A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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

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

Another child killed in kincare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 17th 04, 04:32 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:07:25 GMT, "Sherman"
wrote:


"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
You approve of the F word, then, and the C word?


I do, absolutely.

Those persons that get caught up in being offended at silly things
like the use of rude words by others are in denial of the true
obscenities: the torturing of children and calling it "discipline" and
"love" when it is nothing but terror, pain, and humiliation and the
obscene actions of a brute against someone smaller, weaker, and
unaware.

YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend
people that torture children, and even those that kill children.

YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that?

Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch.

A trip to a local CPS office and a hundred hours of volunteer work,
preferably with the Protective Service unit, where the tortured babies
come into the protective care, might do you a world of good.

It might even turn you into a real human being instead of an unfeeling
plant, ****.

Kane

http://www.gliph.com/video/fhistory.swf


Sherman

  #2  
Old January 19th 04, 05:24 AM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

Kane wrote:
[snip]

: YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend
: people that torture children, and even those that kill children.

: YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that?

: Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch.

In most cases, this sort of verbal abuse is the last resort of people
with losing positions who have nothing left with which to argue. But the
antispank position is not a losing position. We have the momentum of
history on our side, and virtually all the science on our side. Over a
dozen countries have banned the practice entirely with more in the
pipeline. It has been banned in all but a dwindling minority of US
states' school systems, and US public opinion in favor of spanking
continues to erode according to public opinion polls. We antispankers
don't need to engage in obscene rants. We are winning this battle of the
culture wars.

Resorting obscenities and personal attacks is a sign of weakness
rather than a sign of strength. Alt.parenting.spanking was more effective
back in the old days when the antispankers were polite and civil while the
prospankers threw obscene tantrums and launched endless personal smear
campaigns which few lurkers took seriously. Now that the mud slinging is
so prevalent on both sides I have less interest in the debates here than I
used to, although I still check in from time to time.

It's simple. Antispankers are winning everywhere. We don't need to
behave as if we are losing and must resort to vulgar personal attacks for
lack of anything more cogent to offer.

Chris

  #3  
Old January 31st 04, 04:00 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare



On 17 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:07:25 GMT, "Sherman"
wrote:


"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
You approve of the F word, then, and the C word?


I do, absolutely.

Those persons that get caught up in being offended at silly things
like the use of rude words by others are in denial of the true
obscenities: the torturing of children and calling it "discipline" and
"love" when it is nothing but terror, pain, and humiliation and the
obscene actions of a brute against someone smaller, weaker, and
unaware.

YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend
people that torture children, and even those that kill children.

YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that?

Gotta give it to you, Kane. Is this how your parents raised you?
Need I reminded you and everyone that you were "never-spanked"! ;-)

Doan


  #4  
Old January 31st 04, 04:05 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare


Oops! Sound like Chris having trouble controlling his dog! :-)

Doan

On 19 Jan 2004, Chris wrote:

Kane wrote:
[snip]

: YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend
: people that torture children, and even those that kill children.

: YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that?

: Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch.

In most cases, this sort of verbal abuse is the last resort of people
with losing positions who have nothing left with which to argue. But the
antispank position is not a losing position. We have the momentum of
history on our side, and virtually all the science on our side. Over a
dozen countries have banned the practice entirely with more in the
pipeline. It has been banned in all but a dwindling minority of US
states' school systems, and US public opinion in favor of spanking
continues to erode according to public opinion polls. We antispankers
don't need to engage in obscene rants. We are winning this battle of the
culture wars.

Resorting obscenities and personal attacks is a sign of weakness
rather than a sign of strength. Alt.parenting.spanking was more effective
back in the old days when the antispankers were polite and civil while the
prospankers threw obscene tantrums and launched endless personal smear
campaigns which few lurkers took seriously. Now that the mud slinging is
so prevalent on both sides I have less interest in the debates here than I
used to, although I still check in from time to time.

