|Re: Spanking not best BUT CRIMINALIZING FAMILES?
Kane
wrote:
>
>
>Fern5827 wrote:
>
>> Apparently from the epidemic of obesity in the US, fast food is
many childrens
>> diet of choice.
>>
>> Most fast food is eaten with hands.
>>
>>
>>>No, dummy. It
>>
>>
>> Verbal abuse, Sir. Can you imagine this hostile man parenting?
>
>Yes Fern, I can "imagine this hostile man parenting." In every post
I
>have read for several years he has exhibited no hostility to
children.
>In fact, he appears to give children the utmost respect and reserve
his
>hostility for individuals who fail to respect children and who
advocate
>or support individuals who do advocate for the hurting and
humiliating
>children in the name of discipline.
>
>Lavoone (otherwise known as LaVonne)
LaVonne, you have given away my secret. I've been saving that for the
most opportune moment, when The Plantlouse has done something even
more stupid and malicious, and vicious and cruel than usual.
Now you spoiled it....R R R R R
Oh, well. I've got others in reserve. <smile>
Our Mushroom will continue growing the the dark I guess.
Kane
>>
>>
>>>I've seen, repeatedly. children of 4 or 5 years old that not only
>>>can't use utensils to eat, but don't know that families sit down
>>
>>
>> Care for some sauteed liver and onions?
>
>
>>>The demand clean sheets everyday, and when asked why, they reply
that
>>>were THEY lived they got clean sheets daily.
>>
>>
>> There is an ABSOLUTE DECLINE in child sexual abuse. As much as
50%.
>>
>> Of course, I suppose you support Innocent Men being incarcerated on
the word of
>> a 7yo.
>>
>> It's coming out now.
>>
>> In fact, CPS is fearing loss of funding, due to their flawed and
illegal
>> prosecutions of many based on word of child.
>>
>> Remember McMartin? A 15 MILLION DOLLAR TRIAL?
>>
>>
>>>Get your lying twit friend in here to help you you senile old fart.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Again, note the man's verbal hostility.
>>
>> What a great representative you are.
Carlson LaVonne
Kane wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:46 -0600, Carlson LaVonne <carl...@umn.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Fern5827 wrote:
>>>Verbal abuse, Sir. Can you imagine this hostile man parenting?
>>
>>Yes Fern, I can "imagine this hostile man parenting." In every post
I have read for several years he has exhibited no hostility to children.
In fact, he appears to give children the utmost respect and reserve
his hostility for individuals who fail to respect children and who
advocate or support individuals who do advocate for the hurting and
humiliating children in the name of discipline.
>>
>>Lavoone (otherwise known as LaVonne)
>
>
> LaVonne, you have given away my secret. I've been saving that for the
> most opportune moment, when The Plantlouse has done something even
> more stupid and malicious, and vicious and cruel than usual.
Damn! I apologize, Kane. I thought this was as stupid and malicious,
vicious and cruel as it could get. My fault.
>
> Now you spoiled it....R R R R R
I hang my head in shame!
>
> Oh, well. I've got others in reserve. <smile>
Good. Maybe they are more creative in their thinking, and can realize
that there are even more stupid, malicious, vicious, and cruel things
coming from our Fern. I thought we'd maybe reached the pinnacle!
>
> Our Mushroom will continue growing the the dark I guess.
Did you say "glowing in the dark (grin)?"
LaVonne
Sherman
"Carlson LaVonne" <carl...@umn.edu> wrote in message
news:c42aq2$jjh$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
In damp, dank, dark, moldy, aged, mossy, "fernmenting" conditions...
Such a primitive organism, the mushroom fungus.
Sherman.
Doan
It sounds like the anti-spanking zealotS are losing the debate.
All they can do now is resort to ad-hom. Even LaVonne, who
claimed to have a Ph. D. now approved the behavior of Kane3!
How pathetic! ;-)
BTW, anybody want to discuss the Embry study?
Doan
Gerald Alborn
> BTW, anybody want to discuss the Embry study?
What's the Embry study all about, anyway, Doan? You got a web address for it,
for me?
-Jerry-
> Doan
Doan
Since Kane3 has been making a lot of claims about it, why don't you ask
him for a copy? If he can't, send me your address and I will mail a copy
to you.
Doan
Doan
Have you asked Kane yet, Jerry?
Doan
Doan
Here is your chance, Kane! PLEASE PROVIDE JERRY A COPY OF THE EMBRY
STUDY. Then let's discuss it. I DARE YOU! ;-)
Doan
Greg Hanson
Unlikely. And if he does, he will fill it with
his usual raving commentary.
More and more I conclude that Kane's greatest
ability is self delusion.
Greg Hanson
new thread rather than answering
right here in this thread.
Very odd tactic, Kanes Modus Operandi.
He has always done that.
Kane
wrote:
>Kane wrote
>> That's his operadi. Always has been.
>
>When word dropping 10 star words, do
>try to spell them right. operandi
That is the correct spelling of operandi...though ancient latin
lettering is not possible on my keyboard. That would be more accurate.
>Commonly used as modus operandi or M.O.
When did you get the idea I was "common" in anything, including word
useage?
>When casting a perjorative
Well now, THERE'S an example of "common usage" if ever I saw
one...<smile>
> as if you
>are an expert,
That's reaching for someone who has sat on his ass for over three
years doing nothing but bottle and can refunding, showering a little
girl, and living of his "SO."
So, tell us. What are YOU an expert at?
>spelling professional
>terms incorrectly becomes a big deal.
Look it up in Latin, dummy.
It just means an action. as in labor, toil, work; perform (religious
service), attend, serve; devote oneself.
So I said, "That's his 'action'. Always has been."
I used it as I meant to. And I did not mean MODUS, as in method.
As in: manner, mode, way, method; rule, rhythm, beat, measure, size;
bound, limit.
I used "operandi" as I meant to. Standing alone to denote that is his
work.
That couch must give off fumes. You seem even more flummoxed than
usual today.
When you address my word usage, praecaveo cautum intransit, stultusum.
