disciplined immediately, else they will not understand the
connection
>between the swat and the action which caused the reaction.

Seems logical. Problem is they don't make the connection you want.
They make a connection with the most immediate and compelling presence
YOU, IDIOT. YOU are the thing they is happening to them, not the bed,
or the jumping. YOU. HITTING. HURTING.

>However, in an older child, and some can be quite rebellious indeed,
I would
>wait until I cooled down before administering any punishment out of
concern
>for any excessiveness.

Gee, now I wonder how you got that "quite rebellious indeed" older
child. My kids were about them most active I've ever been around.
Adventurous, energetic, practically hyper they were. And more easy to
live with than most adults I've known.

Tons of fun. And the older they got, even with all the same challenges
that most parents get from their kids, still fun to parent...without a
single instance of hitting them or trying to hurt them emotionally or
psychologically for "discipline."

If I didn't like something they were doing I simply told them. If it
made sense they complied. If it didn't make sense they weren't afraid
to come and ask me to sort it out so they understood it.

That's what kind of older child I got by not hurting them when they
were toddlers.

And I've seen other parents do it, and I took the principles to
working with mentally ill children, some driven there by spanking
punitive parents, and helped them heal.

>The point is the level at which the child can understand that the
spanking
>is a direct result of his/her actions, and that the child fully
understand
>that limits are there and will be enforced.

Yah know, when yah get right down to it the child never understands
why the parent hits them and gives them pain. They accept it as right
and proper of course, well, until they get a lot older, some of them.

Take yourself to a juvenile detention center sometime. Talk to the
kids. Ask them their story. But don't be fooled. Those chains around
their waists and the cuffs linking their hand to it are there for a
reason.

They were all spanked. It's impossible to find any non-punitive raised
children among them. Impossible.

>All children will push the
>limits and test them,

Of course they will. Nature compells them to do so. Too little testing
and they will die. Literally. Highly compliant children are not
healthy.

>and the earlier they are enforced,

The limits? Why do limits have to be "enforced?" I simply asked. They
complied. If they were too little I just picked them up and put them
in a safe place. And I did it gently and I told them in words why,
knowing that later in life that information could and would be
recalled when needed.

My kids, about 40 years old now, prove it to me occasionally. They do
recall what is needed for their safety and for their getting ahead in
the world.

>the earlier your
>children learn that all actions have consequences

That's among the easiest things for a child to learn. They learn it
when gravity overcomes them and they fall on their little butts, or
later their knees.

By 6 they can even take unrelated information and extrapolate to more
abstract cause and effect reasoning. It's wonderful to watch. I'm sure
you've seen it, haven't you?

>and they choose the ones
>which they prefer.

Sure, that's what life's about. Why would you interfer with that by
interjecting a hostile and painful humiliation parent on them? You are
supposed to be their coach, their supporter, their mentor, their
assistant, and most of all, their teacher.

Think about what you are doing teaches them.

Thanks for listening. And since Dennis has filtered me give him my
regards, will yah all? Thanks.

Kane

[Kane]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:29:18 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael S. Morris" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003
>>
>> [various snips]
>>
>> Kane wrote:
>> So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
>> someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?
>>
>> I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne
>> for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
>> by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the
>> same in my direction have been laughable.
>>
>> Kane:
>> Get my drift here?
>>
>> Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
>> power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
>> attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
>> is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
>> ourselves.
>>
>> Kane:
>> And you and I are adults...presumably.
>>
>> As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
>> pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however,
>> Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.
>>
>> []
>>
>> Kane:
>> Were you or any child you know spanked for
>> not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
>> course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
>> better than that.
>>
>> What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
>> that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.
>>
>> What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
>> of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.
>>
>> Kane:
>> A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
>> hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.
>>
>> My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
>> If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
>> on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
>> adequately and that includes not letting them play near
>> the street.
>>
>> This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child
>> play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
>> child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
>> can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
>> every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
>> child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
>> all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
>> disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
>> do what the child wants to do.
>
>Mike, you apparently didn't read his nonsense in the other thread
whereby
>somehow, in his own twisted mind, he attempted to portray how he
calmly sat
>by while his three year old daughter climbed up on a fence where an
agitated
>bul was eyeing her intently.
>
>I don't know what this was intended to prove, except that he was calm
and
>waited until after the danger was past to 'talk' to his daughter
about how
>bad a situation it was. To me, he has done nothing but show that he
either
>is a negligent parent or his nonsense about close supervision is just
>another ploy to attempt to portray others as negligent.