It's simple. Antispankers are winning everywhere. We don't need to
behave as if we are losing and must resort to vulgar personal attacks for
lack of anything more cogent to offer.

Chris



  #5  
Old January 31st 04, 06:43 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:00:21 -0800, Doan wrote:



On 17 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:07:25 GMT, "Sherman"
wrote:


"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
You approve of the F word, then, and the C word?


I do, absolutely.

Those persons that get caught up in being offended at silly things
like the use of rude words by others are in denial of the true
obscenities: the torturing of children and calling it "discipline"

and
"love" when it is nothing but terror, pain, and humiliation and the
obscene actions of a brute against someone smaller, weaker, and
unaware.

YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU

defend
people that torture children, and even those that kill children.

YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that?

Gotta give it to you, Kane.


Thank you. Your appreciation is long overdue.

And thank you for not snipping the attributed remarks by me. When it
comes to The Plant and it's history here supporting brutality toward
children by their parents it deserves as much exposure as possible. I
thank you and The Plant thanks you. And all children thank you.

Is this how your parents raised you?


Yes. My parents raised me to not settle for liars and child abusers
and apologists to get away with it unscathed and unexposed.

Need I reminded you and everyone that you were "never-spanked"! ;-)


Since you don't know, that's hardly a threat, now is it? R R R R R

Need I "reminded" (sic) you and everyone that you were spanked and
it's turned you into a slimey little weaseling liar? And a public
masturbator?

And since you claimed you were spanked seems one of us is Doananating
and that's not Kane. {:-]


Doan


Kane
  #6  
Old February 3rd 04, 02:20 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:40:59 -0800, Doan wrote:


This is funny! It can only come from a "never-spanked" boy. ;-)


From a boy that dances about making foolish challenges he can't back
up, yet, it's very funny indeed, and clear proof my claims are
correct.

You hapless twits are very much on the run.

Or hadn't you noticed that all yah got is this babbling dance about?

Run coward, run. R R R R R

Doan


Kane


On 19 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On 19 Jan 2004 05:24:02 GMT, Chris

wrote:

Kane wrote:
[snip]

: YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU

defend
: people that torture children, and even those that kill children.

: YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that?

: Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch.

In most cases, this sort of verbal abuse is the last resort

of people
with losing positions who have nothing left with which to argue.


Bull****, Chris. It's a common response to viciousness on the part

of
others. Grow the **** up.

The abusive obscenity isn't in my words, it's in the actions of

these
cretins.

But the
antispank position is not a losing position. We have the momentum

of
history on our side, and virtually all the science on our side.

Over
a
dozen countries have banned the practice entirely with more in the
pipeline. It has been banned in all but a dwindling minority of

US
states' school systems, and US public opinion in favor of spanking
continues to erode according to public opinion polls. We

antispankers
don't need to engage in obscene rants. We are winning this battle

of
the
culture wars.


Yep. Just a few hardcore nitwits left.

Resorting obscenities and personal attacks is a sign of

weakness
rather than a sign of strength.


Bull****, Chris. Grow up. There is more than one way to express
opinions that are valid.

Alt.parenting.spanking was more effective
back in the old days when the antispankers were polite and civil

while the
prospankers threw obscene tantrums and launched endless personal

smear
campaigns which few lurkers took seriously.


"more effective" how, Chris. Notice whose gone missing? All that

are
left are a few holdouts that are themselves ****ing nutcases.

Loosen up. Your tight ass blather is embarrassing to you and to

anti
spankers in general.

Now that the mud slinging is
so prevalent on both sides I have less interest in the debates

here
than I
used to, although I still check in from time to time.


Your problem.

Do you think The Question was just mud slinging?

It's simple. Antispankers are winning everywhere. We don't

need to
behave as if we are losing


Please defend, logically (not emotionally, as you are doing), your
argument that swearing and vulgar personal attacks equates with

acting
as though we are losing?

That's prissy assedness of the worse kind.