Now would you like that in Mandarin? Cantonese? Spanish? Urdu?
Kiswahili? or shall I say it in Australian english, the language of my
ancestors?
Get stuffed, yah bloody cobber.
R R R R R
Kane
Kane
>pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message news:<7ed8d1be.04033...@posting.google.com>...
>> By the way, I've already provided the study to two different people
in
>> these ngs. Who they are is their business.
>>
>> Kane
>
>Kane:
>
>Hi, I'm a vehement non-spanker. My child is 4m and me and dad have a
>long way to go and a lot to discuss about her raising.
>
>If possible, can you provide ME with that Embry study? email it or
>whatever.
>
>If not, thanks anyway.
If you aren't interested in debare, as you seem not to be, but
interested in the concepts of teaching your child, as you DO seem to
be, I'd suggest you check out the following website...it is by Dr.
Embry's group.
http://www.paxtalk.com/ Lots of talk about the concepts.
You won't run in to Doan there though. Well, maybe not...R R R R
For an overview of the program:
Best of luck.
There's nothing in the study but dry data and discription of the
methodology. I don't think your 4mo old would respond.
>Alina.
Kane
Kane
> Again Kane dodges by starting a
> new thread rather than answering
> right here in this thread.
You mistake me for A Plant.
> Very odd tactic, Kanes Modus Operandi.
No, actually it's a function of my mail program, and the way in which
I employ it for security. But that's not only beyond your
understanding, it decidely NOT the business of your buddies who like
to play cracker.
> He has always done that.
I've never done anything "always" and especially not "that."
I leaned it the hard way by a flock of hacker-crackers not liking my
exposure of their sick fuck ideas and politics.
Want to try me again? I have some wonderful surprizes for crackers
these days.
Especially the that's one's sucker enough to fall for my "cyber dummy"
persona.
And YOU have done nothing but snip entire posts of the content without
notice, something I do NOT do without notice, and try to carry on a
debate where the other person has to try and remember the subject.
You are a twit. Easily defeated, and an endless source of derisive
amusement.
You are being laughed at yet again for being caught with your pants
down and soundly SPANKED...thus returing at least in some small
measure the ng topic, which you and yours constantly depart from.
Doan
Just look how Kane3 evaded the Embry Study! I will be glad to send
you a copy of this study, Alina. Please email me.
Doan
Kane
....something that makes one
go.....hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....<thanks Arsenio>
Now why would "Alina" ask ME instead of you? R R R R R R. And since my
addy is a dead end and yours is NOT, why did "Alina" not just send you
an email back channel like the two people that asked me for the
study....since they have my addy.
Really really odd, isn't it?
R R R R R R R R R R R R R......<oh dear.....me oh my>
>On 30 Mar 2004, Kane wrote:
>
>> On 30 Mar 2004 15:50:07 -0800, Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Commander McBrag provide the Embry study?
>> >Unlikely. And if he does, he will fill it with
>> >his usual raving commentary.
>>
>> At 80 some pages that would be quite an accomplishment.
>>
>> Can Doan provide us with even ONE page number correctly related to
a
>> question from it? Not so far.
>>
>I can provide a copy of the Embry Study to anyone who wanted it. I
have
>made this offer before and I am still offering it. So far, Gerald
and
>Aline have asked you for it,
Opps! Wait. What could this be? A little typo, or a little slip of
honesty from the unconscious that some folks don't even believe
in....R R R R R
"Aline?" What an interesting name. It rings a bell with me, but for
the life of me I just can't remember where. Something connected to my
old school ties, or maybe when I was really really little and attended
training for a religious rite with the other little kiddies.
Hmmmm.....maybe it'll come back to me if I give
it.....mmmmpphhhhhh......time. R
> why can't you provide it?
Goodness me oh my. Droany seemed to have snipped that portion of my
post where I answered that question.
And I have provided it, twice now. If and when the recipients care to
tell you so they will. Until then, sweat little Droaner. They KNOW I
told the truth...you they may have a bit of doubt about.
The next time you create a sock story do a better job. You might want
to check in with the couch croucher buddy of yours. He knows a number
of puppet masters...not much better than you though.
"Alina" made her or its case for working with a child. Nothing in the
study is useful for that.
If you were honest you would have TOLD "Alina" 'Aline' that. Anyone
with the real 25 year old study would have NOT offered it to someone
trying to make parenting decisions...it's useful for that....the web
page for Paxis is the place to send a "mommy" who's child is
conveniently to young to discuss actual discipline problems.
Everying going on in this thread is becoming more charmingly
convoluted. I do so love puzzles. I've actually made a bit of an
income with solving one particular puzzle game over the years. Wanna
guess which one? Very popular.
Now I happily pointed Alina to the site where the outcomes and tools
used are offered. If Alina wants more support to decide on whether or
not to use the training materials THAT would be the place to ask for
them.
The study is very old, over 25 years, and is a tool for debate at this
time, not for parenting children.
You screwed up yet again.
In fact you screwed up so bad I can hardly stop laughing.
Here's why:
There is an "Aline" associated with USC. Which of course YOU know, and
if that particular Aline were not in the habit....R R R or should I
say, Habit, and a tad younger she MIGHT have noticed your addy and
just trotted over to see you...R R R R R
http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/summer99/alumninews/AP_gerber.html
So when you have a moment ring her up if she's still living, Class of
`42, R R R R R, tell her you used her name for a scam.....and it
didn't work.
Aline Marie Gerber, who is pictured on her Alumni Profile page in
Habit as a nun.
Gosh, why didn't you give your puppet a last name, like maybe, R R R
R, "Doheny?"
Your spanish isn't bad, but I suspect, like all your other drivel, you
had someone translate for you. What a sap.
Good one, Droaner, when you lie you go bigtime don't you. I wonder how
she'd like knowing you used HER name for this sickness of yours.
And....mmmmpphhhhh....R R R R, if you hadn't slipped and used the real
name you cobbled the sock puppet name, "Alina" from, I might never
have caught you....but don't count on it. My research skills are
formidable, as some twits here have found out the hard way.
