Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:02:51 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Julie Pascal" wrote in message
...

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice
not to
own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
anti-slavery
and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault
for
anyone
over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie

Absolutely Julie. These anti spanking zealots who attempt to push
their
theories and practices on everyone else simply ignore the emotional
damage
that they tend to do to children and refuse to accept that that is
usually
much more damaging and much more lasting than a swat on the butt.

Why would you and Julie, apparently, assume that those who don't use
spanking or physcial punishments still would use other punishments
more damaging?

I, and most non-spankers agree with you to the point they don't use
psychological punishment either.

I understand it's very hard for folks that have been punished as
children themselves, and have given themselves over to the concept
that pain is valid and important and even irreplaceable tool for
teaching, but trust me, to understand that children, people, can learn
all the lessons there are to learn without pain.

I think you both are treading water fast as you can, but getting
nowhere fast.

Most nonspankers, virtually all of them, tend not to be punishers.
They are too busy having fun with and enjoying their child's
development.

For a guy that was going to filter me you certainly seem stuck on me
as a subject of discussion.

Just doing your civic duty are yah, for the dangerous old codger that
doesn't believe in whippin' his kids?

Kane

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:22:27 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kanga Mum" wrote in message
. com...
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
et...
[ ]
Spanking IS a last resort.

Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT
while
you're
angry.

Best, Dan

Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.'

In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see
elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on
circumstances
outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last
resort
may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if
Dad
is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation
totally unrelated to the child's behavior.

The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be
repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed
by
external factors.

If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own
protection
and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort'
doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the
boundaries are.

In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children
that
the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their
protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how
not
to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day
through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding,
leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a
child
anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or
not
get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last
resort method truly is random.

I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same
behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental
breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results.
This
seems to teach the children that what they have no control in
whether
or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked
for
the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience,
which they can.


For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means
that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors.
People
like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry.
I
disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank
_because_ we are angry.

For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not
jump
on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be
spanked,
not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that
disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a
child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether
he
is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has
made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally
knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry.

Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank.
It
should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should
it
be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is
determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating
a
well-known rule.

I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank
that
you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you
are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's
behavior-
none of these things should be permitted to influence how many
swats
on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the
child
disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined
consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was
determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and
you
simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations.


So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the
child's
backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because
a
child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a
safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have
nothing to do with it.

Kanga

I agree with much of what you wrote Kanga, that it should be a
natural
consequence of inappropriate behavior when used as discipline.

Silly boy. That is not a natural consequence. What is natural about
getting hit for jumping on the bed? It's a consequence, yes, but not
natural. It would be "natural" if she fell on her ass and hurt
herself. I'd rather she didn't so I have interventions that solve the
problem without pain from nature or parent.

However, the
level of one's anger can and should be a determining factor indeed.

That's a scary statement. How, exactly?

I think the difference is decided upon the age of a child. A toddler
should
be disciplined immediately, else they will not understand the
connection
between the swat and the action which caused the reaction.

Seems logical. Problem is they don't make the connection you want.
They make a connection with the most immediate and compelling presence
YOU, IDIOT. YOU are the thing they is happening to them, not the bed,
or the jumping. YOU. HITTING. HURTING.

However, in an older child, and some can be quite rebellious indeed,
I would
wait until I cooled down before administering any punishment out of
concern
for any excessiveness.

Gee, now I wonder how you got that "quite rebellious indeed" older
child. My kids were about them most active I've ever been around.
Adventurous, energetic, practically hyper they were. And more easy to
live with than most adults I've known.

Tons of fun. And the older they got, even with all the same challenges
that most parents get from their kids, still fun to parent...without a
single instance of hitting them or trying to hurt them emotionally or
psychologically for "discipline."

If I didn't like something they were doing I simply told them. If it
made sense they complied. If it didn't make sense they weren't afraid
to come and ask me to sort it out so they understood it.