I'm PROVING that the crudest of us, the most uncouth, can still
respond to the needs of children and the truth about their
vulnerablity and the damages done by brutes to them.
and must resort to vulgar personal attacks for

lack of anything more cogent to offer.


YOU want to try and answer The Question?

How's THAT for "cogent?"

Get off your high horse. The ng doesn't belong to you. And years of
argument in the same, quasi polite (you were as brutal as I in YOUR
way) "debate" wound down, spiraled down into a few clever little
****ed up nitwits using the same tired logical phallacies and lies

to
frustrate ANY FURTHER ARGUMENT.

I broke the stalemate and you know it if you could think about it
outside your prissy assed sensibilities.

Frankly I consider "polite" debaters as phony balognies. They are
exactly, if they are any good, as brutal and vulgar as I am...they
just use camoflaging tactics.

I find that offensive. And those that do it habitually, offensive

and
silly. I am talking about YOU, Chris. If you didn't notice.

What happened to YOU is not going to blamed on me or anyone else

that
argues more crudely. YOU ran out of opponents other than the

deceitful
liars..nice work, actually.

You left the field for people like me to deal with Doananators, and
little piggy O's of the world. I did.

When you've convinced (which I'm not at all willing to admit you

did)
the polite debaters to change their child beating ways the rest are
still there, babbling away.

I leave'em reeling, and for some folks, more especially the ones
preempted by the abuses THEY suffered as children, shock is the

only
way to get to them.

How'm I doin' eh?

Chris


Your prissy assed criticism isn't the least welcome, but you are

free
to peddle it of course, if it makes you feel superior and better

than
us.

****in' effete twits **** me off more than most...I have more

respect
for the assholes that debate in favor of child abuse honestly...if

I
can find them.

**** off.

Kane


  #7  
Old February 3rd 04, 11:03 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine"


wrote:

Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your

child
in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with

blind
acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out of
another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing

time-out.

Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their child
beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in

situations
where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank and
those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of spanking
the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally
unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger, it's
quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long as
I have the power, I can hit too.

That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the
context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows that
taking toys away
from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!!

Here is a summary of the study:

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c) AMA
1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental
Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning model
to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual model
in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to
spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in
the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several
family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems
Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change in
chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer fights
for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more
fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.
Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of
increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in
single-mother
families (P =.05, F test).


Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward....

I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have the
Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you
would mail it to anyone that requested it.

No shows on that, eh?

And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I gave
you?

Tsk, little coward, tsk.

R R R R R

So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the
interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would.

So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response to
YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a
silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big
boys?

There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even
rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how
parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left
turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little
feller like you.

And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply posting
your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not?

You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder.

Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge on
the Embry Study.

Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you
now?

Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a copy.
Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one.

Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the
number of?

R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R

When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have lied
all this time about having it.

You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all these
years of practice to. {-

I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some
critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely
tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my students
to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not to
embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright
I'll change the objects but retain the context.

I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up
the offer.

Doan


Kane
  #8  
Old February 3rd 04, 11:23 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine"


wrote:

Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your

child
in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with

blind
acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out of
another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing

time-out.

Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their child
beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in

situations
where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank and
those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of spanking
the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally
unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger, it's
quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long as
I have the power, I can hit too.

That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the
context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows that
taking toys away
from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!!


Could he have stopped with his Doananism? Maybe so.

In fact, oh Dubious Doan, you are correct. When a child is small
"taking toys away from them" does in fact perpetuate "might makes
right?

And power struggles ensue that are only resolved by the likes of you
Doananators going to punishement, often physical.

That's why wise mothers and daddies simply switch the child off that
track to another. They announce snacktime, or hand the child something
else in exchange, or organize a quick game of
toys-in-the-toybox-and-huggy-time.

Of course these tend not to work well in a spanking family. The kid
knows the routine and will push to the point of being spanked.

You on the other hand will just smack'em upside the head so that'll
learn'em that when the big boss says gimme you gimme.

You don't understand the significance of this study at all and once
again give us a public exhibition of your bias that I refer to as
Doananism. You are pleasuring yourself instead of thinking...something
just a bit harder to do.

Parts of the brain that deal with critical reasoning tend to be
shifted away from truth, off track as it were, with certain
trauma...especially related to trusted caregivers and trauma being
connected for the child.

You been spanked, boy. Obviously.

There is an endless supply of strategies for toy manipulation and
little kids. The kid always runs of hers or his before I run out of
mine......or, Doananator.......I GIVE UP AS HAVING BEEN BEATEN, and
heigh my self off to do some thinking...I DON'T RESORT TO BRUTALITY
when a child has outsmarted me. So far I've always been able to come
up with just one more non-punative strategy than the kid has
resistance. It's actually easy and fun, though I suppose if you are a
dedicated hitting freak there is some interference with YOUR pleasure
if you have to think.

That's where you and yours are beaten by your own children. But the
child will pay the price for your stupidity and the psychological
damage that has crippled your thinking skills from childhood abuse.
They get to perpetuate it for you.

Yes, all spanking IS abuse. For the simple reason it betrays nature.

Dogs for instance do nip their young...what you don't seem to know
though is that from time to time that produces a neurotic pup that
usually the male dog snaps the head off of at some point.

Read Farley Mowat's story (a naturalist) about his observations of
wolves in the wild.

We hurt our children and the head snapping off is left up to society
after considerable damage is done by that grown up child full of
vengence, usually hidden behind a pleasant facade.

Logic and Doananators. No match at all.

You don't seem to want to debate me very much. Just one liners. We
know you are brooding when you do that. Planning your next illogical
attack. It's fun to watch your processes. You are utterly predictable
if a bit complex.

A more solid neurotic facade I haven't run into in a great long time.
But then I left mental health work in the 80's.

Kane

Here is a summary of the study:

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c) AMA
1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental
Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning model
to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual model
in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to
spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in
the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several
family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems
Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change in
chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer fights
for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more
fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.
Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of
increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in
single-mother
families (P =.05, F test).



Doan

  #9  
Old February 4th 04, 12:28 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine"


wrote:

Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your

child
in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with

blind
acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out of
another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing

time-out.

Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their child
beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in

situations
where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank and
those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of spanking
the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally
unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger, it's
quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long as
I have the power, I can hit too.

That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the
context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows that
taking toys away
from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!!

Here is a summary of the study:

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c) AMA
1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental
Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning model
to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual model
in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to
spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in
the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several
family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems
Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change in
chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer fights
for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more
fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.
Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of
increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in
single-mother
families (P =.05, F test).


Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward....

LOL! Unlike you, I don't hide behind fake email address and hurling
obscenites. Calling other women "smelly-****" is showing courage???

I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have the
Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you
would mail it to anyone that requested it.

No shows on that, eh?

I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)

And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I gave
you?

Tsk, little coward, tsk.

The one that hide behind fake email address is the real coward! :-)

R R R R R

So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the
interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would.

And you are showing that you are stupid! Even Chris Dugan, your master,
has publicly called you stupid and you didn't even know it! :-)

So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response to
YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a
silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big
boys?

Because the burden of proof is on you, as you said Kane9! ;-)
I am going after your master, Chris Dugan. Get him in!

There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even
rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how
parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left
turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little
feller like you.

Canada has banned spanking???? ;-)

And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply posting
your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not?

But the burden of proof is on you, using your logic. Why don't
you meet your burden of proof? :-0

You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder.

I am still here, always have. Why is your master, Chris Dugan, running
away from debating me? ;-)

Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge on
the Embry Study.

Which you have demonstrated that you were wrong on the punishment
component of it and can't even tell me what the sample size is.
What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)

Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you
now?

The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! ;-)

Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a copy.
Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one.

Yup! And I will mail a copy to anyone that asked.

Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the
number of?

Why haven't you answered me on the sample size?

R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R

Stupid little Kane9! :-)

When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have lied
all this time about having it.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all these
years of practice to. {-

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some
critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely
tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my students
to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not to
embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright
I'll change the objects but retain the context.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up
the offer.

What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)


Kane

9 Kan't! :-)

Doan

  #10  
Old February 4th 04, 02:10 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another child killed in kincare

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:28:54 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine"


wrote:

Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your

child
in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with

blind
acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out

of
another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing

time-out.

Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their

child
beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in

situations
where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank

and
those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of

spanking
the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally
unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger,

it's
quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long

as
I have the power, I can hit too.

That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the
context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows

that
taking toys away
from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!!

Here is a summary of the study:

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c)

AMA
1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental
Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning

model
to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual

model
in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to
spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11

years in
the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several
family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems
Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change

in
chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer

fights
for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more
fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.
Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking

fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims

of
increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in
single-mother
families (P =.05, F test).


Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward....

LOL! Unlike you, I don't hide behind fake email address and hurling
obscenites. Calling other women "smelly-****" is showing courage???


Dodger.

All I asked is for you to answer a couple of simple questions. You
immediately went to a non related issue. Coward.

I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have

the
Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you
would mail it to anyone that requested it.

No shows on that, eh?

I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)


Ah, please show by my not replying that that "proved" you had the
Embry study?

Still not going to include the information from the page number I
questioned you on, right? RIGHT! R R R R R

And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I

gave
you?

Tsk, little coward, tsk.

The one that hide behind fake email address is the real coward! :-)


See, wadddidItellyah? No answer to the question.

Are all the folks that post anonymously cowards then? I've checked out
a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but
very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and
proxies...tsk there little boy, tsk.

R R R R R

So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the
interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would.

And you are showing that you are stupid! Even Chris Dugan, your

master,
has publicly called you stupid and you didn't even know it! :-)


Which should prove to others (you are beyond normal thinking and will
never get it) that I am not the subject of anyone. Chris doesn't get
to tell me what to do, or did you fail to notice that in your mad
scramble for something, anything, that would distract for your
childish challenges and loudmouthed, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
and then not replying when I asked you to follow through.

So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response

to
YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a
silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big
boys?

Because the burden of proof is on you, as you said Kane9! ;-)
I am going after your master, Chris Dugan. Get him in!


Nope. The burden of proof is not on me and that isn't what I said on
any of the issues we are discussing. The Embry Study, the claims about
"never-spanked" and most of all, The Question you failed to answer
honestly.

When you took on answering the question your answers, as always in
honest debate, became YOUR responsibility to provide proof. You
haven't. You've simply sited other poor examples of logic and honesty.

The Canadian court was honest though....they said that "reasonable"
standards don't cut it as they are not precisely definable enough for
law or for parents to use as a guideline.

Do you disagree with the Canadian courts?

There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even
rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how
parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left
turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little
feller like you.

Canada has banned spanking???? ;-)


The usual Doananistic Dodge. I said nothing about a ban. We were
discussing the limits on spanking where it passes into abuse.

But for your edification, they have greatly reduced the freedom to
spank by now reducing the LIMIT considerably and more precisely than
YOU have. Isn't that sad for those of you that need spanking as an
excuse for your emotional crippling as a child? I'm so sad for you.

So, are you going to point out where I said they banned spanking?
Please do.

I think you are losing it pretty badly. Your clever ploys and dodges
and gimmicks are giving out on you. I'm even sadder for you.

Look at what it's revealing about you to people that come here to
answer The Question for themselves.

And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply

posting
your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not?

But the burden of proof is on you, using your logic. Why don't
you meet your burden of proof? :-0


Two reasons. All you've done with your "burden of proof" old ploy is
try the same bull**** you always do. You made a claim about me. You
challenged me to say one way or the other if you were correct.

