Notice the Doan....

Originally Posted by 0:-

No one but I have asked for a copy in years. And he had not distributed
them. They were for a private survey he conducted,



0:-

Confused...enlighten me. Why do you repeatedly refer to this "study" and then say they were for a private survey he conducted. Is this published work, or just some papers stuffed in the back of a filing cabinent?

More importantly. What is the Name of this study, who are the contributing researchers, where if anywhere was it published, and what year. You are right about the benefits of having a University library at your fingertips. Of course anyone with the gumption to could walk into any public library and request a copy of the Journal the study was published in. Ever heard of Inter-library loan?

Let's see how Kane0 get out of this one! ;-)

Hi beccafromlalaland,
You want to see if Kane0 or me telling the truth? All you have to
do is ask Kane and me a copy of the Embry Study. Let's see who really
have it. Email me and I will be glad to provide you a copy of mine.
It will save you a trip to the library. ;-)

Doan

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:

No one but I have asked for a copy in years. And he had not
distributed
them. They were for a private survey he conducted,



0:-

Confused...enlighten me. Why do you repeatedly refer to this "study"
and then say they were for a private survey he conducted. Is this
published work, or just some papers stuffed in the back of a filing
cabinent?

More importantly. What is the Name of this study, who are the
contributing researchers, where if anywhere was it published, and what
year. You are right about the benefits of having a University library
at your fingertips. Of course anyone with the gumption to could walk
into any public library and request a copy of the Journal the study was
published in. Ever heard of Inter-library loan?


--
beccafromlalaland

Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hypocrite!

Doan....couldn't deal with the issues I brought up and simply went back to
attacking?

Insults. Name calling. Denial of the obvious even to the point of what
was or was not in my posts.

You have to wonder if he isn't hysterically blind, or obsessively
attached to power struggles.

I've seen him claim a statement from a study said something that it
patently did not, then when asked to explain, claim the poster was
"stupid" for "not seeing it."

You meant like claiming that there is no punishment used in the Embry
Study? Shall we revisit that? ;-) Perhaps this time you can provide
"becca" a copy. LOL!

Changing the subject again?

To you misleading (or is it lying?) about a study? ;-)

And no, I didn't claim there was no punishment. I claimed there was
none by my definition. You disgreed. It was nothing more than have a
child sit and think about what he had done and what the right thing to
do would be.

So Dr. Embry used the word "punishment" in his study and you defined
it "no punishment". God! You are smarter than Dr. Embry.

Yes, He's not God. Nor are you. I disagree that it was punishment. We
had this discussion before, and now you need to rehash it to avoid your
lies and duplicity. I may be smarter than him. I couldn't say. It's nor
relevant. One can be smart or dumb. The question is what are the facts.
Not who's smarter.

And the fact is Dr. Embry used the word "punishment"! He had a PH.D in
the field. And you are what? Professor Kane0? ;-)

I'm not allowed to disagree with someone because they have a Phd.? Is
this a new rule? Wh wan't I informed? R R R R

You don't have the study and you are lying about it. You read and
excerpt from some quote. Having access to a university library allows
that. I know you don't have a study because Dr. Embry and I discussed
who he has given it to. It's not published. My own copy is an 8x11 set
he copied from his paper files for me.

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

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

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

I don't lie.

No one but I have asked for a copy in years. And he had not distributed
them. They were for a private survey he conducted,

LOL! I can easily prove that you are LYING! But I will save it for
"becca".

Good. Do so. I may be mistaken. Why would you call a mistake a lie?
That is YOUR constant lie throughout your posting history here. You and
someone else disagree, but you call it a lie. They could be mistaken.
But for you it's still a lie.

So now, it's a mistake? ;-)

What are you babbling about?

Is it a lie when YOU make a mistake, or have the wrong information? Or
are you perfect?

It's a lie when it's contrary to the facts presented. YOU ARE LYING!

That is a lie.

If something "contrary to the facts presented" was a lie, you'd be
lying even more than you do.

"Facts" are often a matter of individual interpretation, as you of all
people here know. 0:-

Hence, Doan, while no one can be sure, I KNOW you are a liar. Embry
knows every person he gave that study to.

That's is funny!

No, it's not the least funny.

It's is to me. ;-)

He doesn't know you. Call him and introduce yourself.

And I don't know him! ;-) I just know his study.

You don't know the one I have.

And you refused to prove you had it.

You can asked "becca".

You refused to prove it. Why?

If you had the study you could have easily answered my question about
what information was on a particular page.

Any particular reason you refused to?

I can send her my copy and, at the same time, you
send her yours.

No, I'll wait until she reports she has yours.

Let's see who is the REAL LIAR.

No problem. Send her the copy.

Wanna call me on it?
Here is your chance, "never-spanked" boy. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

Same old childish hysterical screeching I see.

Here is your chance to prove that I am a liar to "becca".

I don't need to. You are doing a fine job yourself. Do you think she'll
give you her address?

She will
applaud you for it. Go ahead, Ignoranus Kane0. Make my day! ;-)

Why would she be pleased...presuming that's what you mean by "applaud
you for it," at anyone being proven a liar? She's fairly new here and
our exchange, so far as I've seen, is repugnant to her.

Why are you calling me "Ignoranus Kane0?"

And what's with this Dirty Harry "Make my day! ;-)" silliness?

Is that what's this is all about to you? A contest?

I'm trying to get to and always have, the best facts possible in
spanking issues. You spend your time with rude attacks on whatever is
offered. Mosty running from those things you cannot deal with, like
being caught lying about your own postings concerning Dodson.

