How do you spell relief?

[0:->]

.... THIRTY YEARS.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/lionel.tate.ap/index.html



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

0:-> wrote:
>
> ... THIRTY YEARS.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/lionel.tate.ap/index.html
>

And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
spanked....0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

Lionel Tate is just another of a pattern familiar to every police
officer, prosecutor, criminal-defense lawyer, or judge who's been
working six months. He's the guy - almost invariably a guy - whose
run-ins with the police and courts on felonies began LONG before
whatever incident just got him arrested or now has him on trial, who's
already had many "second" chances from the court system. His rap sheet
keeps including worse offenses as time goes on.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

[0:->]

wrote:
> Lionel Tate is just another of a pattern familiar to every police
> officer, prosecutor, criminal-defense lawyer, or judge who's been
> working six months. He's the guy - almost invariably a guy - whose
> run-ins with the police and courts on felonies began LONG before
> whatever incident just got him arrested or now has him on trial, who's
> already had many "second" chances from the court system. His rap sheet
> keeps including worse offenses as time goes on.

Hence, my subject field topic. 0:-<

Far too long overdue, but finally, relief. It's like being constipated
then having a nice big apple.

Things will eventually move along.

0:->

>
> No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

O:-> quoted me:
> Lionel Tate is just another of a pattern familiar to every police
> officer, prosecutor, criminal-defense lawyer, or judge who's been
> working six months. He's the guy - almost invariably a guy - whose
> run-ins with the police and courts on felonies began LONG before
> whatever incident just got him arrested or now has him on trial, who's
> already had many "second" chances from the court system. His rap sheet
> keeps including worse offenses as time goes on.

and replied:
>>Hence, my subject field topic. 0:-<
>>Far too long overdue, but finally, relief. It's like being constipated
>>then having a nice big apple.
>>Things will eventually move along.

Having both prosecuted and defended many criminals from the
mid-1980s through the end of the 1990s, I can tell you that really is
the prosecutor's attitude in most all cases. He knows he really will
be getting another chance - soon - if he loses this case, so he can
afford to not do an all-out prosecution this time. Guys like the three
college kids in the Duke lacrosse rape case - people who've never been
charged with anything more serious than drunk driving or some other
low-end misdemeanor before, and never will again so the prosecutor
really must win the big case THIS time - are almost nil in the criminal
courts of America.

No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

[0:->]

wrote:
> O:-> quoted me:
>> Lionel Tate is just another of a pattern familiar to every police
>> officer, prosecutor, criminal-defense lawyer, or judge who's been
>> working six months. He's the guy - almost invariably a guy - whose
>> run-ins with the police and courts on felonies began LONG before
>> whatever incident just got him arrested or now has him on trial, who's
>> already had many "second" chances from the court system. His rap sheet
>> keeps including worse offenses as time goes on.
>
> and replied:
>>> Hence, my subject field topic. 0:-<
>>> Far too long overdue, but finally, relief. It's like being constipated
>>> then having a nice big apple.
>>> Things will eventually move along.
>
> Having both prosecuted and defended many criminals from the
> mid-1980s through the end of the 1990s, I can tell you that really is
> the prosecutor's attitude in most all cases. He knows he really will
> be getting another chance - soon - if he loses this case, so he can
> afford to not do an all-out prosecution this time. Guys like the three
> college kids in the Duke lacrosse rape case - people who've never been
> charged with anything more serious than drunk driving or some other
> low-end misdemeanor before, and never will again so the prosecutor
> really must win the big case THIS time - are almost nil in the criminal
> courts of America.

Yup, and that's why they are on the front page, and the others ... that
long string of weak or no convictions are off in nowhereland.

Now if only we could wake someone up, or make CCW universal across this
fair land.

Imagine if the prey .. opps, citizens of DC could legally arm themselves
against the thugs.

0:->

>
> No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Is d'geezer going to pull the old firearms sting on somebody again?
Big time gun lover right? Roight!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Is d'geezer going to pull the old firearms sting on somebody again?
> Big time gun lover right? Roight!

Could you provide a citation for your claim, Greegor the Whore?




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

A citation that proves what I say or proves something
other than what I say, Kane? :)

Should I quote some sources and then bluff
my way past their complete failure to prove
what I say they prove, Kane? :)

PLEASE deny you were d'geezer.
It makes the reward ever so much more ..rewarding.

Up the stakes. Deny you were d'geezer.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> A citation that proves what I say or proves something
> other than what I say, Kane? :)

I don't know. Do you use citations that you trap yourself with by making
concrete claims? I don't.

I quoted a source. Presuming it correct, I pointed out certain
presumptions, based on that, we could make.

> Should I quote some sources and then bluff
> my way past their complete failure to prove
> what I say they prove, Kane? :)

Well, how about that the governor made an announcement that Concannon
was only going to bring in money? And made no mention of improvements in
programs? Would that be what you were referring to when you ask if you
would quote and bluff?

> PLEASE deny you were d'geezer.

I was not d'geezer.

> It makes the reward ever so much more ..rewarding.

What reward?

> Up the stakes. Deny you were d'geezer.

I was not d'geezer.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[LLL]

>And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
>spanked

The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
worse.

[Doan]

On 24 May 2006, LLL wrote:

> >And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
> >spanked
>
> The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
> worse.
>
The same can be said about the group of college freshmen and professionals
also. It's just meaningless statistics used by anti-spanking zealotS for
propaganda purpose. One of them even stupid enough to claim that Albert
Einstein was never-spanked!!!

Doan

[Ronnie Baker]

LLL wrote:

>>And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
>>spanked
>
>
> The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
> worse.

The overwhelming majority of people in prison DESERVE it.

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 24 May 2006, LLL wrote:
>
>>> And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
>>> spanked
>> The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
>> worse.
>>
> The same can be said about the group of college freshmen and professionals
> also.

No, actually they volunteered that information more because it's
"popular" to do so in a group, especially men.

It's called the "Bill Cosby Syndrome."

Probably some prisoners lied to, but likely fewer of them. Because their
records from past arrests, even childhood, are available to LE.

> It's just meaningless statistics used by anti-spanking zealotS for
> propaganda purpose.

Meaningless? Moreso than the other self survey of college students and
professionals?

> One of them even stupid enough to claim that Albert
> Einstein was never-spanked!!!

Prove he was.

Every description of his parents and their parenting style strongly
suggests they were both indulgent and gently loving.

Show us the mindset from HIS parents that would be logically convincing
they were spankers?

NO mention of it ever, Doan. Nothing. Not EVEN PUNISHMENT as a routine
in that family. Study up.

>
> Doan
>

I find it fascinating that you are convinced he was spanked. Or are you?

SVDS. Sad about you. (Spanking Victim Delusions Syndrome)

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Ronnie Baker wrote:
> LLL wrote:
>
>>> And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
>>> spanked
>>
>>
>> The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
>> worse.
>
> The overwhelming majority of people in prison DESERVE it.

When they were tiny children?

How do YOU know they "deserve it," when it happened to them?

By the way, it's illegal, assault, if someone were to spank them as adults.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
By the way, it's illegal, assault, if someone were to spank them as
adults.

Greg wrote
And yet our society knowingly sends people to prison for
relatively minor crimes KNOWING full well they will
be assaulted and anal raped. Much better than spanking?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> By the way, it's illegal, assault, if someone were to spank them as
> adults.
>
> Greg wrote
> And yet our society knowingly sends people to prison for
> relatively minor crimes KNOWING full well they will
> be assaulted and anal raped.

Give us some data please.

> Much better than spanking?

So the cops should be used instead to spank them.

Okay, if you say so.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane:
You need statistics on anal rape in prison?
Or the system's knowledge that it takes place?
Do you really wish to equate law enforcement with spanking?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane:
> You need statistics on anal rape in prison?

No, you do to make your claim. And I don't need numbers so much as an
authority other than you to comment on it.

> Or the system's knowledge that it takes place?

I didn't deny they had the knowledge. Where did you get that from,
except your fertile mind?

> Do you really wish to equate law enforcement with spanking?

No, but Doan does.

He thinks that police using batons on persons is logically equivalent to
parents using spanking on children.

What's your take?

Are they the same?

Logically?

Here's how the problem presents.

Parents use CP to teach their children, or so they claim.

(Ever hear one say "I just wanted to hurt him bad because I was angry?")

Cops can use force, like a baton, spray, hands and feet, Taser, and gun,
to "subdue" that is bring a perpetrator under control, given various
scenarios.

However, if they attempted to defend in court their use of any of these
to "teach the prisoner" a lesson, cop would lose badge, gun, and likely
their freedom for some time.

Because it would be assault, and done intentionally.

So you see, Greg, parents are allowed to ASSAULT THEIR CHILDREN TO TEACH
THEM.

If a cop strikes a prisoner with their open hand, anywhere on their body
to "teach them," rather than subdue them, it is by law assault.

Are you with me here?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Carlson LaVonne]

Ronnie Baker wrote:

> LLL wrote:
>
>>> And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
>>> spanked
>>
>>
>>
>> The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
>> worse.
>
>
> The overwhelming majority of people in prison DESERVE it.

If spanking was an effective disciplinary strategy, the overwhelming
majority of people in prison wouldn't be in prison!

Thanks for making my point. Spanking is not effective.

LaVonne

[Carlson LaVonne]

Greegor wrote:

> Kane wrote
> By the way, it's illegal, assault, if someone were to spank them as
> adults.

Of course it is. People in prison have legal recourse. Child do not,
because they are legally assaultable. Good post, Kane!

LaVonne
>
> Greg wrote
> And yet our society knowingly sends people to prison for
> relatively minor crimes KNOWING full well they will
> be assaulted and anal raped. Much better than spanking?
>

[Carlson LaVonne]

Greegor,

You're the one that equated law enforcement with spanking and assault.

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

> Kane:
> You need statistics on anal rape in prison?
> Or the system's knowledge that it takes place?
> Do you really wish to equate law enforcement with spanking?
>

[Carlson LaVonne]

And this is why spanking is so effective (grin)!

LaVonne

LLL wrote:

>>And surely this was one of those spoiled children that were never
>>spanked
>
>
> The overwhelming majority of men in prison have been spanked if not
> worse.
>

[Greegor]

Were you spanked LaVonne?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Were you spanked LaVonne?

In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
one's self.

And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

I'm sure you think you are polite, Kane.
Even as you posted profanity you probably did.

LaVonne: Were you spanked as a child?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> I'm sure you think you are polite, Kane.

You are deluded if you think my goal is to be "polite."

> Even as you posted profanity you probably did.

You seem to be wrong yet again.

> LaVonne: Were you spanked as a child?

I'm curious. Why do you want to know?

To harass? To make bogus claims? To lie. To cover up your own sickness?

Just what is your reason for asking?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Carlson LaVonne]

What is your purpose in asking?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>

[Greegor]

Greg wrote
> LaVonne: Were you spanked as a child?

Kane wrote
> I'm curious. Why do you want to know?
> To harass? To make bogus claims? To lie.
> To cover up your own sickness?
> Just what is your reason for asking?

LaVonne wrote
> What is your purpose in asking?

Greg wrote
Does my purpose change your answer? :)
Don't you think it's relevant to your anti-spanking bandwagon?
Don't you think you've ALREADY made the answer obvious?
What's the matter LaVonne? Get caught in your hypocrisy?

