HARASSED BY NOT ANSWERING

[Greegor]

> > Kane wrote
> > > He's harassed Lisa and people on this newsgroup
> > > for years based on that answer he won't give.
> >
> > Should I diagram the logic of that absurd comment?
>
> Sure.

""I've harassed based on some answer I won't give""

I've harassed by not answering some question?

You're funny Kane!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > He's harassed Lisa and people on this newsgroup
> > > > for years based on that answer he won't give.
> > >
> > > Should I diagram the logic of that absurd comment?
> >
> > Sure.
>
> ""I've harassed based on some answer I won't give""

Yep.
>
> I've harassed by not answering some question?

Yep.

>
> You're funny Kane!

Nope.

When you make a claim and refuse to answer, when questioned, asking you
to provide proof of your claim, you are in fact harassing, Greg.

Kane

[Doan]

On 7 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Greegor wrote:
> > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > He's harassed Lisa and people on this newsgroup
> > > > > for years based on that answer he won't give.
> > > >
> > > > Should I diagram the logic of that absurd comment?
> > >
> > > Sure.
> >
> > ""I've harassed based on some answer I won't give""
>
> Yep.
> >
> > I've harassed by not answering some question?
>
> Yep.
>
> >
> > You're funny Kane!
>
> Nope.
>
> When you make a claim and refuse to answer, when questioned, asking you
> to provide proof of your claim, you are in fact harassing, Greg.
>
> Kane
>
You meant like you claiming to have published and when asked about it,
you refused to answer, Kane? What a hypocrite! ;-)

Doan

[Greegor]

Hey Doan!
E-mail me at
I want to ask you about your parking ticket history.
If you don't answer I will consider it harassment! ROFL!

K > He's harassed Lisa and people on this newsgroup
K > for years based on that answer he won't give.
G > Should I diagram the logic of that absurd comment?
K > Sure.
G > ""I've harassed based on some answer I won't give""?
K > Yep.
G > I've harassed by not answering some question?
K > Yep.
G > You're funny Kane!
K > Nope.
K > When you make a claim and refuse to answer, when
K > questioned, asking you to provide proof of your claim,
K > you are in fact harassing, Greg.
D > You meant like you claiming to have published
D > and when asked about it, you refused to answer,
D > Kane? What a hypocrite! ;-)

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > > He's harassed Lisa and people on this newsgroup
> > > > > > for years based on that answer he won't give.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should I diagram the logic of that absurd comment?
> > > >
> > > > Sure.
> > >
> > > ""I've harassed based on some answer I won't give""
> >
> > Yep.
> > >
> > > I've harassed by not answering some question?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > >
> > > You're funny Kane!
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > When you make a claim and refuse to answer, when questioned, asking you
> > to provide proof of your claim, you are in fact harassing, Greg.
> >
> > Kane
> >
> You meant like you claiming to have published and when asked about it,
> you refused to answer, Kane? What a hypocrite! ;-)

First you lie. Then you compare apples to oranges.

Of course I answered you.

I told you I would not tell you what I published.

The issue with Greg is that he runs.

That kind of "not answering."

Rather like you, Doan. Repeatedly.

He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.

You do it by dodging nearly every attempt to have a debate where you
know you'll lose because you are wrong.

For instance, I've asked you repeated to debate the latest
international study that shows negative outcomes for children who are
spanked, even in societies that accept spanking.

You have dodged that because you can see very plainly that it's a solid
study that shows exactly what has been claimed by the anti spanking
advocates in this newsgroup.

You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
as Greg.

Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
dodge and lie.

Watch. You'll do it again now.

> Doan

Kane

[Doan]

On 8 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On 7 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > > > He's harassed Lisa and people on this newsgroup
> > > > > > > for years based on that answer he won't give.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should I diagram the logic of that absurd comment?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure.
> > > >
> > > > ""I've harassed based on some answer I won't give""
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > I've harassed by not answering some question?
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You're funny Kane!
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > When you make a claim and refuse to answer, when questioned, asking you
> > > to provide proof of your claim, you are in fact harassing, Greg.
> > >
> > > Kane
> > >
> > You meant like you claiming to have published and when asked about it,
> > you refused to answer, Kane? What a hypocrite! ;-)
>
> First you lie. Then you compare apples to oranges.
>
Oops! Another STUPID lie, Kane!

> Of course I answered you.
>
No. You didn't!

> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>
Hahaha! Answering by not answering? Sound like the logic of an
anti-spaningking zealotS!

> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>
> That kind of "not answering."
>
> Rather like you, Doan. Repeatedly.
>
> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>
> You do it by dodging nearly every attempt to have a debate where you
> know you'll lose because you are wrong.
>
Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, Kane. I've PROVEN numerous that you LIED!
One STUPID LIE of yours is your accusation that Alina is me! Want to
show everyone here your proof so that they all can laugh at you. Go
ahead, Kane! I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! You were even STUPID enough
to claim that that you sent a copy of the Embry study to here im Mexico!

> For instance, I've asked you repeated to debate the latest
> international study that shows negative outcomes for children who are
> spanked, even in societies that accept spanking.
>
Hahaha! Another stupid lie!

> You have dodged that because you can see very plainly that it's a solid
> study that shows exactly what has been claimed by the anti spanking
> advocates in this newsgroup.
>
Solid study??? Are you this STUPID? Here is a proof of your stupidity.
My guess is you never actually read the study but just skim tidbits of
it off the internet. Tell me, what did they define as "spanking", Kane?
What are the spanking rates in the countries that they studied? YOU ARE
STUPID! ;-) See if you can answer my questions, STUPID Kane!

> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
> as Greg.
>
Hahaha! You are describing yourself and your family. You are even stupid
enough to admit that your mom approved you of calling other women
"smelly-****"!

> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
> dodge and lie.
>
But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?

> Watch. You'll do it again now.
>
Hihihi!


Doan
>
> Kane
>
>

[Greegor]

Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
What's that about?

> > I told you I would not tell you what I published.

Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?

> > The issue with Greg is that he runs.

Bring on LaVonne and I expect answers.
She is notorious for "hit and run" in here.

> > He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
> > force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.

It was your issue not mine.
You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
In point of fact, I had answered this question.

