| Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:25:41 GMT, "TM" wrote:


Why don't you all email each other the reports and get it over with?

I have to certain individuals. The issue is for me that I do not wish
to encourage anyone to "debate" this liar who will pretend, based on
others input, that he has the study.

HE made the challenge. HE has offered to send anyone the study that
wants it. So far all we have seen is a newcomer ask for it, and
between them it's on stall right now.

Like who gives a **** who has what?

I do. I do not care to be lied to. The Droan is a known habitual liar.
When he reforms he'll get responses, but we've had years of this same
crap from him that goes nowhere. When he's cornered he offers yet
another new challenge to change direction instead of dealing with the
issue at hand until it's finished.

Not this time, bozo...and what's your interest anyway...you yet
another Droany sock puppet?

The idea is to discuss it, not bitch about sending some assinine
file.

Nope. I'll provide the file to those that I can trust not to give it
to him...why should I...he claims he has it. Fine, let him prove he
has it. He's refused to prove it.

Grow
up kids!

Speak to the Droaning child.

WE refuse to play his childish games. When he grows up we'll be happy
to have debates and other interactions with him. Not until then.

Bye, and oh Steve, when Droany asks you to intercede for him next time
use a proxie. You and I are practically neighbors. He'll do just sbout
anything now to get that study even get his buddies to lie for him.

Go ahead, ask him to send you a copy. He seems to want to slow the
process down by asking for a self addressed envelope. You and I could
chat about the content just to see if he actually has the study or
some bits and pieces of stray Embry research commentary and citation
by others.

Wanna play? Droany will be eternally greatful if YOU can con me better
than he tried to.

Thanks.

Kane


On 15-Apr-2004, (Kane) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:06:31 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! Kane trying hard to distract from his lies!

Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown I
did.

Why don't you just email Alina the study? ;-)

Because she could be you socking up or a friend of yours angling
for
the study for you because you don't have it.

You've never proven you do have it.

Why is it you demand that "Aline" R R R R, provide you with a self
addressed envelope? Why is it neither "Aline" or you seem able to
carry off this transmission of material?

Nice try, Droany but it's becoming patently obvious you are running
a
giant bluff...scam really, and you have nothing as regards the
report.
You desperately want a report though, don't you little boy?

R R R R R

Doan

Show us the lie, by the way. And Answer The Question....for THAT is
the sole reason The Embry report was brought up by you, to avoid
admitting you don't have the answer to the question I asked. Just
another childish and transparent dodge, little weasel.

Admit it coward. You don't have the answer to the question and no
spanking parent has the answer, though they all claim, as you have,
that they and you do.

You choked, then gagged, now you are retching, and that is ALL you
are
doing with your challenges and bull****, instead of simply
answering
or admitting you cannot answer The Question.

Have a wonderful life.

Kane




On 14 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

Hi Alina,

Have you the study that Doan promised to send you yet?

If so what do you think of the data?

Kane

The point, TM, is that Kane claims that he has
the information, claims to be knowledgeable about
it, but in truth he doesn't even HAVE the information.

He posted an extremely short and biased summary of it
which is NOT academically or professionally acceptable
as proving his point.

Kane has brandished the report around in his preaching,
but in fact he really doesn't want it out on the table
because it does not truly support what he claimed
it did, and because his devious twisting of it would
be revealed.

Kane did something very much like this before with
his IDOL, Strauss. But a peer pointed out some
glaring flaws to Strauss and he HIMSELF admitted
that parts Kane was LOUDLY PROPAGANDIZING were
actually scientifically invalid!

Kane pretends that research proves X conclusively,
but if you look at the full reportage on his
source materials you discover he misrepresented.

Beware the summary report from Kane.
Always check the full blown research data and methodology.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, TM wrote:


Why don't you all email each other the reports and get it over with?

Like who gives a **** who has what?

The idea is to discuss it, not bitch about sending some assinine file. Grow
up kids!



I am willing to discuss it with anyone. Kane0, however, preferred to do
it in the "back channel". :-)

Doan

LOL! Typical respond from a "never spanked" boy.

Doan

On 15 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:25:41 GMT, "TM" wrote:


Why don't you all email each other the reports and get it over with?

I have to certain individuals. The issue is for me that I do not wish
to encourage anyone to "debate" this liar who will pretend, based on
others input, that he has the study.

HE made the challenge. HE has offered to send anyone the study that
wants it. So far all we have seen is a newcomer ask for it, and
between them it's on stall right now.

Like who gives a **** who has what?

I do. I do not care to be lied to. The Droan is a known habitual liar.
When he reforms he'll get responses, but we've had years of this same
crap from him that goes nowhere. When he's cornered he offers yet
another new challenge to change direction instead of dealing with the
issue at hand until it's finished.

Not this time, bozo...and what's your interest anyway...you yet
another Droany sock puppet?

The idea is to discuss it, not bitch about sending some assinine
file.