Ask for the study, but be sure to mention your activities here. I
believe I pointed out the ng to him when I spoke to him last.

Perhaps you can have him vouch for you. Shall I forward this to his
email address? You know his email address, don't you? ;-)

Yep. Send it to him. I'd love to see him come here and deal with you.

I thought you know him. Why don't you call him and invite him? ;-)

I did. About the time you and I got into discussing his study and my
request, that you refused, that you prove you had the study so we would
be talking about the same material, rather playing at your silly
oneupsmanship games.


Doan
Doan

But thanks for the obvious repeated attempt to dodge, Aline.

Sure, Ignoranus Kane0. I'll you Dr. Embry will have a laugh when he
read this. ;-)

Send it.

I will!

Waiting. By the way, he does not know me by the name Kane. Any attempt
to gather information from him about me will be met with considerably
more than annoyed name calling Doan. Trust me on this. I've already
discussed this aspect of our "debate," with him.

I consider you a stalker. So do others.

Doan


Doan

Kane



Kane

On 24 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hypocrite!

Doan....couldn't deal with the issues I brought up and simply went back to
attacking?

Insults. Name calling. Denial of the obvious even to the point of what
was or was not in my posts.

You have to wonder if he isn't hysterically blind, or obsessively
attached to power struggles.

I've seen him claim a statement from a study said something that it
patently did not, then when asked to explain, claim the poster was
"stupid" for "not seeing it."

You meant like claiming that there is no punishment used in the Embry
Study? Shall we revisit that? ;-) Perhaps this time you can provide
"becca" a copy. LOL!

Changing the subject again?

To you misleading (or is it lying?) about a study? ;-)

And no, I didn't claim there was no punishment. I claimed there was
none by my definition. You disgreed. It was nothing more than have a
child sit and think about what he had done and what the right thing to
do would be.

So Dr. Embry used the word "punishment" in his study and you defined
it "no punishment". God! You are smarter than Dr. Embry.

Yes, He's not God. Nor are you. I disagree that it was punishment. We
had this discussion before, and now you need to rehash it to avoid your
lies and duplicity. I may be smarter than him. I couldn't say. It's nor
relevant. One can be smart or dumb. The question is what are the facts.
Not who's smarter.

And the fact is Dr. Embry used the word "punishment"! He had a PH.D in
the field. And you are what? Professor Kane0? ;-)

I'm not allowed to disagree with someone because they have a Phd.? Is
this a new rule? Wh wan't I informed? R R R R

You can disagree with anyone you wish. You can even think that the earth
is square for all I care. But guess whom I will believe? ;-)

You don't have the study and you are lying about it. You read and
excerpt from some quote. Having access to a university library allows
that. I know you don't have a study because Dr. Embry and I discussed
who he has given it to. It's not published. My own copy is an 8x11 set
he copied from his paper files for me.

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

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

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

I don't lie.

You are lying now! ;-)

No one but I have asked for a copy in years. And he had not distributed
them. They were for a private survey he conducted,

LOL! I can easily prove that you are LYING! But I will save it for
"becca".

Good. Do so. I may be mistaken. Why would you call a mistake a lie?
That is YOUR constant lie throughout your posting history here. You and
someone else disagree, but you call it a lie. They could be mistaken.
But for you it's still a lie.

So now, it's a mistake? ;-)

What are you babbling about?

Your LIES! ;-)

Is it a lie when YOU make a mistake, or have the wrong information? Or
are you perfect?

It's a lie when it's contrary to the facts presented. YOU ARE LYING!

That is a lie.

Yes, you are a liar!

If something "contrary to the facts presented" was a lie, you'd be
lying even more than you do.

You are just too STUPID to see it! ;-)

"Facts" are often a matter of individual interpretation, as you of all
people here know. 0:-

LOL!
Hence, Doan, while no one can be sure, I KNOW you are a liar. Embry
knows every person he gave that study to.

That's is funny!

No, it's not the least funny.

It's is to me. ;-)

He doesn't know you. Call him and introduce yourself.

And I don't know him! ;-) I just know his study.

You don't know the one I have.

And you refused to prove you had it.

You can asked "becca".

You refused to prove it. Why?

Because you are a LIAR! ;-)

If you had the study you could have easily answered my question about
what information was on a particular page.

Any particular reason you refused to?

Because you are a LIAR!

I can send her my copy and, at the same time, you
send her yours.

No, I'll wait until she reports she has yours.

LOL! I figure you would. I called your bluff and you DODGED!

Let's see who is the REAL LIAR.

No problem. Send her the copy.

I will if she'll ask me. And If you ask her, maybe she'll let you borrow.
;0(

Wanna call me on it?
Here is your chance, "never-spanked" boy. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

Same old childish hysterical screeching I see.

Same old lying Ignoranus Kane0, I see! ;-)

Here is your chance to prove that I am a liar to "becca".

I don't need to. You are doing a fine job yourself. Do you think she'll
give you her address?

If she want me to send her a copy. How else do you think I can get it
to her?

She will
applaud you for it. Go ahead, Ignoranus Kane0. Make my day! ;-)

Why would she be pleased...presuming that's what you mean by "applaud
you for it," at anyone being proven a liar? She's fairly new here and
our exchange, so far as I've seen, is repugnant to her.

But she is on your side, is she not?

Why are you calling me "Ignoranus Kane0?"

Look it up with your "formidable research skill". Don't even know what it
means right, STUPID "never-spanked" boy!

And what's with this Dirty Harry "Make my day! ;-)" silliness?

Just having fun at your expense, STUPID!

Is that what's this is all about to you? A contest?