After you kept asking the question over and over
like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!

> > You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
> > as Greg.

You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
for calling you a pack? Remember?
Notice your guilt by association crap here!

One of THOUSANDS like it.

But turnabout is not fair play it seems.

You've got a mental problem.

> > Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
> > dodge and lie.
> >
> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?

He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
about Fern 6 months or more after she left!

And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
except through his glorious success!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
> What's that about?

I do? On and on?

I think your fantasy world supports an inordinate projection of your own
importance, Greg.
>
>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>
> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?

It was appropriate in the context as I recall.

Why did you hold off for over two years on something you mentioned,
Greg? Remember my question about your conversation with the retired cop?

>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>
> Bring on LaVonne and I expect answers.
> She is notorious for "hit and run" in here.

Really? An example?

>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>
> It was your issue not mine.

Nope. YOU mentioned it to a ex-cop in the context of the Christine
family when the ex-cop took exception to the use of a gun in such
circumstances. Children present and all?

And YOU made the big hoohoo about by pointing out that "cops carry guns
and threaten people with them," as though that was a good enough excuse
for Brian Christine's action.

YOU dug that little hole, Greg.

> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.

Nope. YOU made a claim. I asked you for an explanation. I wanted to
understand better if you meant it was alright to use lethal force or not.

You dodged that for over two years, as I recall. 0:->

> In point of fact, I had answered this question.

R R R R...yep. Persistent, aren't I. 0:-]

> After you kept asking the question over and over
> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!

Gosh, Greg, how hard is it, after the facts are explained to you as I
did, referring clearly to the conversation with the ex-cop and your
obvious defense of the Christine's in using lethal force, to deny you
meant that?

What was it that took you 2 years, Greg?

>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
>>> as Greg.
>
> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
> for calling you a pack? Remember?

You are stealing my terminology, Greg. Can't you create your own unique
ad hom flaming

I've used "hyenas" and "pack of hyenas" for about 4 years now.

> Notice your guilt by association crap here!

"Guilt by association?"

I did NOT accuse you of supporting the use of lethal force. I ASKED you
to say of you did or not. For two years you refused to answer by NOT
refusing but DODGING.

Kind of significant in the real world, though obviously not in your
delusional one.

>
> One of THOUSANDS like it.

I have made thousands of accusations through the device of guild by
association? Name, oh, say, ten of them.
>
> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>
You can say anything you wish Greg. But don't assume you won't be
questioned, challenged, and or taken to task for them.

I don't hold you to any such limitation, so why would I accept you
limiting me in that way?

> You've got a mental problem.

Projection. You are a nut case on display, Greg, and have been as far
back as I look at your posting history. You post a one sided viewpoint
that is consistently anti authority, anti society. You appear to want NO
rules that limit you, but plenty to limit your fantasy created "enemies."
>
>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
>>> dodge and lie.
>>>
>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>
> He's compulsive.

Nope. I pick and chose what I'll respond to, Greg. You know that, thus
you are lying.

> What's really funny is how he bitches
> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!

Why not? Is there some statute of limitations I'm unaware of? Fern so
often was a valid example of mindless babbling introverted delusion.

CPS had to be guilty of everything, and required to fix everything,
including those things not mandated for CPS. CPS doesn't make it's own
mandate. The people do. Society, and their, its, legal system.

> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
> except through his glorious success!

What a strange claim. Are you saying I'm so powerful that I can drive
people out of these newsgroups?

That never occurred to me before. You seem to forget I've wanted you
folks to stay, because YOU lend the MOST credibility to my claims you
are a pack of neurotic anti authority anti social ****ants.

Please, Greg. Stay.

Or do I need to lighten up on you or you'll run like Fern?

Look at you getting, by this bull****, right INTO a power struggle
mindset with me. Like I drive people away.

R R R R R

You KNOW who drives people away Greg. YOU and your ****ant friends,
present and past.

You've attacked almost every parent that's come here, some still in the
throws of their CPS cases. You've insulted them. You've lied to them.
You've tried to get them to do illegal things. You've given them advice
to fight battles they need not initiate, and for what, Greg?

Because you are a "'fraid of daddy" arrested in childhood little twit?

Grow up. Get some therapy.

Get over yourself.

0;->

[Doan]

On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
> What's that about?
>
> > > I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>
> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>
To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)

> > > The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>
> Bring on LaVonne and I expect answers.
> She is notorious for "hit and run" in here.
>
I have just challenged her to debate and she is MIA as usual. ;-)

> > > He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
> > > force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>
> It was your issue not mine.
> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>
> After you kept asking the question over and over
> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>
> > > You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
> > > as Greg.
>
> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
> for calling you a pack? Remember?
> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>
> One of THOUSANDS like it.
>
> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>
> You've got a mental problem.
>
I think you are right on this.

> > > Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
> > > dodge and lie.
> > >
> > But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>
> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>
Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!

> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
> except through his glorious success!

Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.

Doan

[0:->]

On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>
> > Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
> > What's that about?
>
> > > > I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>
> > Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>
> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
>
> > > > The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>
> > Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
> > She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
>
> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
>
>
>
> > > > He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
> > > > force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>
> > It was your issue not mine.
> > You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
> > In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>
> > After you kept asking the question over and over
> > like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>
> > > > You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
> > > > as Greg.
>
> > You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
> > for calling you a pack? Remember?
> > Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>
> > One of THOUSANDS like it.
>
> > But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>
> > You've got a mental problem.
>
> I think you are right on this.
>
> > > > Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
> > > > dodge and lie.
>
> > > But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>
> > He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
> > about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>
> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
>
> > And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
> > except through his glorious success!
>
> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
>
> Doan

Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.

You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.

You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
way of research studies.

Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
do, Doan?

You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
you can just go to the library.

Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Carlson LaVonne >
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
truly
interested.

LaVonne
.......................................

Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.

She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?

Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.

Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
gotten the study, the following:

"
It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.

Doan
"

Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
watching you lie some more when you are cornered?

You lied, about her not posting research.

You are a liar.

Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.

She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
have tried repeatedly to
> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."

Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
research.

Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
have easily gotten.

Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.