Nope. I'll provide the file to those that I can trust not to give it
to him...why should I...he claims he has it. Fine, let him prove he
has it. He's refused to prove it.

Grow
up kids!

Speak to the Droaning child.

WE refuse to play his childish games. When he grows up we'll be happy
to have debates and other interactions with him. Not until then.

Bye, and oh Steve, when Droany asks you to intercede for him next time
use a proxie. You and I are practically neighbors. He'll do just sbout
anything now to get that study even get his buddies to lie for him.

Go ahead, ask him to send you a copy. He seems to want to slow the
process down by asking for a self addressed envelope. You and I could
chat about the content just to see if he actually has the study or
some bits and pieces of stray Embry research commentary and citation
by others.

Wanna play? Droany will be eternally greatful if YOU can con me better
than he tried to.

Thanks.

Kane


On 15-Apr-2004, (Kane) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:06:31 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! Kane trying hard to distract from his lies!

Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown I
did.

Why don't you just email Alina the study? ;-)

Because she could be you socking up or a friend of yours angling
for
the study for you because you don't have it.

You've never proven you do have it.

Why is it you demand that "Aline" R R R R, provide you with a self
addressed envelope? Why is it neither "Aline" or you seem able to
carry off this transmission of material?

Nice try, Droany but it's becoming patently obvious you are running
a
giant bluff...scam really, and you have nothing as regards the
report.
You desperately want a report though, don't you little boy?

R R R R R

Doan

Show us the lie, by the way. And Answer The Question....for THAT is
the sole reason The Embry report was brought up by you, to avoid
admitting you don't have the answer to the question I asked. Just
another childish and transparent dodge, little weasel.

Admit it coward. You don't have the answer to the question and no
spanking parent has the answer, though they all claim, as you have,
that they and you do.

You choked, then gagged, now you are retching, and that is ALL you
are
doing with your challenges and bull****, instead of simply
answering
or admitting you cannot answer The Question.

Have a wonderful life.

Kane




On 14 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

Hi Alina,

Have you the study that Doan promised to send you yet?

If so what do you think of the data?

Kane

On 16 Apr 2004 08:13:03 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

The point, TM, is that Kane claims that he has
the information, claims to be knowledgeable about
it, but in truth he doesn't even HAVE the information.

There are a number of folks that post to this ng that know I have it,
as I've sent it to them.

He posted an extremely short and biased summary of it
which is NOT academically or professionally acceptable
as proving his point.

I simply quoted a magazine article interview with Dr. Embry from some
years back, as have others. I made no claims beyond that article.

Kane has brandished the report around in his preaching,
but in fact he really doesn't want it out on the table
because it does not truly support what he claimed
it did, and because his devious twisting of it would
be revealed.

Not so, as some who post here know. You are lying as usual. How would
YOU know what is or isn't in the report? Droany sent it too you yet?
If so prove you have it by answering a simple question or two about
items on a page, by number.....something Droany couldn't do.

Kane did something very much like this before with
his IDOL, Strauss.

Please post where I have ever quoted Strauss. I have, in fact, pointed
out flaws in the concept of studies that do NOT allow for destruction
of the subjects (the medical and engineering model) . Social science
research is always hampered by this ethical limitation.

We cannot BEAT or even spank children on a rigidly controlled
experiment to study outcomes. It is impossible to control for unseen
and unknowable variables, prior discipline methods NOT reported
accurately by participants, differences in temperment of subjects,
health differences, etc.

You won't find me defending Strauss beyond respect for his attempts to
study something very difficult to study.

Embry did something very different however, that anyone who actually
has the report of his study would know. YOU don't and neither does
Droany.

But a peer pointed out some
glaring flaws to Strauss and he HIMSELF admitted
that parts Kane was LOUDLY PROPAGANDIZING were
actually scientifically invalid!

You are full of ****. I've never promoted Strauss as an important
scientific study.

Kane pretends that research proves X conclusively,

Show me where I said any such thing.

but if you look at the full reportage on his
source materials you discover he misrepresented.

What source materials? Struass? I misrepresented nothing. I pointed
out that Droany's nonsense was based on assumptions he made, instead
of the materials under question.

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

I've pointed out myself the limitations of Strauss, while the Droaner
droaned on about correlation not equalling causation (something NO ONE
WAS CLAIMING IN THE FIRST PLACE.)

In fact I challenging anyone to link CP with improvement in behavior
CAUSUALLY. It cannot be done for the same reason. No medical or
engineering model of experimentation can be ethically performed on
living humans.

We draw opinions from social science research, not "proof." In fact a
good deal of physical research amounts to the same thing.....we
discover a decade or two later when better methods are available for
testing.

I challenged Droaner to answer the question he claims, and others that
have come here, claim they know the answer to....were is the line
between noninjurious CP and abuse.

All I've gotten is, you know it when you see it kinds of answers. I
ask for a line. I get dodging.