Naughty naughty. One shouldn't lie so blatantly.

Here's what I actually said, and the post I said it in cited at:


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22bulls%22+author:pohakuyakokane%40subdi mension.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7ed8d1be.0310262314.6c60ead5%40posting.google .com&rnum=1

If it won't open, try:

http://tinyurl.com/unxl


"
My daughter used to go to work with me until she was about 3. A lively
energetic exploring kid, but very trusting of me and new activities
she'd check out with me before she did them.

I missed her cue one day. And she wandered over the pasture fence. I
was working with a particularly difficult Appaloosa stallion and was a
tiny bit distracted. I'd sent her outside the work area but where I
could see her. The corner post on the pasture was right at the edge of
a 50 foot steep dropoff. In that paster were about 15 3 year old Santa
Gertrudis bulls waiting for shippment to the sales barn for auction.

I heard her call out to me, "Look at me daddy." and when I looked
there she was. She had climbed up the angled brace post to the top of
the corner post, about 6x8 inches on the top. Barbed wire below her, a
50 ft cliff to one side, and about 5 or 6 young bulls coming toward
her curious and a bit agitated.

Did I run? Did I send my Australian Shepard cattle dog to drive off
the bulls? Naw, I don't think so.

I just smiled and said, "Yes, honey you are a good climber, now can
you climb down without falling?" Which of course she promptly did.

We talked about it. I didn't spank her but she, trusting me, and
feeling safe to ask me questions wanted to know why I looked so scared
now that she was down."

Now does that look like I just let her get into danger and then
ignored or otherwise failed to protect her once she was in danger?

Can you imagine what would have happened I started yelling, or running
toward her, or distracted her by letting my cattle dog go after the
bulls?

You are kinda dumb, yah know that?

But dumbest of all is your attempt to discredit me by lying. Tsk tsk
tsk.

Snipping Mike's equally inane commentary, as though spanking will
teach a child to not jump on a trampoline until he or she is ready...r
r r r

And Dennis, for a guy that is so disgusted with me that he would
filter me, you certainly are obsessed with me.

Something must be going on in that pointy little head of yours. Yeah,
something is, for sure. R R R R

Stoneman

[Kane]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:32:39 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> t...
>> >
>> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Kane" > wrote in message
>> > > m...
>> > >
>> > > []
>> > > > So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to
cause you
>> > > > pain and humiliate you?
>> > > []
>> > >
>> > > Since you have so little credibility, I was basically
unaffected.
>> > >
>> > > BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year
old.
>> After
>> > > just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching".
I wish
>I
>> > had
>> > > tried this sooner.
>> >
>> > Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?
>>
>> Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid
that I
>> would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just
focussed on
>> being calm and consistent.
>>
>> > What was he touching?
>>
>> The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
>child-proof
>> things there are always some things that need to be off limits.
>>
>> Jayne
>
>There you go girl. You've just put forth another example of kane's
nonsense
>that all spanking must surely be 'pain and humiliation', a phrase
he's used
>dozens of times over and over.

Spanking isn't pain? How interesting. Nor is it humiliating? Just what
is spanking supposed to be then? What feeling is the child supposed to
be having, according to you, Dennis?

>He cannot comprehend that more often than not, on a toddler, they are
more
>affected by the fact that you DID punish them than any physical pain,
and
>the lesson sticks.

The first time a child is struck by their parent, causing pain, it
certainly IS a highly charged "affect" all right. The shock is usually
extreme.