[0:->]

0:-> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
>>> What's that about?
>>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
>>
>>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
>>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
>> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
>>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>>> It was your issue not mine.
>>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
>>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>>> After you kept asking the question over and over
>>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
>>>>> as Greg.
>>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
>>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
>>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
>>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>>> You've got a mental problem.
>> I think you are right on this.
>>
>>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
>>>>> dodge and lie.
>>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
>>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
>>
>>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
>>> except through his glorious success!
>> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
>> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
>>
>> Doan
>
> Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
> after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
>
> You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
>
> You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
> way of research studies.
>
> Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
> do, Doan?
>
> You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
> you can just go to the library.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> From: Carlson LaVonne >
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
> Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>
> And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
> Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
>
> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
> 22(2), 271-275.
>
> I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
> truly
> interested.
>
> LaVonne
> ......................................
>
> Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
>
> She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
> and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
>
> Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
>
> Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
> gotten the study, the following:
>
> "
> It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
> spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
>
> Doan
> "
>
> Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
> watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
>
> You lied, about her not posting research.
>
> You are a liar.
>
> Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
>
> She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
> have tried repeatedly to
>> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
>> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
>> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
>> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
>> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
>
> Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
> research.
>
> Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
> have easily gotten.
>
> Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.

Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Carlson LaVonne >
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author

Ivan Gowch wrote:
> The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
> most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
> look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.

I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).

No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
reason to spank a child of any age.

LaVonne

Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
22(2), 271-275.

Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> 0:-> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
> >> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
> >>> What's that about?
> >>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
> >>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
> >> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
> >>
> >>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
> >>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
> >>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
> >> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
> >>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
> >>> It was your issue not mine.
> >>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
> >>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
> >>> After you kept asking the question over and over
> >>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
> >>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
> >>>>> as Greg.
> >>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
> >>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
> >>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
> >>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
> >>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
> >>> You've got a mental problem.
> >> I think you are right on this.
> >>
> >>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
> >>>>> dodge and lie.
> >>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
> >>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
> >>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
> >> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
> >>
> >>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
> >>> except through his glorious success!
> >> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
> >> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
> >>
> >> Doan
> >
> > Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
> > after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
> >
> > You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
> >
> > You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
> > way of research studies.
> >
> > Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
> > do, Doan?
> >
> > You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
> > you can just go to the library.
> >
> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> > From: Carlson LaVonne >
> > Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
> > Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
> > Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
> >
> > And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
> > Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
> >
> > Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
> > toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
> > 22(2), 271-275.
> >
> > I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
> > truly
> > interested.
> >
> > LaVonne
> > ......................................
> >
> > Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
> >
> > She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
> > and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
> >
> > Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
> >
> > Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
> > gotten the study, the following:
> >
> > "
> > It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
> > spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
> >
> > Doan
> > "
> >
> > Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
> > watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
> >
> > You lied, about her not posting research.
> >
> > You are a liar.
> >
> > Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
> >
> > She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
> > have tried repeatedly to
> >> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
> >> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
> >> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
> >> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
> >> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
> >
> > Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
> > research.
> >
> > Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
> > have easily gotten.
> >
> > Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> From: Carlson LaVonne >
> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
> Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
> Report this message | Find messages by this author
>
> Ivan Gowch wrote:
> > The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
> > most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
> > look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.
>
> I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
> and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
> disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
> mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
> manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
> whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
> at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
> Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).
>
> No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
> Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
> short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
> reason to spank a child of any age.
>
> LaVonne
>
> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
> 22(2), 271-275.
>
> Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?
>
Now, where did that I made that claim, Kane? You are lying again.
I asked LaVonne to provide a "peer-reviewed" study where the non-cp
alternatives are shown to be better than spanking. She said it's
in the "archives". Now you turned it around to say that I claim
that she never posted any studies. Even a STUPID person like you
can post studies, Kane! STOP LYING! You are despicable!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> 0:-> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
>>>>> What's that about?
>>>>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>>>>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>>>> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>>>>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
>>>>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
>>>> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
>>>>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>>>>> It was your issue not mine.
>>>>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
>>>>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>>>>> After you kept asking the question over and over
>>>>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>>>>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
>>>>>>> as Greg.
>>>>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
>>>>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
>>>>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>>>>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
>>>>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>>>>> You've got a mental problem.
>>>> I think you are right on this.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
>>>>>>> dodge and lie.
>>>>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>>>>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
>>>>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>>>> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
>>>>
>>>>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
>>>>> except through his glorious success!
>>>> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
>>>> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
>>>>
>>>> Doan
>>> Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
>>> after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
>>>
>>> You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
>>>
>>> You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
>>> way of research studies.
>>>
>>> Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
>>> do, Doan?
>>>
>>> You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
>>> you can just go to the library.
>>>
>>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>>> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
>>> Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
>>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>>>
>>> And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
>>> Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
>>>
>>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
>>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
>>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
>>> truly
>>> interested.
>>>
>>> LaVonne
>>> ......................................
>>>
>>> Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
>>>
>>> She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
>>> and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
>>>
>>> Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
>>>
>>> Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
>>> gotten the study, the following:
>>>
>>> "
>>> It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
>>> spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
>>>
>>> Doan
>>> "
>>>
>>> Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
>>> watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
>>>
>>> You lied, about her not posting research.
>>>
>>> You are a liar.
>>>
>>> Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
>>>
>>> She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
>>> have tried repeatedly to
>>>> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
>>>> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
>>>> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
>>>> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
>>>> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
>>> Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
>>> research.
>>>
>>> Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
>>> have easily gotten.
>>>
>>> Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.
>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
>> Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
>> Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>
>> Ivan Gowch wrote:
>> > The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
>> > most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
>> > look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.
>>
>> I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
>> and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
>> disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
>> mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
>> manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
>> whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
>> at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
>> Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).
>>
>> No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
>> Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
>> short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
>> reason to spank a child of any age.
>>
>> LaVonne
>>
>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>
>> Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?
>>
> Now, where did that I made that claim, Kane? You are lying again.
> I asked LaVonne to provide a "peer-reviewed" study where the non-cp
> alternatives are shown to be better than spanking.

Why must the alternative be 'better?'

What is meant by "better?"

You kept your terms inconclusive and arbitrary, you're usual dirty
tricks, Doan.

You do that so you can switch tracks quickly when you have failed to
prove some claim of yours and need to duck out.