ROFL! <slaps knee>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote
>> LaVonne: Were you spanked as a child?
>
> Kane wrote
>> I'm curious. Why do you want to know?
>> To harass? To make bogus claims? To lie.
>> To cover up your own sickness?
>> Just what is your reason for asking?
>
> LaVonne wrote
>> What is your purpose in asking?
>
> Greg wrote
> Does my purpose change your answer? :)

Of course. What is your answer?

Are you saying one cannot ethically ask for clarification to decide how
they are going to answer?

> Don't you think it's relevant to your anti-spanking bandwagon?

I've no idea. You haven't answered the question, "why do you wish to know?

> Don't you think you've ALREADY made the answer obvious?

If so, why would ask?

> What's the matter LaVonne? Get caught in your hypocrisy?

No. All she's done is ask the same question I did. Why do you want to know?

> ROFL! <slaps knee>

Now that would be a prime example of hypocrisy. She doesn't answer, but
asks a question. And YOU don't answer her clarifying question but accuse
HER of not answering as "hypocrisy."

You do get the irony, do you not?

I hope LaVonne doesn't hurt her knee. She got more and better slaps of
same coming than you do, child.


0:->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaah, gee, really....................now, that sounds like a
great anti-spanking plan...............why not insult parents into
submission................no wonder this whole crappy idea of never
spanking children lost political and public support...............

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking i'm not polite............i'm not
polite............i'm not polite............i'm not
polite............i'm not polite............i'm not
polite............i'm not polite............i'm not polite............

[[email protected]]

noooooooooooooooooo one become a vocal idiot from a marginal political
movement without some bad experiences from
childhood.................she's quite aware of that freudian
tendency..............that's why she asked me all those question about
whether i had a problem in school or will cps...............that's how
she handles people..............she finds out something about their
past and then tries to use it as psychological
leverage..............she has found it is a great way to manipulate
students.............she's also used it a few times to send moms on
guilt trips.................she tries to avoid falling into the same
trap because she has found it to be a highly effective way to control
others.............she may also have something in her background that
she would rather not discuss..............it could be a failed marriage
caused by a combination of getting master's, specialist, or educational
doctorate, and having a handicapped child................alone, either
can wreck a marriage...........together, they are almost certain to
cause domestic discord...............

gregory wants to know if kanevonnie was spanked as a child..............

[0:->]

wrote:
> noooooooooooooooooo one become a vocal idiot from a marginal political
> movement without some bad experiences from
> childhood.................she's quite aware of that freudian
> tendency..............that's why she asked me all those question about
> whether i had a problem in school or will cps...............that's how
> she handles people..............she finds out something about their
> past and then tries to use it as psychological
> leverage..............she has found it is a great way to manipulate
> students.............she's also used it a few times to send moms on
> guilt trips.................she tries to avoid falling into the same
> trap because she has found it to be a highly effective way to control
> others.............she may also have something in her background that
> she would rather not discuss..............it could be a failed marriage
> caused by a combination of getting master's, specialist, or educational
> doctorate, and having a handicapped child................alone, either
> can wreck a marriage...........together, they are almost certain to
> cause domestic discord...............
>
> gregory wants to know if kanevonnie was spanked as a child..............
>
But won't say why he wants to know. If you asked LaVonne or myself why
we wanted to know something about you we'd happily share with you,
because it's for your own good....R R R RR

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

wrote:
> noooooooooooooooooo one become a vocal idiot from a marginal political
> movement without some bad experiences from
> childhood.................she's quite aware of that freudian
> tendency..............that's why she asked me all those question about
> whether i had a problem in school or will cps...............that's how
> she handles people..............she finds out something about their
> past and then tries to use it as psychological
> leverage..............

Psychological leverage? You are so psychologically weak and vulnerable?

she has found it is a great way to manipulate
> students.............she's also used it a few times to send moms on
> guilt trips.................she tries to avoid falling into the same
> trap because she has found it to be a highly effective way to control
> others.............

And your posting these endless drivels of bs is for what purpose?

0:->


she may also have something in her background that
> she would rather not discuss..............it could be a failed marriage
> caused by a combination of getting master's, specialist, or educational
> doctorate, and having a handicapped child................alone, either
> can wreck a marriage...........together, they are almost certain to
> cause domestic discord...............
>
> gregory wants to know if kanevonnie was spanked as a child..............
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

wrote:
> noooooooooooooooooo one become a vocal idiot from a marginal political
> movement without some bad experiences from
> childhood.................she's quite aware of that freudian
> tendency..............that's why she asked me all those question about
> whether i had a problem in school or will cps...............that's how
> she handles people..............she finds out something about their
> past and then tries to use it as psychological
> leverage..............she has found it is a great way to manipulate
> students.............she's also used it a few times to send moms on
> guilt trips.................she tries to avoid falling into the same
> trap because she has found it to be a highly effective way to control
> others.............she may also have something in her background that
> she would rather not discuss..............it could be a failed marriage
> caused by a combination of getting master's, specialist, or educational
> doctorate, and having a handicapped child................alone, either
> can wreck a marriage...........together, they are almost certain to
> cause domestic discord...............
>
> gregory wants to know if kanevonnie was spanked as a child..............

Say, what ever happened to those children you couldn't parent with
non-spanking methods and went back to spanking them?

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

0:-> wrote:
> wrote:
>> noooooooooooooooooo one become a vocal idiot from a marginal political
>> movement without some bad experiences from
>> childhood.................she's quite aware of that freudian
>> tendency..............that's why she asked me all those question about
>> whether i had a problem in school or will cps...............that's how
>> she handles people..............she finds out something about their
>> past and then tries to use it as psychological
>> leverage..............she has found it is a great way to manipulate
>> students.............she's also used it a few times to send moms on
>> guilt trips.................she tries to avoid falling into the same
>> trap because she has found it to be a highly effective way to control
>> others.............she may also have something in her background that
>> she would rather not discuss..............it could be a failed marriage
>> caused by a combination of getting master's, specialist, or educational
>> doctorate, and having a handicapped child................alone, either
>> can wreck a marriage...........together, they are almost certain to
>> cause domestic discord...............
>>
>> gregory wants to know if kanevonnie was spanked as a child..............
>
> Say, what ever happened to those children you couldn't parent with
> non-spanking methods and went back to spanking them?
>
> 0:->

You planning on responding soon, or are you going to let the answer be
in your silence?

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Denial is not a river in Egypt...

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Denial is not a river in Egypt...

Should I remind you when we ask you about your issues with CPS and
"helping" Lisa?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Sure Don!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Sure Don!

All yah got left then?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Greegor wrote:
> > Were you spanked LaVonne?
>
> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
> one's self.
>
> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>
> 0:->
>
LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
heard. That's not a secret!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
>> one's self.
>>
>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>>
>> 0:->
>>
> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> heard. That's not a secret!

Then I am doubly curious, you knowing that, you would ask her again.

Can we presume you had some harassment in mind?

> Doan

My statement above still stands.

Do you wish to discuss her experience with being spanked, along with
YOUR experience to compare notes and argue honorably?

Or did you just want to hoot and make your little insinuations?

And don't bother claiming that's what we do to you.

You have worked long and hard by creating a pattern of lies, stupidity,
unethical, and ignorant posts to warrant nothing BUT derision, until you
wise up, learn to behave yourself and present yourself as a worthy
opponent in debate instead of a whining, lying, ****ant coward.

You make it impossible to post to your comments with anything but
laughter or disgust. Or haven't you noticed?

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Carl Nisarel]

"0:->" > sputtered:

> I only did it once, and quite gently at that,
> through heavy bed wetting.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
> >> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
> >> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
> >> one's self.
> >>
> >> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> > LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> > spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> > heard. That's not a secret!
>
> Then I am doubly curious, you knowing that, you would ask her again.
>
I didn't ask her, STUPID!

> Can we presume you had some harassment in mind?
>
> > Doan
>
> My statement above still stands.
>
> Do you wish to discuss her experience with being spanked, along with
> YOUR experience to compare notes and argue honorably?
>
> Or did you just want to hoot and make your little insinuations?
>
> And don't bother claiming that's what we do to you.
>
> You have worked long and hard by creating a pattern of lies, stupidity,
> unethical, and ignorant posts to warrant nothing BUT derision, until you
> wise up, learn to behave yourself and present yourself as a worthy
> opponent in debate instead of a whining, lying, ****ant coward.
>
The liar here is YOU!

> You make it impossible to post to your comments with anything but
> laughter or disgust. Or haven't you noticed?
>
And you, once again, showed your STUPIDITY! ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
>> one's self.
>>
>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>>
>> 0:->
>>
> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> heard. That's not a secret!

Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
>
> Doan

But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
you with admitting your parents assaulted you.

0:->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
>>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
>>>> one's self.
>>>>
>>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>>>>
>>>> 0:->
>>>>
>>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
>>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
>>> heard. That's not a secret!
>> Then I am doubly curious, you knowing that, you would ask her again.
>>
> I didn't ask her, STUPID!
>
>> Can we presume you had some harassment in mind?
>>
>>> Doan
>> My statement above still stands.
>>
>> Do you wish to discuss her experience with being spanked, along with
>> YOUR experience to compare notes and argue honorably?
>>
>> Or did you just want to hoot and make your little insinuations?
>>
>> And don't bother claiming that's what we do to you.
>>
>> You have worked long and hard by creating a pattern of lies, stupidity,
>> unethical, and ignorant posts to warrant nothing BUT derision, until you
>> wise up, learn to behave yourself and present yourself as a worthy
>> opponent in debate instead of a whining, lying, ****ant coward.
>>
> The liar here is YOU!
>
>> You make it impossible to post to your comments with anything but
>> laughter or disgust. Or haven't you noticed?
>>
> And you, once again, showed your STUPIDITY! ;-)

No, I've just taken to lumping you two together since you appear both
intellectually and morally joined at the crotch.

> Doan

Forgive me if I misspelled your name and wrote it, Greg. Cowards are
hard to tell apart, you and Greg.

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
> >> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
> >> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
> >> one's self.
> >>
> >> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> > LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> > spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> > heard. That's not a secret!
>
> Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
> >
> > Doan
>
> But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
> you with admitting your parents assaulted you.
>
Nope. I don't equate spanking with assault. So, you are the one
that admit to assaulting your kid! You mom must be proud! ;-)

Doan

> 0:->
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
>>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
>>>> one's self.
>>>>
>>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>>>>
>>>> 0:->
>>>>
>>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
>>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
>>> heard. That's not a secret!
>> Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
>>> Doan
>> But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
>> you with admitting your parents assaulted you.
>>
> Nope. I don't equate spanking with assault.

Liar. You have tried to use the actions of a police officer as an excuse
for hitting a child. If the officer did it for the same reasons children
are hit he'd be guilty of assault.

Your logic equals your courage. Nil.

> So, you are the one
> that admit to assaulting your kid!

I said so plainly and clearly here many times. You are a coward and
empty of argument to pretend I have not.

> You mom must be proud! ;-)

Yes, that I only did it once, and quite gently at that, through heavy
winter bedding, and apologized to my son and promised that it would
never happen again, which promise I kept.

Thank you for bring that up. As I love telling the truth of it to
inspire those that spank to a higher quality of parenting and moral
behavior.
>
> Doan

And you? Your parents apologized yet?

After all they helped make you stupid, and a coward.


