Re: Teenagers faced with spankings

[Doan]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> >>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> >>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> >>>> punishment:
> >>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> >>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> >>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> >>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> >>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> >>>> word. "
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> >> Really? How so?
> >>
> >>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> >>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> >>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> >>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> >>> very definitely a punishment.
> >> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> >> con you.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > Or you are the one that trying to con him?
>
> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
>
> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> considerable fading in some sections.
>
> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
>
Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:

Doan:
Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
"archives" for you? ;-)

Kane:
Sure. But so what. It can't be put into a PDF file format? PDF renders
graphically, as you well know as well as character.

Doan:
It can but it showed that you can't even keep you LIES straight! ;-)

HAHAHA! Next you going to say that you didn't claim you sent a copy to
Alina either, right Kane?
> >> The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
> >> the child.
> >>
> > So?
> >
> >>> The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
> >>> punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
> >>> the child from doing the same thing again.
> >> No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
> >> teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.
> >>
> > That is some of the children cried! Or did you missed that from study,
> > Kane?
>
> I must have. Why don't you post it here, Doan. Or do I have to double
> dare you to get you to show once more you don't wish to debate, but to
> play and make a fool of yourself.
>
Playing stupid again, Kane. I ALREADY DID!

> How many cried and how many times did they cry? And how does that prove
> it's "punishment?" Children cry for any number of reasons at such young
> ages.
>
3) child cried - 8.6%

No wonder Chris Dugan called you STUPID! Just as you have proven yourself
many times, you can seem to read a simple chart!

> The report I have has no mention of crying. None. I'm sure Nathan will
> be happy to quote for me where the copy you are providing him mentions
> crying.
>
Why don't you send him a copy? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

> That is is you wish to be childish and not provide yourself the
> information to support your claim of crying.
>
I must have a fake copy from the library then. ;-)

> If they came from punishing families (which my copy says they did) they
> might well have over reacted to the simple sit and watch exercise,
> thinking they were being punished for being "bad."
>
Your copy said they came from punishing families? Come on, Kane. Do you
really think anyone would be so stupid to believe that?

> In fact the design of the Sit and Watch section shows considerable
> attention to it being as neutral as possible in presentation to the
> child. As a consequence of that, this will happen, instructions.
>
Hahaha! It's called punishment, STUPID!

> The "watch" part makes it rather clear it's not designed as punishment.
> But as a teaching tool.
>
Hahaha! Then why did Dr. Embry called it punishment?

> But then, I also have said that I differ with Embry on sit and watch
> being a "punishment," if indeed that's how he meant it to be experienced.
>
You are smarter than Dr. Embry? ;-) Do you have a Ph.D, published Kane?

> I might even consider it a fault, had he not also built in the more
> neutral consequences tone, and even had the parent and child to
> rehearsals, and be trained on it in the pre field activity phase.
>
YOU ARE SMARTER THAN DR. EMBRY! ;-)

> > Doan
> >
> You get dumber by the day.
>
Hihihi! Then why is it I kept pointing out your "mistakes"?

> Anyone you send that study to, Doan, as you know, will start to take a
> really serious look at punishment vs non-punishment alternatives.
>
Hihihi! Why don't you send it to anyone that asked?

> Embry proved even that parental reprimands needed to go down as part of
> the process, and they did. Just verbal reprimands.
>
> And the results were remarkable. You don't want anyone to have it and
> you know it, liar.
>
> You think you have an ally in Nathan, but I'll predict that in the long
> run his views will change. The study is that good.
>
> And your claim it's too small a study group is a joke to any researcher
> reading that kind of bull****.
>
> Surveys need large groups, while experiments need small groups so
> variable controls can be managed.
>
> This was a program of instruction and validation by field testing.
>
> Just how stupid are you?
>
Hihihi! Only in your dream!

Doan

> 0:->
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
>>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
>>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
>>>>>> punishment:
>>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
>>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
>>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
>>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
>>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
>>>>>> word. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
>>>> Really? How so?
>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
>>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
>>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
>>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
>>>>> very definitely a punishment.
>>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
>>>> con you.
>>>>
>>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
>>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
>> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
>>
>> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
>> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
>> considerable fading in some sections.
>>
>> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
>>
> Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
>
> Doan:
> Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> "archives" for you? ;-)

Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
in for me? Go ahead.

Or are you going to choke and dodge again?

> Kane:
> Sure. But so what. It can't be put into a PDF file format? PDF renders
> graphically, as you well know as well as character.

In other words, "sure" show us the archives where I said I had made a
PDF file.

All I said above is that it's possible. You, of course, snipped the
relevant part of the conversation to make it appear as though I was
saying I had done so. I made NO such claim.
>
> Doan:
> It can but it showed that you can't even keep you LIES straight! ;-)
>
> HAHAHA! Next you going to say that you didn't claim you sent a copy to
> Alina either, right Kane?

Why would I do that, Doan? Hihihi.

Of course I sent her a copy and I said I did, right here in this ng.

It certainly wasn't in PDF format, and we were discussing how one might
put it in electronic format to send as an attachment, Doan. You are a liar.

Now show us where I said I had the study in PDF format, as opposed to
making PDF files being possible.

>>>> The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
>>>> the child.
>>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>>>> The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
>>>>> punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
>>>>> the child from doing the same thing again.
>>>> No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
>>>> teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.
>>>>
>>> That is some of the children cried! Or did you missed that from study,
>>> Kane?

I thought you said there were no punishing parents Doan. Why would the
child cry?

>> I must have. Why don't you post it here, Doan. Or do I have to double
>> dare you to get you to show once more you don't wish to debate, but to
>> play and make a fool of yourself.
>>
> Playing stupid again, Kane. I ALREADY DID!

No you didn't.

Post WHERE the report discusses crying children.