Beware the summary report from Kane.

Unless Kane tells you it's a summary report. Which I have. In fact the
Embry magazine article had no report at all...just quoted him in
interview as mentioning the outcomes that surprized him and his
collegues. He was not asked for more nor did he offer more at that
time.

His report was already a decade old at least at the time of the
interview. No one has seen fit to use the criteria he was working with
and put it to another test. I maintain because it was SO obvious what
did and didn't work no one bothered. It would be a waste of time.

But then I have the report and have had it for years.

Always check the full blown research data and methodology.

Sure Steve, do that. When Droany supplies you with the report on the
Embry street entry project research get back to us.

Because Droany has lied that he has the report don't expect to get
started discussing it without some proof you have the actually report.

As for you, whore. why don't YOU have the report from you little
buddy, eh?

He doesn't have it to give, that is why.

Kane

On 16 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:

The point, TM, is that Kane claims that he has
the information, claims to be knowledgeable about
it, but in truth he doesn't even HAVE the information.

True! He didn't even know that there was a PUNISHMENT component
used in the study. He lied and got kaught! :-)

He posted an extremely short and biased summary of it
which is NOT academically or professionally acceptable
as proving his point.

He is counting on the fact that not many people will take the time
to go to the library and look it up. I did and that is how I found
out the lies by Kane0! :-)

Kane has brandished the report around in his preaching,
but in fact he really doesn't want it out on the table
because it does not truly support what he claimed
it did, and because his devious twisting of it would
be revealed.

He can't even tell you what the sample size is!

Kane did something very much like this before with
his IDOL, Strauss. But a peer pointed out some
glaring flaws to Strauss and he HIMSELF admitted
that parts Kane was LOUDLY PROPAGANDIZING were
actually scientifically invalid!

Kane pretends that research proves X conclusively,
but if you look at the full reportage on his
source materials you discover he misrepresented.

True!


Beware the summary report from Kane.
Always check the full blown research data and methodology.

Good advice.

Doan

On 15 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:06:31 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! Kane trying hard to distract from his lies!

Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown I
did.

Another lie!

Why don't you just email Alina the study? ;-)

Because she could be you socking up or a friend of yours angling for
the study for you because you don't have it.

LOL! Is that what your "formidable" research skill produced?

You've never proven you do have it.

Actually I have! Here is a quote from the study:

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as: helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used, number of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental estimates
of how often child went into the street."

Why is it you demand that "Aline" R R R R, provide you with a self
addressed envelope? Why is it neither "Aline" or you seem able to
carry off this transmission of material?

Could it be that Alina is me? ;-)

Nice try, Droany but it's becoming patently obvious you are running a
giant bluff...scam really, and you have nothing as regards the report.
You desperately want a report though, don't you little boy?


OOps! He caught us, Alina. ;-) I guess I have to contact Dr. Embry
like Kane told me to when I ASKED him for the study.

"I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822
"

R R R R R

Doan

Show us the lie, by the way. And Answer The Question....for THAT is
the sole reason The Embry report was brought up by you, to avoid
admitting you don't have the answer to the question I asked. Just
another childish and transparent dodge, little weasel.

Distraction #1.

Admit it coward. You don't have the answer to the question and no
spanking parent has the answer, though they all claim, as you have,
that they and you do.

Distraction #2.

You choked, then gagged, now you are retching, and that is ALL you are
doing with your challenges and bull****, instead of simply answering
or admitting you cannot answer The Question.

Distraction #3.

Have a wonderful life.

Thanks, Kane0!

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan

On 16 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On 16 Apr 2004 08:13:03 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

The point, TM, is that Kane claims that he has
the information, claims to be knowledgeable about
it, but in truth he doesn't even HAVE the information.

There are a number of folks that post to this ng that know I have it,
as I've sent it to them.

LOL! These "phantom" folks are no where to be found.

Doan

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:52:00 -0700, Doan wrote:


On 16 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:10:51 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 15 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:06:31 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! Kane trying hard to distract from his lies!

Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown
I
did.

Another lie!

Post my "lie" again please. I'd like to see if you still have the
gall
to lie.

"Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown I
did."

You LIED! :-)

Nope. YOU lied! You have always lied. It's the sole content of your
posts. Unless you confine yourself to a simple few words, and even
then, you often lie.

Why don't you just email Alina the study? ;-)

Because she could be you socking up or a friend of yours angling
for
the study for you because you don't have it.

LOL! Is that what your "formidable" research skill produced?

That is my assumption, given that you slipped and called her by the
name of a well known personality connected with your location,
"Aline."

LOL! There are also many "Aline" in Colorado
http://ronbrandon.com/lukeminnie/page-x44.htm

You confused Aline with Alina. You were thinking then of someone in
Colorado?

Like I said, you lie.

And Alina had only a 20 something previous posting history on
USENET
but seemed very comfortable with the particular medium. She could
be a
sock.