It could be, if you wanted it to be! ;-)

I'm trying to get to and always have, the best facts possible in
spanking issues. You spend your time with rude attacks on whatever is
offered. Mosty running from those things you cannot deal with, like
being caught lying about your own postings concerning Dodson.

Hypocrit!

Ask for the study, but be sure to mention your activities here. I
believe I pointed out the ng to him when I spoke to him last.

Perhaps you can have him vouch for you. Shall I forward this to his
email address? You know his email address, don't you? ;-)

Yep. Send it to him. I'd love to see him come here and deal with you.

I thought you know him. Why don't you call him and invite him? ;-)

I did. About the time you and I got into discussing his study and my
request, that you refused, that you prove you had the study so we would
be talking about the same material, rather playing at your silly
oneupsmanship games.

Good. So call him up and tell him how smart you are. ;-)


Doan
Doan

But thanks for the obvious repeated attempt to dodge, Aline.

Sure, Ignoranus Kane0. I'll you Dr. Embry will have a laugh when he
read this. ;-)

Send it.

I will!

Waiting. By the way, he does not know me by the name Kane. Any attempt
to gather information from him about me will be met with considerably
more than annoyed name calling Doan. Trust me on this. I've already
discussed this aspect of our "debate," with him.

Right, I believe you. ;-) {sacasm added}

I consider you a stalker. So do others.

A stalker with valid email and address to be traced back to? Come on,
Kane0. Are you really this STUPID?

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 24 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hypocrite!

Doan....couldn't deal with the issues I brought up and simply went back to
attacking?

Insults. Name calling. Denial of the obvious even to the point of what
was or was not in my posts.

You have to wonder if he isn't hysterically blind, or obsessively
attached to power struggles.

I've seen him claim a statement from a study said something that it
patently did not, then when asked to explain, claim the poster was
"stupid" for "not seeing it."

You meant like claiming that there is no punishment used in the Embry
Study? Shall we revisit that? ;-) Perhaps this time you can provide
"becca" a copy. LOL!

Changing the subject again?

To you misleading (or is it lying?) about a study? ;-)

And no, I didn't claim there was no punishment. I claimed there was
none by my definition. You disgreed. It was nothing more than have a
child sit and think about what he had done and what the right thing to
do would be.

So Dr. Embry used the word "punishment" in his study and you defined
it "no punishment". God! You are smarter than Dr. Embry.

Yes, He's not God. Nor are you. I disagree that it was punishment. We
had this discussion before, and now you need to rehash it to avoid your
lies and duplicity. I may be smarter than him. I couldn't say. It's nor
relevant. One can be smart or dumb. The question is what are the facts.
Not who's smarter.

And the fact is Dr. Embry used the word "punishment"! He had a PH.D in
the field. And you are what? Professor Kane0? ;-)

I'm not allowed to disagree with someone because they have a Phd.? Is
this a new rule? Wh wan't I informed? R R R R

You can disagree with anyone you wish. You can even think that the earth
is square for all I care. But guess whom I will believe? ;-)

When did this delusion of yours start that I care about what YOU
believe?

Your an habitual liar and self deluded. What YOU believe is a great
indicator of what others should not.

You don't have the study and you are lying about it. You read and
excerpt from some quote. Having access to a university library allows
that. I know you don't have a study because Dr. Embry and I discussed
who he has given it to. It's not published. My own copy is an 8x11 set
he copied from his paper files for me.

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

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

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

I don't lie.

You are lying now! ;-)

Ho hum.

No one but I have asked for a copy in years. And he had not distributed
them. They were for a private survey he conducted,

LOL! I can easily prove that you are LYING! But I will save it for
"becca".

Good. Do so. I may be mistaken. Why would you call a mistake a lie?
That is YOUR constant lie throughout your posting history here. You and
someone else disagree, but you call it a lie. They could be mistaken.
But for you it's still a lie.

So now, it's a mistake? ;-)

What are you babbling about?

Your LIES! ;-)

Naw, just dodging as usual.

Is it a lie when YOU make a mistake, or have the wrong information? Or
are you perfect?

It's a lie when it's contrary to the facts presented. YOU ARE LYING!

That is a lie.

Yes, you are a liar!

Nope. When something is stated that is contrary to the facts YOU
believe, then that person disagrees with you on what those are, and
what they mean. They may be mistaken, or you may be mistaken but
neither are lying.

Lying is an intentional attempt to decieve. You are very familiar with
that because you do it most of your posting. And you accelerate it when
cornered.

If something "contrary to the facts presented" was a lie, you'd be
lying even more than you do.

You are just too STUPID to see it! ;-)

No, I know what a lie is and what a disagreement is. You might catch me
in a mistake, but never in a deliberate attempt to decieve. That's your
speciality.

"Facts" are often a matter of individual interpretation, as you of all
people here know. 0:-

LOL!

In other words you can't debate this claim. That's ok. You always have
at least "LOL!"

Hence, Doan, while no one can be sure, I KNOW you are a liar. Embry
knows every person he gave that study to.

That's is funny!

No, it's not the least funny.

It's is to me. ;-)

He doesn't know you. Call him and introduce yourself.

And I don't know him! ;-) I just know his study.

You don't know the one I have.

And you refused to prove you had it.

You can asked "becca".

You refused to prove it. Why?

Because you are a LIAR! ;-)

How would you know I was lying about having the study?

Or is it that if YOU decide someone is lying you give yourself the
right to lie?

All I asked was that to debate Embry, as you challenged me to, you
provide proof you had the study. I'm not going to debate a contant liar
that makes things up as he goes.

If you had the study you could have easily answered my question about
what information was on a particular page.

Any particular reason you refused to?