I recall watching a lady I was visiting with my wife who had a little
toddler. She would slap his hand about every minute to minute and a
half...really, I timed it.

Her entire living room was covered with glass figureens. On every
surface above floor level, every shelf, the coffee table, the mantel,
everywhere. Pretty things they were.

I mean it would have been terrible to have to child proof all that.

And besides, the child's development is far less important than the
objects one might have to go to a little trouble to child proof,
don'tchknow.

>He gives human toddlers much less credit for learning ability by
reaction
>and consequence to an action then dogs or even rats which studies
show react
>to the situation, not the person administering the tests...

On the contrary. The laboratory work with dogs and rats involving
aversion testing requires a strict removal of any view or sound, even
scent is blocked, so the work subjects won't connect the experimenter
with the stimuli. It really messes things up. The subjects, if exposed
to aversive stimuli (you can call it "spanking" if you wish - that's
okay with me) while also exposed to the lab workers, then get all
discombobulated if they see a lab worker while trying to learn to be
rats or dogs...you know, mating behaviors, eating behaviors, learning
to run mazes, that sort of thing.

In other words it plays hell with their normal development

I have a hunch you missed psych 201, didn'tcha?

bingo bango bongo r r r r

Stoneman

[Kane]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:39:32 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Doug" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> Kane writes:
>>
>> > > Kane has shared with us that he
>> > > perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.
>> >
>> > "Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
>> > sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?
>>
>> Hi, Kane!
>>
>> Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes.
Who
>> else's would it be?
>>
>> > > Kane set upon a
>> > > mission to physically assault the children.
>> >
>> > I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word
twister?
>>
>> My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the
kids
>and
>> broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up. I
>understood
>> you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
fear.
>You
>> spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
mild
>> manner made you an easy target. Once other children learned that
you
>could
>> hit after age 11, they left you alone.
>>
>> Here is what you said exactly:
>>
>> "I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good
deal
>> of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
>> mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
>> broke.
>>
>> "When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight
of
>> me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that
other
>> bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest
of
>> my school years were easy.
>>
>> "But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
>> having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging.
YOU,
>> silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."
>>
>> You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't
violence,
>are
>> you?"
>>
>> > > He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's
noses he
>> > > broke.
>> >
>> > Try quoting in context.
>>
>> I have included the actual quotes in this post.
>>
>> > > Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of
him.
>> >
>> > Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.
>>
>> They were children.
>>
>> A 15 year old 180
>> > pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and
attacked
>> > ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."
>>
>> If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not
mention
>the
>> age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I
wouldn't
>know
>> how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.
>>
>> > It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative
misleading of
>> > the readers. You never seem to tire of it.
>>
>> Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with
"spanking isn't
>> hitting?"
>> > > But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
>> > > violent, abusive childhood.
>> >
>> > Really? Compared to who?
>>
>>
>> As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11
is
>> commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.
>>
>> > So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.
>>
>>
>> I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
>> adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up
in an
>> upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.
>>
>> > > Family-system theorists may hold that he
>> > > bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a
victim.
>> >
>> > Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using
words on
>> > a medium where we can't even see each other?
>>
>>
>> Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a
DSM-IV label
>> would be foolish. I did agree with the reader I responded to that
your
>> written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.
>>
>> > Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?
>>
>>
>> Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members
who
>have
>> received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child,
either.
>>
>> > > > You appear unable to converse with me without insults and
ridicule.
>> > > Aren't
>> > > > you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard
to
>> believe
>> > > that
>> > > > preventing these things is really very important to you. I
have
>told
>> you
>> > > > about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than
giving
>me
>> an
>> > > > alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad
parent.
>> You
>> > > > have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to
preventing
>> > > spanking.
>> > > > Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not
a high
>> > > > priority for you at all.
>> > >
>> > > The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe
>pseudo-events
>> > > involving children -- is troublesome.
>> >
>> > Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
>> > fascinating.
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of
>exacting
>> descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have
occurred
>> once. For example, in writing about all children who are
substantiated:
>> "CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to
their legs
>> and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific
description is
>> applied to the general population, the description is a
pseudo-event.
>> First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this
way; in
>> fact, they are not filled with children in any condition. Second,
the
>> majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or
neglected
>in
>> any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future
maltreatment. Of
>> those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which
account for
>> around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally
much less
>> severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries
represent
>> less than 1% of substantiated cases.
>>
>> > And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
>> > morals police?
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > > Family-systems folks would lay the
>> > > blame on his parents or foster caregiver.
>> >
>> > Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most
kids
>> > of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
>> > foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.
>>
>>
>> I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many
caseworkers
>> applying family systems theory would. This is one of the basic
flaws in
>CPS
>> practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the
fruit of
>> parental wrongdoing.
>>
>> You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are
more
>> likely to be violent.
>>
>> > > Others would say he is a
>> > > self-made man.
>> >
>> > We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
>> > conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual
to his
>> > or her detrement.
>>
>>
>> I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government
>agencies
>> inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or
>"acting
>> out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of
families.
>>
>> > > But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
>> > > reflective of them.
>> >
>> > You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?
>>
>>
>> Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these
newsgroups.
>> Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement
clearly
>implies
>> that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I
apologize for
>the
>> transgression.
>>
>> > > He speaks volumes about himself.
>> >
>> > You speak for me now?
>>
>>
>> No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.
>>
>> > I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing
who and
>> > what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover
some
>> > interesting things about you.
>> >
>> > One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that
you
>> > are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the
least
>> > vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me
of, I
>> would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever
>preempted
>> folks I perceive to be vulnerable.
>>
>> Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
>> construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.
>>
>> If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked
children, you
>> are wrong. I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have
never
>> spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which
>methods
>> of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of
reasons.
>>
>> But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different.
Parents
>> are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or
not to
>> spank is up to the parent's descreation.
>>
>> It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in
>making,
>> as current law in all fifty states makes clear.
>>
>> > Ready to come clean yet, Dung?
>>
>>
>> About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
>> mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with
us one
>of
>> your guesses. You were wrong.
>>
>> Ready to guess again?
>
>Gee, and I got accused of just being a fictional troll of kane's in
another
>thread, glad to see I'm not the only delusion he's been suffering.
>
>Since I filtered him out of my scan, it's amazing to see the same,
tired old
>tactics being used against anyone who even slightly disagrees with
his wild
>fantasy world.