Alina will be happy to hear that! :-)

That's nice.

You still haven't explained why you wanted a self addressed
envelope
from her, but no postage. Interesting. Or a dodge.

So I can "scam" you! ;-)

Wouldn't surprize me or others here very much. I notice TM hasn't
responded. Another of your friends?

So why did you slip and mention "Aline" when the poster was named
Alina?

You've never proven you do have it.

Actually I have! Here is a quote from the study:

A quote is NOT sufficient. I quoted Embry from a magazine article.
Are
we to presume NO ONE else has quoted him, like possibly academics
referring to his work?

LOL! Then prove it! Show me where my quotes come from. You are
grasping
for straws. :-)

No, I don't have to prove a thing. YOU provide me with proof of your
source. Meeting demands for proof by requiring the other person to
prove you wrong is dodging and frowned on among civil people.

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as:
helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used,
number
of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental
estimates
of how often child went into the street."

R R R R .... I love this. Anyone reading the actual chart you
provided
would see, plainly, that punishment wasn't working....what a ditz.
Here, let's quote you:

And you've just shown how STUPID you are! It's not "punishment
wasn't
working", it's "problems the parents reported"! Do you have a
problem
with English? ;-)

And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%

So what is the page number of this chart again? In the study.

Look it up! You said you have the study! :-)

As I said, it's not in the report I have. Still dodging the page
question I see. Liar.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Over 50% of the time the children wouldn't even participate in the
"punishment." R R R R R. So much for YOUR nonsense. This was a KEY
item, I'd wager, in Dr. Embry getting it that teaching what IS
wanted
is far more powerful than punishment for an unwanted behavior.

You don't understand English do you??? Where did you get the 50%?
YOU ARE STUPID!

The first line, dummy. I understand english better than YOU do
apparently.

"1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%"

When a child won't sit they are not participating.

Now who is stupid.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

As I said formerly, on this and other "proof" you provided, a
single
quote, or even a dozen, could be from other sources.

Then it's you who made the claime; cite the sources. CAN YOU?

No, it's not I that made the claim. I have not said that IS were you
got the quotes, I merely point out the possibility. And your refusal
to say what page in the study report your quotes come from makes it
abundantly clear you are faking it.

I have given you three or four chances to come up with a page number
and not once have you responded.

I suspect you just rush back to the library and look for yet another
citation of Embry that you think might be from the particular study I
am discussing.

When you provide, as I asked, page numbers, even for those things
you
asked ME to prove, then I'll assume you have the study, and not
before.

LOL! Do you really I care what you think? ;-)

Nope. That is obvious. Hence you will lie, and dodge, and pretend it
just doesn't matter. Just so you won't be revealed for the scummy
little liar you have always been. YOU challenge then you won't meet
the challenge YOU made. No problem for me to expose you time and
again.

Droananation.

I asked you for the page number for the beginning of the
description
of the demographic sample. A very simple thing to provide. YOU HAVE
NOT.

And I have asked you to provide the sample size. YOU HAVE NOT! :-)

33 total.

Now how many were observed and how many simply reported?

And what page does the description of the demographics of the subjects
begin on, and who is named the same as one of our posters, and what
page does that name appear on in the report?

So, when you ask me again for the number of subjects in the study
group, include the page number. THEN I'll know you aren't lying.

And you'd be lying! ;-)

When I ask you for the page number I'd "be lying!"

Or if you came up with the correct answer it would be lying of me to
know you aren't lying?

You have a very strange understanding of english.

And you are still using this study and discussion of it to avoid
admitting you don't know the answer to The Question.

distraction #4! :-)

Nope. I did NOT challenge you to depate Embry. You used it in the
middle of our discussion of The Question, and you are still using
it...to dodge.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Which is the central issue.

According to whom? :-)

According to you. I asked you The Question, you claimed you could
answer it. You attempted to an failed.

Your attempt to run now is the central issue, or you can answer The
Question.

Why is it you demand that "Aline" R R R R, provide you with a
self
addressed envelope? Why is it neither "Aline" or you seem able
to
carry off this transmission of material?

Could it be that Alina is me? ;-)

Yes, it could be. Or a friend willing to play your game for you
with
me. NO, Droany, I'm not giving the study to a stranger. When I said
anyone I certainly was NOT considering someone NOT in the ng at
that
time and certainly NO ONE that would serve it up to you before you
prove you have it.

Weasel! :-)

Nope. Just accustomed to years of your lying, and unwilling to
continue serious debate with you as long as you continue lying.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Those I've given it to have agreed NOT to send it to you. I presume
they are smart enough to see your game and that you are angling for
some clues and the study itself if you can get it through me.

Only anti-spanking zealotS would believe that! :-)

So. Prove you have the study.

Tough luck, little Droaner....not going to happen.

Weasel! :-)

Just another dodge ad hom.