>> How many cried and how many times did they cry? And how does that prove
>> it's "punishment?" Children cry for any number of reasons at such young
>> ages.
>>
> 3) child cried - 8.6%

"3)" on what page, in what chart, Doan?

How many times, how many children, where in the report.

Learn to read.

> No wonder Chris Dugan called you STUPID!

What has my discussion with him about foreign policy got to do with our
discussion on the Embry report?

> Just as you have proven yourself
> many times, you can seem to read a simple chart!

I read fine. You are the one that either refuses to see what is there,
or creates things that are not..just like you did with the claim I said
I had the Embry file in PDF format.

>> The report I have has no mention of crying. None. I'm sure Nathan will
>> be happy to quote for me where the copy you are providing him mentions
>> crying.
>>
> Why don't you send him a copy? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

What, and deprive you of the chance to share? No Doan, I want to see if
you are stupid enough to actually put a copy out there knowing what is
in it and how badly it shows up your lies and obfuscation.

As well as being a powerful argument for the success of non-cp methods.


>> That is is you wish to be childish and not provide yourself the
>> information to support your claim of crying.
>>
> I must have a fake copy from the library then. ;-)

Since you refuse to send it to anyone whose to say what copy you have,
or part of a copy, possibly referred to by others. 0:->

>> If they came from punishing families (which my copy says they did) they
>> might well have over reacted to the simple sit and watch exercise,
>> thinking they were being punished for being "bad."
>>
> Your copy said they came from punishing families?

Punishments were tracked. Are you so disconnected from reality that you
think a family can be non-punishing in the report but they were tracked
as having punished?

> Come on, Kane. Do you
> really think anyone would be so stupid to believe that?

You can't read a simple report like this one?

In fact not only is there a code for punishment separate from reprimand
0:->, but they even went to the trouble of calculating the reliability
of behavior collection during visits.

Did you miss that?

Or do you really not have a full copy of the report, eh?

See both comment on page 26, and Table 6, on page 29.

"Using this protocol, reliability estimates were 100% (Child in
Time-Out), 74% (Parental Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100%
(Time Out Instruction), and 71% (Parental Praise)."

I draw your attention too, to the division between "Reprimands," and
"Punishment," noting that the latter was described elsewhere by Embry
for this study as having "hitting" as a possible component.

Do you have a category of hitting that is not CP, Doan?

Going now to Table 6 on page 29 we see that indeed, Punishment was
tracked, as were 5 other behaviors. One can hardly track a behavior that
has not happened.

What was your comment again? Oh yes: Doan: "Your copy said they came
from punishing families? Come on, Kane. Do you really think anyone
would be so stupid to believe that?"

No, Doan, you have to be so stupid as to not believe that.

By the way, I notice that one of the tracked behaviors is "Time Out
Instruction." So much for it being only "punishment."

Or do you believe "instruction"="punishment"?

Could you be that stupid?

>> In fact the design of the Sit and Watch section shows considerable
>> attention to it being as neutral as possible in presentation to the
>> child. As a consequence of that, this will happen, instructions.
>>
> Hahaha! It's called punishment, STUPID!

It's also tracked ... far more important than the occasional use of the
word punishment ... as "Time Out INSTRUCTION," stupid.

>> The "watch" part makes it rather clear it's not designed as punishment.
>> But as a teaching tool.
>>
> Hahaha! Then why did Dr. Embry called it punishment?

I'll have to ask him some time, since you seem too cowardly to ask
yourself. He's not hard to find. He maintains a website.

So, does "instruction"="punishment" Doan?

>> But then, I also have said that I differ with Embry on sit and watch
>> being a "punishment," if indeed that's how he meant it to be experienced.
>>
> You are smarter than Dr. Embry? ;-)

"Smarter?" Disagreeing with someone requires one to think they are
smarter than someone else? How would that fit with your disagreeing with
me, Doan...and being so often mistaken or lying?

> Do you have a Ph.D, published Kane?

A Ph.D makes one smarter? R R R oh, too much.

>> I might even consider it a fault, had he not also built in the more
>> neutral consequences tone, and even had the parent and child to
>> rehearsals, and be trained on it in the pre field activity phase.
>>
> YOU ARE SMARTER THAN DR. EMBRY! ;-)

One has to be smarter to disagree?

If that were true how do you reckon your disagreeing with me when you
are obviously stupid as a post, and lying to boot makes you smarter?

>>> Doan
>>>
>> You get dumber by the day.
>>
> Hihihi! Then why is it I kept pointing out your "mistakes"?

Why is it you can neither show proof of them, or I have, on the rare
occasions they occur, not hid them or dodge, but find the error myself
and correct it?

Which you lyingly proceed to ignore in following posts, claiming I've
still not corrected the mistake?

>> Anyone you send that study to, Doan, as you know, will start to take a
>> really serious look at punishment vs non-punishment alternatives.
>>
> Hihihi! Why don't you send it to anyone that asked?

You made the offer. Why don't you?

I don't send it to anyone that might by chance give it to you.

I think Nathan would, as he hasn't quite figured out your clever lying
schemes. He will in time.

>> Embry proved even that parental reprimands needed to go down as part of
>> the process, and they did. Just verbal reprimands.
>>
>> And the results were remarkable. You don't want anyone to have it and
>> you know it, liar.
>>
>> You think you have an ally in Nathan, but I'll predict that in the long
>> run his views will change. The study is that good.
>>
>> And your claim it's too small a study group is a joke to any researcher
>> reading that kind of bull****.
>>
>> Surveys need large groups, while experiments need small groups so
>> variable controls can be managed.
>>
>> This was a program of instruction and validation by field testing.
>>
>> Just how stupid are you?
>>
> Hihihi! Only in your dream!

Well, I've shown again in this post how you lied -- claiming I said I
had a copy in PDF format when I simply stated it could be done.

I've shown how your claim that the report has no punishing families in
it is a stupid lie.

