spanking approval rates and homicide rates

[Doan]

Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf

Here are the homicide rates during the same period.

# The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.

# In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.

# It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

Do you see a correlation there, Kane?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
> from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
>
> Here are the homicide rates during the same period.
>
> # The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
>
> # In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
> off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
>
> # It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
> 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.

You apparently blew a gasket and lost all your steam. Where's the most
current data?
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
>
> Do you see a correlation there, Kane?

Sure. Things take time. We are now seeing the result.

Please recall that children born spankable are very very young. (Am I
making this simple enough for you).

Years must pass before the effects of them being spanked shows in the
adult population...I'd say about ten to twenty years, in fact. Most
homicides are done by what age group, Doan?

Yes those around twenty to twenty five approximate.

So, we have WHAT currently as the data for homicides?

Is it up, level, or .... heheheh ..... down, stupid.

About twenty years or so after the spankable, but apparently LESS
spanked little kids reach "homicide" age.

And those adults who were committing the homicides that made them so
high in the past? Well, they were little kids during the time that
Straus correctly pointed out that the approval rate was 90%+.

Gee, ask for a real correlation and get one. I do so love educating
monkeys.

>
> Doan
>

Please, while you are at it, call ME stupid again.

It so neatly underlines your failure to recognize what you were
revealing in this telling bit of "research" you performed so
clumsily...as usual.

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 Wed, 4 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
> > from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
> > http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
> >
> > Here are the homicide rates during the same period.
> >
> > # The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
> >
> > # In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
> > off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
> >
> > # It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
> > 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
>
> You apparently blew a gasket and lost all your steam. Where's the most
> current data?

You apparently trying hard to fit that square peg into the round hole.
Look it up.

> >
> > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
> >
> > Do you see a correlation there, Kane?
>
> Sure. Things take time. We are now seeing the result.
>
So what causes the rate to DOULBE from 1960's to 1970's? Must be the
increase in spanking, right?

> Please recall that children born spankable are very very young. (Am I
> making this simple enough for you).
>
> Years must pass before the effects of them being spanked shows in the
> adult population...I'd say about ten to twenty years, in fact. Most
> homicides are done by what age group, Doan?
>
Then show me the time frame that correlate to the rise in homicide rates
that span from 1960's to 1990's.

> Yes those around twenty to twenty five approximate.
>
> So, we have WHAT currently as the data for homicides?
>
About the same as in the 60's!

> Is it up, level, or .... heheheh ..... down, stupid.
>
> About twenty years or so after the spankable, but apparently LESS
> spanked little kids reach "homicide" age.
>
So the rise we saw from 1960's to 1990's correlates to rise in spanking
approval rates from 1940's to 1970's??? Right, Kane?

> And those adults who were committing the homicides that made them so
> high in the past? Well, they were little kids during the time that
> Straus correctly pointed out that the approval rate was 90%+.
>
Yup! Square peg fit into the round hole! ;-)

> Gee, ask for a real correlation and get one. I do so love educating
> monkeys.
>
Hihihi!

> >
> > Doan
> >
>
> Please, while you are at it, call ME stupid again.
>
Glad to! YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

> It so neatly underlines your failure to recognize what you were
> revealing in this telling bit of "research" you performed so
> clumsily...as usual.
>
But it demonstrated your STUPIDITY brillantly!

AF

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
>>> from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
>>> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
>>>
>>> Here are the homicide rates during the same period.
>>>
>>> # The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
>>>
>>> # In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
>>> off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
>>>
>>> # It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
>>> 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
>> You apparently blew a gasket and lost all your steam. Where's the most
>> current data?
>
> You apparently trying hard to fit that square peg into the round hole.
> Look it up.

No. I know what it is. I'm asking you WHY you failed to include it.

>>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
>>>
>>> Do you see a correlation there, Kane?
>> Sure. Things take time. We are now seeing the result.
>>
> So what causes the rate to DOULBE from 1960's to 1970's? Must be the
> increase in spanking, right?

Lag time for newborns growing into adult violent offenders. From the
previous 20 years.