How about this, stupid:

Doan, show a peer reviewed study where the risk of injury from spanking
is "better" by being LESS than non-spanking alternatives.

You have spent years honing how to ask inconsequential and pointless
questions that have no answer by the way you phrase you question and the
elements missing.

Where do you think I got the idea for "The Question?"

I'd NEVER ask such a question of a researcher because I know he or she
would laugh, or be annoyed that I did not more closely define my terms.

YOU, sir, have been doing this for years.

> She said it's
> in the "archives".

She was referring to studies such as this.

> Now you turned it around to say that I claim
> that she never posted any studies.

By claiming she didn't post what is impossible to post you are lying.
You started the lie, you compound the lie.

Notice that when I refer to your failure with The Question, I carefully
include that you TRIED to answer.

I never claim you did NOT answer.

> Even a STUPID person like you
> can post studies, Kane! STOP LYING! You are despicable!

No, Doan, it's quite apparent you are.

You can't ask a straight question, and other's inability to answer a
misleading question is not despicable, the question and the questioner are.

Show me that study that proves that spanking is better because it has
less risk of injury than non spanking.

Do such studies exist?

Of course not.

Neither do studies that meet your demand.

And what do you mean by "better," you lying despicable twit?
>
> Doan
>
0,}

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> 0:-> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
>>>>> What's that about?
>>>>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>>>>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>>>> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>>>>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
>>>>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
>>>> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
>>>>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>>>>> It was your issue not mine.
>>>>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
>>>>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>>>>> After you kept asking the question over and over
>>>>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>>>>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
>>>>>>> as Greg.
>>>>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
>>>>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
>>>>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>>>>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
>>>>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>>>>> You've got a mental problem.
>>>> I think you are right on this.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
>>>>>>> dodge and lie.
>>>>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>>>>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
>>>>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>>>> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
>>>>
>>>>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
>>>>> except through his glorious success!
>>>> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
>>>> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
>>>>
>>>> Doan
>>> Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
>>> after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
>>>
>>> You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
>>>
>>> You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
>>> way of research studies.
>>>
>>> Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
>>> do, Doan?
>>>
>>> You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
>>> you can just go to the library.
>>>
>>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>>> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
>>> Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
>>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>>>
>>> And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
>>> Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
>>>
>>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
>>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
>>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
>>> truly
>>> interested.
>>>
>>> LaVonne
>>> ......................................
>>>
>>> Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
>>>
>>> She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
>>> and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
>>>
>>> Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
>>>
>>> Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
>>> gotten the study, the following:
>>>
>>> "
>>> It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
>>> spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
>>>
>>> Doan
>>> "
>>>
>>> Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
>>> watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
>>>
>>> You lied, about her not posting research.
>>>
>>> You are a liar.
>>>
>>> Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
>>>
>>> She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
>>> have tried repeatedly to
>>>> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
>>>> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
>>>> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
>>>> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
>>>> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
>>> Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
>>> research.
>>>
>>> Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
>>> have easily gotten.
>>>
>>> Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.
>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
>> Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
>> Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>
>> Ivan Gowch wrote:
>> > The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
>> > most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
>> > look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.
>>
>> I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
>> and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
>> disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
>> mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
>> manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
>> whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
>> at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
>> Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).
>>
>> No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
>> Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
>> short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
>> reason to spank a child of any age.
>>
>> LaVonne
>>
>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>
>> Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?
>>
> Now, where did that I made that claim, Kane? You are lying again.
> I asked LaVonne to provide a "peer-reviewed" study where the non-cp
> alternatives are shown to be better than spanking. She said it's
> in the "archives". Now you turned it around to say that I claim
> that she never posted any studies. Even a STUPID person like you
> can post studies, Kane! STOP LYING! You are despicable!
>
> Doan
>

You knew perfectly well you had framed a question with no answer, Doan.
LaVonne offered studies that have been done, just not the impossible
criteria you posed.

The very idea of using such foggy words as "better than" shows you are
despicable, and you proved it by responding to you when she mentioned
the studies that are available. YOU LIAR:
"
> > Then prove it, LaVonne! Show me a single "peer-reviewed" study in
which
> > your non-spanking alternatives are better under the same conditions.

> I have, doan. I have posted study after study. You have been on the ng
> long enough to know this. I will not post again simply for you. You
> can read the archives or you can read your responses to my posts.
> Either way, you will find the studies you ask for.

> LaVonne

No, you haven't and you can't! :-) The only study that came close to
this is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) and they found that:
...........

And she hasn't posted and referred to this study, Doan?

So tell us, Doan, why did you say "you can't!?"

Because you think she doesn't know how to find such studies, or because
you know they don't exist?

And if they don't exist, what is the point of asking for them?

And there being no such studies precisely to your bogus criteria does
not prove that spanking alternatives are less effective than spanking,
Doan, and as far as I know no parent has lost their child for using
non-CP alternatives.

Your full of hot air and ****, my little screeching hysterical dancing
lying monkeyboy.

0:->

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Why must a new alternative be better?
> That was your question Kane?

You seem to have lost the point, oh pointy headed one.

I created a question as senseless as Doan's question as an example of
how senseless his was.

>
> Why change to something that is NOT better?

Well, taking you seriously for the moment (RR R R R RR GASP)
If you have two methods that are the same in single outcome <stopping
unwanted behavior for instance> and one has a risk of injury, mental and
or physical, and the other doesn't, which, logically, and humanely would
you choose?


> It's not an ""improvement"" if it's not better.

The question I asked was about Doan coming up with a study that showed
that CP use was no more risky for safety issues than non CP use.

> So why do it?

Well, if you are going to ask asinine questions not actually based on
what I said, after of course making sure they aren't easily check by
removing them from your reply, then I have to assume you meant to
mislead and reduce your risk of being caught.

This would be a very clever tactic if only my post could be expunged:

"
And there being no such studies precisely to your bogus criteria does
not prove that spanking alternatives are less effective than spanking,
Doan, and as far as I know no parent has lost their child for using
non-CP alternatives. "

Would you care to repeat your question as it relates to the prior post,
mine, quoted from above?

Or was it all and a card trick attempt by you, to distract me from the
issue?

Doan claimed LaVonne didn't post HIS required studies, knowing of course
that regardless of what she posted it could not match the language of
his challenge.

