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
  #41  
Old November 9th 03, 11:03 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03...
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


No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
strange little side trip.

and hangs on kane's every word.


He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?

Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
kane himself using an alter ego.


Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
before me. You can google and see for yourself.


"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


The link above takes one to the following message:


From: Raymond Besse )
Subject: [soc.religion.quaker] crybabies
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet
Date: 2003-11-02 15:25:01 PST


[Submitter's note: the message was posted during a spell of rather
ill-tempered posts.]

Subject: crybabies
From: William Ehrich
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker

Echos of sounds heard while going down the stairs from my
apartment:

Mommy, she called me a bad name
He's a liar
Mommy, she called me a liar
Make him stop
Make her stop
He copied my homework
I did not
You did too
I did not
You did too
She won't follow the rules
He never listens
I do too
You do not
I do too
You do not
....

Enough already. Me out of the building for a quiet walk.

--
Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria
posted
in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the
responsibility
of the submitter. Submit articles to . To write to
the
moderators, send mail to
.
end....................

Header, body, and sig line complete. Nothing deleted or changed. Can
you show me please how this might show what you seem to be claiming,
or am I misunderstanding you?

Were you just hoping and praying for a way out of the corner you've
painted yourself into?

You certainly are losing it badly.

I'm sure you can explain all this somehow, kind of like you explain
spanking is not abuse.

By the way, figured out the problem with the law defining abuse yet?

They have a minimal definition. One can do a lot of damange without it
being called abuse. Do you wish to stick with the legal definition of
abuse to excuse spanking that you claim is nonabusive?

Kane




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

  #42  
Old November 10th 03, 01:37 AM
Gerald Alborn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

Kane wrote:

"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03...
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


No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
strange little side trip.

and hangs on kane's every word.


He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?


I went into lurk mode in early February, when I left the ranks of the unemployed (around the same time
when I realized that Doan was a lost cause). I didn't do any ng posting until recently. I'm still not
planning on going all out on posting to the ng like I used to. It simply devours too much time.

Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
kane himself using an alter ego.


Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
before me. You can google and see for yourself.


I think it was around mid-1995 when I first came to this ng. Several years prior (~1991), some of us here
debated about the ills of spanking on a parenting bulletin board on Prodigy.

-Jerry-

  #45  
Old November 12th 03, 03:29 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:


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.


And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with absolutely no
question.

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.


For someone who hasn't bothered to go back and read the posts.. YOU can
claim they aren't there? LOL.. You sure your not Kane in drag?

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.


You apparently didn't google the challenges to Kane's background by several
others who seemed quite convinced he was this same person using another
name, who had made that claim. OR his nonsensical denials that someone was
reposting under his name in other newsgroups to attempt to discredit him.


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-


Apparently not. Im quite certain that if I had made up some fictional
nonsense that you just happened to agree with, you would be asking others to
disprove it (while ignoring all who did), and harp on how my 'stated'
experience was so great.




  #46  
Old November 12th 03, 04:08 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 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.


Kane:
This isn't your statement that opens this post:

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



Thank you Kane, for showing how illiterate you truly are. Do you not even
understand SARCASM when it's directed at you when you deliberately attempt
to disavow what I stated that there indeed "was physical punishment in the
armed forces"? You simpy attempted to lie your way thru it by saying that
one cannot physically strike an enlisted man, while ignoring the fact that
there ARE indeed physical punishments associated with discipline.

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 am accusing you of attempting to weasel out of it by limiting physical
punishment to actually striking another, when you knew I had completely
destroyed the other person's argument that adults in the service aren't
subjected to physical punishment, while children are.

You like to attempt the play on words don't you?



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):


As I have said before, you have very little comprehension ability, or an
ability to understand sarcasm. Re read it again.. several times. Only your
little parrot in here would possibly have construed it as my saying that YOU
SAID such and such, when I directed it to you as a sarcastic question.


"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.


You have also injected into the discussion the use of punishment as a
disciplinary method as well. Or do we deny that the topic has ranged from
the very small toddler to the older child being disciplined?