Kane




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
> >>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
> >>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
> >>>> one's self.
> >>>>
> >>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
> >>>>
> >>>> 0:->
> >>>>
> >>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> >>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> >>> heard. That's not a secret!
> >> Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
> >>> Doan
> >> But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
> >> you with admitting your parents assaulted you.
> >>
> > Nope. I don't equate spanking with assault.
>
> Liar. You have tried to use the actions of a police officer as an excuse
> for hitting a child. If the officer did it for the same reasons children
> are hit he'd be guilty of assault.
>
> Your logic equals your courage. Nil.
>
Your logic is that of an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-) A police can hit
you with a baton. If anyone else, who is not an police, did that, it
would be assault! See it, STUPID! ;-)

> > So, you are the one
> > that admit to assaulting your kid!
>
> I said so plainly and clearly here many times. You are a coward and
> empty of argument to pretend I have not.
>
So you admidtted to assaulting your kid. I spoke the truth. ;-)

> > You mom must be proud! ;-)
>
> Yes, that I only did it once, and quite gently at that, through heavy
> winter bedding, and apologized to my son and promised that it would
> never happen again, which promise I kept.
>
So, according to your logic, a gently hit to a child is assault but a
police striking you with a baton is not!

> Thank you for bring that up. As I love telling the truth of it to
> inspire those that spank to a higher quality of parenting and moral
> behavior.

You are a known proven liar! Your mom approved of you calling others
"smelly-****" is a classic example of the way you were parented. ;-)

> > Doan
>
> And you? Your parents apologized yet?
>
For what? I don't equate spanking with assault, STUPID!

> After all they helped make you stupid, and a coward.
>
Hihihi! The stupid coward is YOU!
>
> Kane

Kane9-9 = Kane0

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>>>>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
>>>>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
>>>>>> one's self.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0:->
>>>>>>
>>>>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
>>>>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
>>>>> heard. That's not a secret!
>>>> Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
>>>>> Doan
>>>> But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
>>>> you with admitting your parents assaulted you.
>>>>
>>> Nope. I don't equate spanking with assault.
>> Liar. You have tried to use the actions of a police officer as an excuse
>> for hitting a child. If the officer did it for the same reasons children
>> are hit he'd be guilty of assault.
>>
>> Your logic equals your courage. Nil.
>>
> Your logic is that of an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-) A police can hit
> you with a baton.

Actually no he can't. Not without the guidelines of his department. And
NONE say that they "teach a lesson." as parents claim they use CP for.

> If anyone else, who is not an police, did that, it
> would be assault! See it, STUPID! ;-)

You ignorance is amazing. No, ANYONE CAN USE ANY FORCE NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES AND APPREHEND A FELON IN NEARLY EVERY STATE.

Up to and including, should threat to self others reach serious injury
or death level, the use of lethal force.

It has NOTHING to do with parenting. Nothing that a police officer can
do legally is equivalent. It would be assault by that officer if he did.

In fact, parents do all the time what police may NOT do without it being
assault. They spank their child for disciplinary purposes. Prove your
claim.

Show us in statute equivalent to that protecting the right of parents to
hit their child where a police officer may do the same.

>> > So, you are the one
>>> that admit to assaulting your kid!
>> I said so plainly and clearly here many times. You are a coward and
>> empty of argument to pretend I have not.
>>
> So you admidtted to assaulting your kid. I spoke the truth. ;-)

When did I deny it? It was not legally assault, but I consider it
morally assault...one day it will be illegal.

You are lying by misleading, the usual monkey tricks.

>>> You mom must be proud! ;-)
>> Yes, that I only did it once, and quite gently at that, through heavy
>> winter bedding, and apologized to my son and promised that it would
>> never happen again, which promise I kept.
>>
> So, according to your logic, a gently hit to a child is assault but a
> police striking you with a baton is not!

That is correct, if we apply a moral measure to the striking a child and
the law to how an LEO must restrain how he or she uses a baton.

They may not hit to teach a lesson.

>> Thank you for bring that up. As I love telling the truth of it to
>> inspire those that spank to a higher quality of parenting and moral
>> behavior.
>
> You are a known proven liar!

That is a lie. You have called me, lying yourself, a liar when I've
disagreed with your bull**** nonsense. You have called me a liar when I
had information that was not correct, and I corrected it publicly.

Hence, Doan, YOU are an unethical dishonorable liar and your parents
would disown you if the saw what you do here.

> Your mom approved of you calling others
> "smelly-****" is a classic example of the way you were parented. ;-)

That I would call someone foul names that advocated for church members
to allow the congregation to hang up their children naked and beat them
with objects?

I think it's pretty easy to see who had a poor and immoral upbringing,
Doan. YOU.
>
>>> Doan
>> And you? Your parents apologized yet?
>>
> For what? I don't equate spanking with assault, STUPID!

Then you are stupid. Look how you turned out.

With YOU trying and portray ME as less than honorable for calling
someone that wants parents to be able to beat their children and assign
others to beat them dirty names.

You are sick.

>> After all they helped make you stupid, and a coward.
>>
> Hihihi! The stupid coward is YOU!

Nope. Anyone reading this, even your buddies here, KNOW you are a
cowardly little ****. Since some of them are TOO, they admire you for
it, but they wouldn't dare deny it.

You won't contact someone, a public person, YOU claimed lied, and
challenge them with your claims.

You have dodged repeatedly trying, in your cowardly fashion, to involve
others in your little sickness.

You have serious social and psychological problems that will one day
need to be treated.

>> Kane
>
> Kane9-9 = Kane0

A clear indication of your unstable mind and your lack of ethics.

YOU refuse to denounce the beating of children. You have repeatedly
supported those, like Fern, that are FOR child abuse, even as it is
legally defined right now.

That is dishonest, given your claims. It is cowardly, which we KNOW you
are. And it is socially dysfunctional.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

weeeeeeeeell, somebody has to post something you can
read.................

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about posting drivel.............

[Greegor]

Maggie has many times now made comments about
how her opponents were seriously messed up by being spanked.

Isn't that ODD since she herself was spanked?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Maggie has many times now made comments about
> how her opponents were seriously messed up by being spanked.
>
> Isn't that ODD since she herself was spanked?

It's like smoking, Greg.

While we KNOW that many people sicken and die from the effects of it,
many do not.

In the spanking area, Doan, You, and Maggie the Observer, are obviously
among those that didn't make it.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Maggie has many times now made comments about
> how her opponents were seriously messed up by being spanked.
>
> Isn't that ODD since she herself was spanked?

Below is a list of the pro spanking advocates and supporters that
reacted with outrage and denial of the parental rights to do what was
done in a particular story posted by Fern, about a family that had
allowed it's church members to hang up their children naked in the
church and beat them with objects and call them names.

Fern's position was the state had NO right to interfere in how parents
disciplined their children, or chose to let others do so.

This is how many of you stepped up and pointed out this was beating, not
spanking.

1.
......waiting......waiting.........


So, apparently you 'proponents' all thought it was just discipline we
refer to here generically as spanking.

0:->

Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And
you stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of
children. You are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K

Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to
NOW (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to
be shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?

Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?

Go ahead, establish some credibility.

I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.

Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
morals and basically evil and sick minded.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Maggie has many times now made comments about
> how her opponents were seriously messed up by being spanked.
>
> Isn't that ODD since she herself was spanked?

Still waiting for your response.

Who said that every spanked child turns out badly. Certainly none of us.
Why heck, parents that spank generally don't kill or injure there children.

Of course then there's the others.....like the parents of Doan, Doug,
Greg, and a few other strange folks such as Fern.

Imagine Fern defending the whipping of children with objects, screaming
at them with accusations, suspended naked in church, and with the
permission and participation of their own parents, and not one of you
creeps that claim you are advocates and supporters of spanking BUT NOT
BEATING, stepping up to challenge Fern on this obvious beating.

In fact I think there were a few other such instance very similar.

Why your claims of being against beatings, and claiming the we call all
child CP "beatings," yet when an obvious one is defended by Fern, one of
YOU, you had NOTHING AT ALL TO SAY. Just silence, and later denial.

Tsk, Greg.

Nothing yet?

People with brains, with strong character, with courage don't fall into
the trap of spanking, even if they WERE spanked.

What happened to you folks. Eh?

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Wow.. 3 in a row?

Just because LaVonne was savagely spanked? :)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Wow.. 3 in a row?
>
> Just because LaVonne was savagely spanked? :)

You didn't respond to the challenges I offered because LaVonne was
savagely spanked?

That's an odd reason to dodge, but then you are an odd fellow.

So tell us, what do you make of this from the researchers you folks lie
about so much:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/520686/


Source: University of New Hampshire Released: Sun 21-May-2006, 12:45 ET
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence
Libraries
Life News (Social and Behavioral Sciences) Keywords
DATING VIOLENCE, PARTNER VIOLENCE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Contact Information
Available for logged-in reporters only

Description
A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university
partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents
of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman. The
second largest category was couples where the female partner was the
only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

Newswise — A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by
university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most
incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and
woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family
Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second
largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one
to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

Straus’ new research also found that dominance by the female partner is
even more closely related to violence by women than is male dominance.
These results call into question the widely held belief that partner
violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is
self defense.

“In the 35 years since I began research on partner violence, I have seen
my assumptions about prevalence and etiology contradicted by a mass of
empirical evidence from my own research and from research by many
others,” Straus said. “My view on partner violence now recognizes the
overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the
same rate as men. However, when women are violent, the injury rate is
lower.”

Straus will present his controversial research at the Trends in Intimate
Violence Intervention conference in New York City May 22-25, 2006. This
research is part of the International Dating Violence Study, a
multinational study of violence against dating partners by university
students. A consortium of researchers around the world collected data
from 13,601 students at 68 universities in 32 nations.

In the paper, Straus calls for an end to the focus on men as the only
perpetrators of dating violence, saying the refusal to recognize the
multi-causal nature of the problem is hampering the effort to end
domestic violence and ignoring half the perpetrators. As recently as
December 2005, the National Institute of Justice refused to consider
applications for funding that dealt with male victims.

“Changes in policy that acknowledge men are not the only perpetrators of
partner violence are needed immediately,” Straus said. “It is time to
make the prevention and treatment effort one that is aimed at ending all
family violence, including spanking children, not just violence against
women.”

Straus is the author or co-author of more than 200 publications,
including "Beating the Devil Out Of Them: Corporal Punishment By
American Parents and Its Effects on Children." More information on the
International Dating Violence Study and papers reporting results are
available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/.

© 2006 Newswise. All Rights Reserved.




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Wow.. 3 in a row?
>
> Just because LaVonne was savagely spanked? :)

By the way, do you consider savage spanking still corporal punishment
that is acceptable, or would if fall under 'beating?'

If so what would call hanging children up naked in church, and hitting
them with objects and screaming at them?

This was what Fern felt was normal CP and parental rights that should
not be interfered with by society.

What was your take on that?

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doug]

> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
>
> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?

Hi, Kane,

What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking. The
USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.

You were wrong.

Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?

> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?

This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
absurd.

> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
>
> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.

We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
yourself cited as false.

> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
> morals and basically evil and sick minded.

LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing. That divert to
such subject matter may say something about your position, however.

[[email protected]]

sooooooooooo, my little scumsquat, where is you proof that maggie is
observer..............inquiring minds really do want to
know................

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking maggie is
observer..................maggie is observer..................maggie is
observer..................maggie is observer..................maggie is
observer..................

[[email protected]]

oooooooooh, it's probably a good bet that something didn't go well in
dog brain's life and she's grasping for straws................that's
about ]:^<'s speed...............

doug wants to know why ]:^< would bring up an old post and the response
of someone no longer posting in the newsgroup..................

[0:->]

Doug wrote:
>> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
>> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
>> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
>>
>> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
>> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
>> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
> been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
> discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
> that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking.

You can't see the connect between "spanking" and the escalation
represented by such events as Fern defended, and YOU and others did NOT
speak up at the time?