And he admitted as much when he came back after she pointed out she had
indeed posted studies on the issue, with the claim "you can't."

Making it obvious he knew she could not match precisely his language.

A couple of years ago, tiring of his monkey tricks, I treated him to
just such a ridiculous challenge. Wondering if he'd see the example of
his own methods, and give us a "Hihihi!"

I had forgotten that a con man is most vulnerable to a con himself.

My question, though it has some real applications if followed up on
properly, was in this setting a "con" of DOAN'S pattern, child.

He bit.

He spent a lot of time trying to answer a question, that in the careful
way I framed it, is NOT answerable.

I like to tease him with it from time to time because I know eventually
he caught on...and of course wants very much to avoid it...in own self
deluded way.

His challenge to LaVonne was a dishonest attempt to con. She answered as
honestly as possible under the circumstances.

She has also invited him to debate a study where all HE has to do is
stroll over the campus library and check it out, and he danced through
about three or four posts away from it....and why would he do that?

Any time Doan dances, you can be sure he knows he'd lose a real debate
on the real facts.

Nothing new.

He's done that for years.

I watched, in archives, the way he did it.

Believe it or not he started out here (aps) attempting to have a debate
on facts.

He very quickly found out that there is an overwhelming volume of good
to very good research that comes down heavily on the side of spanking
being risky, and at it's very best, being no better than non-cp methods
of parenting.

And that's at it's best.

The worst parent using non-cp methods does not risk escalation to abuse,
Greg.

The enter discussion is an exercise in stupidity by the spanking crowd
IF THEY LIE.

Doan shifted to lying instead of admitting he was over-matched by the
facts.

He's just another Ken, or YOU, Greg, creating your own delusion based
reality as you stumble along.

No study has ever shown that spanking is better than non-cp methods. And
plenty show it to be worse in most circumstances.

About the only thing useful about spanking is that it at least puts the
parent's hands on the child when the child might be doing something
dangerous.

It has very poor long term effect, and non-cp methods have much better
long term effect.

If Doan would stop lying and actually provide anyone that asked, the
Embry study, it would be apparent why he spent the better part of a year
refusing to debate me on Embry with both of us having the same study.

He still won't.

He still lies the few times he does refer to it.

And he still weasels and dodges.

Competitive debate gives points for not losing.

A search for facts and useful information through argument... a kind of
research, if you will ... demands honesty.

He's not capable of that.

The recent game with the study on behavioral reactions to spanking in
three racial-ethnic groups proves that, if you are interested.

Let's see you defend his bull**** about what the closing and opening
sentence to the key paragraph in the report means in terms of AA
children, his claim, having a different reaction than the others.

Go for it, dimbulb.

Just in case anyone just came into the newgroup looking for help and
might be mistakenly taken up with your brilliant advice.

You wouldn't know where your ass is without falling on it daily.
0:-]

[Doan]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> 0:-> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
> >>>> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
> >>>>> What's that about?
> >>>>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
> >>>>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
> >>>> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
> >>>>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
> >>>>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
> >>>> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
> >>>>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
> >>>>> It was your issue not mine.
> >>>>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
> >>>>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
> >>>>> After you kept asking the question over and over
> >>>>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
> >>>>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
> >>>>>>> as Greg.
> >>>>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
> >>>>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
> >>>>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
> >>>>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
> >>>>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
> >>>>> You've got a mental problem.
> >>>> I think you are right on this.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
> >>>>>>> dodge and lie.
> >>>>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
> >>>>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
> >>>>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
> >>>> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
> >>>>
> >>>>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
> >>>>> except through his glorious success!
> >>>> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
> >>>> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doan
> >>> Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
> >>> after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
> >>>
> >>> You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
> >>>
> >>> You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
> >>> way of research studies.
> >>>
> >>> Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
> >>> do, Doan?
> >>>
> >>> You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
> >>> you can just go to the library.
> >>>
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> >>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
> >>> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
> >>> Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
> >>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
> >>>
> >>> And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
> >>> Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
> >>>
> >>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
> >>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
> >>> 22(2), 271-275.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
> >>> truly
> >>> interested.
> >>>
> >>> LaVonne
> >>> ......................................
> >>>
> >>> Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
> >>>
> >>> She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
> >>> and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
> >>>
> >>> Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
> >>>
> >>> Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
> >>> gotten the study, the following:
> >>>
> >>> "
> >>> It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
> >>> spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
> >>>
> >>> Doan
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
> >>> watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
> >>>
> >>> You lied, about her not posting research.
> >>>
> >>> You are a liar.
> >>>
> >>> Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
> >>>
> >>> She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
> >>> have tried repeatedly to
> >>>> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
> >>>> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
> >>>> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
> >>>> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
> >>>> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
> >>> Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
> >>> research.
> >>>
> >>> Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
> >>> have easily gotten.
> >>>
> >>> Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.
> >> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> >> From: Carlson LaVonne >
> >> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
> >> Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
> >> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
> >> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
> >> Report this message | Find messages by this author
> >>
> >> Ivan Gowch wrote:
> >> > The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
> >> > most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
> >> > look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.
> >>
> >> I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
> >> and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
> >> disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
> >> mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
> >> manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
> >> whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
> >> at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
> >> Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).
> >>
> >> No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
> >> Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
> >> short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
> >> reason to spank a child of any age.
> >>
> >> LaVonne
> >>
> >> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
> >> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
> >> 22(2), 271-275.
> >>
> >> Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?
> >>
> > Now, where did that I made that claim, Kane? You are lying again.
> > I asked LaVonne to provide a "peer-reviewed" study where the non-cp
> > alternatives are shown to be better than spanking.
>
> Why must the alternative be 'better?'
>
I noticed that you ignored my question, Kane. Where did I made the
claim that "LaVonne never posted any studies"? Are you admitting
that you LIED again? If you want to ban spanking, you better
have a better alternative, that's why.

> What is meant by "better?"
>
Hihihi! What is the meaning of "is"?

> You kept your terms inconclusive and arbitrary, you're usual dirty
> tricks, Doan.
>
Hahaha! Look in the mirror, Kane!

> You do that so you can switch tracks quickly when you have failed to
> prove some claim of yours and need to duck out.
>
Hihihi! Like you claiming cause and then no cause only correlation?