>Doan
So, shall we wait to see what happens? Why of course we will, because
when Aline, opps, "Alina" says the study has arrived I'll have the
same questions for "Alina" that I had for you.
We'll see if you have the study I have.
I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the
internet. That's a lot of graphics to send.
And please, do try to lie your way out with a "coincidence" argument.
It fits right in there with all the other times you've been caught
lying.
BINGO.......R R R R......BANGO......R R R R R R R
R........B!O!N!G!O!!!!!
Now go stand in front of the mirror and tell youself in a confident,
yelling voice, "I STILL HAVE FACE."
Kane
Doan
This gotta be the best April's Fool joke! ;-)
Doan
Doan
LOL!
Doan
On 1 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
Greg Hanson
Greg Hanson
Doan
> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
>
That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really supports the
anti-spanking position, why hide it?
Doan
Doan
> Kane: Thanks and warmest regards! Greg
>
Like I've said, Kane is the greatest resource I have against
the anti-spanking zealotS! :-)
Doan
Kane
>On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
>
>> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
>>
>That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really supports the
>anti-spanking position, why hide it?
Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
reluctant.
The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you still
refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
Your loss I guess.
I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
>
>Doan
>
Best wishes, Kane
Kane
>Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
Not in your league at all, and certianly not on the scale of Droany
and Douggie.
Droaner challenged me to a debate. I challenged him to prove he had
the study as a condition.
Do YOU see him proving it?
Why don't YOU ask him for the study. Then you can answer what he
won't, two simple page number questions. The easiest thing in the
world.
Who's name is on a certain page I'll give YOU to look up, and on what
page the demographic descriptions of the study group begins.
Doan wouldn't answer either question simple as they are. And I provide
the content clue for one. Whose name is on that page? Someone you both
know.
Do YOU think he's telling the truth, based on that unwillingness?
But then I'd expect you two to defend each other. Liars have to stick
together.
Obfustication they name is WhoreDroan.
Kane
Alina
Thanks.
Doan
On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
> >
> >> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
> >>
> >That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really supports the
> >anti-spanking position, why hide it?
>
> Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
>
Because if it supports your position than I am SMART in hiding it!
So you are saying that YOU ARE STUPID???
> You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
> reluctant.
>
I can only take a dog to a hydrant. I cannot force it to pee! :-)
> The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you still
> refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
>
LOL! Why must I MEET your criteria???
> Your loss I guess.
>
If you say so. :-)
> I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
>
And LIED! :-)
> >
> >Doan
> >
>
> Best wishes, Kane
>
Regards,
Doan
Kane
Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study though,
why not ask Doan. He's much closer to you.
USC is not that far from the US-Mexican border. You could, if you
leave closeby it, get together with him and that nice nun with the
name so like yours, "Aline," over a cup of coffee on campus. She's in
a nice facility. Beautifil old mansion now a library.
What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what you
were looking for there? Many other websites have good information on
child rearing without punishment.
How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know, were
is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive
spanking and abuse?
I'd be interested in another non-spanker's opinion.
Kane
Doan
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
> >
> >> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
> >>
> >That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really supports the
> >anti-spanking position, why hide it?
>
> Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
>
Because I am smart! I will wait until some fool like you LIED about
it and then I give it to them. Chris Dunga, your old master, got
a taste of it. You got a taste of it! Don't you just feel stupid?
> You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
> reluctant.
>
You got it! ;-)
> The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you still
> refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
>
Because I want you to continue posting. The longer you stay in this
newsgroup, the better! Chris Dunga is smarter than you. Ask him
why he won't mention the Straus & Mouradian (1998) nor the Embry study
again.
> Your loss I guess.
And you are winning! ;-)
>
> I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
>
In the "backchannel"? ;-)
> >
> >Doan
> >
>
> Best wishes, Kane
Best regards,
Doan
Doan
LOL! So Alina turned out not to be me afterall. I am disappointed! :-(
Doan
Kane
Really?
I don't recall any evidence of that.
> I am disappointed! :-(
Guess you'll have to be.
>Doan
You will find yourself even moreso as time passes.
I don't debate with people that answer simple questions like The
Question by evasions and with no support - outside of more of the same
- and nonsense evasions.
I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
But any discussion of Embry between you and I is no longer possible.
You are just left with a few more months of keeping up your record of
evasive weaseling and claiming wins you haven't had.
Enjoy your public masterbation spectacle.
Kane
Alina
>
> Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study though,
> why not ask Doan. He's much closer to you.
I did already :-) Maybe you are right and it will turn out to be not
useful to me, but trying won't hurt.
> USC is not that far from the US-Mexican border. You could, if you
> leave closeby it, get together with him and that nice nun with the
Um.. not viable, I live far from the border.
> What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what you
> were looking for there? Many other websites have good information on
> child rearing without punishment.
I'll let you know when I really browse through it I created an account
and am checking it out only now. (Baby is ill so I haven't had much
now, till this moment when she's sleeping). What I am trying to do is
a lot of research in order to be prepared for the years to come. At
this point I have it easy: feed her when she's hungry, let her sleep
when she's tired, change diapers, provide her with a lot of sensorial
experience, and give her a lot of love and cuddles.
> How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know, were
> is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive
> spanking and abuse?
You may call me exaggerated, but I think there is not such thing as
non abusive spanking. Parents are granted authority only because they
have the responsibility to raise a child and provide him with all he
needs to grow up into a healthy, capable, secure, responsible adult. I
believe that by hitting a child, a parent is using such authority (and
obvious physical advantage) to repress a behaviour in the child. Not
to teach him, but to train him. And that is abusive not only because
of the parent's physical superiority (hey, a big kid hitting a small
one is called a bully, so what do you call a parent hitting a child?),
but mostly because the parent is neglecting his role as an *educator*
and turning into a trainer, not considering the child's intelectual
ability, not helping him learn to think, decide, form his own notion
of ethics and analitic abilities.
Excuse me, I gotta go: baby woke up.
Have you read Dodson? If so, what do you think?
Alina.
Doan
YUP!
> I don't recall any evidence of that.
>
And you have evidence that I am? ;-)
> > I am disappointed! :-(
>
> Guess you'll have to be.
>
I am! :-0
> >Doan
>
> You will find yourself even moreso as time passes.
>
> I don't debate with people that answer simple questions like The
> Question by evasions and with no support - outside of more of the same
> - and nonsense evasions.
>
Weasel!
> I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
ALREADY HAVE, STUPID!
> But any discussion of Embry between you and I is no longer possible.
> You are just left with a few more months of keeping up your record of
> evasive weaseling and claiming wins you haven't had.
>
Run like a dog, Kane2! ;-)
> Enjoy your public masterbation spectacle.
>
Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! You mom must be proud!
Doan
> Kane
>
Kane
> pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message news:<7ed8d1be.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study though,
> > why not ask Doan. He's much closer to you.
>
> I did already :-) Maybe you are right and it will turn out to be not
> useful to me, but trying won't hurt.
I'll be interested to see your take on the study. It's quite old, 25
years or more. No one has done, as far as I know, a similar one since,
other than Embry, of course, or affiliates.
No opposing studies..that is one's based on CP as the training tool to
keep children out of traffic. Now THAT would be interesting.
> > USC is not that far from the US-Mexican border. You could, if you
> > leave closeby it, get together with him and that nice nun with the
>
> Um.. not viable, I live far from the border.
Well, you can always e-mail. Your copy of the study should be showing
up in your mail box soon, if Doan has it to e-mail to you.
> > What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what you
> > were looking for there? Many other websites have good information on
> > child rearing without punishment.
>
> I'll let you know when I really browse through it I created an account
> and am checking it out only now. (Baby is ill so I haven't had much
> now, till this moment when she's sleeping). What I am trying to do is
> a lot of research in order to be prepared for the years to come. At
> this point I have it easy: feed her when she's hungry, let her sleep
> when she's tired, change diapers, provide her with a lot of sensorial
> experience, and give her a lot of love and cuddles.
There is a wealth of resource material on child rearing. There is
still a strong thread of punishment that runs through them however.
Some, a very few, much moreso.
> > How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know, were
> > is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive
> > spanking and abuse?
>
> You may call me exaggerated, but I think there is not such thing as
> non abusive spanking.
No, you have an opinion. It's doesn't have a ranking.
> Parents are granted authority only because they
> have the responsibility to raise a child and provide him with all he
> needs to grow up into a healthy, capable, secure, responsible adult. I
> believe that by hitting a child, a parent is using such authority (and
> obvious physical advantage) to repress a behaviour in the child. Not
> to teach him, but to train him.
Well, there are those that take a strictly "training" approach to
child rearing.
Having both "trained" animals and "taught" children I found that the
gentle principles of the way I taught were not only applicable to
animal training that I went to gentle methods very early on with both,
of course.
> And that is abusive not only because
> of the parent's physical superiority (hey, a big kid hitting a small
> one is called a bully, so what do you call a parent hitting a child?),
> but mostly because the parent is neglecting his role as an *educator*
> and turning into a trainer, not considering the child's intelectual
> ability, not helping him learn to think, decide, form his own notion
> of ethics and analitic abilities.
Not far from my own views. Were you raised in a CP using family? How
did you come to your present postion on this issue?
> Excuse me, I gotta go: baby woke up.
>
> Have you read Dodson? If so, what do you think?
Oh yes. Frankly his methods if used on an animal (which he has done
without witnesses apparently) would result in an arrest and charge of
animal abuse and cruelty. He has a social disease. It's the one that
assumes humans are evil by nature, and their behaviors, if you don't
like those behaviors, are evil by intent.
Dobson's isn't much of a way to view the world, is it?
> Alina.
Kane
Kane
> On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
> > >
> > >> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
> > >>
> > >That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really supports the
> > >anti-spanking position, why hide it?
> >
> > Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
> >
> Because if it supports your position than I am SMART in hiding it!
Ah, NOW we have an inkling why, if you had the report, you went to
such lengths to avoid debating it...like not really answering The
Question with a sensible answer, or proving your DARE, or even proving
you had the study.
Thank you.
> So you are saying that YOU ARE STUPID???
Give what you just revealed and the slight chance I maneuvered you
into spilling the beans, again, what do you think I'm saying about my
intelligence?
> > You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
> > reluctant.
> >
> I can only take a dog to a hydrant. I cannot force it to pee! :-)
That doesn't answer why you wouldn't do three simple things you
claimed you could do so that you could "force" me to debate. I gave my
word I would. On quite simple conditions.
YOu choked.
Want to read our posts and the time lines involved?
> > The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you still
> > refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
> >
> LOL! Why must I MEET your criteria???
Because I said so.
You do recall I didn't challenge you to a debate on Embry. I just said
I would debate if you would meet three inconsequentinal tasks. Tasks
you already claim to be able to do.
In fact you've have even bragged and done some loud mouth daring, but
no beef. No noodles. No soup. Nothing, Droaner. Just more babble.
Now I ask you, if you really wanted to debate would you have not
provided me the proof you had what you claimed you had?
Any "reasonable person" would agree to that and that you should have
if you REALLY wanted to debate.
Why didn't you meet such simple criteria?
Was it what you spilled so charmingly above. that it would have been
smart of you to withhold given the content. {:->
>
> > Your loss I guess.
> >
> If you say so. :-)
Yes I do. And others who might have been interested in the study.
But then, <smile>, there is nothing at all stopping you, if you
believe Embry supports your position, from discussing it here, now is
there? Well, other than your inflated but still flacid eco.
No face, Droany. No face at all.
> > I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
> >
> And LIED! :-)
Please show me any definition of lying that includes making a mistake
by overlooking something.
I told you I overlooked the use of "punishment" and the reasons that
influenced me to miss it in the Embry report. I didn't even try to
conceal my mistake....something you have a persistent habit of doing
for yourself. But the archives kind of catch up with you from time to
time, as I just recently noted.
Now you want to claim I'm lying....based on what evidence please?
> > >
> > >Doan
> > >
> >
> > Best wishes, Kane
> >
> Regards,
>
> Doan
The Question, The Dare, the proof. I won't debate past the deadline,
nor the current chance I gave you. I just wanted to see if you were
still a liar, and by golly, you are, unless you answer to those three
things.
Can't can you. Stuck aren't you. Folks like you are very dangerous if
they have important jobs with access to sensitive materials.
Tsk.
Kane
Doan
> Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.33.040403...@skat.usc.edu>...
> > On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
> > > >>
> > > >That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really supports the
> > > >anti-spanking position, why hide it?
> > >
> > > Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
> > >
> > Because if it supports your position than I am SMART in hiding it!
>
> Ah, NOW we have an inkling why, if you had the report, you went to
> such lengths to avoid debating it...like not really answering The
> Question with a sensible answer, or proving your DARE, or even proving
> you had the study.
>
LOL! Are you saying that YOU ARE STUPID??? ;-)
> Thank you.
>
> > So you are saying that YOU ARE STUPID???
>
> Give what you just revealed and the slight chance I maneuvered you
> into spilling the beans, again, what do you think I'm saying about my
> intelligence?
>
Very little! ;-)
> > > You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
> > > reluctant.
> > >
> > I can only take a dog to a hydrant. I cannot force it to pee! :-)
>
> That doesn't answer why you wouldn't do three simple things you
> claimed you could do so that you could "force" me to debate. I gave my
> word I would. On quite simple conditions.
>
I can force a dog to pee? ;-)
> YOu choked.
>
You lied!
> Want to read our posts and the time lines involved?
>
No! ;-)
> > > The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you still
> > > refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
> > >
> > LOL! Why must I MEET your criteria???
>
> Because I said so.
>
LOL!
> You do recall I didn't challenge you to a debate on Embry. I just said
> I would debate if you would meet three inconsequentinal tasks. Tasks
> you already claim to be able to do.
>
I don't have to! ;-)
> In fact you've have even bragged and done some loud mouth daring, but
> no beef. No noodles. No soup. Nothing, Droaner. Just more babble.
>
And I said I just having fun with you. I was hoping that LaVonne
and Chris Dunga would jump in and defend you. They are smarter than
I thought and stayed away. Chris even warned you publicly not to
be STUPID!
> Now I ask you, if you really wanted to debate would you have not
> provided me the proof you had what you claimed you had?
>
I said I would debate UNCONDITIONALLY!
> Any "reasonable person" would agree to that and that you should have
> if you REALLY wanted to debate.
>
Huh? I didn't put up any condition! Are you so stupid? ;-)
> Why didn't you meet such simple criteria?
>
Because I wan't to have fun with a little dog and hoping to catch bigger
ones like Chris and LaVonne. ;-)
> Was it what you spilled so charmingly above. that it would have been
> smart of you to withhold given the content. {:->
>
And you are stupid!
> >
> > > Your loss I guess.
> > >
> > If you say so. :-)
>
> Yes I do. And others who might have been interested in the study.
>
Who would that be? :-)
> But then, <smile>, there is nothing at all stopping you, if you
> believe Embry supports your position, from discussing it here, now is
> there? Well, other than your inflated but still flacid eco.
>
LOL! Same can be said about you!
> No face, Droany. No face at all.
>
But I see your face everytime I go to the toilet! ;-)
> > > I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
> > >
> > And LIED! :-)
>
> Please show me any definition of lying that includes making a mistake
> by overlooking something.
>
LIAR!
> I told you I overlooked the use of "punishment" and the reasons that
> influenced me to miss it in the Embry report. I didn't even try to
> conceal my mistake....something you have a persistent habit of doing
> for yourself. But the archives kind of catch up with you from time to
> time, as I just recently noted.
>
And how do I know there was "PUNISHMENT" if I don't have the study.
You are being stupid again! ;-)
> Now you want to claim I'm lying....based on what evidence please?
>
By what you posted!
> > > >
> > > >Doan
> > > >
> > >
> > > Best wishes, Kane
> > >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Doan
>
> The Question, The Dare, the proof. I won't debate past the deadline,
> nor the current chance I gave you. I just wanted to see if you were
> still a liar, and by golly, you are, unless you answer to those three
> things.
>
Weasel!
> Can't can you. Stuck aren't you. Folks like you are very dangerous if
> they have important jobs with access to sensitive materials.
>
LOL! Remember I am Alina! ;-)
> Tsk.
>
How is the anonymizer? Is it better then the logs you have? ;-)
> Kane Kan't! ;-)
Doan
Kane
>On 5 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
>
>> Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.33.040403...@skat.usc.edu>...
>> > On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
>> > > >>
>> > > >That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really
supports the
>> > > >anti-spanking position, why hide it?
>> > >
>> > > Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
>> > >
>> > Because if it supports your position than I am SMART in hiding
it!
>>
>> Ah, NOW we have an inkling why, if you had the report, you went to
>> such lengths to avoid debating it...like not really answering The
>> Question with a sensible answer, or proving your DARE, or even
proving
>> you had the study.
>>
>LOL! Are you saying that YOU ARE STUPID??? ;-)
No, just pointing out you appear not to want to debate. No one so far,
in this whole wide world knows if you have the study, but you. Three
people are very clear that I do.
They are watching with some amusement. You are making such a fool of
yourself.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> > So you are saying that YOU ARE STUPID???
>>
>> Give what you just revealed and the slight chance I maneuvered you
>> into spilling the beans, again, what do you think I'm saying about
my
>> intelligence?
>>
>Very little! ;-)
Please. Put that away. No one here is the least interested. :->
>> > > You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
>> > > reluctant.
>> > >
>> > I can only take a dog to a hydrant. I cannot force it to pee!
:-)
>>
>> That doesn't answer why you wouldn't do three simple things you
>> claimed you could do so that you could "force" me to debate. I gave
my
>> word I would. On quite simple conditions.
>>
>I can force a dog to pee? ;-)
Are you confusing peeing with debating? (:->
>> YOu choked.
>>
>You lied!
Not so's ya'd notice. I haven't seen you respond with anything but
demands of me. And I've even humored you to see if you were sincere,
and answered a couple by asking questions from the study I couldn't
possibly ask without it.
And you choked. Wouldn't answer even the simplest questions about the
study. Hence, no debate, stupid little boy.
>> Want to read our posts and the time lines involved?
>>
>No! ;-)
Of course not. (:->
>> > > The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you
still
>> > > refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
>> > >
>> > LOL! Why must I MEET your criteria???
>>
>> Because I said so.
>>
>LOL!
Gosh, didn't you really want to "debate?"
>> You do recall I didn't challenge you to a debate on Embry. I just
said
>> I would debate if you would meet three inconsequentinal tasks.
Tasks
>> you already claim to be able to do.
>>
>I don't have to! ;-)
Yep, you sure don't. And you sure can't. (:->
>> In fact you've have even bragged and done some loud mouth daring,
but
>> no beef. No noodles. No soup. Nothing, Droaner. Just more babble.
>>
>And I said I just having fun with you.
I don't debate with little children. There's no point. Just as you've
proven so well these past months.
>I was hoping that LaVonne
>and Chris Dunga would jump in and defend you.
What would that accomplish?
>They are smarter than
>I thought and stayed away.
Gosh, Droany misjudged? R R R R R
I suspect they are amused at how far you'll go to get attention. I
know I am.
>Chris even warned you publicly not to
>be STUPID!
About YOU? R R R R R
>> Now I ask you, if you really wanted to debate would you have not
>> provided me the proof you had what you claimed you had?
>>
>I said I would debate UNCONDITIONALLY!
So did I, when you proved you were actually ready for debate. YOu
missed the deadline. Then you choked on a second chance.
>> Any "reasonable person" would agree to that and that you should
have
>> if you REALLY wanted to debate.
>>
>Huh? I didn't put up any condition!
Really? You STARTED WITH ONE. YOu claimed I didn't have the study and
that I had to prove it by debating you. That, little boy, is called a
condition.
> Are you so stupid? ;-)
Doesn't look like it so far. I've put together three simple little
questions that you've danced around for months, unable to answer. How
stupid is that?
As I said. If you really wanted to debate....you'd recall I wasn't
even interested until YOU challenged. And I don't debate little boys
that can't meet simple criteria for debate.
Yer still doin' it Droany.
>> Why didn't you meet such simple criteria?
>>
>Because I wan't to have fun with a little dog and hoping to catch
bigger
>ones like Chris and LaVonne. ;-)
Oh, I see. Very clever. And no Pho'.
>> Was it what you spilled so charmingly above. that it would have
been
>> smart of you to withhold given the content. {:->
>>
>And you are stupid!
Stop shouting at the mirror.
>> >
>> > > Your loss I guess.
>> > >
>> > If you say so. :-)
>>
>> Yes I do. And others who might have been interested in the study.
>>
>Who would that be? :-)
Who do you think?
>
>> But then, <smile>, there is nothing at all stopping you, if you
>> believe Embry supports your position, from discussing it here, now
is
>> there? Well, other than your inflated but still flacid eco.
>>
>LOL! Same can be said about you!
Anything can be "said." I didn't challenge YOU to a debate. Nor anyone
else.
>
>> No face, Droany. No face at all.
>>
>But I see your face everytime I go to the toilet! ;-)
Still can't come up with a decent flame. Tsk.
>> > > I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
>> > >
>> > And LIED! :-)
>>
>> Please show me any definition of lying that includes making a
mistake
>> by overlooking something.
>>
>LIAR!
Actually that claim is a lie.
>> I told you I overlooked the use of "punishment" and the reasons
that
>> influenced me to miss it in the Embry report. I didn't even try to
>> conceal my mistake....something you have a persistent habit of
doing
>> for yourself. But the archives kind of catch up with you from time
to
>> time, as I just recently noted.
>>
>And how do I know there was "PUNISHMENT" if I don't have the study.
>You are being stupid again! ;-)
I've read bits and pieces of commentary from the study published as
citations by others over the years. You might have. And you might have
guessed. I notice you didn't know precise what form the "punishment"
took.
>> Now you want to claim I'm lying....based on what evidence please?
>>
>By what you posted!
I don't see what you are referring to. Mind pointing to it, or
directly quoting?
R R R R
>> > > >
>> > > >Doan
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Best wishes, Kane
>> > >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Doan
>>
>> The Question, The Dare, the proof. I won't debate past the
deadline,
>> nor the current chance I gave you. I just wanted to see if you were
>> still a liar, and by golly, you are, unless you answer to those
three
>> things.
>>
>Weasel!
Yep, still a liar.
>
>> Can't can you. Stuck aren't you. Folks like you are very dangerous
if
>> they have important jobs with access to sensitive materials.
>>
>LOL! Remember I am Alina! ;-)
No, actually I speculated that it was a sock or someone you knew. So
has Alina asked for the study from you yet?
>> Tsk.
>>
>How is the anonymizer?
Don't use it.
> Is it better then the logs you have? ;-)
Say hello to Aline for us.
I see you are at the top of your debating form.
And I'm having more fun with you all the time.
{;-p
Kane
Alina
> I'll be interested to see your take on the study. It's quite old, 25
> years or more.
But old doesn't mean outdated, does it?
> Well, you can always e-mail. Your copy of the study should be showing
> up in your mail box soon, if Doan has it to e-mail to you.
Oh, but you know that isn't quite viable either :-), due to it's
size.
> > (...) obvious physical advantage) to repress a behaviour in the child. Not
> > to teach him, but to train him.
>
> Well, there are those that take a strictly "training" approach to
> child rearing.
Yes, but there are different ways to "train". There's the abusive,
"don't do 'cause I'll hurt you" way, and then there's the "that's a
good boy, here's a treat" way (talking about animals here). Both
approaches are also apllicable on children, I believe it's called
negative and positive reinforcement. So why go negative when you can
do positive?
> Having both "trained" animals and "taught" children I found that the
> gentle principles of the way I taught were not only applicable to
> animal training that I went to gentle methods very early on with both,
> of course.
Exaclty what I meant.
> Not far from my own views.
So what are your own views?
> Were you raised in a CP using family? How
> did you come to your present postion on this issue?
Dad was a spanker, and very inconsistent. He would react in different
ways to the same thing on different days, I still don't know what that
depended on. Mom was a non-spanker, she talked with (not just "to) us
a lot and explained, and listened a lot. She did things with us,
taught us to cooperate in the house, gave us options (thing to do as
opposed to things she didn't want us to do).
I have much more memories of mom than I have of dad. And nicer
feelings towards her, too.
Also, I have a profound respect for *people*, no matter the age.
Also, I have worked with children, and know first hand that they think
and understand a lot more than some spankers are willing to believe.
Also, I would hate to hurt my child :-)
> > Have you read Dodson? If so, what do you think?
>
> Oh yes. Frankly his methods if used on an animal (which he has done
> without witnesses apparently) would result in an arrest and charge of
> animal abuse and cruelty. He has a social disease. It's the one that
> assumes humans are evil by nature, and their behaviors, if you don't
> like those behaviors, are evil by intent.
>
> Dobson's isn't much of a way to view the world, is it?
Um, I think we are talking about different persons here. I meant
DoDson, Dr. Fitzhugh Dodson. I don't know if he still lives. Was a
psychologist and wrote books about parenting, mom bought me one: "How
to parent". He supports non coersive parenting a lot, using techniques
such as positive reinforcement, reflecting the child's feelings,
providing a child secure environment, etc.. He is an oldie (mom read
him while raising ME), but still very interesting.
Now, Dr. Dodson says there are only 2 cases in which it's ok to spank
a child: one, when you are absolutley "fed up" and loose control. He
says it is just as important for an adult than it is for a child to
vent and express feelings, and you can always tell the child you're
sorry later. I disagree with him, while it is no doubt important to be
able to express feelings, I think we as adults must have enough
control on our actions (moreso if that is what we intend to teach the
child to do), and if we know we don't have such control, then we
should seek help in order to aquire it.
The second case in which Dodson says it's ok to spank, is when you
can't let natural consecuences of his actions teach him, because the
child's physical integrity would be in danger. Example: to prevent him
from running into the street. I would love to disagree with him on
that one too, and that is where my interest on the Embry study
originated.
Alina.
Doan
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:37:18 -0700, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 5 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.33.040403...@skat.usc.edu>...
> >> > On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really
> supports the
> >> > > >anti-spanking position, why hide it?
> >> > >
> >> > > Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?
> >> > >
> >> > Because if it supports your position than I am SMART in hiding
> it!
> >>
> >> Ah, NOW we have an inkling why, if you had the report, you went to
> >> such lengths to avoid debating it...like not really answering The
> >> Question with a sensible answer, or proving your DARE, or even
> proving
> >> you had the study.
> >>
> >LOL! Are you saying that YOU ARE STUPID??? ;-)
>
> No, just pointing out you appear not to want to debate. No one so far,
> in this whole wide world knows if you have the study, but you. Three
> people are very clear that I do.
>
I said I would debate UNCONDITIONALLY! You are being stupid again. :-)
> They are watching with some amusement. You are making such a fool of
> yourself.
>
You are looking in the mirror again! ;-)
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> > So you are saying that YOU ARE STUPID???
> >>
> >> Give what you just revealed and the slight chance I maneuvered you
> >> into spilling the beans, again, what do you think I'm saying about
> my
> >> intelligence?
> >>
> >Very little! ;-)
>
> Please. Put that away. No one here is the least interested. :->
>
LOL! Is that why you refused to provide the study when asked by Alina?
Or is she me? ;-)
> >> > > You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
> >> > > reluctant.
> >> > >
> >> > I can only take a dog to a hydrant. I cannot force it to pee!
> :-)
> >>
> >> That doesn't answer why you wouldn't do three simple things you
> >> claimed you could do so that you could "force" me to debate. I gave
> my
> >> word I would. On quite simple conditions.
> >>
> >I can force a dog to pee? ;-)
>
> Are you confusing peeing with debating? (:->
>
With you, the difference is minimal! ;-0
> >> YOu choked.
> >>
> >You lied!
>
> Not so's ya'd notice. I haven't seen you respond with anything but
> demands of me. And I've even humored you to see if you were sincere,
> and answered a couple by asking questions from the study I couldn't
> possibly ask without it.
>
You lied about the PUNISHMENT component nevertheless!
> And you choked. Wouldn't answer even the simplest questions about the
> study. Hence, no debate, stupid little boy.
>
And you are STUPID little Kane0! ;-)
> >> Want to read our posts and the time lines involved?
> >>
> >No! ;-)
>
> Of course not. (:->
>
I hate the lies from you! ;-)
> >> > > The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you
> still
> >> > > refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.
> >> > >
> >> > LOL! Why must I MEET your criteria???
> >>
> >> Because I said so.
> >>
> >LOL!
>
> Gosh, didn't you really want to "debate?"
>
UNCONDITIONALLY! How about you? ;-)
> >> You do recall I didn't challenge you to a debate on Embry. I just
> said
> >> I would debate if you would meet three inconsequentinal tasks.
> Tasks
> >> you already claim to be able to do.
> >>
> >I don't have to! ;-)
>
> Yep, you sure don't. And you sure can't. (:->
>
Kane9 Kan't! ;-)
> >> In fact you've have even bragged and done some loud mouth daring,
> but
> >> no beef. No noodles. No soup. Nothing, Droaner. Just more babble.
> >>
> >And I said I just having fun with you.
>
> I don't debate with little children. There's no point. Just as you've
> proven so well these past months.
>
LOL! Kane dodged again!