> The
> USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.
>
> You were wrong.

No, YOU were wrong, because YOU refused to continue and read OTHER posts
defending that number being unrepresentative of the truth.

> Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
> a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?

To show how unethical and immoral YOU and others here are that defend
and support and advocate spanking. And the connection between spanking
the escalates to injury or death, BEATINGS, should be obvious to someone
not morally deficient as I believe YOU to be.

>> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
>> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
>> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?
>
> This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
> occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
> absurd.

Bull****. It's the most common occurrence when a child is injured or
abused that the perp, a parent in 95% of the cases, or other family
member, claims to have been disciplining, or the action taken is obvious
an attempt to control a child with force.

Shaking is usually done to stop a child crying. Slamming a child is
often done for the same reason and is usually preceded with slapping and
spanking that failed to stop the child from crying.

You KNOW this, Doug. So does everyone here. YOU LIAR.
>
>> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
>>
>> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
>> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
>
> We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
> yourself cited as false.

I posted many times in defense of that and you refuse to move on to my
later post. LIAR.

I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.

I want your opinion of Fern AND what she defended, Doug.

>> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
>> morals and basically evil and sick minded.
>
> LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
> person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing.

Bull****. Want me to start another thread and ask again, you lying
miserable sick vicious child and parent hating little ****?

> That divert to
> such subject matter may say something about your position, however.

It's impossible to "divert" when the thread is still in archives.

I fully answer all your challenges and YOU refused to move on to my
later posts and respond.

It's EASY TO LIE BY NOT RESPONDING.

And you sick ****s haven't responded to Fern's post for three years now.

I and others await it NOW. LIAR.

You are dodging, and it's ALL to obvious you that as long as a post is
anti CPS, as Fern's was, you will NOT speak out against the post, or the
content, or the actors involved in the abuses.

YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THIS DOUG....backing out where child abuse by
parents has occurred and jumping in in all other situations.

Why IS that Doug, you ****ing liar?

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

Hahaha! How many people in this newgroup believe Kane's version?

Doan

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doug wrote:
> >> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
> >> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
> >> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
> >>
> >> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
> >> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
> >> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?
> >
> > Hi, Kane,
> >
> > What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
> > been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
> > discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
> > that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking.
>
> You can't see the connect between "spanking" and the escalation
> represented by such events as Fern defended, and YOU and others did NOT
> speak up at the time?
>
> > The
> > USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.
> >
> > You were wrong.
>
> No, YOU were wrong, because YOU refused to continue and read OTHER posts
> defending that number being unrepresentative of the truth.
>
> > Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
> > a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?
>
> To show how unethical and immoral YOU and others here are that defend
> and support and advocate spanking. And the connection between spanking
> the escalates to injury or death, BEATINGS, should be obvious to someone
> not morally deficient as I believe YOU to be.
>
> >> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
> >> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
> >> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?
> >
> > This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
> > occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
> > absurd.
>
> Bull****. It's the most common occurrence when a child is injured or
> abused that the perp, a parent in 95% of the cases, or other family
> member, claims to have been disciplining, or the action taken is obvious
> an attempt to control a child with force.
>
> Shaking is usually done to stop a child crying. Slamming a child is
> often done for the same reason and is usually preceded with slapping and
> spanking that failed to stop the child from crying.
>
> You KNOW this, Doug. So does everyone here. YOU LIAR.
> >
> >> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
> >>
> >> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> >> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
> >
> > We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
> > yourself cited as false.
>
> I posted many times in defense of that and you refuse to move on to my
> later post. LIAR.
>
> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
>
> I want your opinion of Fern AND what she defended, Doug.
>
> >> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
> >> morals and basically evil and sick minded.
> >
> > LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
> > person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing.
>
> Bull****. Want me to start another thread and ask again, you lying
> miserable sick vicious child and parent hating little ****?
>
> > That divert to
> > such subject matter may say something about your position, however.
>
> It's impossible to "divert" when the thread is still in archives.
>
> I fully answer all your challenges and YOU refused to move on to my
> later posts and respond.
>
> It's EASY TO LIE BY NOT RESPONDING.
>
> And you sick ****s haven't responded to Fern's post for three years now.
>
> I and others await it NOW. LIAR.
>
> You are dodging, and it's ALL to obvious you that as long as a post is
> anti CPS, as Fern's was, you will NOT speak out against the post, or the
> content, or the actors involved in the abuses.
>
> YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THIS DOUG....backing out where child abuse by
> parents has occurred and jumping in in all other situations.
>
> Why IS that Doug, you ****ing liar?
>
> 0:->
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> Hahaha! How many people in this newgroup believe Kane's version?

Of what? My claim that you sick ****s haven't stood up against child
abuse where "spanking" was claimed...as in the church episode?

Doug's lying. I began asking you ****s about this shortly after, and
over time again and again, Fern posted the bull**** defending the
family's choice of "spanking" for discipline. It's NOT a "three year
old," issue, boys.

AND NONE OF YOU NOT ONE SPOKE UP AND ANSWERED THE CHALLENGE, despite the
fact that Doug and others, including YOU, claim to be against child
abuse. Not one in three years. Not one in the times I asked, in the past
and AGAIN, NOT NOW.

Any thoughts, dummy?

0:->

>
> Doan
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
>>>> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
>>>> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
>>>>
>>>> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
>>>> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
>>>> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?
>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>
>>> What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
>>> been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
>>> discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
>>> that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking.
>> You can't see the connect between "spanking" and the escalation
>> represented by such events as Fern defended, and YOU and others did NOT
>> speak up at the time?
>>
>> > The
>>> USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.
>>>
>>> You were wrong.
>> No, YOU were wrong, because YOU refused to continue and read OTHER posts
>> defending that number being unrepresentative of the truth.
>>
>>> Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
>>> a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?
>> To show how unethical and immoral YOU and others here are that defend
>> and support and advocate spanking. And the connection between spanking
>> the escalates to injury or death, BEATINGS, should be obvious to someone
>> not morally deficient as I believe YOU to be.
>>
>>>> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
>>>> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
>>>> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?
>>> This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
>>> occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
>>> absurd.
>> Bull****. It's the most common occurrence when a child is injured or
>> abused that the perp, a parent in 95% of the cases, or other family
>> member, claims to have been disciplining, or the action taken is obvious
>> an attempt to control a child with force.
>>
>> Shaking is usually done to stop a child crying. Slamming a child is
>> often done for the same reason and is usually preceded with slapping and
>> spanking that failed to stop the child from crying.
>>
>> You KNOW this, Doug. So does everyone here. YOU LIAR.
>>>> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
>>>>
>>>> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
>>>> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
>>> We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
>>> yourself cited as false.
>> I posted many times in defense of that and you refuse to move on to my
>> later post. LIAR.
>>
>> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
>> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
>>
>> I want your opinion of Fern AND what she defended, Doug.
>>
>>>> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
>>>> morals and basically evil and sick minded.
>>> LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
>>> person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing.
>> Bull****. Want me to start another thread and ask again, you lying
>> miserable sick vicious child and parent hating little ****?
>>
>>> That divert to
>>> such subject matter may say something about your position, however.
>> It's impossible to "divert" when the thread is still in archives.
>>
>> I fully answer all your challenges and YOU refused to move on to my
>> later posts and respond.
>>
>> It's EASY TO LIE BY NOT RESPONDING.
>>
>> And you sick ****s haven't responded to Fern's post for three years now.
>>
>> I and others await it NOW. LIAR.
>>
>> You are dodging, and it's ALL to obvious you that as long as a post is
>> anti CPS, as Fern's was, you will NOT speak out against the post, or the
>> content, or the actors involved in the abuses.
>>
>> YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THIS DOUG....backing out where child abuse by
>> parents has occurred and jumping in in all other situations.
>>
>> Why IS that Doug, you ****ing liar?
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>> --
>> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
>> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
>> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>>
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

"1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking."

Doan


On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > Hahaha! How many people in this newgroup believe Kane's version?
>
> Of what? My claim that you sick ****s haven't stood up against child
> abuse where "spanking" was claimed...as in the church episode?
>
> Doug's lying. I began asking you ****s about this shortly after, and
> over time again and again, Fern posted the bull**** defending the
> family's choice of "spanking" for discipline. It's NOT a "three year
> old," issue, boys.
>
> AND NONE OF YOU NOT ONE SPOKE UP AND ANSWERED THE CHALLENGE, despite the
> fact that Doug and others, including YOU, claim to be against child
> abuse. Not one in three years. Not one in the times I asked, in the past
> and AGAIN, NOT NOW.
>
> Any thoughts, dummy?
>
> 0:->
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>>> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
> >>>> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
> >>>> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
> >>>>
> >>>> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
> >>>> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
> >>>> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?
> >>> Hi, Kane,
> >>>
> >>> What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
> >>> been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
> >>> discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
> >>> that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking.
> >> You can't see the connect between "spanking" and the escalation
> >> represented by such events as Fern defended, and YOU and others did NOT
> >> speak up at the time?
> >>
> >> > The
> >>> USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.
> >>>
> >>> You were wrong.
> >> No, YOU were wrong, because YOU refused to continue and read OTHER posts
> >> defending that number being unrepresentative of the truth.
> >>
> >>> Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
> >>> a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?
> >> To show how unethical and immoral YOU and others here are that defend
> >> and support and advocate spanking. And the connection between spanking
> >> the escalates to injury or death, BEATINGS, should be obvious to someone
> >> not morally deficient as I believe YOU to be.
> >>
> >>>> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
> >>>> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
> >>>> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?
> >>> This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
> >>> occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
> >>> absurd.
> >> Bull****. It's the most common occurrence when a child is injured or
> >> abused that the perp, a parent in 95% of the cases, or other family
> >> member, claims to have been disciplining, or the action taken is obvious
> >> an attempt to control a child with force.
> >>
> >> Shaking is usually done to stop a child crying. Slamming a child is
> >> often done for the same reason and is usually preceded with slapping and
> >> spanking that failed to stop the child from crying.
> >>
> >> You KNOW this, Doug. So does everyone here. YOU LIAR.
> >>>> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> >>>> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
> >>> We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
> >>> yourself cited as false.
> >> I posted many times in defense of that and you refuse to move on to my
> >> later post. LIAR.
> >>
> >> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> >> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
> >>
> >> I want your opinion of Fern AND what she defended, Doug.
> >>
> >>>> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
> >>>> morals and basically evil and sick minded.
> >>> LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
> >>> person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing.
> >> Bull****. Want me to start another thread and ask again, you lying
> >> miserable sick vicious child and parent hating little ****?
> >>
> >>> That divert to
> >>> such subject matter may say something about your position, however.
> >> It's impossible to "divert" when the thread is still in archives.
> >>
> >> I fully answer all your challenges and YOU refused to move on to my
> >> later posts and respond.
> >>
> >> It's EASY TO LIE BY NOT RESPONDING.
> >>
> >> And you sick ****s haven't responded to Fern's post for three years now.
> >>
> >> I and others await it NOW. LIAR.
> >>
> >> You are dodging, and it's ALL to obvious you that as long as a post is
> >> anti CPS, as Fern's was, you will NOT speak out against the post, or the
> >> content, or the actors involved in the abuses.
> >>
> >> YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THIS DOUG....backing out where child abuse by
> >> parents has occurred and jumping in in all other situations.
> >>
> >> Why IS that Doug, you ****ing liar?
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> >> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> >> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> "1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking."

Likely a gross underestimate. Read my other posts on the subject, and
the cited sources opinions. Stupid.