I just love it. You claimed to have filtered me, but you have gone to
the trouble of googling my posts looking for something to discredit me
with, replying to old posts of others....boy, you are DESPERATE,
Dennis, aren't you?

But then you can't answer me...as it would blow that you haven't
filtered me at all...that you are obsessed with me.

Ready to start thinking about the possibility I might be right about
spanking and other pain and humiliation based parenting methods?

Naw, not Dashing Dennis the Dangerous Debater...r r r r

google away pal. You aren't the only nutcase I've deflated.

Stoneman

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat
> themselves.
> >
> > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what
> > you've asserted.
> >
>
> And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with absolutely no
> question.

Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't tell
me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to find them
myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)

You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it is you're
talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position where that's your
only option.

> > > If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost
> > > them for your benefit?
> >
> > Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't repost
> what
> > isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity is.
> Let's
> > just leave it at that.
> >
>
> For someone who hasn't bothered to go back and read the posts.. YOU can
> claim they aren't there? LOL.. You sure your not Kane in drag?

Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already demonstrated that
you can't generally post more than two sentences without either stretching the
truth way out of whack or outright lying.

> > > That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
> > > for your browing

And you have a bridge for sale too, right?

> > FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a retired Air
> Force
> > Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever saying such a
> thing.
> > It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to
> substantiate
> > your statements.