Or do we pick and choose selectively which topic we're discussing and apply
various sentences to only that one? Apparently so.


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.


"Chidren often do NOT know when they ahve been injured?" See, I can choose
and pick thru your nonsense as well.

See how easily it is to misquote someone, but your meaning and inuendos are
perfectly clear.

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.


Another of your delusions Kane? I would ask anyone who still bothers to
read your nonsense, exactly HOW many people have seen someone actually admit
in a newsgroup that they're just a troll.. lol..

And of course, You post your beliefs which try to portray ANYONE who uses a
physical disciplinary method on their child as monsters or child abusers and
you think you are not considered a troll?


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.


Perhaps my limited number of posts show that I only jump into topics which
gain my attention...(hmm, I thought trolls attempted to flood newsgroups
with their nonsense in a lame attempt to start flame wars and raise
controversy among the users)..

Since there are so few for you to read thru, amazing you haven't noted the
ones where I accepted as logical and natural the reasons many objected to
the pledge as being religious in nature, or the ones that I quite readily
accepted that the attacks on it were not indeed simply attacks on religion.

Oh, but now I suppose I'll be accused of being a religious fundy, when
indeed I have never posted anything other than people be allowed to believe
or not believe whatever they choose..

Ahh,, but I sense Im wasting my time with a closed and empty mind.


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

I'm waiting.


It's there guy.. IF you can read. Besides, since it seems you've posted
nearly as many posts on THIS thread alone, my mere less thean 200 posts it
should be quite easily to find.

YOU, on the other hand refuse to accept studies that others have posted,
Doan for one, as mere propoganda..



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.


LOL.. how many names have you had on these newsgroups Kane? Seems you are
the one hiding behind an acronym.
Weak and lame arguments or accusations of someone stalking you to try to
discredit you only made you look more the fool that you truly are.


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.


Again, the liar in you.. I've claimed that I ran a computer bulletin board
and was very active on local bbs's.. you DO know what those are don't you?
I have NEVER stated that I have a "history long enough" for anything, other
than I HAVE changed my opinions by factual and honest positions of others..
Something you apparently cannot comprehend.


I'm waiting.


Don't need to wait long asshole.. They're all googled for your reference,
and since they're so 'ew'.. you shouldn't have much problem finding em.

Kinda reminds me of a lame assed debate on the old bbs's when I got the
better of someone I disagreed with, they claimed I was 'new' here and thus
had no 'right' to an opinion. I have every right to my opinion and to
state it, whether it's right or wrong. Again, you show yourself the fool
you truly are.


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.


You CALLED me Jonsie in your responses.. Another weasel attempt to back
off of your wild fantasies again?


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.


Bull****.. I've read your nonsense on another political sub Im on. And I
don't use different names as well. Besides, I will ask you again, WHAT IS
THE RELEVANCE as to how often I post.. Does it make you worried that you
can't brainwash an adult as you would like to think you are capable of?


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


Then I suppose it was someone else posting under your name, the denials that
you made certain posts? That someone was posting the same lame arguments
you are posting under your name to try to discredit you? Again, for
clarification, NOTE THE QUESTION MARK!! (I need to clarify because of your
lack of comprehension ability)...



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.


Ahh.. figures, your one of those anti gun freaks too.


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.


LOL... now anyone who posts opposing your position is influenced by MY
posting? Gee, thanks for all the credit guy. You are still living in a
fantasy world of your own.


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


I don't even read 5 groups, seeing most of them as total nonsense, but I
could easily have made a post or two on a topic which caught my eye.
"
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.


WHAT CLAIMS? You think it takes 1000 posts to convince someone that
another person's opinions are valid, or to change their position on
something? You sir are a very strange person. Again, what the hell is the
relevance?

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.


No, you are an obnoxious old fool who knows nothing about me, only your wild
assumptions that anyone who uses any sort of physical punishment is a
"monster" who abuses his children.