So tell us, who is mentioned in the study that has the same last
name
as someone well known to this ng and on what page does that name
appear in the report?

distraction #5! :-)

Oh really? YOU consider it a distraction to ask the name from the
study and the page number?

Distraction from what?

The answer to The Question?

And why won't you answer that simple question? Or provide page
numbers
for the questions you ask me?

I don't play your game! :-)

But you expect me to play yours.

Well, neither of us is going to play the other's game, but you tripped
yourself up.

You tried to answer a question you could not.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

By the way, the chart you offerred on the responses to the Sit and
Watch non-compliance by the chidlren to "prove" you had the
study....bogus. Sorry.

Weasel!


Nope. It's not in the study and a few people here that have the study
know it as well as I.

Who have you given the study to that would be happy to step forward
and back your claim? Certainly Couch Croucher would, but oddly, seems
to know that asking you for the study isn't going to produce the
study.

It does NOT exist in the street entry study report.

It is in the FINAL report!

Which number is that? All reports are numbered.

In fact though I never said which I have and whether or not it's the
final one. I simply said that I had a report from the Embry study and
that I'd debate you happily in this ng if you could get the SAME
REPORT.

If you have it, fine. But then you have two other steps, and you have
to convince me that it's worth my time to rescind the deadline.

So far you have demonstrated how I can expect you to "debate."

Nothing but dodges and weasels.

Nice try, Droany but it's becoming patently obvious you are
running
a
giant bluff...scam really, and you have nothing as regards the
report.
You desperately want a report though, don't you little boy?


OOps! He caught us, Alina. ;-) I guess I have to contact Dr.
Embry
like Kane told me to when I ASKED him for the study.

Yep, sure did. And you certainly can. What has stopped you?

Because I have already got one from the library! You told me to,
remembered? :-)

That's nice. But you apparently don't have the one I do. Hence we
wouldn't have debated even IF you had met the deadline. I would only
work for duplicates. You lost your chance to get a copy of mine by
being such a smartass and gameplayer.

All yOU had to do was admit you cannot answer The Question correctly,
and that your silly dare was a piece of distraction and nonsense to
avoid facing the fact you blew it when you offered to take up the
challenge of The Question.

Please give us your answers again. I want the current posters to see
what a whimp and fool you are.

"I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available
at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822
"

R R R R R

Doan

Show us the lie, by the way. And Answer The Question....for THAT
is
the sole reason The Embry report was brought up by you, to avoid
admitting you don't have the answer to the question I asked.
Just
another childish and transparent dodge, little weasel.

Distraction #1.

It is YOUR distraction number one, not mine.

It's yours!

Odd. I'm perfectly willing to take on the challenge I gave you. I CAN
ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU cannot because you know that your entire
posting history here would be seen for the lie it is.

The original opening of the entire thread of diversion started when
I
asked you to answer The Question. Instead of answering it
successfuly
you went on this and other directions as a diversion from how
miserably you failed.

Question has been aswered. You are just too stupid to comprehended
it!
:-)

Nope. I asked for a limit as clearly definable as a stop sign or speed
control sign. YOU gave us, "The law" and no law says were that line
is, only defines what the appearance of the victim is AFTER the line
is crossed.

And "reasonable standard" by "reasonable people" fails for lack of a
universal agreement on what "reasonable" and "standard" are in the
matter of CP.

In some states it's a switching that cuts the skin, in others, a mark
can't last over 24 hours...many other definitions of what NOT TO DO
are listed, but nowhere does it say anything like "no more than 12
seconds of force X applied to section Y of the body of a child no
older than or younger than ages a through b."

The reason of course for this reticence to be exact, is the real
answer to The Question.

I'm quite happy to discuss The Question with you. It's YOU that is
runing from you failure by using these distractions.

distraction #6! :-)

We aren't going to debate the Embry study. It was just a diversion by
you to avoid having to discuss The Question and admit you can't answer
it as it was asked.

Admit it coward. You don't have the answer to the question and
no
spanking parent has the answer, though they all claim, as you
have,
that they and you do.

Distraction #2.

Yes, you haven't answered The Question, nor admitted to failing to
do
so.

distraction #7! :-)

You certainly do have a string of them.

You choked, then gagged, now you are retching, and that is ALL
you
are
doing with your challenges and bull****, instead of simply
answering
or admitting you cannot answer The Question.

Distraction #3.

Which is an admission you haven't and cannot answer The Question
and
won't admit it.

distraction #8!

Oh, then you CAN answer the question but won't. Okay. Just like to
clarify.

Have a wonderful life.

Thanks, Kane0!

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan

You are welcome, Droananator. {:-

And you 9 less than a Kane9. Kane9 - 9 = Kane0! :-)

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan

You appear very very confused little boy.
We are not. We have see clearly for years what you are. It just was
left up to me to expose you for it.

You are a liar, and a cheat, and are not here to debate. Nor do you
actually believe that people should make up their own mind from an
informed decision.