> How about this, stupid:
>
> Doan, show a peer reviewed study where the risk of injury from spanking
> is "better" by being LESS than non-spanking alternatives.
>
Hihihi! I am not out to ban non-spanking alternatives now, am I, Kane?
God! You are STUPID!

> You have spent years honing how to ask inconsequential and pointless
> questions that have no answer by the way you phrase you question and the
> elements missing.
>
> Where do you think I got the idea for "The Question?"
>
From being STUPID? ;-)

> I'd NEVER ask such a question of a researcher because I know he or she
> would laugh, or be annoyed that I did not more closely define my terms.
>
> YOU, sir, have been doing this for years.
>
Hihihi! Have you read the Straus & Mouradian (1988) study?

> > She said it's
> > in the "archives".
>
> She was referring to studies such as this.
>
No. She know the question that I asked. Can you ask her to confirm
this claim of yours? If not, than either you are STUPID or a LIAR
again. Go ahead, Kane. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! Hihihi!

> > Now you turned it around to say that I claim
> > that she never posted any studies.
>
> By claiming she didn't post what is impossible to post you are lying.
> You started the lie, you compound the lie.
>
And you are STUPID! ;-)

> Notice that when I refer to your failure with The Question, I carefully
> include that you TRIED to answer.
>
> I never claim you did NOT answer.
>
Hihihi! But you are STUPID!

> > Even a STUPID person like you
> > can post studies, Kane! STOP LYING! You are despicable!
>
> No, Doan, it's quite apparent you are.
>
> You can't ask a straight question, and other's inability to answer a
> misleading question is not despicable, the question and the questioner are.
>
Hihihi! The proven liar here is YOU!

> Show me that study that proves that spanking is better because it has
> less risk of injury than non spanking.
>
> Do such studies exist?
>
> Of course not.
>
> Neither do studies that meet your demand.
>
Try reading Straus & Mouradian (1998), STUPID!

> And what do you mean by "better," you lying despicable twit?

Hihihi! The "lying despicalble twit" and STUPID is YOU! I made
my point clear. Let me restate it for a STUPID LIAR like you.
Using the same standard that has been used in studying spanking,
do the same analysis for non-cp alternatives! IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH
for YOU, STUPID Kane?

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
>>>>>>> What's that about?
>>>>>>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>>>>>>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>>>>>> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>>>>>>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
>>>>>>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
>>>>>> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
>>>>>>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>>>>>>> It was your issue not mine.
>>>>>>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
>>>>>>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>>>>>>> After you kept asking the question over and over
>>>>>>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>>>>>>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
>>>>>>>>> as Greg.
>>>>>>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
>>>>>>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
>>>>>>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>>>>>>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
>>>>>>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>>>>>>> You've got a mental problem.
>>>>>> I think you are right on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
>>>>>>>>> dodge and lie.
>>>>>>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>>>>>>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
>>>>>>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>>>>>> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
>>>>>>> except through his glorious success!
>>>>>> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
>>>>>> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan
>>>>> Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
>>>>> after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
>>>>> way of research studies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
>>>>> do, Doan?
>>>>>
>>>>> You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
>>>>> you can just go to the library.
>>>>>
>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>>>>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>>>>> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
>>>>> Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>>>>>
>>>>> And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
>>>>> Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
>>>>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
>>>>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
>>>>> truly
>>>>> interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> LaVonne
>>>>> ......................................
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
>>>>> and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
>>>>> gotten the study, the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>> It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
>>>>> spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
>>>>> watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
>>>>>
>>>>> You lied, about her not posting research.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
>>>>> have tried repeatedly to
>>>>>> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
>>>>>> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
>>>>>> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
>>>>>> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
>>>>>> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
>>>>> Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
>>>>> research.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
>>>>> have easily gotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>>>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>>>> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
>>>> Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>>>> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
>>>> Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>>>
>>>> Ivan Gowch wrote:
>>>> > The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
>>>> > most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
>>>> > look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.
>>>>
>>>> I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
>>>> and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
>>>> disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
>>>> mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
>>>> manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
>>>> whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
>>>> at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
>>>> Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).
>>>>
>>>> No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
>>>> Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
>>>> short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
>>>> reason to spank a child of any age.
>>>>
>>>> LaVonne
>>>>
>>>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
>>>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
>>>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>>>
>>>> Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?
>>>>
>>> Now, where did that I made that claim, Kane? You are lying again.
>>> I asked LaVonne to provide a "peer-reviewed" study where the non-cp
>>> alternatives are shown to be better than spanking.
>> Why must the alternative be 'better?'
>>
> I noticed that you ignored my question, Kane. Where did I made the
> claim that "LaVonne never posted any studies"? Are you admitting
> that you LIED again? If you want to ban spanking, you better
> have a better alternative, that's why.
>
>> What is meant by "better?"
>>
> Hihihi! What is the meaning of "is"?
>
>> You kept your terms inconclusive and arbitrary, you're usual dirty
>> tricks, Doan.
>>
> Hahaha! Look in the mirror, Kane!
>
>> You do that so you can switch tracks quickly when you have failed to
>> prove some claim of yours and need to duck out.
>>
> Hihihi! Like you claiming cause and then no cause only correlation?
>
>> How about this, stupid:
>>
>> Doan, show a peer reviewed study where the risk of injury from spanking
>> is "better" by being LESS than non-spanking alternatives.
>>
> Hihihi! I am not out to ban non-spanking alternatives now, am I, Kane?
> God! You are STUPID!
>
>> You have spent years honing how to ask inconsequential and pointless
>> questions that have no answer by the way you phrase you question and the
>> elements missing.
>>
>> Where do you think I got the idea for "The Question?"
>>
> From being STUPID? ;-)
>
>> I'd NEVER ask such a question of a researcher because I know he or she
>> would laugh, or be annoyed that I did not more closely define my terms.
>>
>> YOU, sir, have been doing this for years.
>>
> Hihihi! Have you read the Straus & Mouradian (1988) study?
>
>>> She said it's
>>> in the "archives".
>> She was referring to studies such as this.
>>
> No. She know the question that I asked. Can you ask her to confirm
> this claim of yours? If not, than either you are STUPID or a LIAR
> again. Go ahead, Kane. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! Hihihi!
>
>> > Now you turned it around to say that I claim
>>> that she never posted any studies.
>> By claiming she didn't post what is impossible to post you are lying.
>> You started the lie, you compound the lie.
>>
> And you are STUPID! ;-)
>
>> Notice that when I refer to your failure with The Question, I carefully
>> include that you TRIED to answer.
>>
>> I never claim you did NOT answer.
>>
> Hihihi! But you are STUPID!
>
>>> Even a STUPID person like you
>>> can post studies, Kane! STOP LYING! You are despicable!
>> No, Doan, it's quite apparent you are.
>>
>> You can't ask a straight question, and other's inability to answer a
>> misleading question is not despicable, the question and the questioner are.
>>
> Hihihi! The proven liar here is YOU!
>
>> Show me that study that proves that spanking is better because it has
>> less risk of injury than non spanking.
>>
>> Do such studies exist?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Neither do studies that meet your demand.
>>
> Try reading Straus & Mouradian (1998), STUPID!
>
>> And what do you mean by "better," you lying despicable twit?
>
> Hihihi! The "lying despicalble twit" and STUPID is YOU! I made
> my point clear. Let me restate it for a STUPID LIAR like you.
> Using the same standard that has been used in studying spanking,
> do the same analysis for non-cp alternatives! IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH
> for YOU, STUPID Kane?