You are a fraud and a liar whose entire premise falls upon attempting to
confuse abuse with discipline, anyone who uses any sort of physical
discipline HAS to be abusive, else you have no case. That's why you so
adamantly refuse to accept ANY definition of spanking because it blows your
entire case to shreds.

If you cannot portray anyone who spanks as an abusive monster, then your own
little idyllic version of life is reduced to the fact that many parents use
a variety of methods on their children, until they find what works. You
cannot accept any deviation from your own beliefs that you must villify any
who disagree with you.




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.



LOL.. Since you are apparently the old experienced expert, wonder how many
names you've come up with? Or perhaps you just continue to use the name
kane to troll as many ng's as possible with your nonsense.

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.


Thats because I seldom visited ng's before this year. DUH..


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.


WHO is the clown attempting to portray someone who disagrees with them as a
"troll"? Does it do anything to enhance your arguments? I think not.



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


Yep. Like flies on ****.



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


Then why the smokescreens? Why the paranoid accusations that I am someone
else? Face it, you are dangerous. You have made lame accusations which you
cannot back up. Your own posts shows you to be a negligent parent and only
lucky that your child was not injured. Only a fool would think that somehow
justifies a position one has taken on parenting.


  #47  
Old November 12th 03, 04:17 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:c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03...
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

No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
strange little side trip.

and hangs on kane's every word.


He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?

Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
kane himself using an alter ego.


Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
before me. You can google and see for yourself.


"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


The link above takes one to the following message:


From: Raymond Besse )
Subject: [soc.religion.quaker] crybabies
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet
Date: 2003-11-02 15:25:01 PST


[Submitter's note: the message was posted during a spell of rather
ill-tempered posts.]

Subject: crybabies
From: William Ehrich
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker

Echos of sounds heard while going down the stairs from my
apartment:

Mommy, she called me a bad name
He's a liar
Mommy, she called me a liar
Make him stop
Make her stop
He copied my homework
I did not
You did too
I did not
You did too
She won't follow the rules
He never listens
I do too
You do not
I do too
You do not
...

Enough already. Me out of the building for a quiet walk.

--
Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria
posted
in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the
responsibility
of the submitter. Submit articles to . To write to
the
moderators, send mail to
.
end....................

Header, body, and sig line complete. Nothing deleted or changed. Can
you show me please how this might show what you seem to be claiming,
or am I misunderstanding you?

Were you just hoping and praying for a way out of the corner you've
painted yourself into?

You certainly are losing it badly.


*I* am losing it badly? LOL. Again, your comprehension is sorely lost in
your fairy tale world. I said "I would not be surprised if it weren't kane
himself using an alter ego".. Please explain in your limited mind HOW that
is any kind of accusation? Especially in the light that YOU are the one who
has made that accusation directed towards me.

No, you are clutching at straws here. LOL.. not only a liar, but an idiot as
well.


I'm sure you can explain all this somehow, kind of like you explain
spanking is not abuse.


Only a tiny mind such as your own lacks comprehension. And thank you for
admitting that you are so limited in comprehension that your entire argument
HAS to consider any spanking as abuse.. you've truly lost except for those
few whose thinking is the same as yours.


By the way, figured out the problem with the law defining abuse yet?


There's a 'problem' with the law defining abuse? Try telling that to the
judge..


They have a minimal definition. One can do a lot of damange without it
being called abuse. Do you wish to stick with the legal definition of
abuse to excuse spanking that you claim is nonabusive?


No, and you refuse to accept the fact that there is also emotional abuse,
which is non physical which can do GREATER harm.

You don't have a clue guy. You are stuck in this non spanking mode of yours
and nothing will change it. To you, everyone who spanks or uses any
disicpline has to be a monster. You've truly taken on trollish ideology
here.


Kane




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



  #48  
Old November 12th 03, 04:23 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

Gerald, you don't have to explain your absence, I was being facetious due to
Kane's nonsensical accusation that I was an old nemesis who had trolled him
in the past, somehow deluding himself into thinking it makes his position
right or somehow better.

I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on your
children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do attempt
many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.. and quite
often, use different methods for different siblins.

My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE who
uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who
abuses children, and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
refuses to accept any definitions given to him.

He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both positive
and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come up
with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of
posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and let
him continue his rantings and ravings.

"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message

news:c_erb.148530$Tr4.394655@attbi_s03...
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

No, he is asking you to show the proof of what you claimed as he is
unable to find it. Of course it doesn't exist so off you go on this
strange little side trip.

and hangs on kane's every word.


He does? I'd be flattered. But He's ignored me on and off for many
months. Hardly "every word" hanging on to, eh?


I went into lurk mode in early February, when I left the ranks of the

unemployed (around the same time
when I realized that Doan was a lost cause). I didn't do any ng posting

until recently. I'm still not
planning on going all out on posting to the ng like I used to. It simply

devours too much time.

Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't
kane himself using an alter ego.


Not likely. Alborn has been around in these ngs I think for some time
before me. You can google and see for yourself.


I think it was around mid-1995 when I first came to this ng. Several years

prior (~1991), some of us here
debated about the ills of spanking on a parenting bulletin board on

Prodigy.

-Jerry-



  #50  
Old November 12th 03, 07:56 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 03:08:47 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
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.


Kane:
This isn't your statement that opens this post:

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



Thank you Kane, for showing how illiterate you truly are. Do you not

even
understand SARCASM when it's directed at you when you deliberately

attempt
to disavow what I stated that there indeed "was physical punishment

in the
armed forces"?


Nice try. You know perfectly I did no such thing. What I did do was
point out, as you seem to have avoided responding to so far, that any
"physical punishment" metted out to an adult has repercussions, up to
and including refusal to participate. Children have no such recourse.

Let's see if you respond to that finally in this reply.

You simpy attempted to lie your way thru it


I lie? R R R

by saying that
one cannot physically strike an enlisted man, while ignoring the fact

that
there ARE indeed physical punishments associated with discipline.


The enlisted man, or woman, volunteered. And they have recourse a
child does not. The child does not have informed consent. The adult,
who enlists, or even who is drafted, has a number of choices whether
or not to subject themself to physical "punishment."

And my claim still stands very nicely, thank you. One still cannot hit
a soldier to punish him, or her.

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 am accusing you of attempting to weasel out of it by limiting

physical
punishment to actually striking another,


Actually I don't. Especially in the case of children. Nor did I make
any such attempt. You claimed, I countered, you used sarcasm to avoid
the issue I countered with...that children do not have recourse
against physical punishment and adults do.

when you knew I had completely
destroyed the other person's argument that adults in the service

aren't
subjected to physical punishment,


You destroyed nothing. The difference between a child and adult vis a
vis punishment was the point of the poster, and my point, and you
still haven't answered it.

while children are.


Of course children are subjected to it, and they should not be, as
they have no recourse. Adults do.

You like to attempt the play on words don't you?


Not in the least. I'm trying to get you to stop doing so. And you
simply refuse to answer what is asked.



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):


As I have said before, you have very little comprehension ability, or

an
ability to understand sarcasm.


I have no trouble understanding sarcasm at all, expecially when it is
used to mislead the reader away from the point and the issue. Adults
cannot be legally subjected to the same punishments as children.

It is you that is weaseling.

Re read it again.. several times. Only your
little parrot in here would possibly have construed it as my saying

that YOU
SAID such and such, when I directed it to you as a sarcastic

question.

And I answered it and I am waiting for a response from you that
addresses my response, not your continual fiddling about hoping no one
will notice you haven't answered the claim.


"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.


You have also injected into the discussion the use of punishment as a
disciplinary method as well.


I didn't inject it. YOU did, by the use of the word "discipline"
connect to spanking. Spanking isn't discipline (teaching) it's just
terrorising and punishment.

Or do we deny that the topic has ranged from
the very small toddler to the older child being disciplined?


Why would I deny it. I never brought it up. Why are you doing so now,
except that you haven't responded to the claims and questions given
and asked of you.

Or do we pick and choose selectively which topic we're discussing and

apply
various sentences to only that one? Apparently so.


It doesn't matter to me if we have a closely proscribed discussion or
a wide and far ranging one. You'll still fight to avoid facing the
brutality you've apparently visited on children and defend.

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.


"Chidren often do NOT know when they ahve been injured?" See, I can

choose
and pick thru your nonsense as well.


That is correct. A child usually has no concept of psychological
injury, for instance. You can destroy their capacity to think and
explore and they may never no it even as an adult. Though it is
possible they will discover it and come back for the perpetrator.

See how easily it is to misquote someone, but your meaning and

inuendos are
perfectly clear.


Except for a couple of typos you quoted me just fine. The quote stands
for what I said as well as the whole thing.

The meaning of your statement, "but your meaning and inuendos are
perfectly clear" are not perfectly clear to me. What do you think my
inuendos and meanings are?

I don't usually pull any punches on child abusers such as you. I say
it right out and have from the first.

If I have any meanings you'll tell me what they are, not what you know
them perfectly clearly, won't you?

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.


Another of your delusions Kane? I would ask anyone who still bothers

to
read your nonsense, exactly HOW many people have seen someone

actually admit
in a newsgroup that they're just a troll.. lol..


Are you kidding? Those that do not are not true trolls. Trolls,
dispite their bad press and ill repute actually have a code of
conduct. Once you call them out they have to admit it. They can then
choose to stay and be subjected to the abuse of posters (their
arguments are all nullified by their confession of false posting) or
if clever, as Jonesie was, continue to engage poster after poster that
can't resist the quality or outrageousness of the trolls argument.

They score points that way, and they have groups of their own
(private) they go to and brag and show how they counted coup on the
dumb posters in USENET.

And of course, You post your beliefs which try to portray ANYONE who

uses a
physical disciplinary method on their child as monsters or child

abusers and
you think you are not considered a troll?


If I were I'd have to admit it if you asked me. I am not one. And a
troll cannot declare they are not a troll...all they can do is either
say nothing or if challenged confess.

You are a monster, and you are a child abuser. You've just conned
yourself into a neurotic self protective rationalization to defend the
practice and make it sanctioned by history, law, and your own self
definition of it.

Brutes commonly do this.

And most were made brutes by similar treatment as children by THEIR
parents...and of course they cannot reject the parenting they got, as
in the simple mind of a child their parents were right to parent them
as they did.

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.


Perhaps my limited number of posts show that I only jump into topics

which
gain my attention...(hmm, I thought trolls attempted to flood

newsgroups
with their nonsense in a lame attempt to start flame wars and raise
controversy among the users)..


You do not understand trolls. The skilled don't care what kind of
exchange is made, though some like the delicate touch, while other's
will indulge in flame to get hits on their posts. Whatever it takes is
the name of the game.

You seem to be rambling all over the place, and that is why I
suspected you are a troll. So....ARE YOU A TROLL?

Since there are so few for you to read thru, amazing you haven't

noted the
ones where I accepted as logical and natural the reasons many

objected to
the pledge as being religious in nature, or the ones that I quite

readily
accepted that the attacks on it were not indeed simply attacks on

religion.

I don't recall them but then I don't read everything someone has
posted. Your claim was they changed your mind with logical and factual
argument. If you don't mind, why not point me to those threads and
I'll have a chance to see if you are telling the truth...that you had
your mind made up one way and then changed it with good argument by
others.

Oh, but now I suppose I'll be accused of being a religious fundy,


I don't know. Are you? That might explain a lot.

when
indeed I have never posted anything other than people be allowed to

believe
or not believe whatever they choose..


Ooooo...careful there Dennis. A lot of what you have argued about the
responsibility of the parent toward the child is exactly that....that
people are required to believe something very special indeedy.

Ahh,, but I sense Im wasting my time with a closed and empty mind.


Your closed and empty mind isn't my problem. It's yours.


You still haven't, after my second request, managed to show that

claim
of yours.