The police know better than the "official figures" from DHHS.

The emergency medical centers know better.

The caseworkers know better.

The courts know better.

Each is limited in how it reports and what it reports. Legal guidelines
that tightly define abuse allow for all kinds of abuse to slip through.

Children with surface marks but no immediate threat, for instance,
cannot be removed for examination.

Little things like that you vicious thugs want to ignore.

> Doan

You are liar, Doan. And you should be ashamed of yourself, but are
incapable of appropriate shame because it was spanked out of you by your
parents.

0:->




>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> Hahaha! How many people in this newgroup believe Kane's version?
>> Of what? My claim that you sick ****s haven't stood up against child
>> abuse where "spanking" was claimed...as in the church episode?
>>
>> Doug's lying. I began asking you ****s about this shortly after, and
>> over time again and again, Fern posted the bull**** defending the
>> family's choice of "spanking" for discipline. It's NOT a "three year
>> old," issue, boys.
>>
>> AND NONE OF YOU NOT ONE SPOKE UP AND ANSWERED THE CHALLENGE, despite the
>> fact that Doug and others, including YOU, claim to be against child
>> abuse. Not one in three years. Not one in the times I asked, in the past
>> and AGAIN, NOT NOW.
>>
>> Any thoughts, dummy?
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
>>>>>> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
>>>>>> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
>>>>>> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
>>>>>> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?
>>>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>>>
>>>>> What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
>>>>> been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
>>>>> discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
>>>>> that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking.
>>>> You can't see the connect between "spanking" and the escalation
>>>> represented by such events as Fern defended, and YOU and others did NOT
>>>> speak up at the time?
>>>>
>>>> > The
>>>>> USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> You were wrong.
>>>> No, YOU were wrong, because YOU refused to continue and read OTHER posts
>>>> defending that number being unrepresentative of the truth.
>>>>
>>>>> Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
>>>>> a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?
>>>> To show how unethical and immoral YOU and others here are that defend
>>>> and support and advocate spanking. And the connection between spanking
>>>> the escalates to injury or death, BEATINGS, should be obvious to someone
>>>> not morally deficient as I believe YOU to be.
>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
>>>>>> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
>>>>>> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?
>>>>> This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
>>>>> occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
>>>>> absurd.
>>>> Bull****. It's the most common occurrence when a child is injured or
>>>> abused that the perp, a parent in 95% of the cases, or other family
>>>> member, claims to have been disciplining, or the action taken is obvious
>>>> an attempt to control a child with force.
>>>>
>>>> Shaking is usually done to stop a child crying. Slamming a child is
>>>> often done for the same reason and is usually preceded with slapping and
>>>> spanking that failed to stop the child from crying.
>>>>
>>>> You KNOW this, Doug. So does everyone here. YOU LIAR.
>>>>>> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
>>>>>> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
>>>>> We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
>>>>> yourself cited as false.
>>>> I posted many times in defense of that and you refuse to move on to my
>>>> later post. LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
>>>> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
>>>>
>>>> I want your opinion of Fern AND what she defended, Doug.
>>>>
>>>>>> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
>>>>>> morals and basically evil and sick minded.
>>>>> LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
>>>>> person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing.
>>>> Bull****. Want me to start another thread and ask again, you lying
>>>> miserable sick vicious child and parent hating little ****?
>>>>
>>>>> That divert to
>>>>> such subject matter may say something about your position, however.
>>>> It's impossible to "divert" when the thread is still in archives.
>>>>
>>>> I fully answer all your challenges and YOU refused to move on to my
>>>> later posts and respond.
>>>>
>>>> It's EASY TO LIE BY NOT RESPONDING.
>>>>
>>>> And you sick ****s haven't responded to Fern's post for three years now.
>>>>
>>>> I and others await it NOW. LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> You are dodging, and it's ALL to obvious you that as long as a post is
>>>> anti CPS, as Fern's was, you will NOT speak out against the post, or the
>>>> content, or the actors involved in the abuses.
>>>>
>>>> YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THIS DOUG....backing out where child abuse by
>>>> parents has occurred and jumping in in all other situations.
>>>>
>>>> Why IS that Doug, you ****ing liar?
>>>>
>>>> 0:->
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
>>>> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
>>>> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
>> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
>> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>>
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

I have never seen news stories about
children hung from the rafters for spankings.

Much less "savage" spankings...

I thought you were just off your meds.

Have you got a link to a news story about that?

Please don't tell me it's in some NEJM article!
Or try to blame faulty info on a middle person..

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
> >>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
> >>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
> >>>> one's self.
> >>>>
> >>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
> >>>>
> >>>> 0:->
> >>>>
> >>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> >>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> >>> heard. That's not a secret!
> >> Then I am doubly curious, you knowing that, you would ask her again.
> >>
> > I didn't ask her, STUPID!
> >
> >> Can we presume you had some harassment in mind?
> >>
> >>> Doan
> >> My statement above still stands.
> >>
> >> Do you wish to discuss her experience with being spanked, along with
> >> YOUR experience to compare notes and argue honorably?
> >>
> >> Or did you just want to hoot and make your little insinuations?
> >>
> >> And don't bother claiming that's what we do to you.
> >>
> >> You have worked long and hard by creating a pattern of lies, stupidity,
> >> unethical, and ignorant posts to warrant nothing BUT derision, until you
> >> wise up, learn to behave yourself and present yourself as a worthy
> >> opponent in debate instead of a whining, lying, ****ant coward.
> >>
> > The liar here is YOU!
> >
> >> You make it impossible to post to your comments with anything but
> >> laughter or disgust. Or haven't you noticed?
> >>
> > And you, once again, showed your STUPIDITY! ;-)
>
> No, I've just taken to lumping you two together since you appear both
> intellectually and morally joined at the crotch.
>
No, you just, once again demonstrated your inability to have any thing
resembled intelligence! ;-)

> > Doan
>
> Forgive me if I misspelled your name and wrote it, Greg. Cowards are
> hard to tell apart, you and Greg.
>
Hahaha! Your stupidity is legendary!

Doan

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
> >>>>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
> >>>>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
> >>>>>> one's self.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 0:->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
> >>>>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
> >>>>> heard. That's not a secret!
> >>>> Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>> But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
> >>>> you with admitting your parents assaulted you.
> >>>>
> >>> Nope. I don't equate spanking with assault.
> >> Liar. You have tried to use the actions of a police officer as an excuse
> >> for hitting a child. If the officer did it for the same reasons children
> >> are hit he'd be guilty of assault.
> >>
> >> Your logic equals your courage. Nil.
> >>
> > Your logic is that of an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-) A police can hit
> > you with a baton.
>
> Actually no he can't. Not without the guidelines of his department. And
> NONE say that they "teach a lesson." as parents claim they use CP for.
>
> > If anyone else, who is not an police, did that, it
> > would be assault! See it, STUPID! ;-)
>
> You ignorance is amazing. No, ANYONE CAN USE ANY FORCE NECESSARY TO
> PROTECT THEMSELVES AND APPREHEND A FELON IN NEARLY EVERY STATE.
>
Hahaha! Your ignorance is unsurpassed. No one is a felon until proven
so in a court of law!

> Up to and including, should threat to self others reach serious injury
> or death level, the use of lethal force.
>
> It has NOTHING to do with parenting. Nothing that a police officer can
> do legally is equivalent. It would be assault by that officer if he did.
>
Exactly, an nothing that you can do an adult is equilivalent to parenting.
Kinda blow your argument to pieces when you said only children can be hit!

> In fact, parents do all the time what police may NOT do without it being
> assault. They spank their child for disciplinary purposes. Prove your
> claim.
>
They also use non-cp alternatives!

> Show us in statute equivalent to that protecting the right of parents to
> hit their child where a police officer may do the same.

Show us in stature where a police officer can punish someone in the same
way that a parent can punish a child!

>

> >> > So, you are the one
> >>> that admit to assaulting your kid!
> >> I said so plainly and clearly here many times. You are a coward and
> >> empty of argument to pretend I have not.
> >>
> > So you admidtted to assaulting your kid. I spoke the truth. ;-)
>
> When did I deny it? It was not legally assault, but I consider it
> morally assault...one day it will be illegal.
>
You also said you don't know where the line is and crossed it into abusing
your kid.

> You are lying by misleading, the usual monkey tricks.
>
The liar here is you. IT IS YOUR M.O. ;-)

> >>> You mom must be proud! ;-)
> >> Yes, that I only did it once, and quite gently at that, through heavy
> >> winter bedding, and apologized to my son and promised that it would
> >> never happen again, which promise I kept.
> >>
> > So, according to your logic, a gently hit to a child is assault but a
> > police striking you with a baton is not!
>
> That is correct, if we apply a moral measure to the striking a child and
> the law to how an LEO must restrain how he or she uses a baton.
>
Thank you!
You have just demonstrated the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS!

> They may not hit to teach a lesson.
>
So it is ok for a parent to hit as long as it is not to teach a lesson???
Logic and the anit-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-)


> >> Thank you for bring that up. As I love telling the truth of it to
> >> inspire those that spank to a higher quality of parenting and moral
> >> behavior.
> >
> > You are a known proven liar!
>
> That is a lie. You have called me, lying yourself, a liar when I've
> disagreed with your bull**** nonsense. You have called me a liar when I
> had information that was not correct, and I corrected it publicly.
>
You are the proven liar once again!

> Hence, Doan, YOU are an unethical dishonorable liar and your parents
> would disown you if the saw what you do here.
>
Hihihi! An your mom is proud of you1

> > Your mom approved of you calling others
> > "smelly-****" is a classic example of the way you were parented. ;-)
>
> That I would call someone foul names that advocated for church members
> to allow the congregation to hang up their children naked and beat them
> with objects?
>
> I think it's pretty easy to see who had a poor and immoral upbringing,
> Doan. YOU.

Just ask you mom! ;-)

> >
> >>> Doan
> >> And you? Your parents apologized yet?
> >>
> > For what? I don't equate spanking with assault, STUPID!
>
> Then you are stupid. Look how you turned out.
>
> With YOU trying and portray ME as less than honorable for calling
> someone that wants parents to be able to beat their children and assign
> others to beat them dirty names.
>
And your mom should be proud! ;-)

> You are sick.
>
You are STUPID! ;-)

> >> After all they helped make you stupid, and a coward.
> >>
> > Hihihi! The stupid coward is YOU!
>
> Nope. Anyone reading this, even your buddies here, KNOW you are a
> cowardly little ****. Since some of them are TOO, they admire you for
> it, but they wouldn't dare deny it.
>
Oops! **** just came out of your mouth. Why is that? ;-)

> You won't contact someone, a public person, YOU claimed lied, and
> challenge them with your claims.
>
You won't contact that person when you bring them into this newgroup?

> You have dodged repeatedly trying, in your cowardly fashion, to involve
> others in your little sickness.
>
That's is you. Just look in the mirror! ;-0

> You have serious social and psychological problems that will one day
> need to be treated.
>
You are describing yourself! ;-)

> >> Kane
> >
> > Kane9-9 = Kane0
>
> A clear indication of your unstable mind and your lack of ethics.
>
A clear indication that you are STUPID! ;-)

> YOU refuse to denounce the beating of children. You have repeatedly
> supported those, like Fern, that are FOR child abuse, even as it is
> legally defined right now.
>
Lying again!

> That is dishonest, given your claims. It is cowardly, which we KNOW you
> are. And it is socially dysfunctional.
>
That is why your mom approved of your calling others "smelly-****". She
must me proud! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

What? NOT A SINGLE PERSON believed Kane?