Because you are a LIAR!

No, it's because you didn't have the study. If you refused because I
was a "LIAR" then there would be no reason to even bother to challenge
me to a debate on Embry.

You were dodging, and your answer now is simply another dodge.

I can send her my copy and, at the same time, you
send her yours.

No, I'll wait until she reports she has yours.

LOL! I figure you would. I called your bluff and you DODGED!

No, you demanded I do something, and I said I would do it. You don't
know if I'll dodge until you send your copy and I don't. Or I do.
That's the risk you have to take if you want the definitive answer.

I have no way of knowing if "becca" is just another Aline/Alina of
yours. Things have a way of working out though, just as you slipped in
your campaign to try and con me out of a copy and the fraud was
exposed.

Aline/Alina existed in only a few post until showing up here, and only
a few after and disappeared for ever after our exchange and my pointing
out the odd coincidence that "Aline" claimed you wouldn't ship her a
copy unless she paid postage, "so could I have a copy of yours?" I
laughed my ass off at that BS.

What's interesting is that two posters here, besides myself, have their
copies I supplied them. They know, if they've ever bothered to check
back here that you are lying.

Your Aline ploy was gross misrepresentation and fraudulent bs.

For all I know you could have worked up yet another even more elaborate
one. Maybe even getting a friend to shill for you.

When becca gets a copy, and can answer a simple question or two to
authenticate that she has it, I will most happily send her a copy of MY
copy.

Let's see who is the REAL LIAR.

No problem. Send her the copy.

I will if she'll ask me. And If you ask her, maybe she'll let you borrow.
;0(

Nope. Don't need it. Have my own, and mine is the only copy, unless YOU
provide me with yours, I'll debate you from.

But I'd much rather use my copy. Your claimed copy and a few quotes
look very much as though pulled from someone else's quotes of Embry.
Not his actual report.

Wanna call me on it?
Here is your chance, "never-spanked" boy. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

Same old childish hysterical screeching I see.

Same old lying Ignoranus Kane0, I see! ;-)

Same old childish hysterical screeching I see.

If becca wants a copy, and is willing to substantiate for me, when she
receives it from you, that it is indeed the same as my copy, I'll be
happy to provide here with mine to establish that we both have the same
report. Then "Let the games begin." We'll debate Embry.

Here is your chance to prove that I am a liar to "becca".

I don't need to. You are doing a fine job yourself. Do you think she'll
give you her address?

If she want me to send her a copy. How else do you think I can get it
to her?

Hand carry and meet in a public place? That's what I'd demand if I were
here.

Yer a sicko.

Or you could fax. Easy enough. She could even take delivery at a
Kinkos.

Go ahead. Dodging with stupid questions like, "If she want me to send
her a copy. How else do you think I can get it to her?" just shows how
childish you are. And rather stupid to boot.

She will
applaud you for it. Go ahead, Ignoranus Kane0. Make my day! ;-)

Why would she be pleased...presuming that's what you mean by "applaud
you for it," at anyone being proven a liar? She's fairly new here and
our exchange, so far as I've seen, is repugnant to her.

But she is on your side, is she not?

No, she is not on my "side." She is on her own "side."

She appeared to be somewhat disgusted with us both at our apparent
bickering.

If she's a real person and not your sock and cares to she can find out
what you are by googling your posting history.

If she's really curious I can show her how to run much further back in
your history as well.

But she can find what she needs to judge for herself what you are,
Doan. Without my help.

Why are you calling me "Ignoranus Kane0?"

Look it up with your "formidable research skill". Don't even know what it
means right, STUPID "never-spanked" boy!

That's a very stupid answer.

And what's with this Dirty Harry "Make my day! ;-)" silliness?

Just having fun at your expense, STUPID!

I had been perfectly polite to you. How is it you continue the
abusiveness?

Is that what's this is all about to you? A contest?

It could be, if you wanted it to be! ;-)

I'll decide what I want it to be.

You can too, for that matter.

I prefer fact finding. That's why how the Embry study is debated is
important to me. I am not playing at winning anything here. I believe
you are.

I'm trying to get to and always have, the best facts possible in
spanking issues. You spend your time with rude attacks on whatever is
offered. Mosty running from those things you cannot deal with, like
being caught lying about your own postings concerning Dodson.

Hypocrit!

Name calling is not fact finding. Nor does it reflect anything when you
do it than your incapacity to handle being caught.

It does not matter whether or not I'm a "hypocrit." The question now
is, are you?

I can prove you are, and did so. Or you lied about your not using
Dodson to support your arguments.

Ask for the study, but be sure to mention your activities here. I
believe I pointed out the ng to him when I spoke to him last.

Perhaps you can have him vouch for you. Shall I forward this to his
email address? You know his email address, don't you? ;-)

Yep. Send it to him. I'd love to see him come here and deal with you.

I thought you know him. Why don't you call him and invite him? ;-)

I did. About the time you and I got into discussing his study and my
request, that you refused, that you prove you had the study so we would
be talking about the same material, rather playing at your silly
oneupsmanship games.

Good. So call him up and tell him how smart you are. ;-)

Why would I do that, child?


Doan
Doan

But thanks for the obvious repeated attempt to dodge, Aline.

Sure, Ignoranus Kane0. I'll you Dr. Embry will have a laugh when he
read this. ;-)

Send it.

I will!

Waiting. By the way, he does not know me by the name Kane. Any attempt
to gather information from him about me will be met with considerably
more than annoyed name calling Doan. Trust me on this. I've already
discussed this aspect of our "debate," with him.

Right, I believe you. ;-) {sacasm added}

I'm not concerned whether or not you believe me, but entirely on what
your actions are.