Does that sound to YOU like the burden is on ME? I made no claim one
way or the other about what I said or didn't say. I simply asked you
to put up.

You are poor at bluffing. I noticed that about you from way back in
your posting history. Your idea of bluffing is setting up an elaborate
distraction then running off from whatever issue you knew you were
loosing the debate over.

You've done it here twice at the first level and now once at the
second level on one of the first level challenges YOU created on the
dodge.

It's all about the inability to answer The Question. First you claim
you did answer it, then you try to dodge by bringup up other
challenges, then you dodge on the challenges you brought up.

No one is fooled, Doananator. Least of all me. I've dealt with cons
for years. You are a panty compared to most of them.

You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder.

I am still here, always have. Why is your master, Chris Dugan,

running
away from debating me? ;-)


I have no idea. But I do it's just another Dodge. I didn't ask you to
debate Chris. I asked you to respond to the very challenges YOU made,
and you haven't. Again and again.

Now why would you suddenly bring up Chris as a criteria for YOU and I
to discuss three issues, shortly after he remonstrated with me for my
language? Hmmm....other than seeing it as an opportunity for another
dodge?

You are child dealing with a grownup, Doan, and you are a foolish
damaged child. You can thank your parents for your inability to debate
honestly, for the propensity to dodge rather than meet challenges.

You were spanked too much for you. They exceeded the limit for you, an
individual child, and it shows rather badly. You are terrified of them
and the loss of their approval so you'll do anything, no matter how
stupid, how dishonest, how callously thoughtless, to protect yourself
from facing the truth about them.

Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge

on
the Embry Study.

Which you have demonstrated that you were wrong on the punishment
component of it


The "wrong" you claim is nothing more than a disagreement with Embry
at the time of the study, and his views now. I doubt he would so
vigorously use the word "punishment" after years of watching his own
results as he went on to further the concept of teaching over forcing.

There is an age range he still feels the "instruction" component is
less satsifactory on, but he takes no apparent stand on the cure for
that problem, and it's an age range, not a kind of child and he tested
kids of all manner of demographics including developmental problems.

and can't even tell me what the sample size is.
What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)


You, as usual, confuse "can't" with "won't" because I will not debate
the study with you until YOU prove you have it, you have followed
through on your childish "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" challenge, and you
answer The Question honestly and fully as it was asked, not as you
tried to rephrase and reshape it.

No loose ends, Doan. If Chris made a mistake with you it was allowing
you full rein in your sick distractions and dodges. I won't.

Now YOU, on the other hand, have set no restrictions on me for debate,
other than your continual dancing about. So when I ask YOU to produce
something from the study, some so simple as to be rediculously easy,
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE.

You remember: the page content of the numbered page I queried you on?
The subject of the page is sufficient to satisfy ONE of the three
criteria for debate.

What's holding you up?

And why hasn't anyone asked you to mail them the study and have it and
can produce the answer for you? You do have friends here don't you?
Aren't there those that would happily refute me if they could? If not,
why not, Doananator?

Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you
now?

The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! ;-)


The subject of the page, Doananator Dancing?

You are stalling, just as you have on the other two issues.

Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a

copy.
Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one.

Yup! And I will mail a copy to anyone that asked.


Gee, why hasn't anyone asked? Because they know you don't really have
it. Or are they afraid that if they got it what they might find about
the Embry Study that would blow their little dreams of child
controlling out of the water?

Not only are YOU a coward, Doananator, but so are they.

Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the
number of?

Why haven't you answered me on the sample size?


Because YOU created this challenge, Doananator. It's up to YOU to
provide proof, not I. Who brought up The Embry Study in the course of
our exchange on The Question?

Was it moi? I don't think so, but you are free to prove it was and
then I'll give you the sample size, and even the categories and
characteristics of the sample individuals.