That's what kind of older child I got by not hurting them when they
were toddlers.

And I've seen other parents do it, and I took the principles to
working with mentally ill children, some driven there by spanking
punitive parents, and helped them heal.

The point is the level at which the child can understand that the
spanking
is a direct result of his/her actions, and that the child fully
understand
that limits are there and will be enforced.

Yah know, when yah get right down to it the child never understands
why the parent hits them and gives them pain. They accept it as right
and proper of course, well, until they get a lot older, some of them.

Take yourself to a juvenile detention center sometime. Talk to the
kids. Ask them their story. But don't be fooled. Those chains around
their waists and the cuffs linking their hand to it are there for a
reason.

They were all spanked. It's impossible to find any non-punitive raised
children among them. Impossible.

All children will push the
limits and test them,

Of course they will. Nature compells them to do so. Too little testing
and they will die. Literally. Highly compliant children are not
healthy.

and the earlier they are enforced,

The limits? Why do limits have to be "enforced?" I simply asked. They
complied. If they were too little I just picked them up and put them
in a safe place. And I did it gently and I told them in words why,
knowing that later in life that information could and would be
recalled when needed.

My kids, about 40 years old now, prove it to me occasionally. They do
recall what is needed for their safety and for their getting ahead in
the world.

the earlier your
children learn that all actions have consequences

That's among the easiest things for a child to learn. They learn it
when gravity overcomes them and they fall on their little butts, or
later their knees.

By 6 they can even take unrelated information and extrapolate to more
abstract cause and effect reasoning. It's wonderful to watch. I'm sure
you've seen it, haven't you?

and they choose the ones
which they prefer.

Sure, that's what life's about. Why would you interfer with that by
interjecting a hostile and painful humiliation parent on them? You are
supposed to be their coach, their supporter, their mentor, their
assistant, and most of all, their teacher.

Think about what you are doing teaches them.

Thanks for listening. And since Dennis has filtered me give him my
regards, will yah all? Thanks.

Kane

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:29:18 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Michael S. Morris" wrote in message
...


Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003

[various snips]

Kane wrote:
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?

I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne
for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the
same in my direction have been laughable.

Kane:
Get my drift here?

Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
ourselves.

Kane:
And you and I are adults...presumably.

As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however,
Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.

[]

Kane:
Were you or any child you know spanked for
not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
better than that.

What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.

What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.

Kane:
A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.

My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
adequately and that includes not letting them play near
the street.

This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child
play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
do what the child wants to do.

Mike, you apparently didn't read his nonsense in the other thread
whereby
somehow, in his own twisted mind, he attempted to portray how he
calmly sat
by while his three year old daughter climbed up on a fence where an
agitated
bul was eyeing her intently.

I don't know what this was intended to prove, except that he was calm
and
waited until after the danger was past to 'talk' to his daughter
about how
bad a situation it was. To me, he has done nothing but show that he
either
is a negligent parent or his nonsense about close supervision is just
another ploy to attempt to portray others as negligent.

Naughty naughty. One shouldn't lie so blatantly.

Here's what I actually said, and the post I said it in cited at:


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2... le.com&rnum=1

If it won't open, try:

http://tinyurl.com/unxl


"
My daughter used to go to work with me until she was about 3. A lively
energetic exploring kid, but very trusting of me and new activities
she'd check out with me before she did them.

I missed her cue one day. And she wandered over the pasture fence. I
was working with a particularly difficult Appaloosa stallion and was a
tiny bit distracted. I'd sent her outside the work area but where I
could see her. The corner post on the pasture was right at the edge of
a 50 foot steep dropoff. In that paster were about 15 3 year old Santa
Gertrudis bulls waiting for shippment to the sales barn for auction.

I heard her call out to me, "Look at me daddy." and when I looked
there she was. She had climbed up the angled brace post to the top of
the corner post, about 6x8 inches on the top. Barbed wire below her, a
50 ft cliff to one side, and about 5 or 6 young bulls coming toward
her curious and a bit agitated.

