Plagiarism? Naw. If it's in print it's a freebee, right? 0;->

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

kane_pohaku@yahoo.com - 23 Mar 2005 22:28 GMT

We had an accusation made by a non-subscriber to this group that a
regular long time poster here had indeed ripped off her webpage on
non-violent child rearing practices, and use what he took from her
without her permission here to promote a spanking agenda. She was quite
incensed, as one might imagine.

That's more or less the standard of ethics for the spanking compulsives
that occasionally overcome their cowardice and attempt to "debate"
here.

And some here even defended the plagiarist.

A search on this ng for the word [ plagiarism ] will help you maintain
a score card for who you are exchanging "debate" with. It helps to
understand why you will keep running into unethical immoral posting
methods.

Or, if you are a self deluding spanking advocate who, like the others,
constantly has to con yourself into believing that "spanking isn't
painful" and "and spanking is not hitting," don't bother. They are your
compatriots in morals. And the lack.

Enjoy.

Kane

Reply to this Message

Wes Groleau - 24 Mar 2005 04:00 GMT

> That's more or less the standard of ethics for the spanking compulsives
> that occasionally overcome their cowardice and attempt to "debate"

You are being asinine. EVERY controversial topic has humans
on both sides. And where ever there are more than a hundred humans,
there is at least one liar, and one idiot. Usually a lot more.

Signature

Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.

An optimist says the glass is half full.

An engineer says somebody made the glass
twice as big as it needed to be.

Reply to this Message

kane_pohaku@yahoo.com - 24 Mar 2005 05:02 GMT

> > That's more or less the standard of ethics for the spanking compulsives
> > that occasionally overcome their cowardice and attempt to "debate"
>
> You are being asinine.

Could be.

> EVERY controversial topic has humans
> on both sides.

Well, shut my mouf. Really?

> And where ever there are more than a hundred humans,
> there is at least one liar, and one idiot. Usually a lot more.

I know. And that would require I not point it out when I see it how,
sir?

You've made a statement, but you've made no argument.

I'm pointing out the cowards. Do you disagree they are cowards? I
believe them to be compulsively following their beliefs instead of
factual evidence, or following their beliefs for no reason at all but
that they believe them..."someone told me so I'm doin' it," kind of
thinking.

Usually they get it from their parents. And will happily pass it on to
their kids, who will pass it on,...ad neauseum.

Are you arguing I should NOT point this out in debate?

Or that everyone KNOWS this so it's there's not point in pointing it
out?

I guess I'm pretty simple, because your point escapes me.

> --
> Wes Groleau
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> An engineer says somebody made the glass
> twice as big as it needed to be.

And a thinking man says, 'throw away those clumsy glasses and learn to
drink directly from the spring, then you won't waste your time on your
differences while the water goes warm and buggy on yah.'

When the clowns here learn to drink from the spring they can throw away
their compulsions. Think it's going to happen?

Kane

Reply to this Message

Doan - 24 Mar 2005 06:17 GMT

> I'm pointing out the cowards. Do you disagree they are cowards? I
> believe them to be compulsively following their beliefs instead of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Usually they get it from their parents. And will happily pass it on to
> their kids, who will pass it on,...ad neauseum.

That is why I asked the anti-spanking zealotS like yourself to show
me one study - JUST ONE - where the non-cp alternatives are shown
to be better than spanking under the same conditions. Come on, Kane!
Where is that "factual evidence"? ;-)

Doan

Reply to this Message

Wes Groleau - 25 Mar 2005 06:14 GMT

> I guess I'm pretty simple, because your point escapes me.

Your pointing out the presence of an idiot or a liar
among your opponents says nothing whatsoever about
the validity of their position.

Just like the existence of idiots and liars
who agree with you says nothing about the validity
of your position.

Signature

Wes Groleau
"Would the prodigal have gone home if
the elder brother was running the farm?"
-- James Jordan

Reply to this Message

kane_pohaku@yahoo.com - 25 Mar 2005 07:02 GMT

> > I guess I'm pretty simple, because your point escapes me.
>
> Your pointing out the presence of an idiot or a liar
> among your opponents says nothing whatsoever about
> the validity of their position.

Lovely piece of work that. Prime fallacious logic.

