A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 8th 03, 12:38 PM
Steve Saus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).

http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm
  #32  
Old November 8th 03, 11:19 PM
Bill B. Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

In article , Steve Saus
wrote:

I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).

http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm



It was interesting reading the various posts on this subject. However, the
sad truth is that many state and federal court judges don't pay any
attention to the Constitution or "original intent"--they just make rulings
based upon their liberal thinking processes. The best example is Roe vs.
Wade--the Supreme Court judges determined that abortion was legal.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution but the judges made up the
"right to privacy" and even that right is not mentioned in the
Constitution.
  #33  
Old November 9th 03, 12:26 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking


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

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


The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that

Kane's
knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't

faulty, you
are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by

showing how
you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty.

The
only
next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is

not
consistent with my beliefs!"

So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because

you
have
nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout

history,
which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how

does
that
validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been

around for
a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?

Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or

do
you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as

you
believe as they do?


You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what

appears to
be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of
substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their

face,
sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your
statement?


DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves.
His 'brain scan' studies were shown to be completely false by Michael
Morris, and his psychological studies come straight from non spanking
websites which clearly have an agenda and are completely biased.

HE made the assertions, and through basic common sense, I have disputed
them. He has flip flopped back and forth, and yet you ask ME to disprove
what HE has claimed. Sorry guy, THAT is not the way debates work. Only a
complete fool or moron would simply accept what someone 'claims' to be fact
as truth, and ask those disputing it for 'proof'.

Besides, life itself has shown anyone with a bit of common sense that his
logic is completely flawed.


Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you

established that
it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I

questioned
your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict

you'll
continue dancing.


Dancing? LOL Are you even a parent, or have you ever even HAD a child.
Faulty logic #!... one cannot 'talk' to a one or two year old, and even Kane
claims that their brains are not developed enough until the age of 6.
(where the hell he got that number is unknown, as I've seen many able to
formulate concise thought and reasoning at a younger age).

Faulty logic #2...That a parent can possibly just sit by and watch as his
child climbs a fence where an angry bull is and HOPE that nothing happens,
and calmy 'talk to them' afterwards.. LOL..

Faulty logic #3..that one can combine spanking with abuse and treat them the
same. That there is no 'difference' or the differences are so subtle that
he wants to ignore them. An attempt to gain high moral ground through
dishonesty.

Faulty logic #4...that one can simply give their very young child a safe
place to play.. avoids the issue that most (if not all) children are very
inquisitive and many are hyperactive and are surely not going to stay in
place.. that one can 'show' their child not to do things which are unsafe
when he clearly admits their little brains are not fully developed..

How much more evidence do you want that he is nothing more than a
bull****ter? In my eyes, and Im quite sure the majority of parents here, HE
is the abuser or at the very least, a very negligent parent based upon HIS o
wn stories about his child and the bull. Im sure he would have had second
thoughts had the bull charged his daughter.. his lame assed ideas wouldn't
have worked now would they?


I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over

again,
and he has flip flopped time and time again.


It really appears you are confusing the "faulty logic of others" with

knowledge
that "runs contrary to your firmly-rooted beliefs," as I was saying

before.

No, that appears to be exactly what YOU are doing. Any idiot who asks
someone to show proof for their claims while blindly accepting the claims of
others as truth, even when they have been challenged time and time again by
others.


I haven't read every post here over the past six months. If you've shown

that
Kane's knowledge is faulty, and I seriously doubt that you have, it

shouldn't be
that difficult to post it again. I've known Kane on this ng for several

years
and I've never glimpsed any faulty logic nor lies nor false information

coming
from him. Your statement apparently cannot be validated. Is that why

you're
trying to switch the focus of this discussion?

If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost
them for your benefit? That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
for your browing

I am not the one trying to switch the focus of this discussion, it is you.
If you are to come in at the end of a discussion and want to join in, isnt
it YOUR responsibility to see that you have all the facts to back up your
statements? Aren't YOU the one who claimed that Kane has a wealth of
'experience' in this field?

YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. and by doing

so,
are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.


From reading ahead in your post, I already see why you're confusing

spanking
with abuse. You're relying on legal definition. That only holds up in a

place
where spanking is legal and abuse is defined as hurting children to a

degree
worse than some arbitrary limit, set by the lawmakers of a particular

place. It
has nothing to do with true abuse: causing damage, either physical or

emotional.
Are you really content with damage caused to children, as long as the law

allows
it?

No.. again, you want to portray anyone who uses spanking as either a
teaching method for toddlers, or a disciplinary method for older children as
some kind of monster, just as Kane has unsuccessfully attempted.

What it boils down to is that people like you and Kane will hang onto every
word by anyone who wants to get published and push it as fact.. in an
attempt to take away parental rights to raise their children as they see
fit. (and this does NOT include abuse outside of the legal definitions)..

See, YOU have done the exact same thing that Kane has attempted.. to refuse
to accept the legal definition of abuse as what myself and many many others
consider abusive as well. You thought you could squeeze some sort of flip
flopping out of me by asking for a definition, but that ploy didn't work.


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


I haven't fully assessed that yet.


Apparently, you have since you come into a homeschool newsgroup and try to
ursurp parental rights to raise their children in the way they see fit.


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


Dennis, you need to be more careful when you post false claims. Some of us

can
see right through you.


DUH.. Jerry, KANE is the one who made those claims, not I.. YOU made the
claims that he has so much 'experience'.. and that I was ignoring it. Kane
has repeatedly attempted to try to impress people with his credentials, but
they have been questioned time and time again only to have him weasle his
way around and flip flop back and forth.

a retured Air force colonel, who raised a family, raised dogs, trained
horses, slummed with the 'rich and powerful' who never spank, and he has
used his methods on their children.. LOL.. Grow up and learn to realize
when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.


I've had enough of your nonsense for one day.

-Jerry-


Then stay the hell out of the discussion if you don't like it. I've had
enough of your nonsense as well. You blindly follow a fool who makes wild
claims, then ask others to post proof that his claims are not valid..



  #34  
Old November 9th 03, 12:26 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

He's too blinded Doan. He wants US to disprove Kane's claims, and is too
lazy to go back and read the nonsense for himself.

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

Dennis Hancock wrote:

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

The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that

Kane's
knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
faulty, you
are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
showing how
you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty.

The
only
next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is

not
consistent with my beliefs!"

So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because

you
have
nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable

throughout
history,
which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how

does
that
validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have

been
around for
a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?

Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or

do
you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as

you
believe as they do?


You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what

appears to
be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind

of
substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their

face,
sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for

your
statement?

Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you

established that
it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I

questioned
your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict

you'll
continue dancing.

Hi, Gerald. You might want to look at some of Kane's posts regarding the
Maurer study. He even claimed that spanking is NOT physical punishment!

Doan




  #35  
Old November 9th 03, 12:28 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him
and hangs on kane's every word. Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
kane himself using an alter ego.


"Steve Saus" wrote in message
...
I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in

your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).

http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm



  #36  
Old November 9th 03, 02:05 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:28 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


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

No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the

absolute
nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which

has
been
acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to

substantiate
that it is not???

The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that

Kane's
knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't

faulty, you
are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by

showing how
you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is

faulty. The
only
next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is

not
consistent with my beliefs!"

So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement

because you
have
nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable

throughout
history,
which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how

does
that
validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have

been
around for
a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?

Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating,

or do
you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as

you
believe as they do?


What is it in Alborn's post that suggests his debate lacks relevance?

I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over

again,
and he has flip flopped time and time again.


I found no such showing of faulty logic. Nor have I flip flopped. If
one could pursuade me I might change my mind, but not otherwise.

YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse..


There is no confusion involved. You simply refuse to answer those
logical questions I've posed. YOU may not think it abusive but others
do. More and more evidence, some of which I've offered, is coming down
on the side of unecessary injury being part of "spanking."

150-200 lb adults "spanking" 40 lb children comes to mind, and you
haven't responded to that example with anything but hubrus filled
nonsense statements.

and by doing so,
are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.


Rather a lot of research and debate has been made here and in other
forums to an argument you claim has no merit.

KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it

eventually
boiled down to his own limited observations.


My observations aren't limited.

For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of

experience
associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience

runs
counter
to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the

knowledge
he has
gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent

with my
beliefs," doesn't cut it.


BULL****.. He's been shown to be a liar time and time again.


You can show my lies? So far you simply make the claim. No proof even
when it should be readily available in these ngs.

I have worked
in with children for ages.


I find that difficult to believe. But of you say so.

That doesn't mean that you have done good or effective work with
children. Some teachers and practitioners are the instigators and
source for some very abusive attacks on children in the name of
discipline.

Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer..


Was. I haven't trained horses since about 1968.

and
he's 'worked' with children of the rich and powerful. IF that's

true, they
must not be so rich and powerful if they allow a horse trainer to

tend to
the emotional needs of their children.


Try to imagine time as a continuum, not all happening at once, and you
might figure out that I've done different things at different times.
Sometimes overlapping, sometimes not. Interestingly, the rich and
powerful entrusted their charges to me when I was a horse trainer and
coach. I don't recall any confusion about what my task was at that
time with my tasks later in life after different education and a
career change.

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


Most don't descend to your level of stupidity. And I'm completely
unable to gauge the exact level of yours, but you are providing
considerably more data to work with as you continue.

A 'retired Air Force Colonel',


You were very smart to put that in single inverted commas rather than
double quotes.

It might be construed, though you are misusing them, to mean that you
aren't making a direct quote. As apostrophes they do not apply, and as
single quotes they are inaccurate unless used to quote a quote inside
a string that is double inverted commas, our common "quotation marks."


And: I never claimed to be a colonel in the USAF. Where did you find a
rank for me mentioned? Even a corporal can be in command and that is
all I mentioned that could be possibly construed as a rank.

who has also spent his life working with
children,


Except for when I was a child myself that is close to true. Either
that or teaching others who work with children later in life.

who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works.


On the contrary. I've spent a good deal of my professional life doing
just that. Even when I was a horse trainer and a riding coach I had to
give a great deal of consideration to how children learn and how to
teach them. I was paid rather well by their parents to do so.

Why do I get the impression that you confuse "discipline" to teach,
with "punishment" to hurt?

Give
me a break.


Consider yourself broken.


KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their

children,

I've asked you to point out where I said "never spanked." You have
failed to find such a statement by me. It's becoming pretty apparent
you have no credibility and will lie for just about any reason that
suits you.

(based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime)


I've lived a very long time, and I have associated with and been among
the wealthy myself. Now I'm just very comfortable. The latter half of
my life was spent in service and that's not often as profitable as my
earlier business ventures.

and wants
proof
that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being

spanked.

Well? So far, nothing from you but blather.


From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced

spanking, but
the
ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and

unreasonable
with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less

powerful,
etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people never

spank?
From
real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if

you
could
show me where Kane actually said that.


Just google back and you'll see that he has repeatedly


How many repeats did I do?

made the claim that
he's 'known and associated with the rich and powerful for many years

and
that there is no evidence that they ever embraced spanking or

corporal
punishment for their children'.


Is that a direct quote? If so why the inverted single commas again?

I believe you are lying. Misquoting me.

Of course, for one who only reads what they want to read, and

interprets it
as they see fit, you certainly would miss a lot of the nonsense he

has put
forth.


R R R R R R .. goodun'


Common
sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not

stray from
acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature

points
out
that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which

DID in
fact,
use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.

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


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


I doubt Gerald is blind but I am concerned you might be losing your
sight.

Surely you can, instead of the evasive weaseling, you can come up with
a post, point to it, and quote it where I say that the rish and
powerful never spank.

We are waiting.


Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the

behind
with
the open hand as a means


Where is this the only description of spanking? I've seen everything
from the minimalist definition you just offered to outright beating
with a wooden paddle defined as spanking.

On the other hand I've also asked you do show where hitting a child,
regardless of what you rename it, does NOT risk unwanted side effects,
and I've asked you to explain the Embry study with something other
than your perposterious claim that the researcher just said anything
he liked to get published.

He risked negative peer review, and I'm unable to find any. Often that
suggests that his peers couldn't find any problem with methodology or
outcome.

of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill

discipline,
with outright abuse.


It is. And pain to a small child equates only with the most immediate
and proximal objects in the enviroment...and when you hit YOU are the
closest to the child. They don't learn to fear the street, they learn
to fear YOU.


The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous

situation
you
teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is

dangerous
and that
the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's

going to do
behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the

perceived
danger
(the parent) isn't present.


No, again you are completely dishonest.


Oh? I think Gerald is reflecting both his experience and the study of
researchers. Even the behaviorists recognize that pain is not a useful
motivator in most circumstances.

You want to portray ALL spanking as
abuse,


The argument could be made, and research is pursuing that direction.
The problem with "spanking" is that you are confining yourself to YOUR
definition and ignoring that others have quite different ones. Though
even your definition might not work for different children.

Would you, for instance, use spanking with an autistic child? Some
people have tried it. Would you use it with a child who is bi-polar,
or suffering from clinical depression?

Can you tell, without professional assessment, when a child might
suffer from developmental delays or disabilities or mental illness?

My point being: why spank even if other methods were only equal to
spanking in effectiveness? (And the prove in studies to be superior.)

and TRY to portray that there is no difference.


That has not been the thrust of my argument. I have said that there
are similar characteristics. There is a difference of course. The
spankers lie to themselves and the world that there is little no
chance of damage. Read yourself in this thread.

It was YOU who came
up with the complete nonsense that disciplining a child or trying to

keep
them from dangerous situations is 'imposing the will of a controlling

adult'
on them... such utter nonsense.


It is imposing the will of a controlling adult. So are all forms of
discipline. The problem is not the controlling, but the intent.

I don't know why anyone even bothers with
your OR Kane.


Do you think yourself so well regarded in these ngs that your opinion
will sway the thoughtful reader from giving our argument
consideration?


Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the

street,
and
thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the

street.
You
can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them

if
they're too
young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety

is
your
responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature

enough to
accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to

be
spanked
to accept that.


LOL.. You my friend are the fool if you think you can 'talk' to a

two year
old and keep them from venturing into the street.


I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'" to
a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so
they have information stored up for later when they can understand and
make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her
develomental progress.


But you have repeatedly stated that their brains are not developed enough
for reasoned thinking. So, let's see, you are proposing 'brainwashing'
techniques on small children?

This again, another flip flop. YOU have stated that studies show that
nagging a child not to do something encourages them to do it first chance
they get. Digging your hole deeper guy.


The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as the
model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly.

Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find the
place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself.


And you simply stand by when they leave that safe place and put themselves
in danger as you did with your daughter?

Again, I will repeat, I am happy that your child did not suffer severe
injury, but you provided ample evidence that your theories do not always
work.


You, like Kane seem to
think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many

animals
exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something

can be
injurious to them.


I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in
fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up to
the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the child
is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course. Nature
drives the child to it.


And your recollections of your daughter's incident shows that your theories
can be just as dangerous and deadly.


Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by

sitting
back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence,


I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out
that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or later
get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and
usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got to
do a little exploring.

But, you were quite quick to point out, when I and others brought up the
topic that you give a safe place to play and closely supervise them. The
inference was clearly there that if the child wandered off, the parent was
somehow negligent, yet you cannot even see that same fact in your own
example.

in clear cut
jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing ....


Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I DID
NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so that
they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue to
maintain her balance.


You were frozen with fear then?

You did not state that you did anything to save her, only that you calmly
talked to her afterwards. I'm sure you are greatful that nothing happened,
but from what little you've given us, we have nothing to show that your
'methods' had anything to do with saving her life.


ANY parent
worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way

immediately,
even if it meant putting themselves in danger.


My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into the
pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have
been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He
already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention.

I would certainly hope so. As with my example, my young nephew was running
full blast towards a six foot drop onto a concrete slab, looking back and
thinking it was fun. I did not have the luxury of standing back and
watching for if I had, he would surely have crushed his skull.

Did I give him a swat on the butt after I caught him, just as his foot went
over the edge.. You bet I did.

I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused

and non
abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group

can tell
you
that each child responds differently and no one single method

works for
every child, even within the same family.

Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes

parenting
and life
easier for the parent?"


Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a

lame
assed question.


Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond to.
You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you?


No, it WAS a lame question. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child is
simply imposing a controlling will on them is way out in space somewhere.


Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"

Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make

every
decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any

decent
parent's viewpoint.


What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of
letting a child make every decision for themselves?


Gee Kane, your comprehensive skills are as lacking as his. Do you even
****ing know what a rhetorical question is?

Any attempt at parenting is called imposing one's will on them.. lol..

Children make many
decisions without any input from others.


Yawn.. again, your attempt at attacking every single sentence in the hopes
of obscuring the issues is quite weak indeed. OF COURSE THEY DO.. how the
hell is that relevent to this discussion, unless of course you want to
abrigate your parental duties and let the child raise himself?


He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning
situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or by
request, or by necessity.


no, you are mistaken.. again.

Or,
"makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows

the
parent
to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is

probably
quite
different from yours. What's your definition?


YOu sir are a complete and utter ass.


The braying seem to be coming out of yours.


At least my head's not stuck in it as yours appears to be.


Apparently, you are more concerned
with YOUR needs than your childs.


He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the
time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and humiliation.


LOL.. no, he doesn't want to be bothered with the child. YOu sure love
those words pain, fear and humiliation don't you..


Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into

the
street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous

to that
child.


Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and is
so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any other
possibilities.

Yep, sounds like you indeed. Close minded and linear thinking. One size
fits all.

If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread by
discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own
children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he
thought best for his children.


And had he found that not spanking didn't work, that would be his choice and
his parental rights. But to attempt to portray all spankers as abusers and
simply imposing a controlling will on a child, as both you and he have tried
to do is completely dishonest and an attempt to shove your concepts on
parenting upon others.


Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made it
very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and very
likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found exactly
the same thing.

Again, a claim you do not substantiate. "others" attempts to assume that
everyone or most follow and agree with your assertions. Just as I can most
assuredly state that "Others" have found that non spanking does not produce
the results they desire and that some children are much more manipulative
than others.

You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away

with.

On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent,
especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they received.
It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your
delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success?


LOL.. another flip flop. Now you admit that children test the limits.. yet
most psychologists claim that children actually WANT limits to be set, and
that by avoiding that, and avoiding the imposition of any consequences is
dangerous and makes them feel unloved.

When non spanking and positive encourgement do not work, I suppose you just
give up and let the child do as they please? And you consider that a
success?




I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally,
highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because they
feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were children
who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those I
turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting.


I was a martial arts instructor for well over 25 years and most of the
children and adults I worked with respected me and did not fear me. I
imposed phyiscal hardships on them in training for disciplinary purposes,
but they soon learned that I was not abusive nor would I purposely injure
them.

So what is your point? Do you make your child do pushups if they are bad?
Or do you pat them on the head and say please don't do it again.


Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no

shortcut
that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my

children to be
non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid

pain.


You assume they do not have the ability to learn that there are consequences
associated with their actions. You demean them as less than animals if you
think they simply respond to pain and simply learning to fear you. That is
again, only dealing with the truly abusive parent and not applicable to this
discussion. You attempt continually to portray all spanking as abuse.


No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you

did not
do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations.


I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to, driven
by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them to
handle more effectively.


A weasle answer if I ever heard one.


You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't
you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and feelings
I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust herself
more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to me,
that our relationship was far more important in her development than
strick adherence to my control of her.


That would have done a hell of a lot of good had she been gored by the bull
while you sat back and watched.

Perhaps had you given her a swat on the butt, she may not have climbed that
fence to begin with.


I preferred
them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.


You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get

their way
and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care

enough to
discipline them or set limits for them.


Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned out
that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be
around.

Well, we have to accept your word on that now don't we?

What's the real
point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on

behavioral
"acts" in
your presence and for your benefit?


Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense

of
rationality.


If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation of
the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any sense
of rationality."


There comes the hurt and humiliation bull**** again. Sound like a broken
record. People get humilitated throughout their lives. Its when they dont
learn to handle it, we have explosive situations occur.

Poor *******s like yourself cannot understand the harm you are doing, and
want to portray yourself as some kind of hero to the child and everyone else
is an abusive ass.. You are pathetic.


No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and

Kane seem
to
try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by

avoiding
the
distinction between abuse and spanking.

Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between

abuse
and
spanking?


DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what

constitutes
abuse and corporal punishment.


Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for
ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their
application from place to place and time to time.

Any striking of the child with anything
other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind

is
abusive.


There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school
personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do
NOT rule out the use of objects.


Name them please, or show me a link which states they exist.


The criteria is damage caused, not objects used.

Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said

you and
Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly
accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have

repeatedly
stated that I am not in favor of abuse,


You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse by
failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact you
mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar or
neurotic.


AHH.. there it is folks.. I am promoting abuse.. another lie by Kane which
shows his true nature.

He asks for a definition then refuses to accept it. It doesn't fit with his
mentality that any kind of discipline is not necessarily abuse.

but by attempting to lump the two
together, you think it will make your position more viable.


Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you
prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some
children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong, I'd
say you are the one straining at your stool.


ahh. but it IS defined in my narrow way. It is defined LEGALLY. Again I
repeat since your tiny brain cannot assimilate the information, anyone who
exceeds the legal definition of corporal punishment is criminally negligent
and should be brought to task.

Kinda blows you off your moral high horse don't it?



You are too
obvious.


I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for
Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this issue
and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a very
long time.


Maybe you should stop examining and take a look at real life.



I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that

people
like
yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by

avoiding
the
separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral

ground.

Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between

abuse
and
spanking. How do you define abuse?


I already have.. Time and time again.


And your definition doesn't stand up.


It stands up in any court of law throughout the nation.

Again, you prove time and time again that you are a liar and an agenda here.


You continue to show your complete
lack of reading comprehension.


On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very
well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You
miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is an
ancient practice that should stand on that alone.


I fail to make sense? LOL. You've twisted, turned and backpeddled on every
issue. You think taking every sentence and attacking it, or trying to use
the same wording to somehow give validity as your stance is going to sway
anyone.


So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was
the idea that objects have spirits inside them.


Yawn, more nonsense.



And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like

you have
created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline

in their
lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not

being able
to
deal with reality.

But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply

rooted,
misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're

certainly not
looking
at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you

must
maintain
a tight grip on your beliefs.


I'm blinded? lol


Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue
everything that is said,


Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued.

flip flop back and forth


And my flips and flops.

I tire of your nonsense.. I think most here have recognized them as i've
pointed them out time and time again.

and try to put up straw
men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your

bull****
claims, which you and he have made.


I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own
experience, do so.


yeah, funny YOU claimed you had so much 'experience'.


If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I

have
changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a

logical
and reasonable reason for their beliefs.


No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but I
don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this
discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from
non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but
you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the rabid
pro spanking faction.


Yawn.. then you prove yourself to be a liar as well as you've claimed to be
'lurking' here for a long time now.


But people like you and Kane


What are we like?

continue to lie


Point out the lie please.

and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
abusive..


Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such thing.
We point out that our parenting is also discipline.


You have yet to show that in any way.




  #37  
Old November 9th 03, 02:20 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message

news:aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03...
"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message

news:jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51...
Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a

'pysical
punishment'.. lol

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

Kane said:
So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such
things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are you
prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference to
the post where I said it?


Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that statement and
you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the poster
claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I stated
that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an enlisted man
in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does indeed
exist as a discipline in the armed services.

I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile hikes
with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show how much
of a weasel you can be.




Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What

you
see is what you get fella.


Kane stated:
Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to bluff
it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or
rather what he was. A troll.


Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined 'nemesis' you
encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own position.

I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not shown or
admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool newsgroup
an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that category
quite clearly.


You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see how
many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very new
poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie has
had many names.


Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol.. what a
lame assed attempt. Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of
switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's..

I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like yourself
posting nonsense.


If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.


I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few clones
yourself.


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


Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these

newsgroups
'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.


Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only 171
posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon hundreds
before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record for
number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was in
talk.politics.guns as I recall.


Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself? DUH..

IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record for
posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name? LOL..

I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I DO
however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some
nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's your
****ing problem guy.


Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin boards

and
since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've ever

engaged
you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions to try

to
uphold your convictions.


Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.


My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse? Paranoia
running rampant?


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


Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.


Sounds just like Jonesie.


Then he musta been onto you just as I am.


What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.

My name on here is my real
name,


Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you can't
portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written
autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really are.


No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and met
enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand that than
most.

What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am somehow your
old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics?


I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior
to this one. Period.


That's nice. I don't believe you.


Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a liar and
a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted.



But it was fun while it lasted.

Who trolled who..r r r r

Kane


Apparently, you.. dumbass.


Kinda losing it, eh?

I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?

Kane


You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop.


  #38  
Old November 9th 03, 06:29 AM
Gerald Alborn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

Dennis Hancock wrote:

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


You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what

appears to
be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of
substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their

face,
sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your
statement?


DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves.


Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what
you've asserted.

If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost
them for your benefit?


Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't repost what
isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity is. Let's
just leave it at that.

That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
for your browing


FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a retired Air Force
Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever saying such a thing.
It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to substantiate
your statements.

Grow up and learn to realize
when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.


I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you.

-Jerry-

  #39  
Old November 9th 03, 07:01 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:05:03 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...


snip.........

I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'"

to
a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so
they have information stored up for later when they can understand

and
make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her
develomental progress.


But you have repeatedly stated that their brains are not developed

enough
for reasoned thinking.


Apparently you use terms you do not understand. The only "reasoning"
that children below six do is linear and to please the parent,
especially if the parent wants to think their child has the cognitive
ability to reason abstractly.

So, let's see, you are proposing 'brainwashing'
techniques on small children?



I don't see anything in my statement that suggests "'brainwashing'"
specifically or in general.

Do you consider it "brain washing" to provide your child with new
information?

This again, another flip flop.


Please explain.

YOU have stated that studies show that
nagging a child not to do something encourages them to do it first

chance
they get. Digging your hole deeper guy.


I do not believe, since I don't know of any such studies, I said that.
I believe I mentioned that parents, and when I say this I usually say
"mothers," observe that young children tend to do what they are asked
NOT to do.

How would I be digging myself a deeper hole when I havent' said what
you claim?

Simple observation shows that toddlers tend to not hear the
instruction just the linear referrences. "Don't jump on the bed" seems
to be heard as "jump on the bed," etc.


The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as

the
model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly.

Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find

the
place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself.


And you simply stand by when they leave that safe place and put

themselves
in danger as you did with your daughter?


Why would I just stand by? What in my post suggests that I would do
such a thing other than your ardent wish that I would and my child be
killed so you could be proved correct?

My child is alive. I probably would have been accused of being a
hovering parent in that I supervised very well. I pointed out to you,
and you apparently can't see certain words in my posts, that even the
most attentive of parents will occasionally have a child get away from
them.

Again, I will repeat, I am happy that your child did not suffer

severe
injury, but you provided ample evidence that your theories do not

always
work.


Nothing is 100%. I don't believe your concern for my child.

My theories are not theories. They are proven practices not only by me
but others. It is an extreme rarity to find a child raised without
punishment and with support and respect of their developmental needs
in jail. It is rare one can find an unspanked child in prison.


You, like Kane seem to
think that children don't even have the instictive sense which

many
animals
exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that

something
can be
injurious to them.


I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in
fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up

to
the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the

child
is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course.

Nature
drives the child to it.


And your recollections of your daughter's incident shows that your

theories
can be just as dangerous and deadly.


You do not understand what you read apparently. They are proof. ALL
children, even and sometimes more, the most punished, will get into
potentially risky situations. My child was able, after that incident,
to more carefully assess events and outcomes.

Did you see me say that I supervised her LESS afterward? Not so, since
I knew perfectly well that children of that age (three) do NOT
understand WHY, but only how to put events in a sequence they know.

In other words I taught her a sequence that could result in danger
again and taught her a sequence that would be safer should she want to
climb again, or look at the bulls again.

You, who would have spanked, I presume, would have made her afraid of
YOU, thus more likely ending her natural exploration while YOU were
around.


Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by

sitting
back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence,


I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out
that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or

later
get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and
usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got

to
do a little exploring.

But, you were quite quick to point out, when I and others brought up

the
topic that you give a safe place to play and closely supervise them.


That's correct.

The
inference was clearly there that if the child wandered off, the

parent was
somehow negligent, yet you cannot even see that same fact in your own
example.


How would I be calling the parent negligent if it was something that
happens in the normal course of every day?

It sounds to me as though you are proposing locking the child up
either physically or psychologically, for safety sake.

in clear cut
jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing ....


Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I

DID
NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so

that
they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue

to
maintain her balance.


You were frozen with fear then?


Hardly. What an odd supposition.

You did not state that you did anything to save her, only that you

calmly
talked to her afterwards.


On the contrary. NOT running toward her screaming or otherwise
distracting her left her for a few more seconds relying on her own
good balance.

You seem terribly ignorant of human reactions.

I'm sure you are greatful that nothing happened,


I don't believe that for a second.

but from what little you've given us, we have nothing to show that

your
'methods' had anything to do with saving her life.


Nothing I could have done at the time, other than not startle or
distract her, could have saved her life. In fact any untoward action
on my part would more likely have endangered her further by
distraction.

What my "'methods'" did do was drastically lower the odds of her
putting herself in such danger again. Spanking her might have well
made her afraid enough of me so that next time she chose to
explore...anything risky (which of course she can't really judge) she
might do so furtively...something spanked children are very accustomed
to doing.


ANY parent
worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way

immediately,
even if it meant putting themselves in danger.


My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into

the
pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have
been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He
already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention.

I would certainly hope so. As with my example, my young nephew was

running
full blast towards a six foot drop onto a concrete slab, looking back

and
thinking it was fun. I did not have the luxury of standing back and
watching for if I had, he would surely have crushed his skull.

Did I give him a swat on the butt after I caught him, just as his

foot went
over the edge.. You bet I did.


Of course you did, thus distracting him from the lessons you should
have been teaching. Now he has, from you, yet another reason not to
trust adults. He'll show you when he's in his teens if you and his
parents keep disrupting the instruction he needs.

Your example is perfect. Fear of heights is one of the few naturally
instinctive fears humans are born with. Just taking him to the edge
and showing him and expressing your concern would have been more than
enough. Now he has the confusion of pain from you.

When he is a teen he'll again be tempted to run toward dangerous
things, and in resistance to the pain he felt as a child, and because
he's had one of likely many interferences with thinking things through
and collecting data, the odds will be against him thinking through the
use of drugs, engaging in unprotected sex, driving recklessly, etc.

My children were taught to think. Yours to try and figure out how to
get around you pain applications.

I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both

abused
and non
abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this

group
can tell
you
that each child responds differently and no one single method

works for
every child, even within the same family.

Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes

parenting
and life
easier for the parent?"

Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such

a
lame
assed question.


Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond

to.
You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you?


No, it WAS a lame question. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child

is
simply imposing a controlling will on them is way out in space

somewhere.

As I said. You didn't read or understand apparently. I doubt he would
ever assume that you were claiming that teaching is simply impossing
on another. He's very knowledgable.

You spend a good deal of time misunderstanding. Why is that? Spanked
much as a child?

I've heard it claimed it can interfere with thinking capacity later in
life.


Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"

Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child

make
every
decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from

any
decent
parent's viewpoint.


What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of
letting a child make every decision for themselves?


Gee Kane, your comprehensive skills are as lacking as his. Do you

even
****ing know what a rhetorical question is?


Sure. That wasn't one. It was an attempt that failed.

It was a fair shot at sarcasm though. Amateurish, but a shot.

Any attempt at parenting is called imposing one's will on them..

lol..

Nope. Attempts at parenting by force, fear, pain, humiliation, those
are imposing one's will. Alborn parented, so did I. We deliberately
chose NOT to use those methods you appear to champion.

He was pointing out the difference in different parenting methods.

Children make many
decisions without any input from others.


Yawn.. again, your attempt at attacking every single sentence in the

hopes
of obscuring the issues is quite weak indeed. OF COURSE THEY DO..

how the
hell is that relevent to this discussion, unless of course you want

to
abrigate your parental duties and let the child raise himself?


"abrogate." To abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by
authority.

A bit strong for the usage you attempted.

What makes you think that a parent that doesn't spank or otherwise
hurt or humiliate his or her child is expecting the child to raise him
or herself?

In fact I've found on average a much higher level of interaction
between child and parent among those that don't use punishment
parenting methods.

And thankfully, less with parents that do.


He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning
situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or

by
request, or by necessity.


no, you are mistaken.. again.


About what?

Or,
"makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or,

"allows
the
parent
to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works"

is
probably
quite
different from yours. What's your definition?

YOu sir are a complete and utter ass.


The braying seem to be coming out of yours.


At least my head's not stuck in it as yours appears to be.


You began that ad hom. Did you expect me to just smile and agree?


Apparently, you are more concerned
with YOUR needs than your childs.


He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the
time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and

humiliation.

LOL.. no, he doesn't want to be bothered with the child. YOu sure

love
those words pain, fear and humiliation don't you..


So a parent that goes to the trouble to use methods other than pain
and humiliation parenting "doesn't want to be bothered with the
child?"

How would that work?

Are you, like so many of the spanking crowd, assuming less involvement
by parents that don't spank?


Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go

into
the
street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and

dangerous
to that
child.


Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and

is
so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any

other
possibilities.

Yep, sounds like you indeed. Close minded and linear thinking. One

size
fits all.


The use of pain parenting has far more close mindedness and linear
thinking involved.

If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread

by
discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own
children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he
thought best for his children.


And had he found that not spanking didn't work, that would be his

choice and
his parental rights.


But he found the opposite. Throwing in maybe's and possibilities
against what he did learn seems a very weak argument.

But to attempt to portray all spankers as abusers and
simply imposing a controlling will on a child,


He and I would assume that it isn't 24/7, but then injury doesn't have
to happen 24/7 for it to have a 24/7 impact.

I'm trying to find a way for you to defend the notion that spanking a
child is NOT imposing one's will on them. So far no luck.

Help me out please.

as both you and he have tried
to do is completely dishonest


Since neither of us tried to do that you apparently misunderstand or
we fail in our attempts to get you to understand.

and an attempt to shove your concepts on
parenting upon others.


Neither of us have any authority over your browser, computer, or this
ng. No one here is forced to read what I say, or what anyone else
says.

One of the characteristics of the spanked seems to be a inordinate
sense of being manipulated by others....in fact of having the others
will forced on them.

You must have been spanked a lot. Or it effected you immensely.

Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made

it
very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and

very
likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found

exactly
the same thing.

Again, a claim you do not substantiate. "others" attempts to assume

that
everyone or most follow and agree with your assertions.


Why would that be. "Others" has never meant "everyone" in my lexicon.

Does it to you?

Just as I can most
assuredly state that "Others" have found that non spanking does not

produce
the results they desire and that some children are much more

manipulative
than others.


I am aware that "others" would include some who got different results
from different methods. Perfectly logical.

Did you think I wouldn't know that?

You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get

away
with.

On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent,
especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they

received.
It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your
delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success?


LOL.. another flip flop.


I guess I don't understand what you mean by flip flop.

Now you admit that children test the limits..


Can you find a single instance where I would have suggested they
didn't? Of course they do. It's I that keep referring to nature and
the force of developmental exploration.

yet
most psychologists claim that children actually WANT limits to be

set,

I've always laughed at that. The immediate response so often is that
"limits" means restraint. It means "show me how to do this so I can
learn it." In other words, movable and flexible boundaries.

and
that by avoiding that, and avoiding the imposition of any

consequences is
dangerous and makes them feel unloved.


Why do the boundaries and limits have to be pain related? I set
boundaries and limits with my children without the use of humiliation
and pain. Apparently they worked extremely well.

When non spanking and positive encourgement do not work, I suppose

you just
give up and let the child do as they please?


Why would I do that?

On the other hand it's so rare as to be negligible. A pattern was
begun early in my children's lives of cooperation and support in
learning and developing.

My children could trust me NOT to hurt or humiliate them
intentionally. Hence they knew that they could expect assistance and
guidance and would come for it willingly.

And you consider that a
success?


Not if it failed.

It didn't.

And it grew more and more effective the more I used non-punitive
methods. Rapidly.

I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally,
highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because

they
feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were

children
who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those

I
turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting.


I was a martial arts instructor for well over 25 years and most of

the
children and adults I worked with respected me and did not fear me.

I
imposed phyiscal hardships on them in training for disciplinary

purposes,
but they soon learned that I was not abusive nor would I purposely

injure
them.


Yes, thus proving my point. What makes you think I didn't impose
stringent and sometimes physically hard instruction on my children?

I simply didn't humilate or hurt them. They sought out challenges
themselves.

So what is your point? Do you make your child do pushups if they are

bad?

No. I asked them if pushups would be relevant and if so why not do
them? But that rarely came up since I was never that out of touch with
reality and logic. I would much more likely point out the possible
consequences of their less than useful behavior, like climbing where
it was dangerous instead of where it was safer.

I often included talking about the actual consequences as well, such
as my fear they would be hurt. They were respectful of my feelings
because I was of theirs, and of their need to explore somehow.

Or do you pat them on the head and say please don't do it again.


I might include that if it was relevant. My children tended to care a
great deal about my requests.


Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's

no
shortcut
that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my

children to be
non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid

pain.


You assume they do not have the ability to learn that there are

consequences
associated with their actions.


That would be impossible for me to do. The real world doesn't work
like that. My children lived with consequences all the time just like
other children.

You are apparently assuming that pain and humiliation are the only
useful consequences. Humans have much more going on than that.

You demean them as less than animals if you
think they simply respond to pain and simply learning to fear you.


So when YOU hit them or otherwise cause pain it's soooooo special that
it doesn't demean them?

That is
again, only dealing with the truly abusive parent and not applicable

to this
discussion.


Nice try. No cigar.

You attempt continually to portray all spanking as abuse.


Yes. It is. Possibly in play it wouldn't be, but when used for
teaching it is abusive. It interfers with the learning underway and
more especially with learning later in life. It sets up a pattern I
did not want my children trapped in.


No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you

did not
do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous

situations.

I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to,

driven
by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them

to
handle more effectively.


A weasle answer if I ever heard one.


Are you suggesting they are more likely to live if they are spanked?

What would be weasely about my opinion?


You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't
you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and

feelings
I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust

herself
more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to

me,
that our relationship was far more important in her development

than
strick adherence to my control of her.


That would have done a hell of a lot of good had she been gored by

the bull
while you sat back and watched.


Why are you attempting to make people think I would have simply sat
back and watched? I didn't nor did I describe the events as though I
had.

You are terribly dishonest.

Perhaps had you given her a swat on the butt, she may not have

climbed that
fence to begin with.


For what would I have given her a swat on the butt that would have
told her that climbing that fence was verboten? She was three. She
might have well been drawn, as three year olds often are, to the very
thing forbidden. And been shakey and frightened while following
nature's plan for her to explore and learn to control her environment.

No, my children were bold and adventurous, yet highly skilled in their
exlorations, then and now. Still haven't been gored. And they have
developed very well indeed.

I preferred
them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.

You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get

their way
and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care

enough to
discipline them or set limits for them.


Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned

out
that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be
around.

Well, we have to accept your word on that now don't we?


Isn't that the case for both of us?

What's the real
point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on

behavioral
"acts" in
your presence and for your benefit?

Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any

sense
of
rationality.


If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation

of
the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any

sense
of rationality."


There comes the hurt and humiliation bull**** again. Sound like a

broken
record.


That little tirade doesn't answer my statement. So, do you believe
that children raised without deliberate hurt and humiliation by their
parent...their primary teacher...produces manipulative adults?

People get humilitated throughout their lives.


No question about it, though I notice children raised without a diet
of it from their most trusted parent/teacher tend to not be easy to
humiliate. They seem to think attempts to do so rather silly and a
failing of the one making the attempt, not of themselves.

Its when they dont
learn to handle it, we have explosive situations occur.


And spanking teaches them to handle humiliation how?

And avoids a build up to an explosive situation how?

Poor *******s like yourself cannot understand the harm you are doing,

and
want to portray yourself as some kind of hero to the child and

everyone else
is an abusive ass.. You are pathetic.


What a sad commentary.

It flies in the face of reality but you are unable to see it. This is
a near perfect example of the harm spanking can do to people's
capacity to think clearly and factually.

No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and

Kane seem
to
try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by

avoiding
the
distinction between abuse and spanking.

Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is

between
abuse
and
spanking?

DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what

constitutes
abuse and corporal punishment.


Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for
ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their
application from place to place and time to time.

Any striking of the child with anything
other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the

behind
is
abusive.


There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school
personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do
NOT rule out the use of objects.


Name them please, or show me a link which states they exist.


Actually the article below is a pretty good read on what is what in
this nation about spanking stats.

http://www.yrfire.com/story/2002/11/8/233317/208

Poll: Most Americans approve of spanking kids

By brian, Section News
Posted on Thu Nov 14th, 2002 at 09:26:32 PM PST

..........

"The U.S. Department of Education has reported that school-sanctioned
spanking is most prevalent in Southern states - Mississippi, Arkansas,
Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana. There are no state laws
against spanking, although 27 states have policies against the
practice and this year Pennsylvania is debating becoming the 28th.
Spanking in schools is currently allowed in 23 states (although in
many districts parents who object can withhold permission for school
personnel to spank their kids)."

There are dozens more links with this information. I was off by one
state, but then I did say "about."

Here, have a look for yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...of+Educat ion

Know of course that a few sex oriented sites will pop up in the list
since spanking is a sexual fetish to some. Ever wonder where that
comes from?


The criteria is damage caused, not objects used.

Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said

you and
Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by

dishonestly
accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have

repeatedly
stated that I am not in favor of abuse,


You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse

by
failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact

you
mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar

or
neurotic.


AHH.. there it is folks.. I am promoting abuse.. another lie by Kane

which
shows his true nature.


Of course you promote abuse. That you might be ignorant of your
promoting is what is up for question now.

He asks for a definition then refuses to accept it.


Refuses to accept what? I haven't seen your post where you defined
spanking as yet. I've seen you say a little tap on the butt, as I
recall, or words to that effect, but that isn't everyone's definition
of spanking, now is it?

The great problem with spanking is that what YOU might call spanking,
might not be what others do. That's the problem with "spanking."

And supporting the practice, without a far too complex caveat defining
YOUR meaning most carefully, can easily result in someone ELSE
following your thinking and spanking according to their definition,
which might be highly abusive.

Thus, you promote abuse. I am not lying.

It doesn't fit with his
mentality that any kind of discipline is not necessarily abuse.


Since I used discipline with my children all the time, but did not
hurt or humiliate them deliberately (and very rarely indeed
unintentionally) it kind of follows that my mentality would not fit
your claim above.

but by attempting to lump the two
together, you think it will make your position more viable.


Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you
prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some
children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong,

I'd
say you are the one straining at your stool.


ahh. but it IS defined in my narrow way.


Show me.

It is defined LEGALLY.


Show me.

You asked for my citations. You go them. I don't believe I've ever
gotten one from you when I asked for proof. Just more babbling.

Again I
repeat since your tiny brain cannot assimilate the information,

anyone who
exceeds the legal definition of corporal punishment is criminally

negligent
and should be brought to task.


Interesting that even the law is inconsistent, isn't it? One one state
you cannot leave a mark that lasts over x number of hours. In another
you can leave marks that will last for life.

So there is no single definition, now is there?

Kinda blows you off your moral high horse don't it?


Not in the least. But then I don't mount up. You appear to be
backwards on your mule though.


You are too
obvious.


I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for
Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this

issue
and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a

very
long time.


Maybe you should stop examining and take a look at real life.


I am examining real life. The data is out there. The prisons are full
of the results of your kind of parenting. We are still fighting wars
based on the same kind of thinking.

Injuries to children have been and are being done by people that are
sure they are not abusing their children when later examination proves
they have and did.



I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that

people
like
yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by

avoiding
the
separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high

moral
ground.

Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is

between
abuse
and
spanking. How do you define abuse?

I already have.. Time and time again.


And your definition doesn't stand up.


It stands up in any court of law throughout the nation.


You haven't cited a single law yet. Just babbled. Show us some. I'll
show you dozens I've collected that show that the law doesn't really
know what they hell spanking is or isn't.

If you google on "spanking in schools" you'll see what I mean.

You haven't really researched this have you? Just got your own opinion
and that's all that matters, right?

Again, you prove time and time again that you are a liar and an

agenda here.

Point out my lies please.

And yes, I certainly do have an agenda.

What are YOU doing here?

You continue to show your complete
lack of reading comprehension.


On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very
well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You
miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is

an
ancient practice that should stand on that alone.


I fail to make sense? LOL.


Yes, you do. LOL.

You've twisted, turned and backpeddled on every
issue.


Please point out specific instances.

You think taking every sentence and attacking it,


I have not taken every sentence and attacked it. Please show where I
have. There are large tracts of characters in our posts I haven't
responded to.

or trying to use
the same wording to somehow give validity as your stance is going to

sway
anyone.


I guess I have to leave the success or failure of my arguments up to
the reader, now don't I?

I can see that YOU are not swayed. I expected that. Though I always
have hope. Even dedicated spankers, as Alborn was once, can and do
learn better.

So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was
the idea that objects have spirits inside them.


Yawn, more nonsense.


I don't think so. It is nonsense to claim that something is validated
as true and correct just because it has been done for a long time by a
lot of people.

Yawn.



And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people

like
you have
created a generation of children who lack respect or

discipline
in their
lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not

being able
to
deal with reality.

But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply

rooted,
misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're

certainly not
looking
at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why

you
must
maintain
a tight grip on your beliefs.


I'm blinded? lol


'Fraid so.


Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to

misconstrue
everything that is said,


Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued.

flip flop back and forth


And my flips and flops.

I tire of your nonsense.. I think most here have recognized them as

i've
pointed them out time and time again.


I don't know. Ask them. I'm sure you can muster at least a few, and
they will be part of the 90% or so that already say they spank in this
country. So you'll have to come up with 9 or every one I come up with
to offset that statistical advantage, now won't you?

and try to put up straw
men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your

bull****
claims, which you and he have made.


I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own
experience, do so.


yeah, funny YOU claimed you had so much 'experience'.


I do and did. I said I don't have to get others to "try," as others
already "do" back me up.


If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know

I
have
changed my position on several major issues when others have shown

a
logical
and reasonable reason for their beliefs.


No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but

I
don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this
discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from
non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but
you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the

rabid
pro spanking faction.


Yawn..


Oxygen deprived? Thought so.

then you prove yourself to be a liar as well as you've claimed to be
'lurking' here for a long time now.


You claimed you have been able to change when presented with valid
argument. I challenged that claim. You haven't produced any evidence
that you do as you claimed.

Case close?

Or will you pull a rabbit out of a hat and prove me wrong with posts
of yours and others showing your willingness to change when presented
with a good argument?

I doubt it.

But people like you and Kane


What are we like?

continue to lie


Point out the lie please.

and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
abusive..


Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such

thing.
We point out that our parenting is also discipline.


You have yet to show that in any way.


Is "discipline" teaching? If it is NOT then you are correct. If it is
then I am correct and have offered you many examples of discipline.

Kane
  #40  
Old November 9th 03, 10:55 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:20:00 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message

news:aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03...
"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message
news:jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51...
Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not

a
'pysical
punishment'.. lol

As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a

child
doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical
punishment, only that adults have choices children do not.

Kane said:
So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such
things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are

you
prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference

to
the post where I said it?


Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that

statement and
you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the

poster
claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I

stated
that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an

enlisted man
in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does

indeed
exist as a discipline in the armed services.


This isn't your statement that opens this post:

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

Obviously you were responding to something I said about physical
punishment, were you not?

Are you not accusing me of claiming such things aren't physical
punishment?


I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile

hikes
with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show

how much
of a weasel you can be.


No, this is precisely what you said (and it's even attributed
correctly to you in this very post above):

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

In other words it sounds very like you are claiming that I am claiming
something, no?

And I know precisely what the discussion was about. It was that
punishment is not required to teach someone something.

And by the way, having participated in many forced marches in both
training and combat I know precisely what it is meant to do. It is
meant to physically harden the troop. It is meant to familiarize him
with hardship.

And my statement still stands. If a troop is either voluntarily or by
law required to undergo such training he or she STILL has recourse a
child does not. If there is an injury most adults will know it and
make it known. Children often do NOT know when they have been injured
or assume that is correct because the parent did it to them.


Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous

name. What
you
see is what you get fella.


Kane stated:
Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to

bluff
it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or
rather what he was. A troll.


Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined

'nemesis' you
encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own

position.

This is a particulary Jonseish response.

I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not

shown or
admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool

newsgroup
an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that

category
quite clearly.


Less than 200 though I think recently you have raised your number to
close to that just in this tread, though it appears you posted a
couple of times elsewhere. That still is very few posts for someone
that claims he can has changed his position on an issue here by
admitting someone had a superior argument.

You still haven't, after my second request, managed to show that claim
of yours.

I'm waiting.


You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see

how
many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very

new
poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie

has
had many names.


Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol..

what a
lame assed attempt.


And I notice you still haven't managed to explain why you have only
200 or less posts in just a few weeks yet you claim to have a history
long enough that you engaged in argument and had your mind changed by
facts.

I'm waiting.

Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of
switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's..


I don't recall accusing you of posting under another name. Only that
you could be Jonesie. He posted under many names.

If you think I'm posting as someone else and it's relevant to your
argument that spanking is superior for parenting then non-painful
parenting please show the connection.

I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like

yourself
posting nonsense.


You seldom come anywhere in Usenet. Unless you are using a new name.

If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him.


I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few

clones
yourself.


Nope. And we have each other's word on it. R R R R


By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back.

Your
style hasn't changed in all these years.

Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these

newsgroups
'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are.


Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only

171
posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon

hundreds
before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record

for
number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was

in
talk.politics.guns as I recall.


Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself?

DUH..

IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record

for
posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name?

LOL..

Everyone has to start somewhere. The point of his record wasn't that
HE posted, but that OTHERS posted, even after he declared, very late
in the game, that he was a troll.

I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I

DO
however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some
nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's

your
****ing problem guy.


Actually you have posted in 5 groups that I've found. And your
earliest post is
"
Search Result 178
From: Dennis Hancock )
Subject: Home Schooling Done Wrong???
View: Complete Thread (33 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc
Date: 2003-07-03 07:14:07 PST
"

Now possibly google is not working properly, but I've always found it
doing its job.

July 3 this year is only a bit over 4 months. And 178 posts are hardly
supportive of your claims.

Frankly I don't particularly care who you are, only that you are a
stupid little man who abused or abuses his children. And is busy
trying to justify it.


Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin

boards
and
since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've

ever
engaged
you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions

to try
to
uphold your convictions.


Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up.


My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse?

Paranoia
running rampant?


It's not showing up before July this year.

What makes you think my name is not pokahuyakokane? It is.


It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me

of, an
old iJones number from years ago.

Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN.


Sounds just like Jonesie.


Then he musta been onto you just as I am.


You onto me? r r r r



What would I be lying about? I merely speculated.

My name on here is my real
name,


Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in
electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you

can't
portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written
autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really

are.

No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and

met
enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand

that than
most.


Yes. That's good.

What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am

somehow your
old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics?


In order: very little to do with it really. No, I'm not.


I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate

prior
to this one. Period.


That's nice. I don't believe you.


Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a

liar and
a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted.


You may think what you wish. I think you are a dangerous parent and a
dangerous human being. Those that fool themselves into thinking that
spanking isn't harmful tend to be.



But it was fun while it lasted.

Who trolled who..r r r r

Kane

Apparently, you.. dumbass.


Kinda losing it, eh?

I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it?

Kane


You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop.


Blew what? You are still posting in reply, and you are still making a
fool of yourself.

And there's very little I'm afraid of. Neither you, nor Jonesie.

Kane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debate on spanking Doan General 0 June 12th 04 08:30 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 1 October 25th 03 10:41 PM
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 0 October 9th 03 08:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.