Did I run? Did I send my Australian Shepard cattle dog to drive off
the bulls? Naw, I don't think so.

I just smiled and said, "Yes, honey you are a good climber, now can
you climb down without falling?" Which of course she promptly did.

We talked about it. I didn't spank her but she, trusting me, and
feeling safe to ask me questions wanted to know why I looked so scared
now that she was down."

Now does that look like I just let her get into danger and then
ignored or otherwise failed to protect her once she was in danger?

Can you imagine what would have happened I started yelling, or running
toward her, or distracted her by letting my cattle dog go after the
bulls?

You are kinda dumb, yah know that?

But dumbest of all is your attempt to discredit me by lying. Tsk tsk
tsk.

Snipping Mike's equally inane commentary, as though spanking will
teach a child to not jump on a trampoline until he or she is ready...r
r r r

And Dennis, for a guy that is so disgusted with me that he would
filter me, you certainly are obsessed with me.

Something must be going on in that pointy little head of yours. Yeah,
something is, for sure. R R R R

Stoneman

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:32:39 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Kane" wrote in message
m...

[]
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to
cause you
pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically
unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year
old.
After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching".
I wish
I
had
tried this sooner.

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid
that I
would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just
focussed on
being calm and consistent.

What was he touching?

The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
child-proof
things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

Jayne

There you go girl. You've just put forth another example of kane's
nonsense
that all spanking must surely be 'pain and humiliation', a phrase
he's used
dozens of times over and over.

Spanking isn't pain? How interesting. Nor is it humiliating? Just what
is spanking supposed to be then? What feeling is the child supposed to
be having, according to you, Dennis?

He cannot comprehend that more often than not, on a toddler, they are
more
affected by the fact that you DID punish them than any physical pain,
and
the lesson sticks.

The first time a child is struck by their parent, causing pain, it
certainly IS a highly charged "affect" all right. The shock is usually
extreme.

I recall watching a lady I was visiting with my wife who had a little
toddler. She would slap his hand about every minute to minute and a
half...really, I timed it.

Her entire living room was covered with glass figureens. On every
surface above floor level, every shelf, the coffee table, the mantel,
everywhere. Pretty things they were.

I mean it would have been terrible to have to child proof all that.

And besides, the child's development is far less important than the
objects one might have to go to a little trouble to child proof,
don'tchknow.

He gives human toddlers much less credit for learning ability by
reaction
and consequence to an action then dogs or even rats which studies
show react
to the situation, not the person administering the tests...

On the contrary. The laboratory work with dogs and rats involving
aversion testing requires a strict removal of any view or sound, even
scent is blocked, so the work subjects won't connect the experimenter
with the stimuli. It really messes things up. The subjects, if exposed
to aversive stimuli (you can call it "spanking" if you wish - that's
okay with me) while also exposed to the lab workers, then get all
discombobulated if they see a lab worker while trying to learn to be
rats or dogs...you know, mating behaviors, eating behaviors, learning
to run mazes, that sort of thing.

In other words it plays hell with their normal development

I have a hunch you missed psych 201, didn'tcha?

bingo bango bongo r r r r

Stoneman

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:39:32 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
link.net...
Kane writes:

Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Hi, Kane!

Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes.
Who
else's would it be?

Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word
twister?

My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the
kids
and
broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up. I
understood
you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
fear.
You
spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
mild
manner made you an easy target. Once other children learned that
you
could
hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Here is what you said exactly:

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good
deal
of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
broke.

"When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight
of
me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that
other
bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest
of
my school years were easy.

"But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging.
YOU,
silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."

You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't
violence,
are
you?"

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's
noses he
broke.

Try quoting in context.

I have included the actual quotes in this post.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of
him.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.

They were children.

A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and
attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not
mention
the
age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I
wouldn't
know
how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative
misleading of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with
"spanking isn't
hitting?"
But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood.