Of course my pointing it out doesn't determine the validity. What does
is if the alerted go and CHECK FOR THEMSELVES. Something highly
unlikely unless their veracity and capacity are challenged.

Honest, some people actually have believed this twittering turds.

> Just like the existence of idiots and liars
> who agree with you says nothing about the validity
> of your position.

Yes. Another lesson in how to say nothing and do it with assurance
someone somewhere will bite and think you said something.

I am known, and widely hated, or at least envoke annoyance, by my
propensity to post PROOFS in the form of citations to source material
on the matters at hand.

Especially when the little sh.t sprinklers are up and running another
of their lies, or studied stupidity.

> --

Your talent at creating a position to question then absolutely
demolishing IT, rather than the actual issue, should earn you millions
in the baled straw trade. I can get you some good prices. How much will
you need for your next creation?

> Wes Groleau
> "Would the prodigal have gone home if
> the elder brother was running the farm?"
> -- James Jordan

Wes, yah bore me, so I'll tell yah right up front. You just passed the
dropoff and are over your head.

If you had any real skill, some new, or seldom used logical fallacy you
tried, I'd be happy to pretend I didn't notice and playing dumb, give
yah the thrill of conquest for a time. As it is you and your tired
sorry ol' poorly sculpted strawman won't pass.

How many candles on your cake last year? 13? Poof.

Kids! Well what are yah gonna do? They gotsta start someairs.

Kane

Reply to this Message

Doan - 25 Mar 2005 07:34 GMT

> I am known, and widely hated, or at least envoke annoyance, by my
> propensity to post PROOFS in the form of citations to source material
> on the matters at hand.

LOL! I am still waiting for the PROOFS that tasers are safe on SIX-YEAR
OLDS! Come on, Kane0. Where is the beef? ;-)

Doan

Reply to this Message

Doan - 25 Mar 2005 18:32 GMT

> I am known, and widely hated, or at least envoke annoyance, by my
> propensity to post PROOFS in the form of citations to source material
> on the matters at hand.

And let's not forget the propensity to use foul language like
"smelly-c.nt" and "f.ck YOU, Chris!" ;-)

Doan

Reply to this Message

Wes Groleau - 26 Mar 2005 02:13 GMT

> Wes, yah bore me, so I'll tell yah right up front. You just passed the
> dropoff and are over your head.

Right up front? Take a look at that mass of
wasted words and see how far down it took you
to say that you don't consider me worth answering.

Signature

Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

Reply to this Message

kane_pohaku@yahoo.com - 26 Mar 2005 05:31 GMT

> > Wes, yah bore me, so I'll tell yah right up front. You just passed the
> > dropoff and are over your head.
>
> Right up front? Take a look at that mass of
> wasted words and see how far down it took you
> to say that you don't consider me worth answering.

Still stuck with a small repertoire?

Do you really think that anyone misses that this is an early encounter?
In other words, right up front to a possible list of incounters, if I
don't tell you right up front you are exposed for the fraudulent
poster, and lame debater, that you obviously are?

Shifting locus from the posters intended one isn't clever. Even little
kids do that one. We call it "literalism" when a little kid does it, as
in: "but you didn't say I couldn't have a cookie if it was broken?"

I mean, your comment above is just that lame.

And belittling the others post is what I do, Wes, so you are trying to
cop my ploy, as it were.

The trick, if you want to do a really powerful hard to destroy debate,
is to get ON the subject, and argue ON the subject.

It's "Plagiarism? Naw. If it's in print it's a freegee, right? 0;->"

Nail me on that, and you got a real shot at the brass ring.

Just going after my posting style is lame lame lame...that's why I did
it to you.....so you'd get the example and possibly reconsider.
Apparently you don't get it when someone holds up the mirror.

> --
> Wes Groleau
> http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

So, stay and play if you wish, but try a shot at moving to the content,
the subject, rather than style, what we are having a babbling exchange
about now.\

Or why not give the ng subject a try. This is alt.parenting.spanking.

Yain't very good at this, airyah?

Kane

Reply to this Message

Doan - 26 Mar 2005 19:13 GMT

Wes, meet Kane0! :-) He is a self-proclaimed "never-spanked" boy and
a spoke-person for the anti-spanking zealotS!

Doan

Reply to this Message

Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / March 2005

Plagiarism? Naw. If it's in print it's a freebee, right? 0;->