I'm waiting.


It's there guy.. IF you can read. Besides, since it seems you've

posted
nearly as many posts on THIS thread alone, my mere less thean 200

posts it
should be quite easily to find.


No, I don't play that game. You made the claim, you support it or blow
the tiny bit of remaining credibility you are leaking out your ass
right now.

YOU, on the other hand refuse to accept studies that others have

posted,
Doan for one, as mere propoganda..


I never said they were "mere propoganda" [sic]. Some of them are
quite sophisticated propaganda but based on very poor assumptions.

The worst is they don't test the actually issue. No account, for
instance, it taken of any variables in punishment outside of Corporal
Punishment...usually meant spanking. One cannot judge the compliance
and learning of a child subjected to CP alone when it's obvious other
kinds of pain and humiliation would have a high probability of being
also in the repertoire of the punishing parent.



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.


LOL.. how many names have you had on these newsgroups Kane?


Only pohakuyakokane and stoneman, which if one speaks the language is
something of each other.

Seems you are
the one hiding behind an acronym.


Nope. Speak my name in the right circles and everyone there will know
of who you speak...and I haven't seen some of those folks in 40 years.

Weak and lame arguments or accusations of someone stalking you to try

to
discredit you only made you look more the fool that you truly are.


That is entirely outside this exchange of ours. I was interested in
seeing if you were him. I simply noted that you post like he did, and
asked you.

That is not the behavior of a fool, but of a cautious and thoughtful
person.


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.


Again, the liar in you..


What in the statement above is a lie?

I've claimed that I ran a computer bulletin board
and was very active on local bbs's.. you DO know what those are don't

you?

Yes. I had one myself.

I have NEVER stated that I have a "history long enough" for anything,


No, you stated you had had your mind changed through debate, argument
by others with you. I assume that you didn't change your mind in one
or two posts, even 10. But you can enlighten us by posting an URL to
the message threads.

other
than I HAVE changed my opinions by factual and honest positions of

others..
Something you apparently cannot comprehend.


Odd statement. And you call me a liar. Hmmmm...interesting.

How do you know whether or not I could comprehend changing of ones
mind by factual honest positions stated by others?

You'd have to really be stretching to assume that, now wouldn't you?


I'm waiting.


Don't need to wait long asshole.. They're all googled for your

reference,
and since they're so 'few'.. you shouldn't have much problem finding

em.

Not going to point to them, eh? Thought so.

Kinda reminds me of a lame assed debate on the old bbs's when I got

the
better of someone I disagreed with, they claimed I was 'new' here and

thus
had no 'right' to an opinion.


I've always been interested in the opinion of folks new to a debate or
issue. And I've always thought they had a right to them.

You don't think I don't think ou have a right to your opinions, do
you? You are stupid, and ill informed, and probably abused as a child,
but you certainly have all the rights anyone has to an opinion.
Such as it is.

I have every right to my opinion and to
state it, whether it's right or wrong. Again, you show yourself the

fool
you truly are.


I'd be a fool if I denied you the right to your opinion. But your
attempt to suggest I wouldn't is the language of the true fool.


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.


You CALLED me Jonsie in your responses.. Another weasel attempt to

back
off of your wild fantasies again?


I don't have wild fantasies. You don't know Jonesie.


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.

Bull****.. I've read your nonsense on another political sub Im on.


Really. Which one? I only post to a few. And I don't recall any of
them being political. Where did you see me post? Was it a real
contribution or simply a checkin...a post or two at most?

And I
don't use different names as well. Besides, I will ask you again,

WHAT IS
THE RELEVANCE as to how often I post..


It has relevance only in the context I asked it. You claimed you had
had debates with others and out of those honest and factual positions
of others you had had your mind changed.

I found it difficult to believe you had done that in just a few posts
(and it would be highly unlikely, now wouldn't it?) and surfed your
posts a bit and didn't find any such threads. And I noted that you
also hadn't posted to Usenet all that much, making it even more
unlikely that you were telling us the truth.

You can prove me wrong easily. I wish you would. I might make our
debate more relevant and cogent.

Does it make you worried that you
can't brainwash an adult as you would like to think you are capable

of?

Are you worried I might?

Let me assure you that if I wished to and had you handy it wouldn't be
difficult at all. You are a prime subject, given your highly defensive
posture. You've fallen all over yourself without a bit of help from
me. Imagine what could happen if I assisted you?

But I have no desire to brainwash you or anyone. I'm in this debate
fair and square and the nature of the Web limits my ability to
influence beyond the squiggles on the screen you can read or ignore at
your pleasure.

How could I possibly hope to brainwash you since you have your
powerful free will at your disposal?

Or are you lending yourself to the chance I could and want it to
happen? You have been slavishly reading me when you could twit filter
as easily as I. With your experience on the internet surely you know
how to and can use a filter, right?

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


Then I suppose it was someone else posting under your name, the

denials that
you made certain posts? That someone was posting the same lame

arguments
you are posting under your name to try to discredit you? Again, for
clarification, NOTE THE QUESTION MARK!! (I need to clarify because

of your
lack of comprehension ability)...


As you might imagine, I've made a few enemies since my old BBS days
when I made it my hobby and duty to deflate pompous asses such as you.
They occasionally follow me about making asses of themselves yet
again. The one most recently has just lost his ISP. That will be his
6th in a year at my pleasure. My little gift to him.

He'll be back.

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.


Ahh.. figures, your one of those anti gun freaks too.


RRRRR..... me with a Remington Marine 12 gauge magnum loaded and no
more than 10 feet from me, a Glock Model 22 .40 SW with two 15 round
extended magazines (pre-ban) even closer, and trophies from the USAF
pistol(.45 1911 model) team, with my name on them...? You are a card.

And that's just my casual arms. You should see the heavy duty stuff.

You misread just about everything, don't you.

Nope, I'm a pro-gun freak and an anti-spanking freak. Try to keep it
sorted out.

I must drive those who stereotype everything and everyone out of their
little gourds...r r r .

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.


LOL... now anyone who posts opposing your position is influenced by

MY
posting?


I don't recall saying that? From what would you draw such a
conclusion?

Gee, thanks for all the credit guy. You are still living in a
fantasy world of your own.


Well, you ARE just squiggles on my monitor, after all.


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


I don't even read 5 groups, seeing most of them as total nonsense,

but I
could easily have made a post or two on a topic which caught my eye.


Someone may have crossposted you. Happens.


"
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.


WHAT CLAIMS? You think it takes 1000 posts to convince someone

that
another person's opinions are valid, or to change their position on
something? You sir are a very strange person. Again, what the hell

is the
relevance?


You claimed a plural of arguments. You claimed others convinced you by
their truth and honesty.

Can you share with us how you did that in just a post or two then?
Espcially when we aren't offered the chance to see them unless we go
to all the trouble to try and find them.

If they exist you could lead us right to them with hardly more than a
few keystrokes to show the way.

Why won't you?


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.


No, you are an obnoxious old fool who knows nothing about me, only

your wild
assumptions that anyone who uses any sort of physical punishment is a
"monster" who abuses his children.


Yes. I hereby declare that those that use physical punishment on a
child to "teach" them is a monster by definition. Some are monsters
are made. I think you may have been. Am I wrong?

You are a fraud


What have I said that was fraudulent?

and a liar


What have I lied about?

whose entire premise falls upon attempting to
confuse abuse with discipline,


On the contrary. You attempt to define discipline using pain as
nonabusive. Pain used on a child is abusive.

anyone who uses any sort of physical
discipline HAS to be abusive, else you have no case.


That is correct. And so, I do have a case.

That's why you so
adamantly refuse to accept ANY definition of spanking because it

blows your
entire case to shreds.


Instead of offering one you simply claim I wouldn't accept one, or
don't. I accept ALL definitions of spanking as spanking. I also know
they are abuse. They are designed to give pain. Pain deliberately
administered by an adult against a child is abuse.