Doan


On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Doan wrote:

>
> Hahaha! How many people in this newgroup believe Kane's version?
>
> Doan
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > >> Remember? Atlanta? Fern's defense of the minister and the church. And you
> > >> stood idly by, while claiming you do NOT support beating of children. You
> > >> are all immoral liars. Simple enough for you, Greg? K
> > >>
> > >> Or are any of you, in defense of your position on spanking, willing to NOW
> > >> (while Fern's probably never viewing this again so you don't have to be
> > >> shy) admit you were wrong to let that pass?
> > >
> > > Hi, Kane,
> > >
> > > What does a 3-year-old thread and the non-statements of a poster who has not
> > > been a member of this newsgroup for about as long have to do with this
> > > discussion.. This discussion began with challenging your inaccurate claim
> > > that 1,000 fatalities were due to abuse that had begun with spanking.
> >
> > You can't see the connect between "spanking" and the escalation
> > represented by such events as Fern defended, and YOU and others did NOT
> > speak up at the time?
> >
> > > The
> > > USDHHS data you cited reported a TOTAL of 421 fatalites due to ALL abuse.
> > >
> > > You were wrong.
> >
> > No, YOU were wrong, because YOU refused to continue and read OTHER posts
> > defending that number being unrepresentative of the truth.
> >
> > > Why now do you bring up an unrelated incident commented upon 3 years ago by
> > > a poster who is no longer a member of this newsgroup?
> >
> > To show how unethical and immoral YOU and others here are that defend
> > and support and advocate spanking. And the connection between spanking
> > the escalates to injury or death, BEATINGS, should be obvious to someone
> > not morally deficient as I believe YOU to be.
> >
> > >> Or are you all going to so defend the worst of you, morally (which Fern
> > >> certainly WAS) that you will not condemn the protection of BEATING
> > >> CHILDREN that Fern DID with her words here?
> > >
> > > This discussion is about you false claim that 1,000 child fatalities in 2003
> > > occurred as the result of abuse that started with spanking. The claim is
> > > absurd.
> >
> > Bull****. It's the most common occurrence when a child is injured or
> > abused that the perp, a parent in 95% of the cases, or other family
> > member, claims to have been disciplining, or the action taken is obvious
> > an attempt to control a child with force.
> >
> > Shaking is usually done to stop a child crying. Slamming a child is
> > often done for the same reason and is usually preceded with slapping and
> > spanking that failed to stop the child from crying.
> >
> > You KNOW this, Doug. So does everyone here. YOU LIAR.
> > >
> > >> Go ahead, establish some credibility.
> > >>
> > >> I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> > >> spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
> > >
> > > We were hoping you would defend your recent claim shown by the data you
> > > yourself cited as false.
> >
> > I posted many times in defense of that and you refuse to move on to my
> > later post. LIAR.
> >
> > I invite Doan, Doug, the fake observer currently posting, and any other
> > spanking proponents to clean up your act NOW.
> >
> > I want your opinion of Fern AND what she defended, Doug.
> >
> > >> Waiting will simply show by your reluctance that you are indeed, without
> > >> morals and basically evil and sick minded.
> > >
> > > LOL! Not responding to your rendition of a 3-year-old discussion with a
> > > person no longer a member of this group shows no such thing.
> >
> > Bull****. Want me to start another thread and ask again, you lying
> > miserable sick vicious child and parent hating little ****?
> >
> > > That divert to
> > > such subject matter may say something about your position, however.
> >
> > It's impossible to "divert" when the thread is still in archives.
> >
> > I fully answer all your challenges and YOU refused to move on to my
> > later posts and respond.
> >
> > It's EASY TO LIE BY NOT RESPONDING.
> >
> > And you sick ****s haven't responded to Fern's post for three years now.
> >
> > I and others await it NOW. LIAR.
> >
> > You are dodging, and it's ALL to obvious you that as long as a post is
> > anti CPS, as Fern's was, you will NOT speak out against the post, or the
> > content, or the actors involved in the abuses.
> >
> > YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THIS DOUG....backing out where child abuse by
> > parents has occurred and jumping in in all other situations.
> >
> > Why IS that Doug, you ****ing liar?
> >
> > 0:->
> >
> > --
> > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
> >
>
>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> I have never seen news stories about
> children hung from the rafters for spankings.

The "rafters" claim was clarified as incorrect. "suspended" was the term
used by investigating officers, as per media accounts.

Then you sure didn't read Fern. She posted it. The children, as per the
news story, had them stripped naked, and "suspended" (a polite term,
eh?) in church with church members beating them with objects and
screaming at them.

> Much less "savage" spankings...

Well, the article made it plain.
>
> I thought you were just off your meds.

Projection.

> Have you got a link to a news story about that?

Nope. Too long ago. They are in archives now that likely will cost money
to open.

> Please don't tell me it's in some NEJM article!
> Or try to blame faulty info on a middle person..

Okay, I won't. But first you must prove to me that I said "article" and
that the info was faulty.

As for Fern:

""The children now in protective custody range in age from 5 months to
17 years. At a preliminary hearing, a police investigator testified
that Allen directed regular beatings of children. The youngsters were
tied up and suspended by their arms and hands, and "beaten with
switches, sticks or belts." Photographs produced at the hearing
showed welts on some of the victims, including one in the shape of a
belt buckle."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=church+%22beating%22&start=40&hl=en... "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.w-w-church-god/msg/58b826d0e97cd271?q=church+%22beating%22&start=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=36
http://tinyurl.com/pza7z

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/browse_frm/thread/bc7e684262b65149/d1fc31e26e56a177?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=32&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchurch%2B%2522beating%2522%26start%3D 30%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D9f3phq%2524577%25241%2540freenet9.carle ton.ca%26rnum%3D32#d1fc31e26e56a177
http://tinyurl.com/nkfum
Notice who chimes in here in criticism of CPS on the church case, Greg.
Your mentor and boot owner.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/9e4d66865dae24a2?q=church+%22beating%22&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=27
http://tinyurl.com/mncvm

And here is what Fern Said:

"
Subject: WI Baptist principal and church investigated for abuse

"Trouble is, the principal was never notified he was listed on the
child abuse registry.

Also, he was never EVEN INTERVIEWED for his side of the story.

Also, CPS investigators in WI's office of DHHS, took the church
directory and further investigated members of the church.

Real constitutional violations. Typical of CPS. "

You may read the entire message, and see it's defense of actions Fern
had read about in media reports, and KNEW damn well these children had
been beaten.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education.home-school.christian/browse_thread/thread/bf6d69ee77a439ab/62473e709b960dc8?lnk=st&q=%22EVEN+INTERVIEWED%22&rnum=2#62473e709b960dc8
http://tinyurl.com/p7xsz

Now, Greg, do YOU agree with Fern that constitutional rights of the
parents, who obviously DID beat their children and allow to be beaten,
are at issue, and CPS should NOT have intervened (think exigent
circumstances boy)?

When ARE you going to learn, Greg.

You and others attack my claims and not once do you manage to refute
them. Even the 'escalation to death' claim is obvious to anyone that can
read and think and has seen the media reports of exactly that.

And not a single professional in LE or child protection would deny what
I claimed.

Only YOU ****ants with YOUR agenda will pick at threads in a truth to
try and unravel it, by lying.

Of course you are going to now string me out for two years like you did
on the "use of lethal force by parents" question, aren't you Greg?

You are NOT going to admit that Fern was wrong, and that the children's
rights were protected and that beatings DID IN FACT HAPPEN.

Tell yah what, let's you and me do a Douggie. Let's argue about the
"rafters" comment, because of course in a child beating case how they
were suspended takes precedence over what happened to them WHILE they
were suspended, right, you f***king lowlife creep?

0:->










--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Were you spanked LaVonne?
>>>>>>>> In polite company when one asks personal questions one is expected to
>>>>>>>> open the conversation with some of the same kind of information about
>>>>>>>> one's self.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And we are in polite company here, are we not, Greg?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0:->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LaVonne has already admitted many times in this newsgroup that she was
>>>>>>> spanked. She said that was even muffled so that her cries wouldn't be
>>>>>>> heard. That's not a secret!
>>>>>> Then your butt buddy must be blind, or have other motives for asking.
>>>>>>> Doan
>>>>>> But then, he's an even bigger coward than you are. Though I do credit
>>>>>> you with admitting your parents assaulted you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. I don't equate spanking with assault.
>>>> Liar. You have tried to use the actions of a police officer as an excuse
>>>> for hitting a child. If the officer did it for the same reasons children
>>>> are hit he'd be guilty of assault.
>>>>
>>>> Your logic equals your courage. Nil.
>>>>
>>> Your logic is that of an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-) A police can hit
>>> you with a baton.
>> Actually no he can't. Not without the guidelines of his department. And
>> NONE say that they "teach a lesson." as parents claim they use CP for.
>>
>>> If anyone else, who is not an police, did that, it
>>> would be assault! See it, STUPID! ;-)
>> You ignorance is amazing. No, ANYONE CAN USE ANY FORCE NECESSARY TO
>> PROTECT THEMSELVES AND APPREHEND A FELON IN NEARLY EVERY STATE.
>>
> Hahaha! Your ignorance is unsurpassed. No one is a felon until proven
> so in a court of law!

A witness to a felony is looking at a felon. Court will prove
everything, or not. Look up the statutes.

Stop picking at threads to avoid the truth of the entire weaving.

Here stupid, I'll help you.

You won't apologize or acknowledge of course, you'll run, coward, or dodge.

"NEARLY EVERY STATE." Felonious assault is understood by those that own
and carry legally because we are taught is as part of the permit
process. You poor CA residents don't often get to have that bit of
education. One reason I left so long ago.

I also am very familiar with the use of force statutes in many states
from my decades long interest in and practice of martial arts.

Fifty years, this year, this month, in fact.

http://pages.prodigy.net/fhattys/page10.html
USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS ONLY JUSTIFIED IF:
In Illinois, a person has a lawful right to use deadly force "only if he
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent
death or great bodily harm to himself, or another, or the commission of
a forcible felony."

See that last line. Pretty standard.

http://www.mtssa.org/lethalforce.html

"The protection of one's person or property against some injury
attempted by another. The right of such protection. An excuse for the
use of force in resisting an attack on the person, and especially for
killing an assailant. The right of a man to repel force by force even
to the taking of life in defense of his person, property or habitation,
or of a member of his family, against one who manifests, intends,
attempts, or endeavors by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible
felony. Essential elements of 'self-defense' are that a defendant does
not provoke difficulty and that there must be impending peril without
convenient or reasonable mode of escape. The law of 'self-defense'
justifies an act done in the reasonable belief of immediate danger, and,
if an injury was done by the defendant in justifiable self-defense, he
can never be punished criminally nor held responsible for damages in a
civil action. Baltimore Transit Co. v. Faulkner, 179 Md. 598, 20 A.2d
485, 487.


Now as for the use of guns, that is undergoing changes that are even
MORE in favor of the defender.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/14673277.htm

"Ten states so far this year have passed a version of the law, after
Florida was the first last year. It's already being considered in
Arizona in the case of a deadly shooting on a hiking trail.

Supporters have dubbed the new measures "stand your ground" laws,
whereas critics offered nicknames such as the "shoot first," "shoot the
Avon lady" or "right to commit murder" laws.

At its core, they broaden self-defense by removing the requirement in
most states that a person who is attacked has a "duty to retreat" before
turning to deadly force. Many of the laws specify that people can use
deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a
legal right to be -- a parking lot, a street, a bar, a church. They also
give immunity from criminal charges and civil liability.