And I'm not dreaming so you must be.

I'm still waiting for Alina the mysterious, to reply and tell us what
she thought of the report. Funny, she just seems to have disappeared.

Weirdest posting pattern, too. I'd swear it was someone trying to build,
while socking, a credible posting history. R R R R R R

And such a coincidence about the Nun at USC too, with a name almost
exactly the same.

I meant to ask Alina about that.

Tell you what. You have her E-mail addy. Maybe she'll answer you. Ask
her for me, will you?

>
> Doan
>
>> 0:->
>>

Kane 0:-]

[Doan]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> >>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> >>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> >>>>>> punishment:
> >>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> >>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> >>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> >>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> >>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> >>>>>> word. "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> >>>> Really? How so?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> >>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> >>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> >>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> >>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> >>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> >>>> con you.
> >>>>
> >>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> >>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> >> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> >>
> >> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> >> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> >> considerable fading in some sections.
> >>
> >> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> >
> > Doan:
> > Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > "archives" for you? ;-)
>
> Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> in for me? Go ahead.
>
> Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
>
Here it is:

"I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
file"

Remember that, Kane?

> > Kane:
> > Sure. But so what. It can't be put into a PDF file format? PDF renders
> > graphically, as you well know as well as character.
>
> In other words, "sure" show us the archives where I said I had made a
> PDF file.
>
"I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
file"

Remember that, Kane?

> All I said above is that it's possible. You, of course, snipped the
> relevant part of the conversation to make it appear as though I was
> saying I had done so. I made NO such claim.
> >
> > Doan:
> > It can but it showed that you can't even keep you LIES straight! ;-)
> >
> > HAHAHA! Next you going to say that you didn't claim you sent a copy to
> > Alina either, right Kane?
>
> Why would I do that, Doan? Hihihi.
>
> Of course I sent her a copy and I said I did, right here in this ng.
>
Hahaha! But you claimed that she is me. So you sent it to me?