I've proven it again and again.

EVen now you could proceed with the content of the Embry study,
without me at all, if you really have it, but you withhold information
you claim parents make their decisions from.

Unless of course you believe you can refute the Embry study.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

R R R R R R

What a child you are.

Kane

On 16 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:52:00 -0700, Doan wrote:


On 16 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:10:51 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 15 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:06:31 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! Kane trying hard to distract from his lies!

Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown
I
did.

Another lie!

Post my "lie" again please. I'd like to see if you still have the
gall
to lie.

"Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown I
did."

You LIED! :-)

Nope. YOU lied! You have always lied. It's the sole content of your
posts. Unless you confine yourself to a simple few words, and even
then, you often lie.

Sound like you are describing yourself! :-)

Why don't you just email Alina the study? ;-)

Because she could be you socking up or a friend of yours angling
for
the study for you because you don't have it.

LOL! Is that what your "formidable" research skill produced?

That is my assumption, given that you slipped and called her by the
name of a well known personality connected with your location,
"Aline."

LOL! There are also many "Aline" in Colorado
http://ronbrandon.com/lukeminnie/page-x44.htm

You confused Aline with Alina. You were thinking then of someone in
Colorado?

LOL! It's a typo, stupid!

Like I said, you lie.

Nope! You LIED and got Kaught! :-)

And Alina had only a 20 something previous posting history on
USENET
but seemed very comfortable with the particular medium. She could
be a
sock.

Alina will be happy to hear that! :-)

That's nice.

It's sure is! :-)0

You still haven't explained why you wanted a self addressed
envelope
from her, but no postage. Interesting. Or a dodge.

So I can "scam" you! ;-)

Wouldn't surprize me or others here very much. I notice TM hasn't
responded. Another of your friends?

I see that you are the paranoid! ;-) Yes. We are EVERYWHERE! :-)

So why did you slip and mention "Aline" when the poster was named
Alina?

The same reason that you typed "Arlina".

You've never proven you do have it.

Actually I have! Here is a quote from the study:

A quote is NOT sufficient. I quoted Embry from a magazine article.
Are
we to presume NO ONE else has quoted him, like possibly academics
referring to his work?

LOL! Then prove it! Show me where my quotes come from. You are
grasping
for straws. :-)

No, I don't have to prove a thing. YOU provide me with proof of your
source. Meeting demands for proof by requiring the other person to
prove you wrong is dodging and frowned on among civil people.

Then people just keep on laughing at you for if the study support your
agenda and you hide it then YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) I am offering a copy
to anyone that asked.

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as:
helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used,
number
of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental
estimates
of how often child went into the street."

R R R R .... I love this. Anyone reading the actual chart you
provided
would see, plainly, that punishment wasn't working....what a ditz.
Here, let's quote you:

And you've just shown how STUPID you are! It's not "punishment
wasn't
working", it's "problems the parents reported"! Do you have a
problem
with English? ;-)


I see you don't have an answer for this. You are conceding that you
are STUPID! :-0

And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%

So what is the page number of this chart again? In the study.

Look it up! You said you have the study! :-)

As I said, it's not in the report I have. Still dodging the page
question I see. Liar.

Then you don't have the study! Since you CLAIMED to know Dr. Embry
so well, why don't you contact him and asked if the data I provided
are authentic or I LIED. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU. Here is
the contact information you gave me:
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822
"

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered - "reasonable standard"!

Over 50% of the time the children wouldn't even participate in the
"punishment." R R R R R. So much for YOUR nonsense. This was a KEY
item, I'd wager, in Dr. Embry getting it that teaching what IS
wanted
is far more powerful than punishment for an unwanted behavior.

You don't understand English do you??? Where did you get the 50%?
YOU ARE STUPID!

The first line, dummy. I understand english better than YOU do
apparently.

"1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%"

HA! HA! HA! You are stupid! That is 51.4% of the out of the TOTAL
numbers of parents who reported "problems"; other parents who
reported SUCCESSFUL with the sit ad watch PUNISHMENT are not counted
in that figure. ARE YOU SO STUPID???

When a child won't sit they are not participating.

But so are 2 & 3!

Now who is stupid.

YOU ARE!

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Alread answered!

As I said formerly, on this and other "proof" you provided, a
single
quote, or even a dozen, could be from other sources.

Then it's you who made the claime; cite the sources. CAN YOU?

No, it's not I that made the claim. I have not said that IS were you
got the quotes, I merely point out the possibility. And your refusal
to say what page in the study report your quotes come from makes it
abundantly clear you are faking it.

Then you would not be having problem in finding one source where they
actually quotes from the Embry study. Come on, Kane. Show us your
"formidable" research skill! ;-)

I have given you three or four chances to come up with a page number
and not once have you responded.

I don't see the relevancy in it!

I suspect you just rush back to the library and look for yet another
citation of Embry that you think might be from the particular study I
am discussing.