You are a childish little man dealing with adults and you don't know
it.

You'll find it out.

I consider you a stalker. So do others.

A stalker with valid email and address to be traced back to? Come on,
Kane0. Are you really this STUPID?

Nope. What makes you think that stalkers try to hide who they are all
the time?

Doan

I got a telephone service about a year ago. Costs me a little and I had
to engage law enforcement by court order to get it, but it's worth it.

I have a telephone account that removes caller ID blocking. That means
anyone that calls me cannot block the ID of the phone being called
from.

Kane is not a fink.

0:-

KANE:

We can get this whole thing taken care of if You answer the questions I posted earlier regarding this Embury Study.

Was it published? When? In what Scholarly Journal? Who were the major researchers? Where does the Dr. Embury teach/research?

I don't need either one of you to send me a copy of it if You would kindly answer those questions.

If you cannot answer any of my questions or ignore my request once again I can safely assume that you do not have the "study" in hand.


Oh and I am not a sock. I am a real person. You are quite right on one point. I am on my own "side" I do not support spanking, I support non-spanking, I support Parents educating themselves, learning new techniques. I support Gentle Discipline. And not spanking just because they were spanked, when there are far more effective means of discipline.

On 24 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 24 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hypocrite!

Doan....couldn't deal with the issues I brought up and simply went back to
attacking?

Insults. Name calling. Denial of the obvious even to the point of what
was or was not in my posts.

You have to wonder if he isn't hysterically blind, or obsessively
attached to power struggles.

I've seen him claim a statement from a study said something that it
patently did not, then when asked to explain, claim the poster was
"stupid" for "not seeing it."

You meant like claiming that there is no punishment used in the Embry
Study? Shall we revisit that? ;-) Perhaps this time you can provide
"becca" a copy. LOL!

Changing the subject again?

To you misleading (or is it lying?) about a study? ;-)

And no, I didn't claim there was no punishment. I claimed there was
none by my definition. You disgreed. It was nothing more than have a
child sit and think about what he had done and what the right thing to
do would be.

So Dr. Embry used the word "punishment" in his study and you defined
it "no punishment". God! You are smarter than Dr. Embry.

Yes, He's not God. Nor are you. I disagree that it was punishment. We
had this discussion before, and now you need to rehash it to avoid your
lies and duplicity. I may be smarter than him. I couldn't say. It's nor
relevant. One can be smart or dumb. The question is what are the facts.
Not who's smarter.

And the fact is Dr. Embry used the word "punishment"! He had a PH.D in
the field. And you are what? Professor Kane0? ;-)

I'm not allowed to disagree with someone because they have a Phd.? Is
this a new rule? Wh wan't I informed? R R R R

You can disagree with anyone you wish. You can even think that the earth
is square for all I care. But guess whom I will believe? ;-)

When did this delusion of yours start that I care about what YOU
believe?

Gee! Then why response to my post. ;-)

Your an habitual liar and self deluded. What YOU believe is a great
indicator of what others should not.

Hypocrit!

You don't have the study and you are lying about it. You read and
excerpt from some quote. Having access to a university library allows
that. I know you don't have a study because Dr. Embry and I discussed
who he has given it to. It's not published. My own copy is an 8x11 set
he copied from his paper files for me.

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

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

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

I don't lie.

You are lying now! ;-)

Ho hum.

Can't deny it? ;-)

No one but I have asked for a copy in years. And he had not distributed
them. They were for a private survey he conducted,

LOL! I can easily prove that you are LYING! But I will save it for
"becca".

Good. Do so. I may be mistaken. Why would you call a mistake a lie?
That is YOUR constant lie throughout your posting history here. You and
someone else disagree, but you call it a lie. They could be mistaken.
But for you it's still a lie.

So now, it's a mistake? ;-)

What are you babbling about?

Your LIES! ;-)

Naw, just dodging as usual.

More LIES! ;-)

Is it a lie when YOU make a mistake, or have the wrong information? Or
are you perfect?

It's a lie when it's contrary to the facts presented. YOU ARE LYING!

That is a lie.

Yes, you are a liar!

Nope. When something is stated that is contrary to the facts YOU
believe, then that person disagrees with you on what those are, and
what they mean. They may be mistaken, or you may be mistaken but
neither are lying.

In you case, YOU ARE LYING!

Lying is an intentional attempt to decieve. You are very familiar with
that because you do it most of your posting. And you accelerate it when
cornered.

Fit you PERFECTLY! ;-)

If something "contrary to the facts presented" was a lie, you'd be
lying even more than you do.

You are just too STUPID to see it! ;-)

No, I know what a lie is and what a disagreement is. You might catch me
in a mistake, but never in a deliberate attempt to decieve. That's your
speciality.

LIAR!

"Facts" are often a matter of individual interpretation, as you of all
people here know. 0:-

LOL!

In other words you can't debate this claim. That's ok. You always have
at least "LOL!"

LOL!

Hence, Doan, while no one can be sure, I KNOW you are a liar. Embry
knows every person he gave that study to.

That's is funny!

No, it's not the least funny.

It's is to me. ;-)

He doesn't know you. Call him and introduce yourself.

And I don't know him! ;-) I just know his study.

You don't know the one I have.

And you refused to prove you had it.

You can asked "becca".

You refused to prove it. Why?

Because you are a LIAR! ;-)

How would you know I was lying about having the study?

Because it has been proven so!

Or is it that if YOU decide someone is lying you give yourself the
right to lie?

I proved that you LIE!

All I asked was that to debate Embry, as you challenged me to, you
provide proof you had the study. I'm not going to debate a contant liar
that makes things up as he goes.