Oh, now I understand.

Show me the study and I'll explain it to you.

I notice the items I challenged you that you did not respond to. Didn't
you notice them?


0:-]

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 11, 7:29 am, Doan > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kane goes on and on about me to Doan?
>>>>>>> What's that about?
>>>>>>>>> I told you I would not tell you what I published.
>>>>>>> Then what was the point of mentioning it at all?
>>>>>> To boast that he is the GREATEST one of all! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue with Greg is that he runs.
>>>>>>> Bring onLaVonneand I expect answers.
>>>>>>> She is notorious for "hit andrun" in here.
>>>>>> I have just challenged her todebateand she is MIA as usual. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He did it for two years on a very serious issue...the use of lethal
>>>>>>>>> force by parents illegally taking their children from state custody.
>>>>>>> It was your issue not mine.
>>>>>>> You tried to use it like a witch hunt.
>>>>>>> In point of fact, I had answered this question.
>>>>>>> After you kept asking the question over and over
>>>>>>> like the obsessed hysterical idiot you are, it was HILARIOUS!
>>>>>>>>> You are dishonest, a liar, and you team up with liars and lowlifes such
>>>>>>>>> as Greg.
>>>>>>> You harass with a pack of hyenas and I'm a bad boy
>>>>>>> for calling you a pack? Remember?
>>>>>>> Notice your guilt by association crap here!
>>>>>>> One of THOUSANDS like it.
>>>>>>> But turnabout is not fair play it seems.
>>>>>>> You've got a mental problem.
>>>>>> I think you are right on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Responding to you is pointless because you will simply dodge and lie,
>>>>>>>>> dodge and lie.
>>>>>>>> But you responded, did you not, STUPID Kane?
>>>>>>> He's compulsive. What's really funny is how he bitches
>>>>>>> about Fern 6 months or more after she left!
>>>>>> Yup! He even justified his usage of "smelly-****"!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And in his mind NOBODY ever leaves
>>>>>>> except through his glorious success!
>>>>>> Yup! He is the GREATEST! It is funny how the internet allows anyone
>>>>>> to hide behind a nym and pretend to be something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan
>>>>> Your claims that LaVonne runs is a lie, Doan. She refused, finally,
>>>>> after you'd lied enough, to debate you any longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have claimed that she did not post any studies, Doan.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are on a university campus and can get anything you wish in the
>>>>> way of research studies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet when she asked you to, and read it, and debate her, what did you
>>>>> do, Doan?
>>>>>
>>>>> You demanded she provide you with a copy of a study...you who claim
>>>>> you can just go to the library.
>>>>>
>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>>>>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>>>>> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:54 -0500
>>>>> Local: Tues, May 11 2004 4:47 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>>>>>
>>>>> And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
>>>>> Chapieski? I gave you the reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
>>>>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
>>>>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are
>>>>> truly
>>>>> interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> LaVonne
>>>>> ......................................
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you, Doan, or did your bait and run, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> She urged you again and again to simply go to your university library
>>>>> and get a copy of the article, and what did you actually do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Claim she was just trying to make you jump through hoops.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you had the audacity to lie yet again, and claim, without having
>>>>> gotten the study, the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>> It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
>>>>> spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you expect people to put up with your lying just for the sake of
>>>>> watching you lie some more when you are cornered?
>>>>>
>>>>> You lied, about her not posting research.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently she does not wish to debate you, liar. Because you lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> She nailed you with, "> It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I
>>>>> have tried repeatedly to
>>>>>> explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
>>>>>> I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
>>>>>> incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
>>>>>> Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
>>>>>> but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda."
>>>>> Stung didn't it. So ever since you have claimed she didn't post any
>>>>> research.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically true, but she certainly didn't pick anything you could not
>>>>> have easily gotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doan, you are a liar, cheat, and fool.
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>>>> From: Carlson LaVonne >
>>>> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:20:31 -0500
>>>> Local: Tues, May 4 2004 4:20 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: New Study Slams Spanking
>>>> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
>>>> Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>>>
>>>> Ivan Gowch wrote:
>>>> > The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
>>>> > most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
>>>> > look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.
>>>>
>>>> I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
>>>> and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
>>>> disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
>>>> mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
>>>> manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
>>>> whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
>>>> at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
>>>> Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).
>>>>
>>>> No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
>>>> Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
>>>> short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
>>>> reason to spank a child of any age.
>>>>
>>>> LaVonne
>>>>
>>>> Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986) Childrearing and impulse control in
>>>> toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology,
>>>> 22(2), 271-275.
>>>>
>>>> Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?
>>>>
>>> Now, where did that I made that claim, Kane? You are lying again.
>>> I asked LaVonne to provide a "peer-reviewed" study where the non-cp
>>> alternatives are shown to be better than spanking.
>> Why must the alternative be 'better?'
>>
> I noticed that you ignored my question, Kane.

