"Parenting Without Punishing"

Nathan A. Barclay · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 175

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message@armory.com...
> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

> > I think you're missing the point. The argument for why husbands should
> > have authority over their wives was, "Women aren't as smart and capable
> > as men, so wives need for their husbands to look after them and take
care
> > of them and exercise authority over them the same way that children need
> > for their parents to do so." The women's rights argument was, "Women
> > are just as intelligent and capable as men, so they don't need a man to
> > take care of them and tell them what to do." The women's rights
> > argument won because objective reality does show that women can
> > take care of themselves. There was a clear practical issue at stake,
> > not just a purely abstract moral one.
> ----------------------
> Nonsense, women as a class aren't as intellectually accomplished
> as men, nor as talented, nor as perceptive. Now that may all be
> environment, or it may actually be genetic/physical/chemical, we
> did evolve somewhat at different purposes, even though being of
> the same species.

Whatever factors are involved, the difference between the average man and
the average woman are dwarfed by the differences within each group. There
are a lot of women who are more capable than a lot of men, and that makes it
hard to support the view that the wife should always be under the husband's
authority.

(By the way, in case anyone's interested, I'll point out a twist to Paul's
writings regarding marriage in Ephesians 5 that a lot of people miss. Paul
wrote for wives to be in submission to their husbands, but he also wrote for
husbands to love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave
himself for it. Trying to enforce the former with laws but not the latter
is a pretty effective recipe for unfair treatment, as history has shown.
And when a husband expects his wife to obey him essentially perfectly when
he does not love his wife equally close to perfectly - and treat her
accordingly - that's a pretty clear case of hypocrisy.)

Archived from group: alt>parenting>spanking

Nathan A. Barclay · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 175

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message@armory.com...
> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

> > When expression becomes a form of coercion, it is no longer an
alternative
> > to coercion. Forcing people to listen against their will is coercive
> > behavior.
> ---------------------
> People who don't expect to do battle, who live together, must
> accept communication from each other.

Within limits, yes. But those limits are crossed into the realm of coercion
when the goal is to get someone to give in so you'll stop talking.