You are the LIAR that makes things up as you go!

If you had the study you could have easily answered my question about
what information was on a particular page.

Any particular reason you refused to?

Because you are a LIAR!

No, it's because you didn't have the study. If you refused because I
was a "LIAR" then there would be no reason to even bother to challenge
me to a debate on Embry.

I have the study and willing to provide it to anyone who ask. You, on the
other hand, CAN'T! You haven't even answer the question that
beccafromlaland asked about the study. WHY?

You were dodging, and your answer now is simply another dodge.

No. You are the DODGER!

I can send her my copy and, at the same time, you
send her yours.

No, I'll wait until she reports she has yours.

LOL! I figure you would. I called your bluff and you DODGED!

No, you demanded I do something, and I said I would do it. You don't
know if I'll dodge until you send your copy and I don't. Or I do.
That's the risk you have to take if you want the definitive answer.

I know you are dodging because you don't even have the nerve to offer
the study. You are like Sadamn Insane and his WMD. YOU DON'T HAVE
IT but pretend you do! You should learn that lesson! ;-)

I have no way of knowing if "becca" is just another Aline/Alina of
yours. Things have a way of working out though, just as you slipped in
your campaign to try and con me out of a copy and the fraud was
exposed.

LOL! You are funny!

Aline/Alina existed in only a few post until showing up here, and only
a few after and disappeared for ever after our exchange and my pointing
out the odd coincidence that "Aline" claimed you wouldn't ship her a
copy unless she paid postage, "so could I have a copy of yours?" I
laughed my ass off at that BS.

why?

What's interesting is that two posters here, besides myself, have their
copies I supplied them. They know, if they've ever bothered to check
back here that you are lying.

Oh! You and your imaginary friends. I believe you! ;-)

Your Aline ploy was gross misrepresentation and fraudulent bs.

LOL!

For all I know you could have worked up yet another even more elaborate
one. Maybe even getting a friend to shill for you.

Just to get a copy of a study that support your argument??? Are you
really this STUPID? ;-)

When becca gets a copy, and can answer a simple question or two to
authenticate that she has it, I will most happily send her a copy of MY
copy.

You have o ask her. I don't know her. She seems to support you CAUSE.
;-) Why don't you just send her those PDF files (or is it paper now?)
to her and instantly prove to her that I am a liar and you are telling
the truth. You can't, because YOU ARE A LIAR!

Let's see who is the REAL LIAR.

No problem. Send her the copy.

I will if she'll ask me. And If you ask her, maybe she'll let you borrow.
;0(

Nope. Don't need it. Have my own, and mine is the only copy, unless YOU
provide me with yours, I'll debate you from.

Send me a postage paid envelope. I'll be glad to send it to you, or
anyone that asked.

But I'd much rather use my copy. Your claimed copy and a few quotes
look very much as though pulled from someone else's quotes of Embry.
Not his actual report.

LOL! So why can't you even answer the question posed by
beccafromlalaland?

Wanna call me on it?
Here is your chance, "never-spanked" boy. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

Same old childish hysterical screeching I see.

Same old lying Ignoranus Kane0, I see! ;-)

Same old childish hysterical screeching I see.

LOL! Just having fun at your expense, Ignoranus Kane0!

If becca wants a copy, and is willing to substantiate for me, when she
receives it from you, that it is indeed the same as my copy, I'll be
happy to provide here with mine to establish that we both have the same
report. Then "Let the games begin." We'll debate Embry.

LOL! So you can't provide her with your PDF or paper?

Here is your chance to prove that I am a liar to "becca".

I don't need to. You are doing a fine job yourself. Do you think she'll
give you her address?

If she want me to send her a copy. How else do you think I can get it
to her?

Hand carry and meet in a public place? That's what I'd demand if I were
here.

LOL! You are funny. Someone would have to buy an airplane ticket to
Oregon to meet you?

Yer a sicko.

A sicko is someone arraning a meeting with a total stranger over the
Internet. Are you sure you are a sicko? ;-)

Or you could fax. Easy enough. She could even take delivery at a
Kinkos.

And how much will it cost me. You said you have the PDF version, you
can just emailed it. But let it guess, you won't! ;-)

Go ahead. Dodging with stupid questions like, "If she want me to send
her a copy. How else do you think I can get it to her?" just shows how
childish you are. And rather stupid to boot.

And you go ahead and refuse to send anyone a copy with stupid excuse like
it's a scam from me! Why are you so afraid of me? ;-)

She will
applaud you for it. Go ahead, Ignoranus Kane0. Make my day! ;-)

Why would she be pleased...presuming that's what you mean by "applaud
you for it," at anyone being proven a liar? She's fairly new here and
our exchange, so far as I've seen, is repugnant to her.

But she is on your side, is she not?

No, she is not on my "side." She is on her own "side."

So she is not anti-spanking?

She appeared to be somewhat disgusted with us both at our apparent
bickering.

She is disgusted at you? Poor Kane! I guess she is not impress with
your professorship implication. ;-)

If she's a real person and not your sock and cares to she can find out
what you are by googling your posting history.

Why don't you use you "formidable research skill"? Are you so STUPID?

If she's really curious I can show her how to run much further back in
your history as well.

And you also show her all your precious posts. I'll bet you she will be
impressed! ;-)

But she can find what she needs to judge for herself what you are,
Doan. Without my help.

I have nothing to hide. I will even provide my copy the Embry study.
Something you just can't. I'll bet she will be impressed. ;-)
Maybe she then will join me and exposed your STUPIDITY! ;-)

Why are you calling me "Ignoranus Kane0?"