Or I can write Dr. Embry and ask him for it. I might just tell him
that you said hi! ;-)

When you provide, as I asked, page numbers, even for those things
you
asked ME to prove, then I'll assume you have the study, and not
before.

LOL! Do you really I care what you think? ;-)

Nope. That is obvious. Hence you will lie, and dodge, and pretend it
just doesn't matter. Just so you won't be revealed for the scummy
little liar you have always been. YOU challenge then you won't meet
the challenge YOU made. No problem for me to expose you time and
again.

LOL! That is why I like having you debating for the anti-spanking
zealotS. You are so good! ;-)

Droananation.

Kane0 Kan't!

I asked you for the page number for the beginning of the
description
of the demographic sample. A very simple thing to provide. YOU HAVE
NOT.

And I have asked you to provide the sample size. YOU HAVE NOT! :-)

33 total.

Are you sure? That's so small to provide any statistic validity.

Now how many were observed and how many simply reported?

In the teens!

And what page does the description of the demographics of the subjects
begin on, and who is named the same as one of our posters, and what
page does that name appear on in the report?

What does this have to do with the price of gas?

So, when you ask me again for the number of subjects in the study
group, include the page number. THEN I'll know you aren't lying.

And you'd be lying! ;-)

When I ask you for the page number I'd "be lying!"

Yes!

Or if you came up with the correct answer it would be lying of me to
know you aren't lying?

Or I could be playing with you. ;-)

You have a very strange understanding of english.

So do you! ;-)

And you are still using this study and discussion of it to avoid
admitting you don't know the answer to The Question. distraction
#4! :-)

Nope. I did NOT challenge you to depate Embry. You used it in the
middle of our discussion of The Question, and you are still using
it...to dodge.

Weasel!

What is the correct answer to The Question?

The answer I gave you long ago!

Which is the central issue.

According to whom? :-)

According to you. I asked you The Question, you claimed you could
answer it. You attempted to an failed.

I have already answered it but you are to stupid to understand it.
Look it up!

Your attempt to run now is the central issue, or you can answer The
Question.

And you are lying again!

Why is it you demand that "Aline" R R R R, provide you with a
self
addressed envelope? Why is it neither "Aline" or you seem able
to
carry off this transmission of material?

Could it be that Alina is me? ;-)

Yes, it could be. Or a friend willing to play your game for you
with
me. NO, Droany, I'm not giving the study to a stranger. When I said
anyone I certainly was NOT considering someone NOT in the ng at
that
time and certainly NO ONE that would serve it up to you before you
prove you have it.

Weasel! :-)

Nope. Just accustomed to years of your lying, and unwilling to
continue serious debate with you as long as you continue lying.

You are describing yourself again! ;--)

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered!

Those I've given it to have agreed NOT to send it to you. I presume
they are smart enough to see your game and that you are angling for
some clues and the study itself if you can get it through me.

Only anti-spanking zealotS would believe that! :-)

So. Prove you have the study.

Already have. Now, prove that you have the study!

Tough luck, little Droaner....not going to happen.

Weasel! :-)

Just another dodge ad hom.

Throwing the same "****" back at you. You don't like it? ;-)

So tell us, who is mentioned in the study that has the same last
name
as someone well known to this ng and on what page does that name
appear in the report?

distraction #5! :-)

Oh really? YOU consider it a distraction to ask the name from the
study and the page number?

Yes. Just the fact, please.

Distraction from what?

From=20the Embry Study and why you lied about the PUNISHMENT component.

The answer to The Question?

Already answered.

And why won't you answer that simple question? Or provide page
numbers
for the questions you ask me?

I don't play your game! :-)

But you expect me to play yours.

Sure! You always have! That is your nature! Don't you know that I am
using you to attack the anti-spanking zealotS! You are STUPID!

Well, neither of us is going to play the other's game, but you tripped
yourself up.

Yup! You are so good! ;-)

You tried to answer a question you could not.

I tried to teach an old dog a new trick and I could not! :-)

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered!

By the way, the chart you offerred on the responses to the Sit and
Watch non-compliance by the chidlren to "prove" you had the
study....bogus. Sorry.

Weasel!


Nope. It's not in the study and a few people here that have the study
know it as well as I.

Then they sure can speak up and attest to it. Why are they so quiet?

Who have you given the study to that would be happy to step forward
and back your claim? Certainly Couch Croucher would, but oddly, seems
to know that asking you for the study isn't going to produce the
study.

They could be asking you instead. Funny thing, is anyone that has
asked you publicly got a big NO from you. If the study really support
your agenda, don't you that you are being STUPID? ;-)

It does NOT exist in the street entry study report.

It is in the FINAL report!

Which number is that? All reports are numbered.

There is only one FINAL one. Why don't you ask Dr. Embry? ;-)

In fact though I never said which I have and whether or not it's the
final one. I simply said that I had a report from the Embry study and
that I'd debate you happily in this ng if you could get the SAME
REPORT.