R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R

Stupid little Kane9! :-)


How stupid am I considering that you are nervously dodging and dancing
as fast as your little bow legs will carry you? R R R R R

YOU made all the challenges, Doan, after The Question, you couldn't
and won't answer. Yet there you are, unwilling to answer a single
challenge. All I've said to you is, "go ahead and prove your
challenges."

All YOU'VE done is Doananate by asking yet ANOTHER question. I'm still
on my first question and waiting. You are piling yours up like the
straw and fish they are.

Such a child.

When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have

lied
all this time about having it.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?


What "lied" was that, Doananator? This ploy isn't going to work any
better than the rest you've tried.

You challenged me on the Embry Study. I said I'd fill your dance card
when you proved you had it, when you cleared up the challenges you
posed with your "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" and you still haven't presented
your dance card to me properly. How impolite and rude you seem.

You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all

these
years of practice to. {-

Why did you lied about the punishment component?


Why did you beat your wife?

Stop being silly, boy.

I didn't "lied" about punishment. I have followed Embry's work for
years and am especially impressed by his New Zealand work. He is not
an advocate of punishment. The fact he used the word in his study to
describe something that I do NOT consider PUNISHEMENT, doesn't make me
a liar.

You've about beat that one to death. How many more Herrings are you
going to throw out there? Enough to think that I'll give in to utter
disgust with your duplicitiousness and lies as Chris did and give up?

Forget it. I'll be here hectoring you until every twit filter in the
world has been activated on our postings addy's.

And still, you won't answer The Question, and the "I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
challenge, nor prove that you have the Embry study.

You'll be throwing out the herring and I'll be happily watching you
prove what you are by your doing so.

I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some
critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely
tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my

students
to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not

to
embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright
I'll change the objects but retain the context.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?


Why do you lie about my comments on the punishment component? Are you
assuming I don't have the study? All you have to do is come up with
the answer to what is on that page I queried you about and you got me.
Right? Especially if you answer the other two issues and I have to
then debate the study with you, or run like a coward with my tail
between my legs? No?

You'd pass up such an opportunity just to dance away from such simple
to answer issues? Tsk.

I think you are a coward. I KNOW why your are, and I know how badly
you want to stay away from the Embry study EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE IT.

If you've seen it you know you are not going to be able to fudge it or
misinterpret it so easily as you did other studies you've lied about.

I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up
the offer.

What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)


Stop the dancing, Doananator. I know it to the letter.

I told you no debate until YOU answer my reponses to your challenges.

Simply dancing away with yet another questions isn't going to work
with me, and not with any reader that get's what you are up to.

Kane

9 Kan't! :-)

Doan


Doananator publically exposes himself again.

I don't respond to childish dares, Doanieboy.

Answer civil questions about YOUR challenges to me first, then I'll
answer your pile of questions very quickly. About fast enough to take
your head right off your shoulders.

Tell yah what. I'll make a single concession in the ongoing hope of
honesty from you:

You tell ME what page the demographics of the sample group begin on
and I'll tell you the sample size and characteristics, in detail.

Hell, get it within one page either way and I'll play. You could guess
right, who knows. Let your buddies who were too cowardly to ask you
for the study, or that know you don't have it, to help you guess. If
ANY of them get it right on the money, I'll answer your "size"
question and with the demographic characteristics, all of them
including the parents. Deal?

Bet you weasel.

Or are we going to be treated to yet another Doananism Dance?

............Doan is a coward and it's pretty plain he is stalling for
the arrival of his copy of the study. Or still searching.

You don't have the study, coward.

And if you do get it you still have two other issues to clear up
before I'll fully engage in debate on the study.

Run coward, run.

Kane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Various MD crimes (obvious ones) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 May 17th 04 04:48 PM
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 105 November 30th 03 05:48 AM
A Plant's Motivation? Kane Spanking 44 October 16th 03 01:51 PM
'Horrible' Home Kane General 1 July 16th 03 02:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 PM.


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