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Lesa wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Lesa wrote:
> > >
> > > "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> > > @armory.com...
> > > > abacus wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Lesa" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The relationship between the child and the parent is far more
> > > > > > > important than the bus leaving.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the crux of it all.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think so. Few parents place the bus leaving as being more
> > > > > important than their relationship, but it's usually a bit more
> urgent.
> > > > > Further, those few crowded minutes before leaving the house for the
> > > > > day are not usually the best time and place for a lengthy
> discussion.
> > > > -----------------------
> > > > The point being, that in a stable relationship of equals, this has
> > > > already been discussed and understood between them. The parent and
> > > > child have discussed this all at length and the needs of the family
> > > > for income, and the effect that firings or financial hardship can
> > > > have on all of them. The child has already either agreed to the
> > > > circumstances, or they have not and this is known and something
> > > > else is done, it is not carried on ad hoc each morning willy-nilly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The whole concept of punishment vs.
> > > > > > consequences is based on the outlook of whether the relationship
> is
> > > more
> > > > > > important, or having a submissive child who does whatever the
> parent
> > > wants
> > > > > > is important.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I disagree. First of all, I think that what most parents are
> > > > > trying to get is an obedient and trustworthy child, which is not the
> > > > > same as a submissive one.
> > > > --------------
> > > > Yes it is. Parents who love their child do NOT want an "obedient"
> > > > child, in fact merely that whole notion of childraising OFFENDS them
> > > > DEEPLY! They want a child who is happy and is getting what they need
> > > > and want. As for trustworthy, they want a child who trusts THEM, and
> > > > NOT one who can be "trusted" to merely parrot or "obey". I can see
> > > > that you have an emotional illness, and cannot fathom this.
> > > >
> > > Two very good points, especially the concept of the child not being
> > > "obedient". There are certain things that DH& I feel "should" be done,
> and
> > > when our kids were younger we discussed these with them, and asked that
> > > these things be done (as well as doing them ourselves) -- the kids did
> them
> > > without question because they understood the importance to DH and
> myself.
> > >
> > > As they have gotten older, however, they have questioned some of these
> > > things. For example, I go to my mothers twice weekly, and bring the
> kids
> > > along twice monthly. My mom is 85 years old and is losing control of
> her
> > > faculties, both physical and mental. Recently DD, then 12, approached
> me
> > > concerning one of these trips to Grandma's. A friend of hers had an
> extra
> > > ticket to a concert (friend's father could not go); DD explained that
> she
> > > knew that is was important to see Grandma and assist her in the ways we
> did
> > > on these visits, but that this concert was a rare opportunity and she
> would
> > > really like to tell her friend yes and not go along to Grandma's this
> time.
> > > I told her this was fine, primarily because she had 1) thought it
> through,
> > > and 2) discussed it with me without having a tantrum.
> > --------------------
> > That's vicious mind control, your making your attention to your
> > child's needs contingent on whether they get angry, when the anger
> > arises PRECISELY AND ONLY from YOU NOT giving them needed attention
> > IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> > In MY book that's the same as hitting a child and then punishing
> > them for crying!
> > Steve
>
> Wasn't contingent on whether or not she got angry. It was contingent on
> discussing it rather than stamping her feet, yelling, slamming her door, and
> refusing to do anything but attend this concert--as teen grills are known to
> do. It was contingent on working cooperatively with other human beings.
> She could be as angry as she wanted, but she still needed to be cooperative.
------------------------
Nope. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and expression of it.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> > > When the goal is to make a child listen to something that he or she
> > > has already heard in the hope that the child's not wanting to be
> > > subjected to the "discussion" yet again in the future will have a
> > > deterrent effect, that constitutes a form of punishment.
> > ----------------
> > Then adults discussing anything is as well. Communication can be
> > inconvenient, but it is necessary. Expression is an acceptable
> > alternative to coercion, it must be allowed. Remember, they can
> > as easily do it to you.
>
> When expression becomes a form of coercion, it is no longer an alternative
> to coercion. Forcing people to listen against their will is coercive
> behavior.
---------------------
People who don't expect to do battle, who live together, must
accept communication from each other.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Tori M. wrote:
>
> > Nope. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and expression of it.
> > Steve
>
> No one has said that a child could not have an opinion or the right to
> express it. The point is that when all is said and done the parents
> decision is the one that counts whether the child agrees with it or not.
----------------------
No, that's a sick abuse.

> As
> long as I am legaly responsible for my children they will do what I say in
> my house.
---------------
Until they punch your face.

> They have the right to challenge me but in the end My husband and
> I have the final say on what our children do.
>
> You are seeing any oppisition to a child getting his/her own way as
> stiffling them. Honnestly life will not always let a child have every
> single thing they want. and no they will not ALWAYS get to express there
> opinion about everything in life.
--------------------
They will in the world to come.
Live it, or become chaff burned in the fire.

>Today I spanked my daughter for pulling a
> chair to the stove to see what was in the pan i was cooking in the first
> time I have spanked her in a month do you know why? When I was a little
> older then her I got a 3rd deg burn on my left hand and would rather her
> have a sore bottom and a bruised ego then to see her in the emergency room
> going through the trama that I went through as a small child.
>
> Tori
--------------------------
There are LOTS better ways. You even know them, you simply neeed
to abuse a child, because youwere an abused child, and that hurts
too bad to not try to reverse your status.
Steve