The campaign is simply about self-defense, said Oklahoma state Rep.
Kevin Calvey, a Republican and author of the law in his state.
"Law-abiding citizens aren't going to take it anymore," he said.

"It's going to give the crooks second thoughts about carjackings and
things like that. They're going to get a face full of lead," Calvey
said. He introduced the bill at the request of the local National Rifle
Association, and it passed with overwhelmingly support: The House agreed
83-4, the Senate 39-5.

Democratic Gov. Brad Henry signed it and said: "This act will allow
law-abiding Oklahomans to protect themselves, their loved ones and their
property."

Besides Oklahoma, the nine other states to sign on are Arizona, Alabama,
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota,
according to the NRA."

I suspect a long string of states will follow, just as they have on
Shall Issue CCW permitting.

Too bad about California.

>> Up to and including, should threat to self others reach serious injury
>> or death level, the use of lethal force.
>>
>> It has NOTHING to do with parenting. Nothing that a police officer can
>> do legally is equivalent. It would be assault by that officer if he did.
>>
> Exactly, an nothing that you can do an adult is equilivalent to parenting.

That wasn't the argument. Parenting should not give you the right to
hit, and not EVEN the policeman has the right to without very special
circumstances, and "teaching" is not one of those.

Hence YOUR argument using the police use of a baton is an misplaced and
erroneous metaphore.

> Kinda blow your argument to pieces when you said only children can be hit!

No, because that was NOT my argument. Mine was in response to YOUR
argument that police can hit, when in fact they cannot do so for the
same reasons children are claimed to be hit, for teaching.

Kind of blows YOUR argument to pieces.

>> In fact, parents do all the time what police may NOT do without it being
>> assault. They spank their child for disciplinary purposes. Prove your
>> claim.
>>
> They also use non-cp alternatives!

Which, police or parents? 0;->

You have not answered my question, as usual.

>> Show us in statute equivalent to that protecting the right of parents to
>> hit their child where a police officer may do the same.
>
> Show us in stature where a police officer can punish someone in the same
> way that a parent can punish a child!

They cannot. That is why your metaphor fails. So there's nothing in
"stature."[sic]

The justification for striking a child and calling it "spanking" to
discipline is a dodge, nothing more. It is assault. Just legal at the
moment.

Except in Minn. as I recall.

If a cop did it, under the same guidelines as the spanking statutes, but
on an adult it would be assault.

>>>> > So, you are the one
>>>>> that admit to assaulting your kid!
>>>> I said so plainly and clearly here many times. You are a coward and
>>>> empty of argument to pretend I have not.
>>>>
>>> So you admidtted to assaulting your kid. I spoke the truth. ;-)
>> When did I deny it? It was not legally assault, but I consider it
>> morally assault...one day it will be illegal.
>>
> You also said you don't know where the line is and crossed it into abusing
> your kid.

That's right. You made my point. I was not abusing my kid. You think you
are clever don't you?

You are, in fact, a dishonorable sick little ****, is what you are.

You know the circumstances perfectly well and are posting your comment
out of context.
>> You are lying by misleading, the usual monkey tricks.
>>

> The liar here is you. IT IS YOUR M.O. ;-)

Nope.

>>>>> You mom must be proud! ;-)
>>>> Yes, that I only did it once, and quite gently at that, through heavy
>>>> winter bedding, and apologized to my son and promised that it would
>>>> never happen again, which promise I kept.
>>>>
>>> So, according to your logic, a gently hit to a child is assault but a
>>> police striking you with a baton is not!
>> That is correct, if we apply a moral measure to the striking a child and
>> the law to how an LEO must restrain how he or she uses a baton.
>>
> Thank you!
> You have just demonstrated the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS!

The police officer is, unless it is defendible by law, (say you are
resisting, or threating to cause harm) may not even TOUCH YOU without
your permission.

You watch too much TV.

>> They may not hit to teach a lesson.
>>
> So it is ok for a parent to hit as long as it is not to teach a lesson???

Why would it be one case and not the other? It's both. It is not okay to
hit except in self defense or defense of another.

> Logic and the anit-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-)

Nope. You have that problem, not us.

And you practice selective ignorance. I'm reasonable sure you know
perfectly well that a cop cannot do what I say he can't, legally, and
can just as I've said he can, legally.

And if he did what a parent does for legally (for now) sanctioned
reasons a parent can hit a child, the cop would have committed an assault.

>>>> Thank you for bring that up. As I love telling the truth of it to
>>>> inspire those that spank to a higher quality of parenting and moral
>>>> behavior.
>>> You are a known proven liar!
>> That is a lie. You have called me, lying yourself, a liar when I've
>> disagreed with your bull**** nonsense. You have called me a liar when I
>> had information that was not correct, and I corrected it publicly.
>>
> You are the proven liar once again!

So if I have incorrect information, discover it and correct it, I am a
liar?

Please explain.

>> Hence, Doan, YOU are an unethical dishonorable liar and your parents
>> would disown you if the saw what you do here.
>>
> Hihihi! An your mom is proud of you1

She no longer can say.

What would your parents say about you?

>>> Your mom approved of you calling others
>>> "smelly-****" is a classic example of the way you were parented. ;-)
>> That I would call someone foul names that advocated for church members
>> to allow the congregation to hang up their children naked and beat them
>> with objects?
>>
>> I think it's pretty easy to see who had a poor and immoral upbringing,
>> Doan. YOU.
>
> Just ask you mom! ;-)

My mom didn't know your mom. Nor you.

You, however know that you are exercising fallacious dishonest arguments
and lying even by suggesting I lie.

Making a mistake and correcting it is not a lie, nor was the mistake a lie.

>>>>> Doan
>>>> And you? Your parents apologized yet?
>>>>
>>> For what? I don't equate spanking with assault, STUPID!
>> Then you are stupid. Look how you turned out.
>>
>> With YOU trying and portray ME as less than honorable for calling
>> someone that wants parents to be able to beat their children and assign
>> others to beat them dirty names.
>>
> And your mom should be proud! ;-)

Yes, I suspect she would be.

What would yours think of you being buddy to and making no comment
(after claim you are against child abuse and beatings) when that person
defended the right of parents to do what those church members did to
their children?

Tell you what, if yours is still living, dig up the post...I've just put
it up on line in answer to Greg, and show her the whole thing. Get back
to us with HER impressions of Fern, or the others that approve, or
didn't intervene to comment against Fern's reasoning.

>> You are sick.
>>
> You are STUPID! ;-)

Your opinion, given your morals, is of no consequence, and you will
continue to jump through my hoops just as long as prefer to put them up
for you, puppy.

>>>> After all they helped make you stupid, and a coward.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! The stupid coward is YOU!
>> Nope. Anyone reading this, even your buddies here, KNOW you are a
>> cowardly little ****. Since some of them are TOO, they admire you for
>> it, but they wouldn't dare deny it.
>>
> Oops! **** just came out of your mouth. Why is that? ;-)

Nope. The **** only described you. Jump again.

>> You won't contact someone, a public person, YOU claimed lied, and
>> challenge them with your claims.
>>
> You won't contact that person when you bring them into this newgroup?

Nope. Why should I? When have you invited Diane Baumrind?

>> You have dodged repeatedly trying, in your cowardly fashion, to involve
>> others in your little sickness.
>>
> That's is you. Just look in the mirror! ;-0

You now lie, puppy dog.

You cannot face someone and call them a liar to their face. You want
other to be involved to shield you and allow you to misdirect, usually
with lies, attention away from you to them.

>> You have serious social and psychological problems that will one day
>> need to be treated.
>>
> You are describing yourself! ;-)

Childish retort 412. Commonly called, "and so is yours" or more from
debate, Tu quoque.

>
>>>> Kane
>>> Kane9-9 = Kane0
>> A clear indication of your unstable mind and your lack of ethics.
>>
> A clear indication that you are STUPID! ;-)

Tu quoque

>> YOU refuse to denounce the beating of children. You have repeatedly
>> supported those, like Fern, that are FOR child abuse, even as it is
>> legally defined right now.
>>
> Lying again!

Tu quoque

>
>> That is dishonest, given your claims. It is cowardly, which we KNOW you
>> are. And it is socially dysfunctional.
>>
> That is why your mom approved of your calling others "smelly-****". She
> must me proud! ;-)

Given the circumstance, yes, she would have been.

Does yours then approve of children being beaten naked in front of the
congregation?

If so that would explain some of your dishonorable behavior.

>
> Doan
>
0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

I thought Fern answered you quite well, considering she's not here!

Why do you think I need to answer for Fern?

It looks to me like Fern was complaining that
people in the church were targeted merely
for being listed in the church directory.

Being that you are an atheist I suspect you
just can't understand what's wrong with that
as a basis for a child protection case.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> I thought Fern answered you quite well, considering she's not here!

Where is that answer you refer to? Quote it please?

I found it a defense of the abusers, and a desire to keep CPS from
intervening for the child.

And you?
>
> Why do you think I need to answer for Fern?

Why do you think I asked you to?

Hint: I pointed out YOU did not respond to someone supporting the
beating of children as a parental right that the state should not
interfere with.

If you agree with Fern, and the statement above, or the statement above,
feel free to say so.

Or the converse. That's all I asked you to do. And accused you of NOT
doing.

> It looks to me like Fern was complaining that
> people in the church were targeted merely
> for being listed in the church directory.

No, they were targeted for being church members where parishioners
allowed such activities in the church. Member lists are common
investigative targets.

Doug himself has said cops are "trained" to investigate better than CPS
investigators, but here YOU are claiming they can't do what cops
routinely do, legally.

Fern's complaint is in error in two ways. One, a simple error of what
can and cannot be examined in an investigation (how many crooks would
LOVE if investigators were limited to the CROOKS definition of what
could be examined?)and; Two, it supports the idea that the state can or
should not intervene in a child abuse allegation case.

Thus it supports abusers.

Do you disagree with my logic, and if so, please explain?

> Being that you are an atheist I suspect you
> just can't understand what's wrong with that
> as a basis for a child protection case.

What would my being a non=Theist have to do with it? Is the church, of
any sort, somehow immune from investigation for being part of abuse?

You seem to have entirely the different stand in the Catholic Church
sexual abuse cases.

That's kind of unethical and immoral of you, is it not?

So Priests aren't supposed to **** little boys, but other ministers
should be allowed, without interference, to bare the bodies of children
and beat them with objects?

Please help me understand your position on this. I would not want to
lead folks to think you are in fact unethical and immoral if it were not
true.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

If something hampers or hinders CPS workers,
that helps child molestors?

In that sense the US Constitution itself
helps them!

But wait! Kane has HIS INTERPRETATION of
the constitution...... Right?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> If something hampers or hinders CPS workers,
> that helps child molestors?

Yep, full babble mode has been engaged. Everyone stand back. There is NO
telling what confusion and lies will result.

> In that sense the US Constitution itself
> helps them!

It helps the abuser? Of course.

So?

> But wait! Kane has HIS INTERPRETATION of
> the constitution...... Right?

No, I have the framers interpretations from documents created at the
time of the founding of this government.

I look at SC rulings and some are constitutionally sound, and some few
are not.

Nevertheless, there are instances where people do bad things and get
away with it because either law, or the interpretation of law allows
them to.

Ask a lawyer. It's where they ply their trade.

I have a good friend that's a death penalty case lawyer. Smart cookie.

I suspect an early burnout.

But not one case where this lawyer did not stick strictly to the letter
of the law.

Happens.

You might even win Lisa's case for her. If you had Dan helping you and
did as you were advised I'd bet ON YOU winning.

As it is, I don't hold out much hope, but even an atheist has been known
to pray for a good cause. And I still want Lisa to be reunited with her
child.

I hope this isn't a "show cause," or more terribly, a "termination of
parental rights," case. Going on.

Please. DON'T SAY SO PUBLICLY. If you feel you must blab, you have my
permission to send ONE private email to me.

And while I know you won't take my advice, do NOT tell your buddies the
progress of the case.

They are dangerously immoral.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

When you deem the Supreme Court has made a mistake,
does that cause your megalomania to flare up?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> When you deem the Supreme Court has made a mistake,
> does that cause your megalomania to flare up?

When I deem so I simply work toward changes. I win some, I lose some.

Mine isn't "megalomania." That's for chumps living of single women with
children and helping them lose their child.

Mine is social responsibility by political action.

Or do you call all people that do that, megalomaniacs?

Did you not testify to the House Ways and Means Committee?

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Mine is social responsibility by political action.

Yep, no Megalomania in that expression!

But when you're trying to pretend at "social responsibility"
wouldn't that work better if you hadn't have
spent over a year publicly posting profanity?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Mine is social responsibility by political action.
>
> Yep, no Megalomania in that expression!

Me millions of other Americans.

What is it about taking political action that would qualify as megalomania.

> But when you're trying to pretend at "social responsibility"
> wouldn't that work better if you hadn't have
> spent over a year publicly posting profanity?

How does public profanity negate social responsibility?

Are you saying that people that swear are therefore not socially
responsible?

So if I swear my work on improving conditions for mental health patients
is thereby nullified?

Do you "really mean to pretend" that, Greg?

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Mine is social responsibility by political action.
>
> Yep, no Megalomania in that expression!

Did they swear you in for your testimony to the HW&MC hearing?

> But when you're trying to pretend at "social responsibility"

Then you weren't trying to be socially responsible when you submitted
your long, and sometimes erroneous testimony to the HW&MC?

What would you call it then?

You are artful with language you surely can come up with something.

I mean you certainly showed me that "execution" and "suicide" can't both
be used for the same thing. 0:->

> wouldn't that work better if you hadn't have
> spent over a year publicly posting profanity?

Many of your actions, as YOU described them, were profane, Greg. Yes
there you were, being socially responsible by political action,
regardless of what a fool you were making of yourself.

You might as well have worn a tinfoil beanie with a propeller given the
content, but heck, I recognize even those folks attempt to be
responsible...without calling the megalomaniacs. It's their right.

Yours too.

You mistake things like my disapproval of content to disapproval of
acting as you did. Or am I not correct?

Going to continue with AA to answer?

0:->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Fagele?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Fagele?

That's how you spell "relief?"

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

What was your point about this one, Kane?


http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/lionel.tate.ap/index.html

Killer at 12, teen back in prison for 30 years
Judge: 'In plain English, Lionel Tate, you have run out of chances'

Thursday, May 18, 2006; Posted: 3:41 p.m. EDT (19:41 GMT)

Lionel Tate, shown at an earlier hearing, was sentenced to 30 years in
prison.
Image:

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (AP) -- Lionel Tate, the teenager who got a
second chance after he beat and stomped a 6-year-old girl to death, was
sent back to prison for 30 years Thursday for gun possession.

"In plain English, Lionel Tate, you've run out of chances. You do not
get any more," Circuit Judge Joel T. Lazarus told Tate, who smirked as
he was led off to jail in shackles.

Tate, now 19, was convicted of beating Tiffany Eunick to death in 1999,
when he was 12, claiming he accidentally killed the girl while
imitating pro wrestling moves he had seen on television. He became the
youngest person in modern U.S. history to receive a life sentence.

His murder conviction was overturned in 2004 by an appeals court that
said it was not clear Tate understood the charges. He was freed under a
deal in which he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was
sentenced to 10 years' probation.

On Thursday, he was back in court over the holdup of a pizza
deliveryman last May.

In a deal with prosecutors, Tate had faced 10 to 30 years in prison
after pleading guilty to robbery and violating his probation by having
a gun. On Thursday, the judge let him withdraw his guilty plea in the
robbery but still sentenced him on the gun charge. The robbery trial is
set for September 18.

Defense attorney H. Dohn Williams said he did not understand why Tate
would want to go to trial on the robbery charge, given that a
conviction could bring a life sentence in addition to the 30 years for
the probation violation.

"He continues to get bad advice from meddling third parties," Williams
said outside court.

Williams said Tate's mother, Florida Highway Patrol trooper Kathleen
Grossett-Tate, told him he could win an appeal on the probation
violation conviction, win his robbery case and leave jail in a year.
She left court without commenting.

Williams pleaded with the judge for leniency, blaming Tate's criminal
behavior on his upbringing.

"The death of Tiffany Eunick would never have occurred if there had
been proper parental guidance and control," Williams said.
"Six-year-old Tiffany tragically died while ... roughhousing with a
6-year-old boy in a 12-year-old's body."

The judge said Tate has shown "disdain and disrespect" for the law
after repeated opportunities to redeem himself.

Since his release in 1999, Tate has had numerous run-ins with the law.
In 2004, the judge sentenced him to an additional five years' probation
for having a knife.

Last month, the judge ruled for the second time that Tate was competent
to face the robbery charge after Tate claimed he was mentally ill from
years of abuse by his mother. He claimed he was hearing voices and
contemplating suicide, a story he later admitted was a ruse.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> What was your point about this one, Kane?

I don't know. What did I remark when I posted it?

0:->


>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/lionel.tate.ap/index.html
>
> Killer at 12, teen back in prison for 30 years
> Judge: 'In plain English, Lionel Tate, you have run out of chances'
>
> Thursday, May 18, 2006; Posted: 3:41 p.m. EDT (19:41 GMT)
>
> Lionel Tate, shown at an earlier hearing, was sentenced to 30 years in
> prison.
> Image:
>
> FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (AP) -- Lionel Tate, the teenager who got a
> second chance after he beat and stomped a 6-year-old girl to death, was
> sent back to prison for 30 years Thursday for gun possession.
>
> "In plain English, Lionel Tate, you've run out of chances. You do not
> get any more," Circuit Judge Joel T. Lazarus told Tate, who smirked as
> he was led off to jail in shackles.
>
> Tate, now 19, was convicted of beating Tiffany Eunick to death in 1999,
> when he was 12, claiming he accidentally killed the girl while
> imitating pro wrestling moves he had seen on television. He became the
> youngest person in modern U.S. history to receive a life sentence.
>
> His murder conviction was overturned in 2004 by an appeals court that
> said it was not clear Tate understood the charges. He was freed under a
> deal in which he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was
> sentenced to 10 years' probation.
>
> On Thursday, he was back in court over the holdup of a pizza
> deliveryman last May.
>
> In a deal with prosecutors, Tate had faced 10 to 30 years in prison
> after pleading guilty to robbery and violating his probation by having
> a gun. On Thursday, the judge let him withdraw his guilty plea in the
> robbery but still sentenced him on the gun charge. The robbery trial is
> set for September 18.
>
> Defense attorney H. Dohn Williams said he did not understand why Tate
> would want to go to trial on the robbery charge, given that a
> conviction could bring a life sentence in addition to the 30 years for
> the probation violation.
>
> "He continues to get bad advice from meddling third parties," Williams
> said outside court.
>
> Williams said Tate's mother, Florida Highway Patrol trooper Kathleen
> Grossett-Tate, told him he could win an appeal on the probation
> violation conviction, win his robbery case and leave jail in a year.
> She left court without commenting.
>
> Williams pleaded with the judge for leniency, blaming Tate's criminal
> behavior on his upbringing.
>
> "The death of Tiffany Eunick would never have occurred if there had
> been proper parental guidance and control," Williams said.
> "Six-year-old Tiffany tragically died while ... roughhousing with a
> 6-year-old boy in a 12-year-old's body."
>
> The judge said Tate has shown "disdain and disrespect" for the law
> after repeated opportunities to redeem himself.
>
> Since his release in 1999, Tate has had numerous run-ins with the law.
> In 2004, the judge sentenced him to an additional five years' probation
> for having a knife.
>
> Last month, the judge ruled for the second time that Tate was competent
> to face the robbery charge after Tate claimed he was mentally ill from
> years of abuse by his mother. He claimed he was hearing voices and
> contemplating suicide, a story he later admitted was a ruse.
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> What was your point about this one, Kane?

Can't recall now. Possibly that he wasn't a foster child?

You really are dim.

0:->


>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/lionel.tate.ap/index.html
>
> Killer at 12, teen back in prison for 30 years
> Judge: 'In plain English, Lionel Tate, you have run out of chances'
>
> Thursday, May 18, 2006; Posted: 3:41 p.m. EDT (19:41 GMT)
>
> Lionel Tate, shown at an earlier hearing, was sentenced to 30 years in
> prison.
> Image:
>
> FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (AP) -- Lionel Tate, the teenager who got a
> second chance after he beat and stomped a 6-year-old girl to death, was
> sent back to prison for 30 years Thursday for gun possession.
>
> "In plain English, Lionel Tate, you've run out of chances. You do not
> get any more," Circuit Judge Joel T. Lazarus told Tate, who smirked as
> he was led off to jail in shackles.
>
> Tate, now 19, was convicted of beating Tiffany Eunick to death in 1999,
> when he was 12, claiming he accidentally killed the girl while
> imitating pro wrestling moves he had seen on television. He became the
> youngest person in modern U.S. history to receive a life sentence.
>
> His murder conviction was overturned in 2004 by an appeals court that
> said it was not clear Tate understood the charges. He was freed under a
> deal in which he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was
> sentenced to 10 years' probation.
>
> On Thursday, he was back in court over the holdup of a pizza
> deliveryman last May.
>
> In a deal with prosecutors, Tate had faced 10 to 30 years in prison
> after pleading guilty to robbery and violating his probation by having
> a gun. On Thursday, the judge let him withdraw his guilty plea in the
> robbery but still sentenced him on the gun charge. The robbery trial is
> set for September 18.
>
> Defense attorney H. Dohn Williams said he did not understand why Tate
> would want to go to trial on the robbery charge, given that a
> conviction could bring a life sentence in addition to the 30 years for
> the probation violation.
>
> "He continues to get bad advice from meddling third parties," Williams
> said outside court.
>
> Williams said Tate's mother, Florida Highway Patrol trooper Kathleen
> Grossett-Tate, told him he could win an appeal on the probation
> violation conviction, win his robbery case and leave jail in a year.
> She left court without commenting.
>
> Williams pleaded with the judge for leniency, blaming Tate's criminal
> behavior on his upbringing.
>
> "The death of Tiffany Eunick would never have occurred if there had
> been proper parental guidance and control," Williams said.
> "Six-year-old Tiffany tragically died while ... roughhousing with a
> 6-year-old boy in a 12-year-old's body."
>
> The judge said Tate has shown "disdain and disrespect" for the law
> after repeated opportunities to redeem himself.
>
> Since his release in 1999, Tate has had numerous run-ins with the law.
> In 2004, the judge sentenced him to an additional five years' probation
> for having a knife.
>
> Last month, the judge ruled for the second time that Tate was competent
> to face the robbery charge after Tate claimed he was mentally ill from
> years of abuse by his mother. He claimed he was hearing voices and
> contemplating suicide, a story he later admitted was a ruse.
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Golly, how did THAT rate a 2 on the Kane scale?