Doan

> It certainly wasn't in PDF format, and we were discussing how one might
> put it in electronic format to send as an attachment, Doan. You are a liar.
>
> Now show us where I said I had the study in PDF format, as opposed to
> making PDF files being possible.
>
> >>>> The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
> >>>> the child.
> >>>>
> >>> So?
> >>>
> >>>>> The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
> >>>>> punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
> >>>>> the child from doing the same thing again.
> >>>> No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
> >>>> teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.
> >>>>
> >>> That is some of the children cried! Or did you missed that from study,
> >>> Kane?
>
> I thought you said there were no punishing parents Doan. Why would the
> child cry?
>
> >> I must have. Why don't you post it here, Doan. Or do I have to double
> >> dare you to get you to show once more you don't wish to debate, but to
> >> play and make a fool of yourself.
> >>
> > Playing stupid again, Kane. I ALREADY DID!
>
> No you didn't.
>
> Post WHERE the report discusses crying children.
>
> >> How many cried and how many times did they cry? And how does that prove
> >> it's "punishment?" Children cry for any number of reasons at such young
> >> ages.
> >>
> > 3) child cried - 8.6%
>
> "3)" on what page, in what chart, Doan?
>
> How many times, how many children, where in the report.
>
> Learn to read.
>
> > No wonder Chris Dugan called you STUPID!
>
> What has my discussion with him about foreign policy got to do with our
> discussion on the Embry report?
>
> > Just as you have proven yourself
> > many times, you can seem to read a simple chart!
>
> I read fine. You are the one that either refuses to see what is there,
> or creates things that are not..just like you did with the claim I said
> I had the Embry file in PDF format.
>
> >> The report I have has no mention of crying. None. I'm sure Nathan will
> >> be happy to quote for me where the copy you are providing him mentions
> >> crying.
> >>
> > Why don't you send him a copy? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)
>
> What, and deprive you of the chance to share? No Doan, I want to see if
> you are stupid enough to actually put a copy out there knowing what is
> in it and how badly it shows up your lies and obfuscation.
>
> As well as being a powerful argument for the success of non-cp methods.
>
>
> >> That is is you wish to be childish and not provide yourself the
> >> information to support your claim of crying.
> >>
> > I must have a fake copy from the library then. ;-)
>
> Since you refuse to send it to anyone whose to say what copy you have,
> or part of a copy, possibly referred to by others. 0:->
>
> >> If they came from punishing families (which my copy says they did) they
> >> might well have over reacted to the simple sit and watch exercise,
> >> thinking they were being punished for being "bad."
> >>
> > Your copy said they came from punishing families?
>
> Punishments were tracked. Are you so disconnected from reality that you
> think a family can be non-punishing in the report but they were tracked
> as having punished?
>
> > Come on, Kane. Do you
> > really think anyone would be so stupid to believe that?
>
> You can't read a simple report like this one?
>
> In fact not only is there a code for punishment separate from reprimand
> 0:->, but they even went to the trouble of calculating the reliability
> of behavior collection during visits.
>
> Did you miss that?
>
> Or do you really not have a full copy of the report, eh?
>
> See both comment on page 26, and Table 6, on page 29.
>
> "Using this protocol, reliability estimates were 100% (Child in
> Time-Out), 74% (Parental Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100%
> (Time Out Instruction), and 71% (Parental Praise)."
>
> I draw your attention too, to the division between "Reprimands," and
> "Punishment," noting that the latter was described elsewhere by Embry
> for this study as having "hitting" as a possible component.
>
> Do you have a category of hitting that is not CP, Doan?
>
> Going now to Table 6 on page 29 we see that indeed, Punishment was
> tracked, as were 5 other behaviors. One can hardly track a behavior that
> has not happened.
>
> What was your comment again? Oh yes: Doan: "Your copy said they came
> from punishing families? Come on, Kane. Do you really think anyone
> would be so stupid to believe that?"
>
> No, Doan, you have to be so stupid as to not believe that.
>
> By the way, I notice that one of the tracked behaviors is "Time Out
> Instruction." So much for it being only "punishment."
>
> Or do you believe "instruction"="punishment"?
>
> Could you be that stupid?
>
> >> In fact the design of the Sit and Watch section shows considerable
> >> attention to it being as neutral as possible in presentation to the
> >> child. As a consequence of that, this will happen, instructions.
> >>
> > Hahaha! It's called punishment, STUPID!
>
> It's also tracked ... far more important than the occasional use of the
> word punishment ... as "Time Out INSTRUCTION," stupid.
>
> >> The "watch" part makes it rather clear it's not designed as punishment.
> >> But as a teaching tool.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Then why did Dr. Embry called it punishment?
>
> I'll have to ask him some time, since you seem too cowardly to ask
> yourself. He's not hard to find. He maintains a website.
>
> So, does "instruction"="punishment" Doan?
>
> >> But then, I also have said that I differ with Embry on sit and watch
> >> being a "punishment," if indeed that's how he meant it to be experienced.
> >>
> > You are smarter than Dr. Embry? ;-)
>
> "Smarter?" Disagreeing with someone requires one to think they are
> smarter than someone else? How would that fit with your disagreeing with
> me, Doan...and being so often mistaken or lying?
>
> > Do you have a Ph.D, published Kane?
>
> A Ph.D makes one smarter? R R R oh, too much.
>
> >> I might even consider it a fault, had he not also built in the more
> >> neutral consequences tone, and even had the parent and child to
> >> rehearsals, and be trained on it in the pre field activity phase.
> >>
> > YOU ARE SMARTER THAN DR. EMBRY! ;-)
>
> One has to be smarter to disagree?
>
> If that were true how do you reckon your disagreeing with me when you
> are obviously stupid as a post, and lying to boot makes you smarter?
>
> >>> Doan
> >>>
> >> You get dumber by the day.
> >>
> > Hihihi! Then why is it I kept pointing out your "mistakes"?
>
> Why is it you can neither show proof of them, or I have, on the rare
> occasions they occur, not hid them or dodge, but find the error myself
> and correct it?
>
> Which you lyingly proceed to ignore in following posts, claiming I've
> still not corrected the mistake?
>
> >> Anyone you send that study to, Doan, as you know, will start to take a
> >> really serious look at punishment vs non-punishment alternatives.
> >>
> > Hihihi! Why don't you send it to anyone that asked?
>
> You made the offer. Why don't you?
>
> I don't send it to anyone that might by chance give it to you.
>
> I think Nathan would, as he hasn't quite figured out your clever lying
> schemes. He will in time.
>
> >> Embry proved even that parental reprimands needed to go down as part of
> >> the process, and they did. Just verbal reprimands.
> >>
> >> And the results were remarkable. You don't want anyone to have it and
> >> you know it, liar.
> >>
> >> You think you have an ally in Nathan, but I'll predict that in the long
> >> run his views will change. The study is that good.
> >>
> >> And your claim it's too small a study group is a joke to any researcher
> >> reading that kind of bull****.
> >>
> >> Surveys need large groups, while experiments need small groups so
> >> variable controls can be managed.
> >>
> >> This was a program of instruction and validation by field testing.
> >>
> >> Just how stupid are you?
> >>
> > Hihihi! Only in your dream!
>
> Well, I've shown again in this post how you lied -- claiming I said I
> had a copy in PDF format when I simply stated it could be done.
>
> I've shown how your claim that the report has no punishing families in
> it is a stupid lie.
>
> And I'm not dreaming so you must be.
>
> I'm still waiting for Alina the mysterious, to reply and tell us what
> she thought of the report. Funny, she just seems to have disappeared.
>
> Weirdest posting pattern, too. I'd swear it was someone trying to build,
> while socking, a credible posting history. R R R R R R
>
> And such a coincidence about the Nun at USC too, with a name almost
> exactly the same.
>
> I meant to ask Alina about that.
>
> Tell you what. You have her E-mail addy. Maybe she'll answer you. Ask
> her for me, will you?
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
> >> 0:->
> >>
>
> Kane 0:-]
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > >>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > >>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> > >>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> > >>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> > >>>>>> punishment:
> > >>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> > >>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> > >>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> > >>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> > >>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> > >>>>>> word. "
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > >>>> Really? How so?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> > >>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> > >>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> > >>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> > >>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> > >>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> > >>>> con you.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > >>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> > >> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> > >>
> > >> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> > >> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> > >> considerable fading in some sections.
> > >>
> > >> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> > >
> > > Doan:
> > > Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > > "archives" for you? ;-)
> >
> > Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> > in for me? Go ahead.
> >
> > Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> >
> Here it is:
>
> "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> file"
>
> Remember that, Kane?

Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?


I've said before that I had it in hardcopy.
>
> > > Kane:
> > > Sure. But so what. It can't be put into a PDF file format? PDF renders
> > > graphically, as you well know as well as character.
> >
> > In other words, "sure" show us the archives where I said I had made a
> > PDF file.
> >
> "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> file"
>
> Remember that, Kane?

See above.

Remember that I posted that I had it in hard copy?

> > All I said above is that it's possible. You, of course, snipped the
> > relevant part of the conversation to make it appear as though I was
> > saying I had done so. I made NO such claim.
> > >
> > > Doan:
> > > It can but it showed that you can't even keep you LIES straight! ;-)
> > >
> > > HAHAHA! Next you going to say that you didn't claim you sent a copy to
> > > Alina either, right Kane?
> >
> > Why would I do that, Doan? Hihihi.
> >
> > Of course I sent her a copy and I said I did, right here in this ng.
> >
> Hahaha! But you claimed that she is me. So you sent it to me?