During the late 60s and into the 70s there was a profound change in the
US concerning violence, including that directed toward children.

You are too young to know firsthand and too stupid to look it up.
>
>> Please recall that children born spankable are very very young. (Am I
>> making this simple enough for you).
>>
>> Years must pass before the effects of them being spanked shows in the
>> adult population...I'd say about ten to twenty years, in fact. Most
>> homicides are done by what age group, Doan?
>>
> Then show me the time frame that correlate to the rise in homicide rates
> that span from 1960's to 1990's.

Children born from 1940 onward.

The effects, of course, of other factors. We know, for instance, that
domestic abuse goes up when times are economically harder and there is
more unemployment.

>> Yes those around twenty to twenty five approximate.
>>
>> So, we have WHAT currently as the data for homicides?
>>
> About the same as in the 60's!

>> Is it up, level, or .... heheheh ..... down, stupid.
>>
>> About twenty years or so after the spankable, but apparently LESS
>> spanked little kids reach "homicide" age.
>>
> So the rise we saw from 1960's to 1990's correlates to rise in spanking
> approval rates from 1940's to 1970's??? Right, Kane?

Rise? The approval rate was less in the 40's? R R R R R

>> And those adults who were committing the homicides that made them so
>> high in the past? Well, they were little kids during the time that
>> Straus correctly pointed out that the approval rate was 90%+.
>>
> Yup! Square peg fit into the round hole! ;-)

So you mean that time and aging doesn't matter. I see.

>> Gee, ask for a real correlation and get one. I do so love educating
>> monkeys.
>>
> Hihihi!
>
>>> Doan
>>>
>> Please, while you are at it, call ME stupid again.
>>
> Glad to! YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)
>
>> It so neatly underlines your failure to recognize what you were
>> revealing in this telling bit of "research" you performed so
>> clumsily...as usual.
>>
> But it demonstrated your STUPIDITY brillantly!

That I pointed out that correlating the passage of time with the rate of
homicide, and the approval rating for spanking is YOUR demonstration?

I don't think so.

You just demonstrated that you fall into babbling when you are cornered.

And mistaken.

So tell us, do you think the rate for homicides, or any crime for that
matter, IS in fact tied to spanking rates, and that the children that
were spanked are more or less likely to grow up to be criminals?

Watch him dodge folks. He always does. It will be another question about
something not directly responding to my question.

That's because his parents raised, sadly, an immoral, unethical
apparently criminal minded boy.
>
> AF
>
Proof that spanking doesn't work, Doan. You are the prime example 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)

[Doan]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
> >>> from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
> >>> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Here are the homicide rates during the same period.
> >>>
> >>> # The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
> >>>
> >>> # In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
> >>> off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
> >>>
> >>> # It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
> >>> 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
> >> You apparently blew a gasket and lost all your steam. Where's the most
> >> current data?
> >
> > You apparently trying hard to fit that square peg into the round hole.
> > Look it up.
>
> No. I know what it is. I'm asking you WHY you failed to include it.
>
Because it wasn't the time frame I refered to, STUPID!

> >>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
> >>>
> >>> Do you see a correlation there, Kane?
> >> Sure. Things take time. We are now seeing the result.
> >>
> > So what causes the rate to DOULBE from 1960's to 1970's? Must be the
> > increase in spanking, right?
>
> Lag time for newborns growing into adult violent offenders. From the
> previous 20 years.
>
From the 40's to 50's?

> During the late 60s and into the 70s there was a profound change in the
> US concerning violence, including that directed toward children.
>
Really? What is "profound change"?

> You are too young to know firsthand and too stupid to look it up.

I did, STUPID!

> >
> >> Please recall that children born spankable are very very young. (Am I
> >> making this simple enough for you).
> >>
> >> Years must pass before the effects of them being spanked shows in the
> >> adult population...I'd say about ten to twenty years, in fact. Most
> >> homicides are done by what age group, Doan?
> >>
> > Then show me the time frame that correlate to the rise in homicide rates
> > that span from 1960's to 1990's.
>
> Children born from 1940 onward.
>
The spanked more from 1940 onward???