No I didn't. I discussed it at length.

> Where did I made the
> claim that "LaVonne never posted any studies"?

"Still want to claim that LaVonne never posted any studies, Doan?"

See that little squiggly thing on the end in the sentence above? 0:-]

> Are you admitting
> that you LIED again?

I asked a question. Show how a question is a lie.

> If you want to ban spanking, you better
> have a better alternative, that's why.

I do.

You have posted studies that claim that non-spanking alternatives are
not proven to be more or less effective than spanking.

The non spanking alternative does not risk injury.

My "better" is not risking injury.

If I want transportation, and of two cars, both will get me there in
comfort. but one has a poor record of safety which do you think I'm
going to choose?
>
>> What is meant by "better?"
>>
> Hihihi! What is the meaning of "is"?

See, you are a liar. You ask a question, I ask you to define terms and
you run.

>> You kept your terms inconclusive and arbitrary, you're usual dirty
>> tricks, Doan.
>>
> Hahaha! Look in the mirror, Kane!

See, you are a liar. You ask a question, I ask you to define terms and
you run.

>> You do that so you can switch tracks quickly when you have failed to
>> prove some claim of yours and need to duck out.
>>
> Hihihi! Like you claiming cause and then no cause only correlation?

Show where I claimed cause, Doan. I posted an article that was titled in
a way that could be defined as "cause."

Not even the article, let alone the study it was reviewing made such a
claim.

So I have to be in support of the least likely part of a quote?

Want me to hold you to that standard?

And your buddies?

>> How about this, stupid:
>>
>> Doan, show a peer reviewed study where the risk of injury from spanking
>> is "better" by being LESS than non-spanking alternatives.
>>
> Hihihi! I am not out to ban non-spanking alternatives now, am I, Kane?
> God! You are STUPID!

The question of banning is not the question we are considering. Eat your
own Red Herring.

The question is, which is "better." I defined what I mean by 'better.'
You ran when I asked you to define it, since it was YOUR demand.

No, Doan, I'm not stupid and you know it.

>> You have spent years honing how to ask inconsequential and pointless
>> questions that have no answer by the way you phrase you question and the
>> elements missing.
>>
>> Where do you think I got the idea for "The Question?"
>>
> From being STUPID? ;-)

Then you'd be stupid, wouldn't you? You originated the ploy.

>> I'd NEVER ask such a question of a researcher because I know he or she
>> would laugh, or be annoyed that I did not more closely define my terms.
>>
>> YOU, sir, have been doing this for years.
>>
> Hihihi! Have you read the Straus & Mouradian (1988) study?

Yep.

Did I miss their use of the poorly defined term "better?"

>>> She said it's
>>> in the "archives".
>> She was referring to studies such as this.
>>
> No. She know the question that I asked.

She knew your question had no reasonable answer because you did not
define your terms.

No study has been offered by either side that uses terms like "which is
'better.'"

> Can you ask her to confirm
> this claim of yours?

No, I'm not debating LaVonne.

> If not, than either you are STUPID or a LIAR
> again. Go ahead, Kane. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! Hihihi!

I dare you to define your term, "better," in your demand for a study
that is better.

>> > Now you turned it around to say that I claim
>>> that she never posted any studies.
>> By claiming she didn't post what is impossible to post you are lying.
>> You started the lie, you compound the lie.
>>
> And you are STUPID! ;-)

For catching you in a lie? R R R

A common, ordinary, easily seen misleading phony "question?"

No Doan, you deliberately asked an unanswerable question by refusing to
clearly define what you were asking for, and compounded it twice in this
post already, by ducking (Hihihi) my request for you to define "better."

>> Notice that when I refer to your failure with The Question, I carefully
>> include that you TRIED to answer.
>>
>> I never claim you did NOT answer.
>>
> Hihihi! But you are STUPID!

It is stupid to continue to duck challenges with ad hom and bull****, Doan.

But you go right ahead.
>
>>> Even a STUPID person like you
>>> can post studies, Kane! STOP LYING! You are despicable!
>> No, Doan, it's quite apparent you are.
>>
>> You can't ask a straight question, and other's inability to answer a
>> misleading question is not despicable, the question and the questioner are.
>>
> Hihihi! The proven liar here is YOU!

I can answer what I mean by "better."

It confounds your claims and refutes your question as poorly conceived
except as a question to hide from the actual issue.

If you want to request a "better" study, then you better say what you
think better is.

>> Show me that study that proves that spanking is better because it has
>> less risk of injury than non spanking.
>>
>> Do such studies exist?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Neither do studies that meet your demand.
>>
> Try reading Straus & Mouradian (1998), STUPID!

So you are claiming this is a "better" study according to the criteria
you demanded?

>> And what do you mean by "better," you lying despicable twit?
>
> Hihihi! The "lying despicalble twit" and STUPID is YOU! I made
> my point clear.

No you didn't.

> Let me restate it for a STUPID LIAR like you.
> Using the same standard that has been used in studying spanking,
> do the same analysis for non-cp alternatives! IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH
> for YOU, STUPID Kane?

You still haven't asked for anything.

YOU show the standards used already.

List the protocols.

I'll see if any such study has been done.

If it hasn't then your question is pointless.

The nearest we can come to that is the Embry study and you have refused
to debate it.

I am not going to, after two years, or is it three now, back off from my
refusal to be manipulated by you refusing to debate on a level playing
field and prove you had the actual study report I had.

You ducked the debate for over two years.

I'm not here for you to exercise.

In addition, studying non-spanking alternatives has been going on for
years. They aren't judged for validity by trying to replicate the
methods of other studies on other topics.

They tailor their studies to that issue.

Embry showed rather conclusively that the lower the use of punishment..
not just lower CP but all forms of punishment, the more compliance and
the less unwanted behavior.

Even your rant about Sit and Watch having to be interpreted as
"punishment" when anyone that thinks for themselves knows that closer
proximity and attention from the parent tends to be a strong
reinforcer...whether negative or positive toward desired outcomes.

Look at his charts and it's plain the unwanted behavior dropped, with
even the difficult of the children (in fact more for them) by the use of
less punishment and the use of non-cp alternatives.

You are simply lying again, Doan.

0;-]