If the address supplied to me was one you created, then yes. That would
explain a lot, now wouldn't it? 0:->

You planning on dodging this again, Doan:

"> > > 3) child cried - 8.6%
> >
> > "3)" on what page, in what chart, Doan?
> >
> > How many times, how many children, where in the report."

You who claims to provide page etc. but selectively decline to when
requested.

"Hihihihi." As the saying goes when you can't answer, and are caught at
your dodging lies.

By the way, I've answered most of your "new" questions before, Doan,
so it's pretty obvious you aren't debating but simply harassing.

The last thing you really want is a record of posts here that reveal
the content of the Embry study that shows the non-cp methods used were
so successful.

Did you read that comment by Embry on page 58, where after citing
another research source, and his own prior one, concluded that,
"Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior, they reward it?"

Or can you understand English now after all these years of teaching it
to you?

You have the "final report," Don't you Doan, you cheapskate. The one
without the full field notes analysis. R R R RR R

I liked his comment on page 53, explaining the results of the study in
formulaic terms above it, "In everyday terms, for about ever 24 hours
of accumulated outdoor play, a conjunction of cars and children
occurred 16 times during baseline, and one time after the workshop and
storybooks."

All this with reprimands being reduced and only two instances of
physical punishment being observed in no more than two families.

Tsk, Doan. You ask, I produce, you crabwalk.

How typical of you, and how typical to avoid the salient argument and
go off on tangents of "you claimed you had it in PDF format."

You're a card.

Kane




>
> Doan
>
> > It certainly wasn't in PDF format, and we were discussing how one might
> > put it in electronic format to send as an attachment, Doan. You are a liar.
> >
> > Now show us where I said I had the study in PDF format, as opposed to
> > making PDF files being possible.
> >
> > >>>> The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
> > >>>> the child.
> > >>>>
> > >>> So?
> > >>>
> > >>>>> The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
> > >>>>> punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
> > >>>>> the child from doing the same thing again.
> > >>>> No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
> > >>>> teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.
> > >>>>
> > >>> That is some of the children cried! Or did you missed that from study,
> > >>> Kane?
> >
> > I thought you said there were no punishing parents Doan. Why would the
> > child cry?
> >
> > >> I must have. Why don't you post it here, Doan. Or do I have to double
> > >> dare you to get you to show once more you don't wish to debate, but to
> > >> play and make a fool of yourself.
> > >>
> > > Playing stupid again, Kane. I ALREADY DID!
> >
> > No you didn't.
> >
> > Post WHERE the report discusses crying children.
> >
> > >> How many cried and how many times did they cry? And how does that prove
> > >> it's "punishment?" Children cry for any number of reasons at such young
> > >> ages.
> > >>
> > > 3) child cried - 8.6%
> >
> > "3)" on what page, in what chart, Doan?
> >
> > How many times, how many children, where in the report.
> >
> > Learn to read.
> >
> > > No wonder Chris Dugan called you STUPID!
> >
> > What has my discussion with him about foreign policy got to do with our
> > discussion on the Embry report?
> >
> > > Just as you have proven yourself
> > > many times, you can seem to read a simple chart!
> >
> > I read fine. You are the one that either refuses to see what is there,
> > or creates things that are not..just like you did with the claim I said
> > I had the Embry file in PDF format.
> >
> > >> The report I have has no mention of crying. None. I'm sure Nathan will
> > >> be happy to quote for me where the copy you are providing him mentions
> > >> crying.
> > >>
> > > Why don't you send him a copy? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)
> >
> > What, and deprive you of the chance to share? No Doan, I want to see if
> > you are stupid enough to actually put a copy out there knowing what is
> > in it and how badly it shows up your lies and obfuscation.
> >
> > As well as being a powerful argument for the success of non-cp methods.
> >
> >
> > >> That is is you wish to be childish and not provide yourself the
> > >> information to support your claim of crying.
> > >>
> > > I must have a fake copy from the library then. ;-)
> >
> > Since you refuse to send it to anyone whose to say what copy you have,
> > or part of a copy, possibly referred to by others. 0:->
> >
> > >> If they came from punishing families (which my copy says they did) they
> > >> might well have over reacted to the simple sit and watch exercise,
> > >> thinking they were being punished for being "bad."
> > >>
> > > Your copy said they came from punishing families?
> >
> > Punishments were tracked. Are you so disconnected from reality that you
> > think a family can be non-punishing in the report but they were tracked
> > as having punished?
> >
> > > Come on, Kane. Do you
> > > really think anyone would be so stupid to believe that?
> >
> > You can't read a simple report like this one?
> >
> > In fact not only is there a code for punishment separate from reprimand
> > 0:->, but they even went to the trouble of calculating the reliability
> > of behavior collection during visits.
> >
> > Did you miss that?
> >
> > Or do you really not have a full copy of the report, eh?
> >
> > See both comment on page 26, and Table 6, on page 29.
> >
> > "Using this protocol, reliability estimates were 100% (Child in
> > Time-Out), 74% (Parental Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100%
> > (Time Out Instruction), and 71% (Parental Praise)."
> >
> > I draw your attention too, to the division between "Reprimands," and
> > "Punishment," noting that the latter was described elsewhere by Embry
> > for this study as having "hitting" as a possible component.
> >
> > Do you have a category of hitting that is not CP, Doan?
> >
> > Going now to Table 6 on page 29 we see that indeed, Punishment was
> > tracked, as were 5 other behaviors. One can hardly track a behavior that
> > has not happened.
> >
> > What was your comment again? Oh yes: Doan: "Your copy said they came
> > from punishing families? Come on, Kane. Do you really think anyone
> > would be so stupid to believe that?"
> >
> > No, Doan, you have to be so stupid as to not believe that.
> >
> > By the way, I notice that one of the tracked behaviors is "Time Out
> > Instruction." So much for it being only "punishment."
> >
> > Or do you believe "instruction"="punishment"?
> >
> > Could you be that stupid?
> >
> > >> In fact the design of the Sit and Watch section shows considerable
> > >> attention to it being as neutral as possible in presentation to the
> > >> child. As a consequence of that, this will happen, instructions.
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! It's called punishment, STUPID!
> >
> > It's also tracked ... far more important than the occasional use of the
> > word punishment ... as "Time Out INSTRUCTION," stupid.
> >
> > >> The "watch" part makes it rather clear it's not designed as punishment.
> > >> But as a teaching tool.
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! Then why did Dr. Embry called it punishment?
> >
> > I'll have to ask him some time, since you seem too cowardly to ask
> > yourself. He's not hard to find. He maintains a website.
> >
> > So, does "instruction"="punishment" Doan?
> >
> > >> But then, I also have said that I differ with Embry on sit and watch
> > >> being a "punishment," if indeed that's how he meant it to be experienced.
> > >>
> > > You are smarter than Dr. Embry? ;-)
> >
> > "Smarter?" Disagreeing with someone requires one to think they are
> > smarter than someone else? How would that fit with your disagreeing with
> > me, Doan...and being so often mistaken or lying?
> >
> > > Do you have a Ph.D, published Kane?
> >
> > A Ph.D makes one smarter? R R R oh, too much.
> >
> > >> I might even consider it a fault, had he not also built in the more
> > >> neutral consequences tone, and even had the parent and child to
> > >> rehearsals, and be trained on it in the pre field activity phase.
> > >>
> > > YOU ARE SMARTER THAN DR. EMBRY! ;-)
> >
> > One has to be smarter to disagree?
> >
> > If that were true how do you reckon your disagreeing with me when you
> > are obviously stupid as a post, and lying to boot makes you smarter?
> >
> > >>> Doan
> > >>>
> > >> You get dumber by the day.
> > >>
> > > Hihihi! Then why is it I kept pointing out your "mistakes"?
> >
> > Why is it you can neither show proof of them, or I have, on the rare
> > occasions they occur, not hid them or dodge, but find the error myself
> > and correct it?
> >
> > Which you lyingly proceed to ignore in following posts, claiming I've
> > still not corrected the mistake?
> >
> > >> Anyone you send that study to, Doan, as you know, will start to take a
> > >> really serious look at punishment vs non-punishment alternatives.
> > >>
> > > Hihihi! Why don't you send it to anyone that asked?
> >
> > You made the offer. Why don't you?
> >
> > I don't send it to anyone that might by chance give it to you.
> >
> > I think Nathan would, as he hasn't quite figured out your clever lying
> > schemes. He will in time.
> >
> > >> Embry proved even that parental reprimands needed to go down as part of
> > >> the process, and they did. Just verbal reprimands.
> > >>
> > >> And the results were remarkable. You don't want anyone to have it and
> > >> you know it, liar.
> > >>
> > >> You think you have an ally in Nathan, but I'll predict that in the long
> > >> run his views will change. The study is that good.
> > >>
> > >> And your claim it's too small a study group is a joke to any researcher
> > >> reading that kind of bull****.
> > >>
> > >> Surveys need large groups, while experiments need small groups so
> > >> variable controls can be managed.
> > >>
> > >> This was a program of instruction and validation by field testing.
> > >>
> > >> Just how stupid are you?
> > >>
> > > Hihihi! Only in your dream!
> >
> > Well, I've shown again in this post how you lied -- claiming I said I
> > had a copy in PDF format when I simply stated it could be done.
> >
> > I've shown how your claim that the report has no punishing families in
> > it is a stupid lie.
> >
> > And I'm not dreaming so you must be.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for Alina the mysterious, to reply and tell us what
> > she thought of the report. Funny, she just seems to have disappeared.
> >
> > Weirdest posting pattern, too. I'd swear it was someone trying to build,
> > while socking, a credible posting history. R R R R R R
> >
> > And such a coincidence about the Nun at USC too, with a name almost
> > exactly the same.
> >
> > I meant to ask Alina about that.
> >
> > Tell you what. You have her E-mail addy. Maybe she'll answer you. Ask
> > her for me, will you?
> >
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > >> 0:->
> > >>
> >
> > Kane 0:-]
> >
> >