> The effects, of course, of other factors. We know, for instance, that
> domestic abuse goes up when times are economically harder and there is
> more unemployment.
>
So what does that have to do with spanking. Your argument is falling
apart, Kane!

> >> Yes those around twenty to twenty five approximate.
> >>
> >> So, we have WHAT currently as the data for homicides?
> >>
> > About the same as in the 60's!
>
I don't see you have a respond to this. ;-)

> >> Is it up, level, or .... heheheh ..... down, stupid.
> >>
> >> About twenty years or so after the spankable, but apparently LESS
> >> spanked little kids reach "homicide" age.
> >>
> > So the rise we saw from 1960's to 1990's correlates to rise in spanking
> > approval rates from 1940's to 1970's??? Right, Kane?
>
> Rise? The approval rate was less in the 40's? R R R R R
>
I asked you, STUPID. Now answer my question. ;-)

> >> And those adults who were committing the homicides that made them so
> >> high in the past? Well, they were little kids during the time that
> >> Straus correctly pointed out that the approval rate was 90%+.
> >>
> > Yup! Square peg fit into the round hole! ;-)
>
> So you mean that time and aging doesn't matter. I see.
>
No. Only the spanking approval rate according to you. You were the one
that claim the correlation, remembered? ;-)

> >> Gee, ask for a real correlation and get one. I do so love educating
> >> monkeys.
> >>
> > Hihihi!
> >
> >>> Doan
> >>>
> >> Please, while you are at it, call ME stupid again.
> >>
> > Glad to! YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)
> >
> >> It so neatly underlines your failure to recognize what you were
> >> revealing in this telling bit of "research" you performed so
> >> clumsily...as usual.
> >>
> > But it demonstrated your STUPIDITY brillantly!
>
> That I pointed out that correlating the passage of time with the rate of
> homicide, and the approval rating for spanking is YOUR demonstration?
>
No! That your attempt to fit a square peg into the round hole is!

> I don't think so.
>
> You just demonstrated that you fall into babbling when you are cornered.
>
No. I just demonstrated how STUPID you are. ;-)

> And mistaken.
>
And you are a LIAR!

> So tell us, do you think the rate for homicides, or any crime for that
> matter, IS in fact tied to spanking rates, and that the children that
> were spanked are more or less likely to grow up to be criminals?
>
No. Spanking has nothing to do with it!

> Watch him dodge folks. He always does. It will be another question about
> something not directly responding to my question.
>
And you are wrong again, STUPID!

> That's because his parents raised, sadly, an immoral, unethical
> apparently criminal minded boy.

You are a pathological liar!

> >
> > AF
> >
> Proof that spanking doesn't work, Doan. You are the prime example here.
>
And you are the prime example of the anti-spanking zealotS, STUPID and
DECEITFUL! ;-)