> You apparently didn't google the challenges to Kane's background by several
> others who seemed quite convinced he was this same person using another
> name, who had made that claim. OR his nonsensical denials that someone was
> reposting under his name in other newsgroups to attempt to discredit him.

Brilliant Dennis. When caught in an outright lie, try to change the focus in
another direction in the hopes that everyone will forget. Surely no one will
notice...

> > > Grow up and learn to realize
> > > when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.
> >
> > I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you.
> >
> > -Jerry-
>
> Apparently not.

Then where's the post where Kane claimed to be a retired Air Force Colonel, as
you insisted he did? Why should we move to other falsehoods you've created. One
is enough to demonstrate the real Dennis...


-Jerry-

[Doan]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> > >
> > > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat
> > themselves.
> > >
> > > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what
> > > you've asserted.
> > >
> >
> > And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with absolutely no
> > question.
>
> Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't tell
> me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to find them
> myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
I will be glad to google them for you, Gerald. Just say the word. :-)

Doan

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on your
> children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do attempt
> many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.

Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."

I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an answer.

Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind
obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that you're the
adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others - namely
children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional development
than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far beyond
your grasp?

> and quite
> often, use different methods for different siblins.

Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself that it
isn't really abuse?

> My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE who
> uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who
> abuses children,

How are you able to accept that physical discipline is >>not<< abuse? What logic
do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways that are
illegal to use on adults? Do you honestly believe there is no affect from
punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing emotions?

> and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
> refuses to accept any definitions given to him.

You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting young
children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?

> He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both positive
> and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come up
> with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of
> posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and let
> him continue his rantings and ravings.

You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your own
painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of
hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear.
Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply be
too much of an overload.

-Jerry-

[Doan]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on your
> > children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do attempt
> > many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.
>
> Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."
>
And you are the judge right, Jerry?

> I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an answer.
>
> Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind
> obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that you're the
> adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others - namely
> children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional development
> than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far beyond
> your grasp?
>
Because it is none of your business, Jerry. Are you saying that your care
for other people's children MORE THAN THEIR OWN PARENTS?

> > and quite
> > often, use different methods for different siblins.
>
> Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself that it
> isn't really abuse?
>
WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS ABUSE?

> > My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE who
> > uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who
> > abuses children,
>
> How are you able to accept that physical discipline is >>not<< abuse? What logic
> do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways that are
> illegal to use on adults?

Are you saying that it is illegal for the police to use his batons???

>Do you honestly believe there is no affect from
> punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing emotions?
>
AND YOU THINK THERE IS? Let's me see you prove this, Jerry?

> > and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
> > refuses to accept any definitions given to him.
>
> You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting young
> children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?
>
Do you think removing children from their parents is good and have no
damaging effects? Can you show me one "peer-reviewed" study in which
the non-cp alternatives are better under the same conditions???

> > He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both positive
> > and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come up
> > with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of
> > posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and let
> > him continue his rantings and ravings.
>
> You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your own
> painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of
> hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear.
> Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply be
> too much of an overload.
>
The problem is people like you who think that that they have the "truth".
But when pressed, it is nothing more than opinion. Tell me, Jerry, is
your childhood that "painful"???

Doan

[Dennis Hancock]

"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> > >
> > > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat
> > themselves.
> > >
> > > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for
what
> > > you've asserted.
> > >
> >
> > And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with
absolutely no
> > question.
>
> Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't
tell
> me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to
find them
> myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
> You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it is
you're
> talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position where
that's your
> only option.
>

Damn Gerald, how many times must I QUOTE his post and post DIRECTLY under
the EXACT words I consider nonsense.

What pleasure do you get from attempting to keep asking the same lame
questions, and keep believing every word Kane posts as the absolute truth?
Are you that truly that stupid and gullible, or are you just a parrot for
Kane, attempting to somehow try to discredit any opposing viewpoint by
asking repeatedly the same things over and over again (interestingly enough,
the same thing kane keeps doing as well).


> > > > If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and
repost
> > > > them for your benefit?
> > >
> > > Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't
repost
> > what
> > > isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity
is.
> > Let's
> > > just leave it at that.

DUH.. I can't repost what isn't there.. apparently you cannot read, or have
some lack of comprhension since I have used quoting his posts directly as a
means of posting my rebuttal to his lame nonsense.

> > >
> >
> > For someone who hasn't bothered to go back and read the posts.. YOU can
> > claim they aren't there? LOL.. You sure your not Kane in drag?
>
> Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already demonstrated
that
> you can't generally post more than two sentences without either stretching
the
> truth way out of whack or outright lying.

*I* can't post more than two sentences without stretching the truth or
outright lying? WHERE ARE MY LIES? Kane has posted nothing but lies, and
stretch truth and flip flopped back and forth, and my calling him a liar is
stretching the truth or outright lies? Grow up asshole and smell the coffee
brewing. YOu want some asshole like Kane TELLING you how to raise your
kids, and accusing people of being abusers because they don't follow his
lame assed ideology, fine, go for it.

But shut the **** up and keep it to yourself as you, like kane are now on
ignore for nonsensical bull****.

>
> > > > That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
> > > > for your browing
>
> And you have a bridge for sale too, right?

and you would surely buy it from your hero kane, simple because he 'tells'
you how great it is.


>
> > > FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a retired
Air
> > Force
> > > Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever saying
such a
> > thing.
> > > It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to
> > substantiate
> > > your statements.
>
bull****, again you show a lack of comprehsion as I clearly stated that
others in here have accused him of being that person, whom he claims is
someone else (sound familiar), who is posting under his name the same
bull**** trying to discredit him.

UNbelievable how stupid and lame some people can be. And how attacking they
can be simply because you disagree with someone they seem to have a huge
admiration for.


> > You apparently didn't google the challenges to Kane's background by
several
> > others who seemed quite convinced he was this same person using another
> > name, who had made that claim. OR his nonsensical denials that someone
was
> > reposting under his name in other newsgroups to attempt to discredit
him.
>
> Brilliant Dennis. When caught in an outright lie, try to change the focus
in
> another direction in the hopes that everyone will forget. Surely no one
will
> notice...
>

LOL... I aint the asshole trying to change the focus dude..

> > > > Grow up and learn to realize
> > > > when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.
> > >
> > > I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you.
> > >
> > > -Jerry-

Not very well, Wonder how many bridges kane has sold you in the past?

Enjoy your blinded life dude..

> >
> > Apparently not.
>
> Then where's the post where Kane claimed to be a retired Air Force
Colonel, as
> you insisted he did? Why should we move to other falsehoods you've
created. One
> is enough to demonstrate the real Dennis...
>
>
> -Jerry-
>
>

[Dennis Hancock]

Don't bother doan, Jerry, like his alter ego kane has been thrown into the
iggy bin for now.

He apparently wants ME to prove kane's allegations wrong, which many have
done continually, and wants me to repost what I dispute, even after using
direct quotes of Kane's posts when I post.

Amazing how blind and stupid some people are. Truly unbelievable that they
manage to survive in this world.

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:
>
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat
> > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis
for what
> > > > you've asserted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with
absolutely no
> > > question.
> >
> > Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah,
don't tell
> > me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to
find them
> > myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)
> >
> I will be glad to google them for you, Gerald. Just say the word. :-)
>
> Doan
>

[Dennis Hancock]

More nonsense from Gerald.... he considers a parent's RESPONSIBILITY to
teach, control and discipline their child as forcing their will upon
someone.. LOL..

Amazing that a person can even begin to argue that EVERYONE who attempts to
discipline their own children is an abusive jerk who is imposing their will
on them. Not worth the bother as he is either a liar, a teenager who has
never had kids, or a complete idiot.