[Doan]

On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > >>>>> ...
> > > >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > >>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> > > >>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> > > >>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> > > >>>>>> punishment:
> > > >>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> > > >>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> > > >>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> > > >>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> > > >>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> > > >>>>>> word. "
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > > >>>> Really? How so?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> > > >>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> > > >>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> > > >>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> > > >>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> > > >>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> > > >>>> con you.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > > >>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> > > >> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> > > >>
> > > >> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> > > >> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> > > >> considerable fading in some sections.
> > > >>
> > > >> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> > > >>
> > > > Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> > > >
> > > > Doan:
> > > > Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > > > "archives" for you? ;-)
> > >
> > > Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> > > in for me? Go ahead.
> > >
> > > Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> > >
> > Here it is:
> >
> > "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> > file"
> >
> > Remember that, Kane?
>
> Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
> work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
>
Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:

"Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."

Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > >>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > > >>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > > >>>>> ...
> > > > >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> > > > >>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> > > > >>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> > > > >>>>>> punishment:
> > > > >>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> > > > >>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> > > > >>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> > > > >>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> > > > >>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> > > > >>>>>> word. "
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > > > >>>> Really? How so?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> > > > >>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> > > > >>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> > > > >>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> > > > >>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> > > > >>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> > > > >>>> con you.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > > > >>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> > > > >> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> > > > >> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> > > > >> considerable fading in some sections.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan:
> > > > > Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > > > > "archives" for you? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> > > > in for me? Go ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> > > >
> > > Here it is:
> > >
> > > "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> > > file"
> > >
> > > Remember that, Kane?
> >
> > Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
> > work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
> >
> Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:
>
> "Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."
>
> Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)

The question, Doan, was whether or not I had gotten it from Embry in
PDF format. And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy.