Lesa · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 28

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message@armory.com...
> Lesa wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> > @armory.com...
> > > Lesa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> > > > @armory.com...
> > > > > abacus wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Lesa" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The relationship between the child and the parent is far
more
> > > > > > > > important than the bus leaving.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the crux of it all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so. Few parents place the bus leaving as being
more
> > > > > > important than their relationship, but it's usually a bit more
> > urgent.
> > > > > > Further, those few crowded minutes before leaving the house for
the
> > > > > > day are not usually the best time and place for a lengthy
> > discussion.
> > > > > -----------------------
> > > > > The point being, that in a stable relationship of equals, this has
> > > > > already been discussed and understood between them. The parent and
> > > > > child have discussed this all at length and the needs of the
family
> > > > > for income, and the effect that firings or financial hardship can
> > > > > have on all of them. The child has already either agreed to the
> > > > > circumstances, or they have not and this is known and something
> > > > > else is done, it is not carried on ad hoc each morning
willy-nilly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The whole concept of punishment vs.
> > > > > > > consequences is based on the outlook of whether the
relationship
> > is
> > > > more
> > > > > > > important, or having a submissive child who does whatever the
> > parent
> > > > wants
> > > > > > > is important.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I disagree. First of all, I think that what most parents
are
> > > > > > trying to get is an obedient and trustworthy child, which is not
the
> > > > > > same as a submissive one.
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > Yes it is. Parents who love their child do NOT want an "obedient"
> > > > > child, in fact merely that whole notion of childraising OFFENDS
them
> > > > > DEEPLY! They want a child who is happy and is getting what they
need
> > > > > and want. As for trustworthy, they want a child who trusts THEM,
and
> > > > > NOT one who can be "trusted" to merely parrot or "obey". I can see
> > > > > that you have an emotional illness, and cannot fathom this.
> > > > >
> > > > Two very good points, especially the concept of the child not being
> > > > "obedient". There are certain things that DH& I feel "should" be
done,
> > and
> > > > when our kids were younger we discussed these with them, and asked
that
> > > > these things be done (as well as doing them ourselves) -- the kids
did
> > them
> > > > without question because they understood the importance to DH and
> > myself.
> > > >
> > > > As they have gotten older, however, they have questioned some of
these
> > > > things. For example, I go to my mothers twice weekly, and bring the
> > kids
> > > > along twice monthly. My mom is 85 years old and is losing control
of
> > her
> > > > faculties, both physical and mental. Recently DD, then 12,
approached
> > me
> > > > concerning one of these trips to Grandma's. A friend of hers had an
> > extra
> > > > ticket to a concert (friend's father could not go); DD explained
that
> > she
> > > > knew that is was important to see Grandma and assist her in the ways
we
> > did
> > > > on these visits, but that this concert was a rare opportunity and
she
> > would
> > > > really like to tell her friend yes and not go along to Grandma's
this
> > time.
> > > > I told her this was fine, primarily because she had 1) thought it
> > through,
> > > > and 2) discussed it with me without having a tantrum.
> > > --------------------
> > > That's vicious mind control, your making your attention to your
> > > child's needs contingent on whether they get angry, when the anger
> > > arises PRECISELY AND ONLY from YOU NOT giving them needed attention
> > > IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> > > In MY book that's the same as hitting a child and then punishing
> > > them for crying!
> > > Steve
> >
> > Wasn't contingent on whether or not she got angry. It was contingent on
> > discussing it rather than stamping her feet, yelling, slamming her door,
and
> > refusing to do anything but attend this concert--as teen grills are
known to
> > do. It was contingent on working cooperatively with other human beings.
> > She could be as angry as she wanted, but she still needed to be
cooperative.
> ------------------------
> Nope. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and expression of it.
> Steve

One can have any opinoin one wants, and can express it any way one want's in
privacy. Around others, certain things need to be kept in consideration.
Violence against others is not an option for expressing a view or opinoini.
Destructive actions toward others or others belonging is not an otpion for
expressing a view or opinion. At least not in our home, what you wish to
do in your home is within your choice as this is your private space.

Tori M. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1153

> Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
> THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.
>
> You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little darlings
> down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to "share"
> and expect it.
>
> Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
> cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER WHAT
> YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine without
us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always played well
together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around.. Alice
is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2 girls is if
the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids want to
control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we can
safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be perfectly happy
to spread them all over the house.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04

Tori M. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1153

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> > > I think you're missing the point. The argument for why husbands
should
> > > have authority over their wives was, "Women aren't as smart and
capable
> > > as men, so wives need for their husbands to look after them and take
> care
> > > of them and exercise authority over them the same way that children
need
> > > for their parents to do so." The women's rights argument was, "Women
> > > are just as intelligent and capable as men, so they don't need a man
to
> > > take care of them and tell them what to do." The women's rights
> > > argument won because objective reality does show that women can
> > > take care of themselves. There was a clear practical issue at stake,
> > > not just a purely abstract moral one.
> > ----------------------
> > Nonsense, women as a class aren't as intellectually accomplished
> > as men, nor as talented, nor as perceptive. Now that may all be
> > environment, or it may actually be genetic/physical/chemical, we
> > did evolve somewhat at different purposes, even though being of
> > the same species.
>
> Whatever factors are involved, the difference between the average man and
> the average woman are dwarfed by the differences within each group. There
> are a lot of women who are more capable than a lot of men, and that makes
it
> hard to support the view that the wife should always be under the
husband's
> authority.
>
> (By the way, in case anyone's interested, I'll point out a twist to Paul's
> writings regarding marriage in Ephesians 5 that a lot of people miss.
Paul
> wrote for wives to be in submission to their husbands, but he also wrote
for
> husbands to love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave
> himself for it. Trying to enforce the former with laws but not the latter
> is a pretty effective recipe for unfair treatment, as history has shown.
> And when a husband expects his wife to obey him essentially perfectly when
> he does not love his wife equally close to perfectly - and treat her
> accordingly - that's a pretty clear case of hypocrisy.)

Exactly! That is the definition our church uses.. not just the part about
wives obeying their husbands but about husbands loving their wives.

Tori
--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04

Kane · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 801

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:00:40 -0500, "Tori M."
wrote:

>> Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
>> THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.
>>
>> You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little
darlings
>> down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to
"share"
>> and expect it.
>>
>> Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
>> cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER
WHAT
>> YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
>My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine
without
>us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always
played well
>together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around..
Alice
>is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2
girls is if
>the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids
want to
>control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we
can
>safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be
perfectly happy
>to spread them all over the house.

Actually that is not unusual at all. Children that are having their
developmental needs met, that is sufficient stimulation of all their
senses and their interactions with their parents are rich with
emotional connection behave in just such a fashion.

They are comfortable in the world.

4 and five year olds are highly engaged in social learning, hence
there is actually more potential for conflict in that age group. They
too benefit by having a parent resource not too far away, but the need
for close proximity is diminishing rapidly as they approach six.

They are exerimenters in etiquette just as they were earlier
experimental physicists. If only parents would get it that that IS
what is going on with them, the punishment, and inappropropriate
interventions might ease up, and parenting would be the fun thing it's
meant to be.

Were it now, humans would NOT exist. We would have killed our kids at
the 'terrible twos" stage, when they were exploring. If you watch
primitives, that is people living closer to nature, you will see that
the ones that live full peaceful lives spend an inordinate (to us)
amount of time delightedly observing their children, with a word here
and there, and a bit of comforting when the inevitable pain by
exploration events take place.

We are constantly trying to subvert this or pay someone else to do it
for us....and we are never satisfied with the result.

Sad, eh?

Enjoy. Sounds like you are having fun. If it ain't fun, it ain't
parenting.

>
>Tori

By the by, you are confused about Steve and his belief that life is or
should be fair. He recently stated it quite clearly that it is the
inevitable, perpetual and infinite SEEKING of fairness that makes us
human. A very different thing than and expection OF fairness
automatically. (I take license to reframe his statement).

We are driven....remember you at 8 years old....to seek fairness. If
we didn't have that particular characteristic this would be more of a
madhouse than it is now. It is likely the first real solid cause and
effect reasoning event or issue for us at 6 or so when our brains are
finally able to contemplate the abstract.

A couple of years of practice and observation makes us little liberals
at 8, and social reformers, if our parents haven't beaten it out of
us.

By 11 of course, we become nasty little brutes...R R R R....trying out
the next set of tricks our developming brains are capable
of.....duplicity. Some never develop beyond that, hence we have a
nation entraced with it....soap operas, business shenanigans, divorce,
and that old standby, whaling on our kids in the name of making them
more responsible, humane and caring people.....R R R R R

Kane

Tori M. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1153

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message@armory.com...
> Tori M. wrote:
> >
> > > Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
> > > THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.
> > >
> > > You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little darlings
> > > down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to "share"
> > > and expect it.
> > >
> > > Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
> > > cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER WHAT
> > > YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
> > My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine
without
> > us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always played
well
> > together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around..
Alice
> > is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2 girls
is if
> > the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids want
to
> > control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we can
> > safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be perfectly
happy
> > to spread them all over the house.
> >
> > Tori
> -----------
> That's because 2 y/o's think everything is a toy, even each other.
> Steve

Tori M. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1153

Opps that was suposed to have a responce in it.. anyway that is why we do
not mind leaving them alone... though there was the time Alice cut some of
Bonnies hair with scissors.. there was no punishments because Alice was too
young to realise that just because it was a good thing that she had her hair
cut earlier that day Bonnie did not need a haircut;) Besides Both Deb and I
agreed that Bonnies hair would grow back and it almost has.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04
"Tori M." wrote in message$o9.407@reggie.win.bright.net...
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Tori M. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
> > > > THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.
> > > >
> > > > You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little
darlings
> > > > down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to "share"
> > > > and expect it.
> > > >
> > > > Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
> > > > cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER WHAT
> > > > YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
> > > My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine
> without
> > > us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always played
> well
> > > together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around..
> Alice
> > > is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2 girls
> is if
> > > the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids want
> to
> > > control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we
can
> > > safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be perfectly
> happy
> > > to spread them all over the house.
> > >
> > > Tori
> > -----------
> > That's because 2 y/o's think everything is a toy, even each other.
> > Steve
>
>

Nathan A. Barclay · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 175

"Kane" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:53:36 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
> wrote:

> >> Please define "abstract moral" vs "moral." Thank you.
> >
> >If you were paying attention, you should have caught the
> >distinction.
>
> I didn't ask for an attack on my capacity to observe and attend. I
> asked a question...and you haven't answered it here.

The reason why I reacted the way I did was that it looked like one of two
things happened. Either you understood the distinction I was trying to make
and decided to make a fuss about my choice of wording to distract from my
actual point, or you decided to pick on my choice of wording without even
making a serious effort to understand my meaning. If I was right, I feel
like my tone of response was reasonable, either as a use of irony to point
out how pointless a word game is when you already understood me or as a
criticism of your refusing to try to understand. If I was wrong, I
apologize.

Nathan

Nathan A. Barclay · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 175

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message@armory.com...
> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

> > If I thought you were honestly
> > interested in listening to me,
> ---------------
> Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people, and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Tori M. wrote:
>
> > Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
> > THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.
> >
> > You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little darlings
> > down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to "share"
> > and expect it.
> >
> > Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
> > cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER WHAT
> > YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
> My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine without
> us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always played well
> together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around.. Alice
> is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2 girls is if
> the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids want to
> control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we can
> safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be perfectly happy
> to spread them all over the house.
>
> Tori
-----------
That's because 2 y/o's think everything is a toy, even each other.
Steve

Kane · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 801

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message news:...
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> (originally responding to Kane)
>
> > > If I thought you were honestly
> > > interested in listening to me,
> > ---------------
> > Is THAT what you really think we're here for???
>
> A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you aren't
> willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people, and
> being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

Of course not. It's obvious YOU are here to preach. Ain't we all
though.
Debate disappears the instant someone lies. It's been gone for years
here, thanks to Droany who even lies by saying others lie. Very
strange little man.

Kane