AF

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
>>>>> from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
>>>>> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the homicide rates during the same period.
>>>>>
>>>>> # The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
>>>>>
>>>>> # In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
>>>>> off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
>>>>>
>>>>> # It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
>>>>> 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
>>>> You apparently blew a gasket and lost all your steam. Where's the most
>>>> current data?
>>> You apparently trying hard to fit that square peg into the round hole.
>>> Look it up.
>> No. I know what it is. I'm asking you WHY you failed to include it.
>>
> Because it wasn't the time frame I refered to, STUPID!
>
>>>>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you see a correlation there, Kane?
>>>> Sure. Things take time. We are now seeing the result.
>>>>
>>> So what causes the rate to DOULBE from 1960's to 1970's? Must be the
>>> increase in spanking, right?
>> Lag time for newborns growing into adult violent offenders. From the
>> previous 20 years.
>>
> From the 40's to 50's?
>
>> During the late 60s and into the 70s there was a profound change in the
>> US concerning violence, including that directed toward children.
>>
> Really? What is "profound change"?
>
>> You are too young to know firsthand and too stupid to look it up.
>
> I did, STUPID!
>
>>>> Please recall that children born spankable are very very young. (Am I
>>>> making this simple enough for you).
>>>>
>>>> Years must pass before the effects of them being spanked shows in the
>>>> adult population...I'd say about ten to twenty years, in fact. Most
>>>> homicides are done by what age group, Doan?
>>>>
>>> Then show me the time frame that correlate to the rise in homicide rates
>>> that span from 1960's to 1990's.
>> Children born from 1940 onward.
>>
> The spanked more from 1940 onward???
>
>> The effects, of course, of other factors. We know, for instance, that
>> domestic abuse goes up when times are economically harder and there is
>> more unemployment.
>>
> So what does that have to do with spanking. Your argument is falling
> apart, Kane!
>
>>>> Yes those around twenty to twenty five approximate.
>>>>
>>>> So, we have WHAT currently as the data for homicides?
>>>>
>>> About the same as in the 60's!
> I don't see you have a respond to this. ;-)
>
>>>> Is it up, level, or .... heheheh ..... down, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> About twenty years or so after the spankable, but apparently LESS
>>>> spanked little kids reach "homicide" age.
>>>>
>>> So the rise we saw from 1960's to 1990's correlates to rise in spanking
>>> approval rates from 1940's to 1970's??? Right, Kane?
>> Rise? The approval rate was less in the 40's? R R R R R
>>
> I asked you, STUPID. Now answer my question. ;-)
>
>>>> And those adults who were committing the homicides that made them so
>>>> high in the past? Well, they were little kids during the time that
>>>> Straus correctly pointed out that the approval rate was 90%+.
>>>>
>>> Yup! Square peg fit into the round hole! ;-)
>> So you mean that time and aging doesn't matter. I see.
>>
> No. Only the spanking approval rate according to you. You were the one
> that claim the correlation, remembered? ;-)
>
>>>> Gee, ask for a real correlation and get one. I do so love educating
>>>> monkeys.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi!
>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>>>
>>>> Please, while you are at it, call ME stupid again.
>>>>
>>> Glad to! YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)
>>>
>>>> It so neatly underlines your failure to recognize what you were
>>>> revealing in this telling bit of "research" you performed so
>>>> clumsily...as usual.
>>>>
>>> But it demonstrated your STUPIDITY brillantly!
>> That I pointed out that correlating the passage of time with the rate of
>> homicide, and the approval rating for spanking is YOUR demonstration?
>>
> No! That your attempt to fit a square peg into the round hole is!
>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> You just demonstrated that you fall into babbling when you are cornered.
>>
> No. I just demonstrated how STUPID you are. ;-)
>
>> And mistaken.
>>
> And you are a LIAR!
>
>> So tell us, do you think the rate for homicides, or any crime for that
>> matter, IS in fact tied to spanking rates, and that the children that
>> were spanked are more or less likely to grow up to be criminals?
>>
> No. Spanking has nothing to do with it!
>
>> Watch him dodge folks. He always does. It will be another question about
>> something not directly responding to my question.
>>
> And you are wrong again, STUPID!
>
>> That's because his parents raised, sadly, an immoral, unethical
>> apparently criminal minded boy.
>
> You are a pathological liar!
>
>>> AF
>>>
>> Proof that spanking doesn't work, Doan. You are the prime example here.
>>
> And you are the prime example of the anti-spanking zealotS, STUPID and
> DECEITFUL! ;-)
>
> AF
>
Temper temper.... 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 Thu, 5 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> Here is a study by Straus that show that spanking approval rates went