I also mentioned that I put it in PDF for easy search capability. That
didn't work well because it would not render searchable characters. Old
typewriter font.

The point here, proven liar, is that you are by omission avoiding the
points about the study I've posted.

You don't want to go there because you know you are whipped, so as
usual, you'll hunt for something completely without relationship to the
challenges and race of pretending you are smart.

You are stupid if you think no one but you can catch you at it.

> Doan

Get to the point.

Deal with the study.

Send Nathan a copy.

Be what you pretend you are, a great crusader for the right for parents
to chose.

So far you have done everything possible to obscure any research that
would in fact allow them to freely choose.

You are a liar.

0:-]

[Doan]

On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > > > >>>>> ...
> > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> > > > > >>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> > > > > >>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> > > > > >>>>>> punishment:
> > > > > >>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> > > > > >>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> > > > > >>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> > > > > >>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> > > > > >>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> > > > > >>>>>> word. "
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > > > > >>>> Really? How so?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> > > > > >>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> > > > > >>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> > > > > >>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> > > > > >>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> > > > > >>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> > > > > >>>> con you.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > > > > >>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> > > > > >> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> > > > > >> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> > > > > >> considerable fading in some sections.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan:
> > > > > > Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > > > > > "archives" for you? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> > > > > in for me? Go ahead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> > > > >
> > > > Here it is:
> > > >
> > > > "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> > > > file"
> > > >
> > > > Remember that, Kane?
> > >
> > > Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
> > > work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
> > >
> > Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:
> >
> > "Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."
> >
> > Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)
>
> The question, Doan, was whether or not I had gotten it from Embry in
> PDF format. And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy.
>
Hahaha! Which part of "I have it in a PDF file" don't you understand,
Kane? Why don't you send it to Nathan? You are such a STUPID liar!

Doan

[Doan]

On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > Hahaha! But you claimed that she is me. So you sent it to me?
>
> If the address supplied to me was one you created, then yes. That would
> explain a lot, now wouldn't it? 0:->
>
Which address is that, Kane?

> You planning on dodging this again, Doan:

And you are lying again. ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > Hahaha! But you claimed that she is me. So you sent it to me?
> >
> > If the address supplied to me was one you created, then yes. That would
> > explain a lot, now wouldn't it? 0:->
> >
> Which address is that, Kane?

The one Alina gave me.

>
> > You planning on dodging this again, Doan:
>
> And you are lying again. ;-)

Gee, now if I am, how would you know that?

0:-]


>
> Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
>>>>>>>>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
>>>>>>>>>>>> punishment:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
>>>>>>>>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
>>>>>>>>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
>>>>>>>>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
>>>>>>>>>>>> word. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>> Really? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
>>>>>>>>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
>>>>>>>>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
>>>>>>>>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
>>>>>>>>>>> very definitely a punishment.
>>>>>>>>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
>>>>>>>>>> con you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
>>>>>>>>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
>>>>>>>> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
>>>>>>>> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
>>>>>>>> considerable fading in some sections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doan:
>>>>>>> Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
>>>>>>> "archives" for you? ;-)
>>>>>> Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
>>>>>> in for me? Go ahead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
>>>>> file"
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember that, Kane?
>>>> Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
>>>> work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
>>>>
>>> Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:
>>>
>>> "Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."
>>>
>>> Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)
>> The question, Doan, was whether or not I had gotten it from Embry in
>> PDF format. And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
>> occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy.
>>
> Hahaha! Which part of "I have it in a PDF file" don't you understand,
> Kane?

Which part of "And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy," don't you understand?

> Why don't you send it to Nathan?

Because I chose not to. And you?

You wouldn't be trying to claim I don't have a copy, now would you?

> You are such a STUPID liar!

Then you don't believe you are a liar, do you, Doan?
>
> Doan
>
0:-]

[Doan]

On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > Hahaha! But you claimed that she is me. So you sent it to me?
> > >
> > > If the address supplied to me was one you created, then yes. That would
> > > explain a lot, now wouldn't it? 0:->
> > >
> > Which address is that, Kane?
>
> The one Alina gave me.
>
Which is?

> >
> > > You planning on dodging this again, Doan:
> >
> > And you are lying again. ;-)
>
> Gee, now if I am, how would you know that?
>
Because that is you M.O! You are PATHOLOGICAL liar! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> punishment:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> >>>>>>>>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> word. "
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>> Really? How so?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> >>>>>>>>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> >>>>>>>>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> >>>>>>>>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> >>>>>>>>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> >>>>>>>>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> >>>>>>>>>> con you.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> >>>>>>>>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> >>>>>>>> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> >>>>>>>> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> >>>>>>>> considerable fading in some sections.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Doan:
> >>>>>>> Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> >>>>>>> "archives" for you? ;-)
> >>>>>> Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> >>>>>> in for me? Go ahead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Here it is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> >>>>> file"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remember that, Kane?
> >>>> Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
> >>>> work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
> >>>>
> >>> Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:
> >>>
> >>> "Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."
> >>>
> >>> Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)
> >> The question, Doan, was whether or not I had gotten it from Embry in
> >> PDF format. And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> >> occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Which part of "I have it in a PDF file" don't you understand,
> > Kane?
>
> Which part of "And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy," don't you understand?
>
So you never said that???

> > Why don't you send it to Nathan?
>
> Because I chose not to. And you?
>
I don't have a PDF file.

> You wouldn't be trying to claim I don't have a copy, now would you?
>
Just like you claiming you sent it to Alina, who is me? ;-)

> > You are such a STUPID liar!
>
> Then you don't believe you are a liar, do you, Doan?