Almost turned my stomach to read the nonsense below
"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>
> > I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on
your
> > children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do
attempt
> > many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.
>
> Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."
>
> I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an
answer.
>
> Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind
> obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that
you're the
> adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others -
namely
> children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional
development
> than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far
beyond
> your grasp?
>
> > and quite
> > often, use different methods for different siblins.
>
> Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself
that it
> isn't really abuse?
>
> > My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE
who
> > uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who
> > abuses children,
>
> How are you able to accept that physical discipline is >>not<< abuse? What
logic
> do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways
that are
> illegal to use on adults? Do you honestly believe there is no affect from
> punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing
emotions?
>
> > and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
> > refuses to accept any definitions given to him.
>
> You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting
young
> children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?
>
> > He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both
positive
> > and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come
up
> > with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of
> > posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and
let
> > him continue his rantings and ravings.
>
> You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your
own
> painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of
> hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear.
> Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply
be
> too much of an overload.
>
> -Jerry-
>

[Dennis Hancock]

Doan you can't reach him. He, like Kane is stuck in their own self
righeousness hell which they made for themselves.

The ONLY way their 'truth' has any validity is by villifying every other
opinion and portraying anyone who disagrees with them as evil or abusive.

They are too stupid to understand that their methods are MUCH MORE abusive
than what most consider discipline and teaching because it can cause more
emotional distress on a child because they feel the parent' doesn't care
enough to set limits and teach their children. Oh yeah, they TRY to say
they set limits, but limits without any logical reinforcement are as good as
none at all.



"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:
>
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on
your
> > > children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do
attempt
> > > many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.
> >
> > Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."
> >
> And you are the judge right, Jerry?
>
> > I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an
answer.
> >
> > Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind
> > obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that
you're the
> > adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others -
namely
> > children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional
development
> > than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far
beyond
> > your grasp?
> >
> Because it is none of your business, Jerry. Are you saying that your care
> for other people's children MORE THAN THEIR OWN PARENTS?
>
> > > and quite
> > > often, use different methods for different siblins.
> >
> > Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself
that it
> > isn't really abuse?
> >
> WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS ABUSE?
>
> > > My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE
who
> > > uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster
who
> > > abuses children,
> >
> > How are you able to accept that physical discipline is >>not<< abuse?
What logic
> > do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways
that are
> > illegal to use on adults?
>
> Are you saying that it is illegal for the police to use his batons???
>
> >Do you honestly believe there is no affect from
> > punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing
emotions?
> >
> AND YOU THINK THERE IS? Let's me see you prove this, Jerry?
>
> > > and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
> > > refuses to accept any definitions given to him.
> >
> > You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that
hurting young
> > children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?
> >
> Do you think removing children from their parents is good and have no
> damaging effects? Can you show me one "peer-reviewed" study in which
> the non-cp alternatives are better under the same conditions???
>
> > > He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both
positive
> > > and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come
up
> > > with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group
of
> > > posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and
let
> > > him continue his rantings and ravings.
> >
> > You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in
your own
> > painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness
of
> > hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to
bear.
> > Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must
simply be
> > too much of an overload.
> >
> The problem is people like you who think that that they have the "truth".
> But when pressed, it is nothing more than opinion. Tell me, Jerry, is
> your childhood that "painful"???
>
> Doan
>

[Gerald Alborn]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> >
> > > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat
> > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for
> what
> > > > you've asserted.
> > > >
> > > And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with
> absolutely no
> > > question.
> >
> > Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't
> tell
> > me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to
> find them
> > myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)
> >
> > You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it is
> you're
> > talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position where
> that's your
> > only option.
> >
>
> Damn Gerald, how many times must I QUOTE his post and post DIRECTLY under
> the EXACT words I consider nonsense.

At least once would be nice.

I've asked you numerous times but you've yet to come through. Of course, I
realize that you have a good reason for not doing so...

> What pleasure do you get from attempting to keep asking the same lame
> questions,

Apparently it's displeasureable to be asked questions you cannot answer? Is it
really all that lame to ask you to prove your credibility when it's in serious
doubt? For a while I was thinking that it might be possible for you to provide
details about your assertions, which we could then discuss. Instead, you keep
running for cover. Why is that? If your statements and beliefs can't stand up to
critical scrutiny, why do you insist upon maintaining them?