Look it up with your "formidable research skill". Don't even know what it
means right, STUPID "never-spanked" boy!

That's a very stupid answer.

For a STUPID person like you, it fit perfectly! ;-)

And what's with this Dirty Harry "Make my day! ;-)" silliness?

Just having fun at your expense, STUPID!

I had been perfectly polite to you. How is it you continue the
abusiveness?

Because you are an "ignoranus"! ;-)

Is that what's this is all about to you? A contest?

It could be, if you wanted it to be! ;-)

I'll decide what I want it to be.

If you wanted to. ;-)

You can too, for that matter.

At your expense, of course!

I prefer fact finding. That's why how the Embry study is debated is
important to me. I am not playing at winning anything here. I believe
you are.

And yet you hide it like a cat hides his stinking ****! ;-)

I'm trying to get to and always have, the best facts possible in
spanking issues. You spend your time with rude attacks on whatever is
offered. Mosty running from those things you cannot deal with, like
being caught lying about your own postings concerning Dodson.

Hypocrit!

Name calling is not fact finding. Nor does it reflect anything when you
do it than your incapacity to handle being caught.

Hypocrit!

It does not matter whether or not I'm a "hypocrit." The question now
is, are you?

You have proven that you are an "hypocrit"! ;-)

I can prove you are, and did so. Or you lied about your not using
Dodson to support your arguments.

LIAR !

Ask for the study, but be sure to mention your activities here. I
believe I pointed out the ng to him when I spoke to him last.

Perhaps you can have him vouch for you. Shall I forward this to his
email address? You know his email address, don't you? ;-)

Yep. Send it to him. I'd love to see him come here and deal with you.

I thought you know him. Why don't you call him and invite him? ;-)

I did. About the time you and I got into discussing his study and my
request, that you refused, that you prove you had the study so we would
be talking about the same material, rather playing at your silly
oneupsmanship games.

Good. So call him up and tell him how smart you are. ;-)

Why would I do that, child?

Because I called your bluff! ;-)


Doan
Doan

But thanks for the obvious repeated attempt to dodge, Aline.

Sure, Ignoranus Kane0. I'll you Dr. Embry will have a laugh when he
read this. ;-)

Send it.

I will!

Waiting. By the way, he does not know me by the name Kane. Any attempt
to gather information from him about me will be met with considerably
more than annoyed name calling Doan. Trust me on this. I've already
discussed this aspect of our "debate," with him.

Right, I believe you. ;-) {sacasm added}

I'm not concerned whether or not you believe me, but entirely on what
your actions are.

You are a childish little man dealing with adults and you don't know
it.

You'll find it out.

LOL! And I am having fun at your expense!


I consider you a stalker. So do others.

A stalker with valid email and address to be traced back to? Come on,
Kane0. Are you really this STUPID?

Nope. What makes you think that stalkers try to hide who they are all
the time?

Because they are STUPID as you are!

Doan

I got a telephone service about a year ago. Costs me a little and I had
to engage law enforcement by court order to get it, but it's worth it.

I have a telephone account that removes caller ID blocking. That means
anyone that calls me cannot block the ID of the phone being called
from.

LOL! YOU ARE STUPID. Look up on caller ID!
Kane is not a fink.

No. BUT A LIAR, YES!!!

Doan

0:-

Once again, Kane is put on the line. Can he answer the questions
posed? I like to see how he will weasel out of this one. ;-)

Doan

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


KANE:

We can get this whole thing taken care of if You answer the questions I
posted earlier regarding this Embury Study.

Was it published? When? In what Scholarly Journal? Who were the major
researchers? Where does the Dr. Embury teach/research?

I don't need either one of you to send me a copy of it if You would
kindly answer those questions.

If you cannot answer any of my questions or ignore my request once
again I can safely assume that you do not have the "study" in hand.


Oh and I am not a sock. I am a real person. You are quite right on
one point. I am on my own "side" I do not support spanking, I support
non-spanking, I support Parents educating themselves, learning new
techniques. I support Gentle Discipline. And not spanking just
because they were spanked, when there are far more effective means of
discipline.


--
beccafromlalaland

beccafromlalaland wrote:
KANE:

We can get this whole thing taken care of if You answer the questions I
posted earlier regarding this Embury Study.

Sorry, missed that post.


Was it published?

No, I think I mentioned that in a recent post responding to Doan.

Dr. Embry first was mentioned in this ng by Chris Dugan, if memory
serves, (the originator of this newsgroup). An interview by a parenting
magazine was quoted verbatim. It might have been from a letter sent by
Dr. Embry to the magazine.

Here, I looked up my own post quoting Chris Dugan's post on Dr. Embry's
quote:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...9c1389fb1f24fd

You can review the conversations in this ng on Dr. Embry's study and
report at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...rch+this+group

or at:
http://tinyurl.com/aqwg7

I have research report number 2, titled the Safe-Playing Project.

The study was done for and underwritten by AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety on the problem of traffic safety, and street entries of small
children -- preschoolers. Dr. Embry, at that time with the Dept of
Human Development and Family Life, U of Kansas, Lawrence KS was the
project coordinator, and James L. Malfetti, with the Safety Education
Research Project, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY NY was the
principal investigator.

You can call or e-mail Dr. Embry easily for details, though when I last
talked to him in 2003 he'd obviously moved on to other projects and the
street entry study was old and not his focus at that time.

Dr. Embry is currently invested in developing peaceful social
interaction strategies. This particular study is very old. About 25
years or so.

When? In what Scholarly Journal?

I do not know. I believe he told me it was not academically published,
but my memory may be off on that.