> >I was hoping that LaVonne
> >and Chris Dunga would jump in and defend you.
>
> What would that accomplish?
>
They are the bigger fishes! :-)
> >They are smarter than
> >I thought and stayed away.
>
> Gosh, Droany misjudged? R R R R R
>
Not about you! :-)
> I suspect they are amused at how far you'll go to get attention. I
> know I am.
>
They so amused that they reproached you in public! And all they
got from you is a "fuck you"! ;-)
> >Chris even warned you publicly not to
> >be STUPID!
>
> About YOU? R R R R R
>
Nope! About debating based on studies not ad-hom! He basically said
you are being STUPID and hurting the anti-spanking agenda! DO YOU
SEE THAT? ;-)
> >> Now I ask you, if you really wanted to debate would you have not
> >> provided me the proof you had what you claimed you had?
> >>
> >I said I would debate UNCONDITIONALLY!
>
> So did I, when you proved you were actually ready for debate. YOu
> missed the deadline. Then you choked on a second chance.
>
And how is that UNCONDITIONAL? You are being STUPID again. :-)
> >> Any "reasonable person" would agree to that and that you should
> have
> >> if you REALLY wanted to debate.
> >>
> >Huh? I didn't put up any condition!
>
> Really? You STARTED WITH ONE. YOu claimed I didn't have the study and
> that I had to prove it by debating you. That, little boy, is called a
> condition.
>
You are using the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS again. :-)
I said I would DEBATE UNCONDITIONALLY.
> > Are you so stupid? ;-)
>
> Doesn't look like it so far. I've put together three simple little
> questions that you've danced around for months, unable to answer. How
> stupid is that?
>
Already answered! You just too stupid to understand! ;-)
> As I said. If you really wanted to debate....you'd recall I wasn't
> even interested until YOU challenged. And I don't debate little boys
> that can't meet simple criteria for debate.
>
Kane0 runs again! :-)
> Yer still doin' it Droany.
>
Having fun at your and the anti-spanking zealotS' expense! :-)
> >> Why didn't you meet such simple criteria?
> >>
> >Because I wan't to have fun with a little dog and hoping to catch
> bigger
> >ones like Chris and LaVonne. ;-)
>
> Oh, I see. Very clever. And no Pho'.
>
And you are stupid still! ;-)
> >> Was it what you spilled so charmingly above. that it would have
> been
> >> smart of you to withhold given the content. {:->
> >>
> >And you are stupid!
>
> Stop shouting at the mirror.
>
I am shouting at you, STUPID! :-)
> >> >
> >> > > Your loss I guess.
> >> > >
> >> > If you say so. :-)
> >>
> >> Yes I do. And others who might have been interested in the study.
> >>
> >Who would that be? :-)
>
> Who do you think?
>
I don't know! I can only know when they ask me for the study. You see,
unlike you, I don't hide it from others. Just ask Alina (or is she me?)!
;-)
> >
> >> But then, <smile>, there is nothing at all stopping you, if you
> >> believe Embry supports your position, from discussing it here, now
> is
> >> there? Well, other than your inflated but still flacid eco.
> >>
> >LOL! Same can be said about you!
>
> Anything can be "said." I didn't challenge YOU to a debate. Nor anyone
> else.
>
Because you Kan't! ALL YOU DO IS LIED! ;-)
> >
> >> No face, Droany. No face at all.
> >>
> >But I see your face everytime I go to the toilet! ;-)
>
> Still can't come up with a decent flame. Tsk.
>
Nope! YOU ARE THE EXPERT! :-)
>
> >> > > I can discuss Embry with others, and have.
> >> > >
> >> > And LIED! :-)
> >>
> >> Please show me any definition of lying that includes making a
> mistake
> >> by overlooking something.
> >>
> >LIAR!
>
> Actually that claim is a lie.
>
Not when it's about you! :-)
> >> I told you I overlooked the use of "punishment" and the reasons
> that
> >> influenced me to miss it in the Embry report. I didn't even try to
> >> conceal my mistake....something you have a persistent habit of
> doing
> >> for yourself. But the archives kind of catch up with you from time
> to
> >> time, as I just recently noted.
> >>
> >And how do I know there was "PUNISHMENT" if I don't have the study.
> >You are being stupid again! ;-)
>
> I've read bits and pieces of commentary from the study published as
> citations by others over the years. You might have. And you might have
> guessed. I notice you didn't know precise what form the "punishment"
> took.
>
Another lie! I quote it directly from the study!
> >> Now you want to claim I'm lying....based on what evidence please?
> >>
> >By what you posted!
>
> I don't see what you are referring to. Mind pointing to it, or
> directly quoting?
>
You are stupid as usual. Get Chris and LaVonne in. I'll point it
out to them. They are smarter than you and can probably see it!
> R R R R
>
Kane0 Kan't! :-0
>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Doan
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Best wishes, Kane
> >> > >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Doan
> >>
> >> The Question, The Dare, the proof. I won't debate past the
> deadline,
> >> nor the current chance I gave you. I just wanted to see if you were
> >> still a liar, and by golly, you are, unless you answer to those
> three
> >> things.
> >>
> >Weasel!
>
> Yep, still a liar.
>
You are!
> >
> >> Can't can you. Stuck aren't you. Folks like you are very dangerous
> if
> >> they have important jobs with access to sensitive materials.
> >>
> >LOL! Remember I am Alina! ;-)
>
> No, actually I speculated that it was a sock or someone you knew. So
> has Alina asked for the study from you yet?
>
You are a fool! ;-)
> >> Tsk.
> >>
> >How is the anonymizer?
>
> Don't use it.
>
If you say so!
> > Is it better then the logs you have? ;-)
>
No answer. :-) How abouth the "honey-pot"? ;-)
> Say hello to Aline for us.
>
I don't know her. :-)
> I see you are at the top of your debating form.
>
Thank you! ;-)
> And I'm having more fun with you all the time.
>
I know. Please post daily. :-)
> {;-p
>
> Kane0 Kan't!
Doan