That is my definition of abuse. It happens to encompass spanking.
Sorry `bout that.

You are by my definition a monster who hurts children deliberately.
You may be not at fault given that I suspect you were created.

If you cannot portray anyone who spanks as an abusive monster, then

your own
little idyllic version of life is reduced to the fact that many

parents use
a variety of methods on their children, until they find what works.


I don't have an idyllic version of life. I do have a sensible one that
does not assign parents the responsibility of hurting their child to
attempt to teach them.

I suppose to someone that was hurt as a child by their own parents my
view might appear wildly and mistakenly idyllic, but I assure you,
among those that don't use pain parenting methods it's just common and
ordinary.

I'll admit it's fun though. A lot of fun. Everyday with my children as
they grew, and was the primary parent, was a joy. No day ended without
our resolving any problems in a loving and caring way for each other.

Does that sound idyllic?

Why not try it. What if it works?

You
cannot accept any deviation from your own beliefs that you must

villify any
who disagree with you.


Who's doing the villifying here. You are a monster, and I'm very sorry
you are. Frankly I'm not much of a believer in 'evil.' Most people
that others find evil and assume it is deliberate I find are wrong.
The 'evil' ones have no idea they are evil at all.

In fact they define themselves as heroic or some other rationale for
their horrible behavior, the pain they bring others, the fear they
instill and the damage to the world they create by it.

And usually it is because someone made them what they became.


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.



LOL.. Since you are apparently the old experienced expert, wonder

how many
names you've come up with? Or perhaps you just continue to use the

name
kane to troll as many ng's as possible with your nonsense.


Since I post almost exclusively to only about 5 ngs, that would make
me a failure as a troll by your definition above.

My 'nonsense' is simply a very serious attempt to wake people up to
the fact they can raise children more effectively, that is reach the
desired goals (assuming they want the best for their children) by
other methods than fear, pain, and humiliation.

Actually I'm not doing too well when it comes to the number of places
I could post to, but I do my best.

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.


Thats because I seldom visited ng's before this year. DUH..


That's nice. So, could you lead us to that arguments that changed your
mind that brought on my questioning that it could be done in so few
posts? Thank you very much.


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.


WHO is the clown attempting to portray someone who disagrees with

them as a
"troll"?


Since all you have to do to determine you are not IJones and not a
troll is say so I'd hardly be "attempting" to portray you as anything
at all. Trolls will confess immediately upon challenge and a direct
question, ARE YOU A TROLL?

You haven't answered. What am I to think? It is the only defense
against discovery by a suspicious poster they have...not to answer.

Does it do anything to enhance your arguments? I think not.


I agree. It wasn't posed to do that. Only to explore a possibility.


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


Yep. Like flies on ****.


You are attracted to ****?



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


Then why the smokescreens?


I don't see any.

Why the paranoid accusations


I'm not paranoid.

What makes you think so? Other than your need for me to be, that is?

that I am someone
else?


All you have to say is that you are not. That is hardly an indication
of me being paranoid, now is it? I'd be having fantasies that you are
him and you are after me and voices in my head are instructing
me...etc etc etc. None of that is happening.

I'm just asking you.

Face it, you are dangerous.


I am?

In what way?

You have made lame accusations which you
cannot back up.


Which accusations?

Your own posts shows you to be a negligent parent and only
lucky that your child was not injured.


How was I negligent? Well, any more than all parents who lose track of
their three year old for a couple of seconds? I don't call them
monsters, nor accuse them of anything, but you seem to have an
inordinate need to avoid the lessons in my little story.

Only a fool would think that somehow
justifies a position one has taken on parenting.


Let me see if I understand this:

According to you my own posts show that I am a negligent parent and
that I would use that to justify my position on parenting. Is that
correct?

If I've misunderstood your meaning you'll explain it to me won't you?

And if I'm correct in what you meant.....R R R R

Yah gotta be kiddin' dumbass.

RRRRR

Too much.

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 04:22 PM.


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.