Who were the major
researchers?

Answered above.

Where does the Dr. Embury teach/research?

Unless he's moved on, which I doubt, he is still at PAXIS Institute, of
which he was president last I checked.

http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Em...aphy-1999.html

As you can see this Curriculum Vitae is about 7 years old. I don't know
if there is a more current one. He was, as I pointed out, in Lawrence
KS when the street entry study was done.

Paxis Institute is in Arizona.
http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm

I don't need either one of you to send me a copy of it if You would
kindly answer those questions.

Not interested in Embry's study? It's a rare piece of work. Unique and
telling in the support if provides for non-PC parenting strategy on a
subject popular with spankers as a rationale for spanking. Curious you
would be highly curious.

If you cannot answer any of my questions or ignore my request once
again I can safely assume that you do not have the "study" in hand.

Yes, I would presume so. Of course now that I have posted this
information, and especially some from the study Doan will be able to
put that together with various bits and pieces of likely quoted
material from other academics or even articles in popular media, and
create a facade of having this study. He's refused to prove he does.

I've offered to answer specific page and content related questions of
his. He refuses to participate. Figure it out yourself.

You might ask him a question and report it back to me, as he refused
and refuses to answer me when I ask, that clearly shows he has the same
study I have...which was my requirement before debate.

Feel free to post to me directly the answer to this question: On page 3
of workshop and storybooks, what researcher's name is the first word in
the last paragraph on the page?

One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word.

I don't see that as punishment nor should it be anything more than a
learning experience. I certainly wouldn't leave the child alone and not
discuss or ask questions of the child about what he was seeing the
other children do. I think it unfortunate that Dr. Embry used the word
to describe it. That's all.

Oh and I am not a sock. I am a real person.

Socks are real persons. They just are pretending to be someone else.
Doan has created a sock before. A quite clever and believable one.

If I were not very familiar with his surroundings I might have missed
that he used a slight variation on the unique name of a venerable
member of the academic community he is in.
Doan was trying to con me out of a copy of the study he claimed he
already had.

In fact it all started because he knew, being in a university setting
with a library and references close by to check, that Embry's study was
not academically "published." He was sure I could not have gotten it,
so challenged me.

I already had it from direct contact with Dr. Embry. I have it in a PDF
file, but the quality is very poor, so if you do want it, and Doan
doesn't block you from having it by refusing to answer the simple
question I posed, and refusing to send you a copy first, then I'll send
mine to you postpaid (He had his "Aline" say he wouldn't ship her a
copy unless she paid postage. R R R R...nice trick to avoid the fact he
was Aline, didn't have the study and was chicken**** to ask Embry for
it.)

I will ask you before I ship though to establish that you have it again
with a few simple questions about content.

Doan is quite capable of having created the character
"beccafromlalaland" himself or having another do so.

For instance, you don't strike me as being sophisticated about
newsgroup posting technical protocols but oddly you have an obscure but
useful header line that blocks viewing your posting history all at once
in google. I've never seen anyone in this ng use that.

Often socks come with very short posting histories that are often very
revealing about who they are by where they've been, or a lack of being
much of anywhere. Doan knows I would check.

A regular poster, not familiar, as Doan and some of his chronies are
with such things, wouldn't know to use that header command.

Doan also has cronies that might well stand in for him and come here to
fish for him.

You'll forgive me if I take everything as questionable. You should too.


I find it fascinating that you write in french for instance.

Also that you have but a single post to another newsgroup but on a
topic that would seem by your content to be something one would have
continuing comment on.

You are quite right on
one point. I am on my own "side" I do not support spanking, I support
non-spanking, I support Parents educating themselves, learning new
techniques. I support Gentle Discipline. And not spanking just
because they were spanked, when there are far more effective means of
discipline.

Yes, you've made that clear. Though your language somehow strikes me as
contrived.

But then, we each have our own style. Could be I misinterpret. 0:-)

What brought you to this ng in the first place? A referral?

--
beccafromlalaland

Let me know when Doan sends you that study.

Best, Kane

Doan wrote:
Once again, Kane is put on the line. Can he answer the questions
posed? I like to see how he will weasel out of this one. ;-)

R R R .... how do you like it so far, dancing screeching hysterical
monkeyboy?

There's nothing for me to "weasel' out of, boy.

Who are the researchers mentioned in the last paragraph on page 4 of
the Embry study report, Doan? Or pull another dodge on us. Your pick.

You still don't have the report. You never had the report and yet
another try at getting it from me has failed.

You are a fraud.

But then that's pretty obvious.

By the way, stop with the phony "English is my second language and I
don't write it well" bull****.

Let me see now. You write or use a translator from spanish and french.
The latter is no surprise of course. I was amused at your conversations
with Aline/alina and your attempt to create a persona with depth,
forgetting that a few posts to a history don't establish much of
anything.

Say hello to Sister Aline for me if she is still living. I always liked
her.

R R R R R R R RR


Doan

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


KANE:

We can get this whole thing taken care of if You answer the questions I
posted earlier regarding this Embury Study.

Was it published? When? In what Scholarly Journal? Who were the major
researchers? Where does the Dr. Embury teach/research?

I don't need either one of you to send me a copy of it if You would
kindly answer those questions.

If you cannot answer any of my questions or ignore my request once
again I can safely assume that you do not have the "study" in hand.


Oh and I am not a sock. I am a real person. You are quite right on
one point. I am on my own "side" I do not support spanking, I support
non-spanking, I support Parents educating themselves, learning new
techniques. I support Gentle Discipline. And not spanking just
because they were spanked, when there are far more effective means of
discipline.


--
beccafromlalaland