> and keep believing every word Kane posts as the absolute truth?

I've never said whether or not I believed every word Kane posts. But, unlike
you, when asked, Kane backs up his statements with substantiating details.

> Are you that truly that stupid and gullible, or are you just a parrot for
> Kane,

Kane's been around this ng for 2 or 3 years perhaps. If you had comprehended my
previous posts in this thread, you'd know that I've been posting here since
about mid 1995, and prior to that, on a Prodigy parenting bulletin board with
some of the participants of this ng since about 1991. Because we've left no
stones unturned, my position and Kane's just happen to be very similar.

Unlike yours, my position does not rely upon an emotionally seated and deeply
rooted belief system, blindly passed on from one generation to the next.

> attempting to somehow try to discredit any opposing viewpoint by
> asking repeatedly the same things over and over again (interestingly enough,
> the same thing kane keeps doing as well).

Actually, you're the one discrediting yourself by your inability to post
material supportive of your assertions. As long as you're unable to answer, I
may as well probe that until you either admit you were lying, or until you cave
and refuse to discuss it any further. Either way, I have nothing to lose. You're
doing a real good job discrediting yourself and your viewpoints all by yourself,
Dennis. Anyone who wants to look closely at what you write can see that your
credibility has plenty of holes in it. It's just fortunate that the spanking
side is so allied with people like you who can't be open and honest with
themselves, let alone with others.

> > > > > If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and
> repost
> > > > > them for your benefit?
> > > >
> > > > Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't
> repost
> > > what
> > > > isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity
> is.
> > > Let's
> > > > just leave it at that.
>
> DUH.. I can't repost what isn't there.. apparently you cannot read, or have
> some lack of comprhension since I have used quoting his posts directly as a
> means of posting my rebuttal to his lame nonsense.

If that's a fact, then why do you find it impossible to back up the claims
you've been making that I've read and have been questioning? I don't care if you
claim you've quoted posts directly in the past. The issue is, why can't you
substantiate specific claims, when they are questioned, now? The only plausible
explanation is that you know you can't backup statements you made that you know
are untrue.

> > Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already demonstrated
> that
> > you can't generally post more than two sentences without either stretching
> the
> > truth way out of whack or outright lying.
>
> *I* can't post more than two sentences without stretching the truth or
> outright lying? WHERE ARE MY LIES? Kane has posted nothing but lies,

There's one. I've not seen a single lie Kane has posted. He might have posted
lies before (I rather doubt that), but everyone knows you're the one lying when
you state that Kane's never ever posted a truthful statement
>>nothing<< but lies].[/color]

> and
> stretch truth and flip flopped back and forth, and my calling him a liar is
> stretching the truth or outright lies?

The latter. You calling him a liar is an outright lie. Thanks for asking.

> Grow up asshole and smell the coffee
> brewing.

I really don't think that's coffee brewing, Dennis. But I agree that there is an
odor. I'd really be surprised if that odor didn't turn out to be something
you're smoking.

> YOu want some asshole like Kane TELLING you how to raise your kids, and
> accusing people of being abusers because they don't follow his lame assed
> ideology, fine, go for it.

My kids are already raised, Dennis. Kane's parenting philosophy is sound, and
supported by all available research on the subject.

> But shut the **** up and keep it to yourself as you, like kane are now on
> ignore for nonsensical bull****.

You don't want to be challenged or hear things that go against your beliefs.
That's one way of maintaining your fortress of denial. And we didn't even get to
the point where we could debate the real issue - hitting and hurting children in
the name of discipline.
[i]
> > And you have a bridge for sale too, right?
>
> and you would surely buy it from your hero kane, simple because he 'tells'
> you how great it is.

Once again, I adopted my parenting philosophy long before Kane arrived.

-Jerry-