Really? Compared to who?


As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11
is
commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.


I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up
in an
upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.

Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a
victim.

Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using
words on
a medium where we can't even see each other?


Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a
DSM-IV label
would be foolish. I did agree with the reader I responded to that
your
written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?


Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members
who
have
received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child,
either.

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and
ridicule.
Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard
to
believe
that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I
have
told
you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than
giving
me
an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad
parent.
You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to
preventing
spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not
a high
priority for you at all.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe
pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome.

Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
fascinating.


Thank you.

You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of
exacting
descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have
occurred
once. For example, in writing about all children who are
substantiated:
"CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to
their legs
and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific
description is
applied to the general population, the description is a
pseudo-event.
First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this
way; in
fact, they are not filled with children in any condition. Second,
the
majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or
neglected
in
any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future
maltreatment. Of
those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which
account for
around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally
much less
severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries
represent
less than 1% of substantiated cases.

And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
morals police?


No.

Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver.

Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most
kids
of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.


I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many
caseworkers
applying family systems theory would. This is one of the basic
flaws in
CPS
practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the
fruit of
parental wrongdoing.

You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are
more
likely to be violent.

Others would say he is a
self-made man.

We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual
to his
or her detrement.


I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government
agencies
inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or
"acting
out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of
families.

But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?


Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these
newsgroups.
Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement
clearly
implies
that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I
apologize for
the
transgression.

He speaks volumes about himself.

You speak for me now?


No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.

I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing
who and
what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover
some
interesting things about you.

One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that
you
are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the
least
vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.


I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me
of, I
would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever
preempted
folks I perceive to be vulnerable.

Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.

If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked
children, you
are wrong. I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have
never
spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which
methods
of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of
reasons.

But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different.
Parents
are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or
not to
spank is up to the parent's descreation.

It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in
making,
as current law in all fifty states makes clear.

Ready to come clean yet, Dung?


About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with
us one
of
your guesses. You were wrong.

Ready to guess again?

Gee, and I got accused of just being a fictional troll of kane's in
another
thread, glad to see I'm not the only delusion he's been suffering.

Since I filtered him out of my scan, it's amazing to see the same,
tired old
tactics being used against anyone who even slightly disagrees with
his wild
fantasy world.

I just love it. You claimed to have filtered me, but you have gone to
the trouble of googling my posts looking for something to discredit me
with, replying to old posts of others....boy, you are DESPERATE,
Dennis, aren't you?

But then you can't answer me...as it would blow that you haven't
filtered me at all...that you are obsessed with me.

Ready to start thinking about the possibility I might be right about
spanking and other pain and humiliation based parenting methods?

Naw, not Dashing Dennis the Dangerous Debater...r r r r

google away pal. You aren't the only nutcase I've deflated.

Stoneman

Dennis Hancock wrote:

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

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.

Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't tell
me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to find them
myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)

You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it is you're
talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position where that's your
only option.

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?

Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already demonstrated that
you can't generally post more than two sentences without either stretching the
truth way out of whack or outright lying.

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

And you have a bridge for sale too, right?

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.

Brilliant Dennis. When caught in an outright lie, try to change the focus in
another direction in the hopes that everyone will forget. Surely no one will
notice...

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.

Then where's the post where Kane claimed to be a retired Air Force Colonel, as
you insisted he did? Why should we move to other falsehoods you've created. One
is enough to demonstrate the real Dennis...


-Jerry-

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

Dennis Hancock wrote:

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

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.

Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't tell
me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to find them
myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)

I will be glad to google them for you, Gerald. Just say the word. :-)

Doan

Dennis Hancock wrote:

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.

Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."

I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an answer.

Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind
obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that you're the
adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others - namely
children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional development
than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far beyond
your grasp?

and quite
often, use different methods for different siblins.

Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself that it
isn't really abuse?