> >>>>> from 90%+ in 1968 down to 68% in 1994.
> >>>>> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here are the homicide rates during the same period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
> >>>>> off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
> >>>>> 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
> >>>> You apparently blew a gasket and lost all your steam. Where's the most
> >>>> current data?
> >>> You apparently trying hard to fit that square peg into the round hole.
> >>> Look it up.
> >> No. I know what it is. I'm asking you WHY you failed to include it.
> >>
> > Because it wasn't the time frame I refered to, STUPID!
> >
> >>>>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you see a correlation there, Kane?
> >>>> Sure. Things take time. We are now seeing the result.
> >>>>
> >>> So what causes the rate to DOULBE from 1960's to 1970's? Must be the
> >>> increase in spanking, right?
> >> Lag time for newborns growing into adult violent offenders. From the
> >> previous 20 years.
> >>
> > From the 40's to 50's?
> >
> >> During the late 60s and into the 70s there was a profound change in the
> >> US concerning violence, including that directed toward children.
> >>
> > Really? What is "profound change"?
> >
> >> You are too young to know firsthand and too stupid to look it up.
> >
> > I did, STUPID!
> >
> >>>> Please recall that children born spankable are very very young. (Am I
> >>>> making this simple enough for you).
> >>>>
> >>>> Years must pass before the effects of them being spanked shows in the
> >>>> adult population...I'd say about ten to twenty years, in fact. Most
> >>>> homicides are done by what age group, Doan?
> >>>>
> >>> Then show me the time frame that correlate to the rise in homicide rates
> >>> that span from 1960's to 1990's.
> >> Children born from 1940 onward.
> >>
> > The spanked more from 1940 onward???
> >
> >> The effects, of course, of other factors. We know, for instance, that
> >> domestic abuse goes up when times are economically harder and there is
> >> more unemployment.
> >>
> > So what does that have to do with spanking. Your argument is falling
> > apart, Kane!
> >
> >>>> Yes those around twenty to twenty five approximate.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, we have WHAT currently as the data for homicides?
> >>>>
> >>> About the same as in the 60's!
> > I don't see you have a respond to this. ;-)
> >
> >>>> Is it up, level, or .... heheheh ..... down, stupid.
> >>>>
> >>>> About twenty years or so after the spankable, but apparently LESS
> >>>> spanked little kids reach "homicide" age.
> >>>>
> >>> So the rise we saw from 1960's to 1990's correlates to rise in spanking
> >>> approval rates from 1940's to 1970's??? Right, Kane?
> >> Rise? The approval rate was less in the 40's? R R R R R
> >>
> > I asked you, STUPID. Now answer my question. ;-)
> >
> >>>> And those adults who were committing the homicides that made them so
> >>>> high in the past? Well, they were little kids during the time that
> >>>> Straus correctly pointed out that the approval rate was 90%+.
> >>>>
> >>> Yup! Square peg fit into the round hole! ;-)
> >> So you mean that time and aging doesn't matter. I see.
> >>
> > No. Only the spanking approval rate according to you. You were the one
> > that claim the correlation, remembered? ;-)
> >
> >>>> Gee, ask for a real correlation and get one. I do so love educating
> >>>> monkeys.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi!
> >>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please, while you are at it, call ME stupid again.
> >>>>
> >>> Glad to! YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>> It so neatly underlines your failure to recognize what you were
> >>>> revealing in this telling bit of "research" you performed so
> >>>> clumsily...as usual.
> >>>>
> >>> But it demonstrated your STUPIDITY brillantly!
> >> That I pointed out that correlating the passage of time with the rate of
> >> homicide, and the approval rating for spanking is YOUR demonstration?
> >>
> > No! That your attempt to fit a square peg into the round hole is!
> >
> >> I don't think so.
> >>
> >> You just demonstrated that you fall into babbling when you are cornered.
> >>
> > No. I just demonstrated how STUPID you are. ;-)
> >
> >> And mistaken.
> >>
> > And you are a LIAR!
> >
> >> So tell us, do you think the rate for homicides, or any crime for that
> >> matter, IS in fact tied to spanking rates, and that the children that
> >> were spanked are more or less likely to grow up to be criminals?
> >>
> > No. Spanking has nothing to do with it!
> >
> >> Watch him dodge folks. He always does. It will be another question about
> >> something not directly responding to my question.
> >>
> > And you are wrong again, STUPID!
> >
> >> That's because his parents raised, sadly, an immoral, unethical
> >> apparently criminal minded boy.
> >
> > You are a pathological liar!
> >
> >>> AF
> >>>
> >> Proof that spanking doesn't work, Doan. You are the prime example here.
> >>
> > And you are the prime example of the anti-spanking zealotS, STUPID and
> > DECEITFUL! ;-)
> >
> > AF
> >
> Temper temper.... 0;->
>
Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! ;-)

AF