I do believe that you are a STUPID liar! Even Chris Dugan thinks that you
are STUPID! Remembered? ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >>> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> punishment:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> word. "
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > >>>>>>>>>> Really? How so?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> > >>>>>>>>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> > >>>>>>>>>> con you.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > >>>>>>>>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> > >>>>>>>> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> > >>>>>>>> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> > >>>>>>>> considerable fading in some sections.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Doan:
> > >>>>>>> Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > >>>>>>> "archives" for you? ;-)
> > >>>>>> Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> > >>>>>> in for me? Go ahead.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Here it is:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> > >>>>> file"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Remember that, Kane?
> > >>>> Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
> > >>>> work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."
> > >>>
> > >>> Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)
> > >> The question, Doan, was whether or not I had gotten it from Embry in
> > >> PDF format. And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> > >> occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy.
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! Which part of "I have it in a PDF file" don't you understand,
> > > Kane?
> >
> > Which part of "And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> > occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy," don't you understand?
> >
> So you never said that???

"that????"

Of course I said I had a PDF file. I made one. I just didn't say that
Embry had sent me one. I siad repeatedly that I had a hard copy from
him. Are you hard of seeing, as in hard of hearing?

Or just a simple dick liar?

>
> > > Why don't you send it to Nathan?
> >
> > Because I chose not to. And you?
> >
> I don't have a PDF file.

You can't mail a hard copy?

Odd, you offered to.

>
> > You wouldn't be trying to claim I don't have a copy, now would you?
> >
> Just like you claiming you sent it to Alina, who is me? ;-)

At time I didn't know you were Alina.

You finally admit you lied and created a sock then?
>
> > > You are such a STUPID liar!
> >
> > Then you don't believe you are a liar, do you, Doan?
>
> I do believe that you are a STUPID liar!

That's not an answer, weasel, to my question.

> Even Chris Dugan thinks that you
> are STUPID! Remembered? ;-)

Interesting he never made any such claim when I was discussing spanking
issues, only foreign policy, eh?

So you are still lying about that, deliberately misleading any reader
that's not up on Chris' coversation with me, eh?

Look at how unethical that is, Doan. Your family, all of them, would be
so ashamed if they knew what you do here.
>
> Doan

Do yu believe you are a liar, Doan? I asked you first.

I double dare R R R R you to answer that question and nothing else.
Kane

[Doan]

On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >>> On 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> punishment:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> word. "
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Really? How so?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> very definitely a punishment.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
> > > >>>>>>>>>> con you.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Or you are the one that trying to con him?
> > > >>>>>>>> You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
> > > >>>>>>>> from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
> > > >>>>>>>> considerable fading in some sections.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hahaha! Here is your words on Jan 23, 2006:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Doan:
> > > >>>>>>> Oops! The last time you said it's a PDF file. Want me to look in the
> > > >>>>>>> "archives" for you? ;-)
> > > >>>>>> Well, Doan? Where is the proof from those "archives" you offered to look
> > > >>>>>> in for me? Go ahead.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Or are you going to choke and dodge again?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> Here it is:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
> > > >>>>> file"
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Remember that, Kane?
> > > >>>> Yep. I put it into a PDF file myself for ease of searching. It didn't
> > > >>>> work well. I didn't say I got it in a PDF file. Can't you read english?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hahaha. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Here is your words:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Once again, the PROVEN LIAR IS YOU! Q.E.D ;-)
> > > >> The question, Doan, was whether or not I had gotten it from Embry in
> > > >> PDF format. And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> > > >> occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy.
> > > >>
> > > > Hahaha! Which part of "I have it in a PDF file" don't you understand,
> > > > Kane?
> > >
> > > Which part of "And I never said I did. I said, in fact, on more than one
> > > occasion, that I had gotten it in hard copy," don't you understand?
> > >
> > So you never said that???
>
> "that????"
>
> Of course I said I had a PDF file. I made one. I just didn't say that
> Embry had sent me one. I siad repeatedly that I had a hard copy from
> him. Are you hard of seeing, as in hard of hearing?
>
"Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar." is your exact words!
LIAR! LIAR! PANTS ON FIRE! ;-)

> Or just a simple dick liar?
>
So now dick is coming out of your mouth? ;-)

> >
> > > > Why don't you send it to Nathan?
> > >
> > > Because I chose not to. And you?
> > >
> > I don't have a PDF file.
>
> You can't mail a hard copy?
>
> Odd, you offered to.
>
He didn't ask me, STUPID! ;-)

> >
> > > You wouldn't be trying to claim I don't have a copy, now would you?
> > >
> > Just like you claiming you sent it to Alina, who is me? ;-)
>
> At time I didn't know you were Alina.
>
So what is the address that you sent it to, LIAR?

> You finally admit you lied and created a sock then?

You are the proven liar here! And a STUPID one at that! ;-)

> >
> > > > You are such a STUPID liar!
> > >
> > > Then you don't believe you are a liar, do you, Doan?
> >
> > I do believe that you are a STUPID liar!
>
> That's not an answer, weasel, to my question.
>
That's is an answer to a STUPID liar like you! ;-)

> > Even Chris Dugan thinks that you
> > are STUPID! Remembered? ;-)
>
> Interesting he never made any such claim when I was discussing spanking
> issues, only foreign policy, eh?
>
Care to provide proof? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! LIAR! LIAR! ;-)

> So you are still lying about that, deliberately misleading any reader
> that's not up on Chris' coversation with me, eh?
>
Proof please? ;-)

> Look at how unethical that is, Doan. Your family, all of them, would be
> so ashamed if they knew what you do here.

And mother is proud of you when you call other women "smelly-****", right?
;-)

> >
> > Doan
>
> Do yu believe you are a liar, Doan? I asked you first.
>
I do believe that you are a liar! I have proven so MANY TIMES!

> I double dare R R R R you to answer that question and nothing else.
> Kane

I just did, STUPID! ;-)

Doan

>