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,

How are you able to accept that physical discipline is not abuse? What logic
do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways that are
illegal to use on adults? Do you honestly believe there is no affect from
punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing emotions?

and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
refuses to accept any definitions given to him.

You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting young
children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?

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.

You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your own
painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of
hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear.
Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply be
too much of an overload.

-Jerry-

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

Dennis Hancock wrote:

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.

Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."

And you are the judge right, Jerry?

I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an answer.

Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind
obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that you're the
adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others - namely
children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional development
than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far beyond
your grasp?

Because it is none of your business, Jerry. Are you saying that your care
for other people's children MORE THAN THEIR OWN PARENTS?

and quite
often, use different methods for different siblins.

Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself that it
isn't really abuse?

WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS ABUSE?

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,

How are you able to accept that physical discipline is not abuse? What logic
do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways that are
illegal to use on adults?

Are you saying that it is illegal for the police to use his batons???

Do you honestly believe there is no affect from
punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing emotions?

AND YOU THINK THERE IS? Let's me see you prove this, Jerry?

and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
refuses to accept any definitions given to him.

You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting young
children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?

Do you think removing children from their parents is good and have no
damaging effects? Can you show me one "peer-reviewed" study in which
the non-cp alternatives are better under the same conditions???

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.

You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your own
painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of
hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear.
Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply be
too much of an overload.

The problem is people like you who think that that they have the "truth".
But when pressed, it is nothing more than opinion. Tell me, Jerry, is
your childhood that "painful"???

Doan

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

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

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.

Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't
tell
me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to
find them
myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)

You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it is
you're
talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position where
that's your
only option.


Damn Gerald, how many times must I QUOTE his post and post DIRECTLY under
the EXACT words I consider nonsense.

What pleasure do you get from attempting to keep asking the same lame
questions, and keep believing every word Kane posts as the absolute truth?
Are you that truly that stupid and gullible, or are you just a parrot for
Kane, attempting to somehow try to discredit any opposing viewpoint by
asking repeatedly the same things over and over again (interestingly enough,
the same thing kane keeps doing as well).


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.

DUH.. I can't repost what isn't there.. apparently you cannot read, or have
some lack of comprhension since I have used quoting his posts directly as a
means of posting my rebuttal to his lame nonsense.



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?

Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already demonstrated
that
you can't generally post more than two sentences without either stretching
the
truth way out of whack or outright lying.

*I* can't post more than two sentences without stretching the truth or
outright lying? WHERE ARE MY LIES? Kane has posted nothing but lies, and
stretch truth and flip flopped back and forth, and my calling him a liar is
stretching the truth or outright lies? Grow up asshole and smell the coffee
brewing. YOu want some asshole like Kane TELLING you how to raise your
kids, and accusing people of being abusers because they don't follow his
lame assed ideology, fine, go for it.

But shut the **** up and keep it to yourself as you, like kane are now on
ignore for nonsensical bull****.


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

And you have a bridge for sale too, right?

and you would surely buy it from your hero kane, simple because he 'tells'
you how great it is.



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.

bull****, again you show a lack of comprehsion as I clearly stated that
others in here have accused him of being that person, whom he claims is
someone else (sound familiar), who is posting under his name the same
bull**** trying to discredit him.

UNbelievable how stupid and lame some people can be. And how attacking they
can be simply because you disagree with someone they seem to have a huge
admiration for.


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.

Brilliant Dennis. When caught in an outright lie, try to change the focus
in
another direction in the hopes that everyone will forget. Surely no one
will
notice...


LOL... I aint the asshole trying to change the focus dude..

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-

Not very well, Wonder how many bridges kane has sold you in the past?

Enjoy your blinded life dude..


Apparently not.

Then where's the post where Kane claimed to be a retired Air Force
Colonel, as
you insisted he did? Why should we move to other falsehoods you've
created. One
is enough to demonstrate the real Dennis...


-Jerry-