I see the Kane9 weasel dance coming! ;-)

If you have it, fine. But then you have two other steps, and you have
to convince me that it's worth my time to rescind the deadline.
I
So far you have demonstrated how I can expect you to "debate."

Like I say, I wil debate with ANYONE on this. The choice is yours!

Nothing but dodges and weasels.

Yep! That's you! :-)

Nice try, Droany but it's becoming patently obvious you are
running
a
giant bluff...scam really, and you have nothing as regards the
report.
You desperately want a report though, don't you little boy?


OOps! He caught us, Alina. ;-) I guess I have to contact Dr.
Embry
like Kane told me to when I ASKED him for the study.

Yep, sure did. And you certainly can. What has stopped you?

Because I have already got one from the library! You told me to,
remembered? :-)

That's nice. But you apparently don't have the one I do. Hence we
wouldn't have debated even IF you had met the deadline. I would only
work for duplicates. You lost your chance to get a copy of mine by
being such a smartass and gameplayer.

I am disappointed. So now, the whole newsgroup will not get a chance
to see the great work of Dr. Embry. All because of me.

All yOU had to do was admit you cannot answer The Question correctly,
and that your silly dare was a piece of distraction and nonsense to
avoid facing the fact you blew it when you offered to take up the
challenge of The Question.

So you won't debate with me?

Please give us your answers again. I want the current posters to see
what a whimp and fool you are.

They are laughing at you!

"I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available
at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822
"

R R R R R

Doan

Show us the lie, by the way. And Answer The Question....for THAT
is
the sole reason The Embry report was brought up by you, to avoid
admitting you don't have the answer to the question I asked.
Just
another childish and transparent dodge, little weasel.

Distraction #1.

It is YOUR distraction number one, not mine.

It's yours!

Odd. I'm perfectly willing to take on the challenge I gave you. I CAN
ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU cannot because you know that your entire
posting history here would be seen for the lie it is.

I have proved that you are liar. The google archive still has your lies!
:-)

The original opening of the entire thread of diversion started when
I
asked you to answer The Question. Instead of answering it
successfuly
you went on this and other directions as a diversion from how
miserably you failed.

Question has been aswered. You are just too stupid to comprehended
it!
:-)

Nope. I asked for a limit as clearly definable as a stop sign or speed
control sign. YOU gave us, "The law" and no law says were that line
is, only defines what the appearance of the victim is AFTER the line
is crossed.

So there is a line!

And "reasonable standard" by "reasonable people" fails for lack of a
universal agreement on what "reasonable" and "standard" are in the
matter of CP.

Tell that to the courts!

In some states it's a switching that cuts the skin, in others, a mark
can't last over 24 hours...many other definitions of what NOT TO DO
are listed, but nowhere does it say anything like "no more than 12
seconds of force X applied to section Y of the body of a child no
older than or younger than ages a through b."

Exactly, every states set up their own laws. This can pertain to
many other aspects as well.

The reason of course for this reticence to be exact, is the real
answer to The Question.

All it takes is a call to your local DA to find out what the law is
in your community!

I'm quite happy to discuss The Question with you. It's YOU that is
runing from you failure by using these distractions.

distraction #6! :-)

We aren't going to debate the Embry study. It was just a diversion by
you to avoid having to discuss The Question and admit you can't answer
it as it was asked.

Avoiding the Embry study again! :-0

Admit it coward. You don't have the answer to the question and
no
spanking parent has the answer, though they all claim, as you
have,
that they and you do.

Distraction #2.

Yes, you haven't answered The Question, nor admitted to failing to
do
so.

distraction #7! :-)

You certainly do have a string of them.

It's you!

You choked, then gagged, now you are retching, and that is ALL
you
are
doing with your challenges and bull****, instead of simply
answering
or admitting you cannot answer The Question.

Distraction #3.

Which is an admission you haven't and cannot answer The Question
and
won't admit it.

distraction #8!

Oh, then you CAN answer the question but won't. Okay. Just like to
clarify.

Already answered.

Have a wonderful life.

Thanks, Kane0!

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan

You are welcome, Droananator. {:-

And you 9 less than a Kane9. Kane9 - 9 =3D Kane0! :-)

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan

You appear very very confused little boy.
We are not. We have see clearly for years what you are. It just was
left up to me to expose you for it.

You are delusional too! :-)

You are a liar, and a cheat, and are not here to debate. Nor do you
actually believe that people should make up their own mind from an
informed decision.

You are describing yourself!

I've proven it again and again.

Delusional!

EVen now you could proceed with the content of the Embry study,
without me at all, if you really have it, but you withhold information
you claim parents make their decisions from.

what parents? :-)

Unless of course you believe you can refute the Embry study.

Already have!

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered!

R R R R R R

LOL!

What a child you are.

What a Kane0 you are! :-)

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan