Question:

A "clean" opinion is that the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles".  An adverse opinion is a disagreement with one of the elements in that statement; for example, that the statements do NOT "present fairly" or that they do not accord with generally accepted accounting principles.  As Bob said, there is no definitive "list of grounds"; an opinion is an opinion. In between "clean" and "adverse" opinions are opinions "with reservations" when the auditor can clearly describe and quantify one or more specific items which, if changed, would allow a clean opinion.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Enda writing. Does anyone know where I could find a list of the grounds for an adverse opinion?

Response:

Most of it is left to the auditor’s judgment.  The only explicit requirement is if the financial statements are not presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, then an adverse opinion should be issued.   All you need to think is – would these statements mislead a knowledgeable user who relies on such information?  If it does, then you must either qualify your opinion, or issue an adverse one. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Enda writing. Does anyone know where I could find a list of the grounds for an adverse opinion?

Response:

Enda writing. Does anyone know where I could find a list of the grounds for an adverse opinion?

Response:

Enda writing. Does anyone know where I could find a list of the grounds for an adverse opinion?

I don’t think there is an official list, you can check  www.aicpa.org  but the reason has to be in the opinion so it could be anything – fraud, going concern, etc.

Response:

Question:

Hi. I’m new to accounting, and am trying out Simply Accounting. I’m trying to set up the books for someone whose personal bank accounts are also used for her small, home-based business. Some expenses, such as telephone, are 80% business and 20% personal. In this case, the income tax form makes the calculation, based on the number of rooms in her home, so the full amount must be entered (although, she can claim a quarterly sales tax credit based on the 80% portion). Other expenses, such as materials, are often part for the business and part personal, and only the business part should show up in the total for income tax purposes. I find this very confusing — can someone explain, fairly simply, what special accounts need to be set up so that I can reconcile her bank statements(accounting for both the business and personal transactions), and how I might allocate parts of some expenses for the business and part personal? Thanks for any help…. Chris

Response:

I’m new to accounting, and am trying out Simply Accounting. I’m trying to set up the books for someone whose personal bank accounts are also used for her small, home-based business. Some expenses, such as telephone, are 80% business and 20% personal.

Well, I was going to tell you that the basic line charges on the phone are personal and can’t be prorated between business and personal.  But I see you are from Canada, and different rules apply there I suppose. I find this very confusing — can someone explain, fairly simply, what special accounts need to be set up so that I can reconcile her bank statements(accounting for both the business and personal transactions), and how I might allocate parts of some expenses for the business and part personal?

Actually, the best route to follow is to open a business bank account.  Then write business expenses from the business account, and the only things that need to be accounted for separately is the home office portion, and maybe mileage. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia taxman at negia.net

Response:

Thanks for writing, Paul. I understand, in a near-perfect world, a separate business account would be the best. Makes things a whole lot easier. But if someone, for whatever reason, wants to use her regular chequing account, is there not a generally accepted way of splitting say, a telephone bill, so that I can show the bill was $100: $80 went on my business, and $20 went on my personal phone, and still have the reports and statements make sense? Thanks Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m new to accounting, and am trying out Simply Accounting. I’m trying to set up the books for someone whose personal bank accounts are also used for her small, home-based business. Some expenses, such as telephone, are 80% business and 20% personal. Well, I was going to tell you that the basic line charges on the phone are personal and can’t be prorated between business and personal.  But I see you are from Canada, and different rules apply there I suppose. I find this very confusing — can someone explain, fairly simply, what special accounts need to be set up so that I can reconcile her bank statements(accounting for both the business and personal transactions), and how I might allocate parts of some expenses for the business and part personal? Actually, the best route to follow is to open a business bank account. Then write business expenses from the business account, and the only things that need to be accounted for separately is the home office portion, and maybe mileage. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia taxman at negia.net

Response:

Thanks for writing, Paul. I understand, in a near-perfect world, a separate business account would be the best. Makes things a whole lot easier. But if someone, for whatever reason, wants to use her regular chequing account, is there not a generally accepted way of splitting say, a telephone bill, so that I can show the bill was $100: $80 went on my business, and $20 went on my personal phone, and still have the reports and statements make sense?

When the check is written in the program, you can allocate whatever portion to business and personal you like.  Just indicate which accounts are "business" and which are personal.  I doubt there is any program that does this automatically.  And, if the number of transactions is so large that splitting almost every check is becoming cumbersome, then a separate bank account is the way to go. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia taxman at negia.net

Response:

Thanks for your help, Mr. T. I guess I’ve just never seen it, but I’ll give it a go. Thanks again. Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for writing, Paul. I understand, in a near-perfect world, a separate business account would be the best. Makes things a whole lot easier. But if someone, for whatever reason, wants to use her regular chequing account, is there not a generally accepted way of splitting say, a telephone bill, so that I can show the bill was $100: $80 went on my business, and $20 went on my personal phone, and still have the reports and statements make sense? When the check is written in the program, you can allocate whatever portion to business and personal you like.  Just indicate which accounts are "business" and which are personal.  I doubt there is any program that does this automatically.  And, if the number of transactions is so large that splitting almost every check is becoming cumbersome, then a separate bank account is the way to go. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia taxman at negia.net

Response:

To save both you and the business owner a whole bunch of time and possible grief, I would recommend that the business owner consult an Accountant about getting her books set up properly at the outset. Believe me, it can save a whole bunch of $$$$ and grief down the road. You probably won’t heed this advice, but tuck it in the back of your head and perhaps you will recall it when it comes time to pay the piper. Des

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi. I’m new to accounting, and am trying out Simply Accounting. I’m trying to set up the books for someone whose personal bank accounts are also used for her small, home-based business. Some expenses, such as telephone, are 80% business and 20% personal. In this case, the income tax form makes the calculation, based on the number of rooms in her home, so the full amount must be entered (although, she can claim a quarterly sales tax credit based on the 80% portion). Other expenses, such as materials, are often part for the business and part personal, and only the business part should show up in the total for income tax purposes. I find this very confusing — can someone explain, fairly simply, what special accounts need to be set up so that I can reconcile her bank statements(accounting for both the business and personal transactions), and how I might allocate parts of some expenses for the business and part personal? Thanks for any help…. Chris

Response:

Question:

On 09 Dec 2003 04:50:43 GMT, visa…@aol.com (Super Pissed Dad) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On 09 Dec 2003 04:22:11 GMT, visa…@aol.com (Super Pissed Dad) wrote: >>Here in Bellingham, Wa we had a Fire Chief get 16 mos for sexually >assaulting a >>9 year old girl…the crime doesn’t fit the punishment. >A NINE YEAR OLD? >Would you like to borrow my old castrating knife? I’m sure it will be >a little while before Greegor’s "shower buddy" will be needing it. And >it’s very sharp still. >On the other hand we could petition for him to the super at the lockup >to be let out of that cruel isolation away from the rest of the >fellahs…some of whom have daughters and little sisters. >Hell, the full sentence would be cut in…. well …cut. >Is it, ah, he, going to Walla Walla maybe? >>                spd >Kane   >He won’t be going to Walla Walla unfortunately ( he doesn’t have enough points) >I wouldn’t be suprised if he didn’t go to McNeil )

ooooOOOeee…that’s not one of those catch and release programs from what I hear. >He will have to watch his >step.

And oh so delicately in the shower…."e e e e EEEE e e e e, oink oink oink"….can he squeal like a pig I wonder? R R R >Prison never helps anyone~just makes things worse. >I kinda hope the punk >gets shanked.

Naaaaaw. Whodahthunk? >Yea lemme borrow the knife "Greg come here, I wanna talk to ya >about something !

He’s hiding in the shower with his rubber girlie last I heard. Probably have to go lookin’ so’s to chat up various bits and such. >                    spd

Can’t tell you how tickled I am to know you and your family are together for the season. Bite a ham….hug the kids. Best. Kane

Response:

Any one interets in Chinese study can come here: www.topsn.com/osprey

Response:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:49:13 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >The dog ran and then the dog barked!

That circle is getting smaller eh? Finally caught up with your tail and caught it? If you bite down hard enough will it help you forget that you haven’t answered the challenge of The Question, nor my response to your "dare?" The Question, Doan The "never-spanked" proof, Doan. Should both be easy for you…and trust me, Greegor the Whore will be about as much help to you as he was to the child and mother. Watch out or he’ll be Doin Watersports with Doan…… R R R R e e e e ……….   }:-> Remember, millions of people world wide can read your posts….R R R R R R >Doan

Kane – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: >> It seems that we have a likely model for the Artfull Dodger, in our >> own Doan. >> 217 lines of evasive drivel, exhibiting line after line, much of his >> repertoire of dodges. >> His favorite: quoting out of context to declare the other person is >> lying, running away, or otherwise not responding to his hilarious >> claims. >> He has yet to respond intellegently to The Question within the >> confines of it boundaries and criteria. A simple question that >> spankers claim they already know, despite the overwhelming evidence in >> hospitals, and foster homes across the nation, and sadly little >> graves, that many do NOT know the answer to The Question but continue >> to us CP inadequately trained to do it safely (If there even is such a >> paradoxical thing as safe physical pain). >> And here ADD is, one of the promoters of pain telling them just go >> ahead and  "making up their own mind" >> The ADD, our own Doan. ADD, that is. >> That is the social aspect question, of course. >> But to give an even better eye opener to any innocent that comes here >> looking for advice and opinions and hoping for honest and sensible >> answers from honest sensible people, consider this: >> Before the weekend Doan screeched at me, as he is wont to do about >> every other post, "I dare you, DOUBLE dare you," to show where I >> haven’t said I was "never-spanked." >> Kind of a funny idiot dance, to be sure, that I’ve only once or twice >> challenged him on..with no response. This time I accept the dare. I >> encourged him repeatedly to post where I "self-proclaimed" just as >> Steve Walz did, and said I was "never-spanked."  Nothing, all the >> while postings daily by him. >> Steve may have said HE was never-spanked. I frankly don’t care. >> But being "DOUBLE DARED?" Well by golly no school yard little struting >> rooster is going to get away with that…..R R R R R R R >> That what you were looking for instead of a polite request to put up >> or shut up? …….about six or seven times now, ADD? >> Polite hasn’t worked with you. >> So, now. Put up or shut up and show where I "self proclaimed" I was >> "never spanked." >> Or…well, we all know what you are….but it never hurts to turn a >> rotton log over now and then and watch what scuries out. >> What COULD be the reason you haven’t backed up your ranting accusative >> DOUBLE dare? >> Something on the order of why you are unable to answer the actual >> Question asked of you? >> Kane

Response:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:48:35 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >The dog ran and then barked!;-)

It’s embarrassing to see you do that. Why haven’t you provided the proof that I proclaimed myself as having been "never spanked?" Why haven’t you answered The Question with something other than "Answered?" Are you reading impaired and don’t understand The Question? Never fear, I’m here, near and dear, to bend your ear and teach you the language…just ask. "Never-spanked" the proof please. A usable measure to when to not spank please. Thank you so much.   >Doan

Kane – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:53:07 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >> ..as answers to The Question and my responding claims and questions to >> his evasions. 217 lines of less than artful, if not persistent >> dodging. >> >Can’t stand your own, Kane??? >> >Being stupid, Kane? >> >So what’s the meaning of "neither"? >> >HA! HA! HA!  You are the one who is doing the evading!  What is the >> >meaning of "neither", Kane? >> >Evading again, Kane? >> >Nonsense! >> >LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place! >> >Then you are stupid! >> >You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking! >> >I know.  It shows! >> >LOL! >> >Diversion, again! >> >Weaseing! >> >Are you stupid…wait…you have already admitted to that! >> >You are just stupid! >> >LOL!  So that is why the violent crime WENT UP???  Logic and the >> >anti-spanking zealotS…. >> >I haven’t developed senility yet.  YOU ARE! >> >Absolutely, stupid! >> >Yup!  To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID! >> >LOL! >> >I have! >> >You were the one that accused me of lacking morals.  Don’t you >> remember, >> >old fart? >> >If it is "useless" to you, then don’t use it!  Let’s everyone else >> decide >> >for themselves if it useful nor not. >> >EVERYTHING! >> >Funny!  It is you with your back to the walls! >> >Who says? >> >LOL! >> >Isn’t it you who accused me of lying???  Look at the mirror lately? >> >> >LOL!  I am still here.  Where are they? >> >Really!  They all kept it in secret???  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! >> >I am a mirror.  You are seeing yourself in it! >> >LOL!! >> >So we can’t make up our own mind???  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS… >> >Looking at the mirror again, Kane? >> >Delusion! >> >Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane?  Shame on you! >> >Already have – "reasonable standard"! >> >You used it on me!  At least I have the excuse of using a foreign >> >language.  What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? >> >Really?  Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0 >> >You really are stupid! >> >Of course I am not responsible.  They did make up their own mind! >> >Are you always this stupid??? >> >Says who? >> >LOL!  Funny that you would be talking about ethics! >> >Show me! >> >And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard. >> >Dogs have tail, Kane9! >> >LOL!  Do you use the "reasonable" standard? >> >LOL! >> >There you go, again.  You are the one searching for the answer, not >> I! >> >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. >> >Already have – reasonable standard! >> >The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it! >> >So you will make up their mind for them?  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS…. >> >So you are speaking for "them"? >> >ALL because they don’t know the difference between spankinng and >> >beating???   Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… >> >LOL!  And your proof is? >> >Weaseling, Kane! >> >And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the <1% extreme >> cases! >> >Ask a "reasonable person"!  Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency! >> >LOL!  Are we talking with a reasonable person here? >> >So what is the problem? >> >All because they don’t know the difference between a spankinng an a >> >beating???  Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… >> >So you will make up their mind for them???? >> >So let ban it.  We don’t want to risk public safety, do we? >> >Isn’t this a double standard, Kane?  I already know the "reasonable >> >standard".  You don’t!  You should be the one that go looking for it! >> >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! >> >Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! >> >LOL! >> >It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing >> >the difference from a beating.  And even according to the data you >> >privided, it is not "half" – YOU LIED!  Q.E.D. >> >What parent???  The only one I see asking that question is you! >> >Reasonable standard, Kane!  Are you so stupid! >> >SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM?  How about the other 99%+ >> that >> >don’t abuse their kids??? >> >Who are these phantom parents, Kane?  Most of these abusers are >> drugged >> >up to care!  You are being ridiculous, Kane! >> >Already answer the question – reasonable standard! >> >Children are not dogs nor houses!  You seem to be suggesting that >> >it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded.  Can they have children >> >too??? >> >We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem! >> >LOL!  I am very capable of taking care of myself. >> >NO!  Not from you! >> >Going off a tagent again, Kane??? >> >LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see! >> >And you are omniscient!  You know and keep track on everyone who >> >frequented this newsgroup????  ;-) >> >And you are the judge right, Kane? >> >LOL! >> >I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! >> >Thinking for yourself? >> >And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;- >> >To prove what a liar you are! >> >Weasleingg again, Kane? >> >LOL! >> >Already answered! >> >LOL! >> >Here comes the weasel! >> >Pop goes the weasel! >> >Where is this hypothetical parent? >> >LOL! >> >Really?  How many – millions????  ;-) >> >LOL!  Really, Kane?  Can we go looking for these dead bodies next >> time I >> >visit Colorado? ROTFLH!  Did you get that one from the National >> Enquirer? >> >LOL!  You are funny, Kane! >> >And I’ll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! >> >LOL! >> >You are being stupid again! >> >LOL! >> >LOL! >> >And I thought it was becasue of me! >> >Me too! >> >And I thought it because they don’t know the difference between a >> >spanking and beating! >> >Every minute so far. >> >Weasel! >> >Diversion! >> >Ha! Ha! Ha!  That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child >> >abuse! >> >HA! HA! HA!  And you accused me??? >> >I didn’t know you are bald! >> >So you want me to believe you – a liar???? >> >False analogy!  ;-) >> >If you want.  Shall I make up her mind then? >> >Sure!  I am not stupid!  After all, I was spanked!  What’s your >> >excuse? >> >But you said we all LIE!  That is normal according to you, a >> >"never-spanked" boy! >> >And one them disproved your claim. >> >Nope!  It didn’t say that! >> >It doesn’t! >> >Assertion without proof again, Kane! >> >:-) >> >Someone already have.  Look it up in google! >> >Didn’t you the one by Larzelere???  It’s like a rebuttal to the claim >> >by Durrant! >> >Did I brought up Durrant???? >> >And I thought they can’t "make up their mind"? >> >Reasonable standard! >> >Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their >> children; >> >and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking! >> >AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR! >> >If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within >> >burried your first source! >> >But you said spanking is down!   Using your logic, they must be lying >> >about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL! >> >Exactly!  You can’t have it both way! >> >Because not all abuses causes death!  That was the same argument you >> used >> >when  you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime! >> >Of course not! >> >I didn’t see you response to this! >> >So you  went to  Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane? >> >So outlawing pebbles will reduce it?  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS… >> >You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! >> >But that’s 1979!  This is 2003!  A whole generation has been brought >> >up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support >> >structure to make it work.  Why no reduction in child abuse rate??? >> >I didn’t fudge the data, Durrant did!  Are you accusing her of not >> >being objective???? >> >Where is the proof? >> >And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. >> >> >LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge! >> >Just having fun! >> >Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-) >> >So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects??? >> >Sound like weasels! >> >Then why did you brought it up???? >> >LOL!  So you will force them???? >> >How? >> >LOL! >> >LOL! >> >You have no proof!  You can’t convince people if you don’t have >> proof! >> >LOL! >> >LOL!  Have you stopped beating you wife yet? >> >But you shouldn’t? >> >They have every reason to make up their own mind!  You have the >> burden >> >to prove to them your claim! >> >Why should I?  I don’t believe in them! >> >LOL! They don’t see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! >> >And you are??? >> >LOL! >> >And you will make up their mind for them??? >> >Ah!  The enlightenned ones! >> >I only response to what you brought up! >> >And the answer have been given! >> >And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better. >> >Can you prove it? >> >The question has been answered! >> >No!  Your ad-hom just shows your true character! >> >I already have – EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? >> >Nope!  You just can’t handle the truth! >> >I have – the FBI data.  Your defense of your lie is another lie – >> it’s >> >the computer!  :-) >> >Answered! >> >You want to run from the numbers you claimed now?

… read more »

Response:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:47:26 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >The dog ran and than it barked!!!

Exactly what I thought when I read your replies. Not a bone in a boat load…just garbage as usual, from the ADD child. Answer the response to the challenge you "DOUBLE dare"d me with, and I responsed to. Stop dancing. You know your are cornered. Answer The Question honestly without the dodges. }:-> Or get your suck-buddy to write a Motion or two for you. He’s got fewer evasions and dodges than you do, but put your buttheads together and who knows what new weasel shit may pour out. Besides, you may need to learn how to be gigolog some day, and shower your own little rubber girlie. The rate your goin’ shouldn’t be too long. Kane – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Doan >On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:53:07 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >> ..as answers to The Question and my responding claims and questions to >> his evasions. 217 lines of less than artful, if not persistent >> dodging. >> >Can’t stand your own, Kane??? >> >Being stupid, Kane? >> >So what’s the meaning of "neither"? >> >HA! HA! HA!  You are the one who is doing the evading!  What is the >> >meaning of "neither", Kane? >> >Evading again, Kane? >> >Nonsense! >> >LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place! >> >Then you are stupid! >> >You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking! >> >I know.  It shows! >> >LOL! >> >Diversion, again! >> >Weaseing! >> >Are you stupid…wait…you have already admitted to that! >> >You are just stupid! >> >LOL!  So that is why the violent crime WENT UP???  Logic and the >> >anti-spanking zealotS…. >> >I haven’t developed senility yet.  YOU ARE! >> >Absolutely, stupid! >> >Yup!  To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID! >> >LOL! >> >I have! >> >You were the one that accused me of lacking morals.  Don’t you >> remember, >> >old fart? >> >If it is "useless" to you, then don’t use it!  Let’s everyone else >> decide >> >for themselves if it useful nor not. >> >EVERYTHING! >> >Funny!  It is you with your back to the walls! >> >Who says? >> >LOL! >> >Isn’t it you who accused me of lying???  Look at the mirror lately? >> >> >LOL!  I am still here.  Where are they? >> >Really!  They all kept it in secret???  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! >> >I am a mirror.  You are seeing yourself in it! >> >LOL!! >> >So we can’t make up our own mind???  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS… >> >Looking at the mirror again, Kane? >> >Delusion! >> >Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane?  Shame on you! >> >Already have – "reasonable standard"! >> >You used it on me!  At least I have the excuse of using a foreign >> >language.  What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? >> >Really?  Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0 >> >You really are stupid! >> >Of course I am not responsible.  They did make up their own mind! >> >Are you always this stupid??? >> >Says who? >> >LOL!  Funny that you would be talking about ethics! >> >Show me! >> >And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard. >> >Dogs have tail, Kane9! >> >LOL!  Do you use the "reasonable" standard? >> >LOL! >> >There you go, again.  You are the one searching for the answer, not >> I! >> >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. >> >Already have – reasonable standard! >> >The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it! >> >So you will make up their mind for them?  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS…. >> >So you are speaking for "them"? >> >ALL because they don’t know the difference between spankinng and >> >beating???   Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… >> >LOL!  And your proof is? >> >Weaseling, Kane! >> >And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the <1% extreme >> cases! >> >Ask a "reasonable person"!  Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency! >> >LOL!  Are we talking with a reasonable person here? >> >So what is the problem? >> >All because they don’t know the difference between a spankinng an a >> >beating???  Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… >> >So you will make up their mind for them???? >> >So let ban it.  We don’t want to risk public safety, do we? >> >Isn’t this a double standard, Kane?  I already know the "reasonable >> >standard".  You don’t!  You should be the one that go looking for it! >> >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! >> >Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! >> >LOL! >> >It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing >> >the difference from a beating.  And even according to the data you >> >privided, it is not "half" – YOU LIED!  Q.E.D. >> >What parent???  The only one I see asking that question is you! >> >Reasonable standard, Kane!  Are you so stupid! >> >SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM?  How about the other 99%+ >> that >> >don’t abuse their kids??? >> >Who are these phantom parents, Kane?  Most of these abusers are >> drugged >> >up to care!  You are being ridiculous, Kane! >> >Already answer the question – reasonable standard! >> >Children are not dogs nor houses!  You seem to be suggesting that >> >it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded.  Can they have children >> >too??? >> >We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem! >> >LOL!  I am very capable of taking care of myself. >> >NO!  Not from you! >> >Going off a tagent again, Kane??? >> >LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see! >> >And you are omniscient!  You know and keep track on everyone who >> >frequented this newsgroup????  ;-) >> >And you are the judge right, Kane? >> >LOL! >> >I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! >> >Thinking for yourself? >> >And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;- >> >To prove what a liar you are! >> >Weasleingg again, Kane? >> >LOL! >> >Already answered! >> >LOL! >> >Here comes the weasel! >> >Pop goes the weasel! >> >Where is this hypothetical parent? >> >LOL! >> >Really?  How many – millions????  ;-) >> >LOL!  Really, Kane?  Can we go looking for these dead bodies next >> time I >> >visit Colorado? ROTFLH!  Did you get that one from the National >> Enquirer? >> >LOL!  You are funny, Kane! >> >And I’ll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! >> >LOL! >> >You are being stupid again! >> >LOL! >> >LOL! >> >And I thought it was becasue of me! >> >Me too! >> >And I thought it because they don’t know the difference between a >> >spanking and beating! >> >Every minute so far. >> >Weasel! >> >Diversion! >> >Ha! Ha! Ha!  That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child >> >abuse! >> >HA! HA! HA!  And you accused me??? >> >I didn’t know you are bald! >> >So you want me to believe you – a liar???? >> >False analogy!  ;-) >> >If you want.  Shall I make up her mind then? >> >Sure!  I am not stupid!  After all, I was spanked!  What’s your >> >excuse? >> >But you said we all LIE!  That is normal according to you, a >> >"never-spanked" boy! >> >And one them disproved your claim. >> >Nope!  It didn’t say that! >> >It doesn’t! >> >Assertion without proof again, Kane! >> >:-) >> >Someone already have.  Look it up in google! >> >Didn’t you the one by Larzelere???  It’s like a rebuttal to the claim >> >by Durrant! >> >Did I brought up Durrant???? >> >And I thought they can’t "make up their mind"? >> >Reasonable standard! >> >Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their >> children; >> >and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking! >> >AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR! >> >If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within >> >burried your first source! >> >But you said spanking is down!   Using your logic, they must be lying >> >about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL! >> >Exactly!  You can’t have it both way! >> >Because not all abuses causes death!  That was the same argument you >> used >> >when  you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime! >> >Of course not! >> >I didn’t see you response to this! >> >So you  went to  Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane? >> >So outlawing pebbles will reduce it?  Logic and the anti-spanking >> >zealotS… >> >You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! >> >But that’s 1979!  This is 2003!  A whole generation has been brought >> >up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support >> >structure to make it work.  Why no reduction in child abuse rate??? >> >I didn’t fudge the data, Durrant did!  Are you accusing her of not >> >being objective???? >> >Where is the proof? >> >And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. >> >> >LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge! >> >Just having fun! >> >Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-) >> >So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects??? >> >Sound like weasels! >> >Then why did you brought it up???? >> >LOL!  So you will force them???? >> >How? >> >LOL! >> >LOL! >> >You have no proof!  You can’t convince people if you don’t have >> proof! >> >LOL! >> >LOL!  Have you stopped beating you wife yet? >> >But you shouldn’t? >> >They have every reason to make up their own mind!  You have the >> burden >> >to prove to them your claim! >> >Why should I?  I don’t believe in them! >> >LOL! They don’t see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! >> >And you are??? >> >LOL! >> >And you will make up their mind for them??? >> >Ah!  The enlightenned ones! >> >I only response to what you brought up! >> >And the answer have been given! >> >And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better. >> >Can you prove it? >> >The question has been answered! >> >No!  Your ad-hom just shows your true character! >> >I already have – EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? >> >Nope!  You just can’t handle the truth! >> >I

… read more »

Response:

The dog ran and then barked!;-) Doan On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:53:07 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: > ..as answers to The Question and my responding claims and questions to > his evasions. 217 lines of less than artful, if not persistent > dodging. > >Can’t stand your own, Kane??? > >Being stupid, Kane? > >So what’s the meaning of "neither"? > >HA! HA! HA!  You are the one who is doing the evading!  What is the > >meaning of "neither", Kane? > >Evading again, Kane? > >Nonsense! > >LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place! > >Then you are stupid! > >You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking! > >I know.  It shows! > >LOL! > >Diversion, again! > >Weaseing! > >Are you stupid…wait…you have already admitted to that! > >You are just stupid! > >LOL!  So that is why the violent crime WENT UP???  Logic and the > >anti-spanking zealotS…. > >I haven’t developed senility yet.  YOU ARE! > >Absolutely, stupid! > >Yup!  To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID! > >LOL! > >I have! > >You were the one that accused me of lacking morals.  Don’t you > remember, > >old fart? > >If it is "useless" to you, then don’t use it!  Let’s everyone else > decide > >for themselves if it useful nor not. > >EVERYTHING! > >Funny!  It is you with your back to the walls! > >Who says? > >LOL! > >Isn’t it you who accused me of lying???  Look at the mirror lately? > > >LOL!  I am still here.  Where are they? > >Really!  They all kept it in secret???  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! > >I am a mirror.  You are seeing yourself in it! > >LOL!! > >So we can’t make up our own mind???  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS… > >Looking at the mirror again, Kane? > >Delusion! > >Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane?  Shame on you! > >Already have – "reasonable standard"! > >You used it on me!  At least I have the excuse of using a foreign > >language.  What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? > >Really?  Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0 > >You really are stupid! > >Of course I am not responsible.  They did make up their own mind! > >Are you always this stupid??? > >Says who? > >LOL!  Funny that you would be talking about ethics! > >Show me! > >And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard. > >Dogs have tail, Kane9! > >LOL!  Do you use the "reasonable" standard? > >LOL! > >There you go, again.  You are the one searching for the answer, not > I! > >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. > >Already have – reasonable standard! > >The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it! > >So you will make up their mind for them?  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS…. > >So you are speaking for "them"? > >ALL because they don’t know the difference between spankinng and > >beating???   Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… > >LOL!  And your proof is? > >Weaseling, Kane! > >And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the <1% extreme > cases! > >Ask a "reasonable person"!  Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency! > >LOL!  Are we talking with a reasonable person here? > >So what is the problem? > >All because they don’t know the difference between a spankinng an a > >beating???  Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… > >So you will make up their mind for them???? > >So let ban it.  We don’t want to risk public safety, do we? > >Isn’t this a double standard, Kane?  I already know the "reasonable > >standard".  You don’t!  You should be the one that go looking for it! > >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! > >Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! > >LOL! > >It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing > >the difference from a beating.  And even according to the data you > >privided, it is not "half" – YOU LIED!  Q.E.D. > >What parent???  The only one I see asking that question is you! > >Reasonable standard, Kane!  Are you so stupid! > >SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM?  How about the other 99%+ > that > >don’t abuse their kids??? > >Who are these phantom parents, Kane?  Most of these abusers are > drugged > >up to care!  You are being ridiculous, Kane! > >Already answer the question – reasonable standard! > >Children are not dogs nor houses!  You seem to be suggesting that > >it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded.  Can they have children > >too??? > >We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem! > >LOL!  I am very capable of taking care of myself. > >NO!  Not from you! > >Going off a tagent again, Kane??? > >LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see! > >And you are omniscient!  You know and keep track on everyone who > >frequented this newsgroup????  ;-) > >And you are the judge right, Kane? > >LOL! > >I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! > >Thinking for yourself? > >And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;- > >To prove what a liar you are! > >Weasleingg again, Kane? > >LOL! > >Already answered! > >LOL! > >Here comes the weasel! > >Pop goes the weasel! > >Where is this hypothetical parent? > >LOL! > >Really?  How many – millions????  ;-) > >LOL!  Really, Kane?  Can we go looking for these dead bodies next > time I > >visit Colorado? ROTFLH!  Did you get that one from the National > Enquirer? > >LOL!  You are funny, Kane! > >And I’ll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! > >LOL! > >You are being stupid again! > >LOL! > >LOL! > >And I thought it was becasue of me! > >Me too! > >And I thought it because they don’t know the difference between a > >spanking and beating! > >Every minute so far. > >Weasel! > >Diversion! > >Ha! Ha! Ha!  That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child > >abuse! > >HA! HA! HA!  And you accused me??? > >I didn’t know you are bald! > >So you want me to believe you – a liar???? > >False analogy!  ;-) > >If you want.  Shall I make up her mind then? > >Sure!  I am not stupid!  After all, I was spanked!  What’s your > >excuse? > >But you said we all LIE!  That is normal according to you, a > >"never-spanked" boy! > >And one them disproved your claim. > >Nope!  It didn’t say that! > >It doesn’t! > >Assertion without proof again, Kane! > >:-) > >Someone already have.  Look it up in google! > >Didn’t you the one by Larzelere???  It’s like a rebuttal to the claim > >by Durrant! > >Did I brought up Durrant???? > >And I thought they can’t "make up their mind"? > >Reasonable standard! > >Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their > children; > >and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking! > >AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR! > >If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within > >burried your first source! > >But you said spanking is down!   Using your logic, they must be lying > >about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL! > >Exactly!  You can’t have it both way! > >Because not all abuses causes death!  That was the same argument you > used > >when  you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime! > >Of course not! > >I didn’t see you response to this! > >So you  went to  Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane? > >So outlawing pebbles will reduce it?  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS… > >You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! > >But that’s 1979!  This is 2003!  A whole generation has been brought > >up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support > >structure to make it work.  Why no reduction in child abuse rate??? > >I didn’t fudge the data, Durrant did!  Are you accusing her of not > >being objective???? > >Where is the proof? > >And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. > > >LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge! > >Just having fun! > >Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-) > >So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects??? > >Sound like weasels! > >Then why did you brought it up???? > >LOL!  So you will force them???? > >How? > >LOL! > >LOL! > >You have no proof!  You can’t convince people if you don’t have > proof! > >LOL! > >LOL!  Have you stopped beating you wife yet? > >But you shouldn’t? > >They have every reason to make up their own mind!  You have the > burden > >to prove to them your claim! > >Why should I?  I don’t believe in them! > >LOL! They don’t see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! > >And you are??? > >LOL! > >And you will make up their mind for them??? > >Ah!  The enlightenned ones! > >I only response to what you brought up! > >And the answer have been given! > >And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better. > >Can you prove it? > >The question has been answered! > >No!  Your ad-hom just shows your true character! > >I already have – EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? > >Nope!  You just can’t handle the truth! > >I have – the FBI data.  Your defense of your lie is another lie – > it’s > >the computer!  :-) > >Answered! > >You want to run from the numbers you claimed now? > >Answered! > >And you admitted to lying! > >Run, Kane8! Run! > >Answered! > >Answered > >Coward! > >Answered! > >The dog ran with tails between his legs!  ;-) > And still, no answer to The Question, but a non answer.. > And still, no answer to the Doan Never Spanked Double Dare… > Kane

Response:

The dog ran and than it barked!!! Doan On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:53:07 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: > ..as answers to The Question and my responding claims and questions to > his evasions. 217 lines of less than artful, if not persistent > dodging. > >Can’t stand your own, Kane??? > >Being stupid, Kane? > >So what’s the meaning of "neither"? > >HA! HA! HA!  You are the one who is doing the evading!  What is the > >meaning of "neither", Kane? > >Evading again, Kane? > >Nonsense! > >LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place! > >Then you are stupid! > >You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking! > >I know.  It shows! > >LOL! > >Diversion, again! > >Weaseing! > >Are you stupid…wait…you have already admitted to that! > >You are just stupid! > >LOL!  So that is why the violent crime WENT UP???  Logic and the > >anti-spanking zealotS…. > >I haven’t developed senility yet.  YOU ARE! > >Absolutely, stupid! > >Yup!  To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID! > >LOL! > >I have! > >You were the one that accused me of lacking morals.  Don’t you > remember, > >old fart? > >If it is "useless" to you, then don’t use it!  Let’s everyone else > decide > >for themselves if it useful nor not. > >EVERYTHING! > >Funny!  It is you with your back to the walls! > >Who says? > >LOL! > >Isn’t it you who accused me of lying???  Look at the mirror lately? > > >LOL!  I am still here.  Where are they? > >Really!  They all kept it in secret???  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! > >I am a mirror.  You are seeing yourself in it! > >LOL!! > >So we can’t make up our own mind???  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS… > >Looking at the mirror again, Kane? > >Delusion! > >Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane?  Shame on you! > >Already have – "reasonable standard"! > >You used it on me!  At least I have the excuse of using a foreign > >language.  What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? > >Really?  Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0 > >You really are stupid! > >Of course I am not responsible.  They did make up their own mind! > >Are you always this stupid??? > >Says who? > >LOL!  Funny that you would be talking about ethics! > >Show me! > >And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard. > >Dogs have tail, Kane9! > >LOL!  Do you use the "reasonable" standard? > >LOL! > >There you go, again.  You are the one searching for the answer, not > I! > >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. > >Already have – reasonable standard! > >The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it! > >So you will make up their mind for them?  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS…. > >So you are speaking for "them"? > >ALL because they don’t know the difference between spankinng and > >beating???   Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… > >LOL!  And your proof is? > >Weaseling, Kane! > >And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the <1% extreme > cases! > >Ask a "reasonable person"!  Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency! > >LOL!  Are we talking with a reasonable person here? > >So what is the problem? > >All because they don’t know the difference between a spankinng an a > >beating???  Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… > >So you will make up their mind for them???? > >So let ban it.  We don’t want to risk public safety, do we? > >Isn’t this a double standard, Kane?  I already know the "reasonable > >standard".  You don’t!  You should be the one that go looking for it! > >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! > >Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! > >LOL! > >It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing > >the difference from a beating.  And even according to the data you > >privided, it is not "half" – YOU LIED!  Q.E.D. > >What parent???  The only one I see asking that question is you! > >Reasonable standard, Kane!  Are you so stupid! > >SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM?  How about the other 99%+ > that > >don’t abuse their kids??? > >Who are these phantom parents, Kane?  Most of these abusers are > drugged > >up to care!  You are being ridiculous, Kane! > >Already answer the question – reasonable standard! > >Children are not dogs nor houses!  You seem to be suggesting that > >it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded.  Can they have children > >too??? > >We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem! > >LOL!  I am very capable of taking care of myself. > >NO!  Not from you! > >Going off a tagent again, Kane??? > >LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see! > >And you are omniscient!  You know and keep track on everyone who > >frequented this newsgroup????  ;-) > >And you are the judge right, Kane? > >LOL! > >I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! > >Thinking for yourself? > >And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;- > >To prove what a liar you are! > >Weasleingg again, Kane? > >LOL! > >Already answered! > >LOL! > >Here comes the weasel! > >Pop goes the weasel! > >Where is this hypothetical parent? > >LOL! > >Really?  How many – millions????  ;-) > >LOL!  Really, Kane?  Can we go looking for these dead bodies next > time I > >visit Colorado? ROTFLH!  Did you get that one from the National > Enquirer? > >LOL!  You are funny, Kane! > >And I’ll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! > >LOL! > >You are being stupid again! > >LOL! > >LOL! > >And I thought it was becasue of me! > >Me too! > >And I thought it because they don’t know the difference between a > >spanking and beating! > >Every minute so far. > >Weasel! > >Diversion! > >Ha! Ha! Ha!  That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child > >abuse! > >HA! HA! HA!  And you accused me??? > >I didn’t know you are bald! > >So you want me to believe you – a liar???? > >False analogy!  ;-) > >If you want.  Shall I make up her mind then? > >Sure!  I am not stupid!  After all, I was spanked!  What’s your > >excuse? > >But you said we all LIE!  That is normal according to you, a > >"never-spanked" boy! > >And one them disproved your claim. > >Nope!  It didn’t say that! > >It doesn’t! > >Assertion without proof again, Kane! > >:-) > >Someone already have.  Look it up in google! > >Didn’t you the one by Larzelere???  It’s like a rebuttal to the claim > >by Durrant! > >Did I brought up Durrant???? > >And I thought they can’t "make up their mind"? > >Reasonable standard! > >Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their > children; > >and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking! > >AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR! > >If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within > >burried your first source! > >But you said spanking is down!   Using your logic, they must be lying > >about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL! > >Exactly!  You can’t have it both way! > >Because not all abuses causes death!  That was the same argument you > used > >when  you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime! > >Of course not! > >I didn’t see you response to this! > >So you  went to  Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane? > >So outlawing pebbles will reduce it?  Logic and the anti-spanking > >zealotS… > >You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! > >But that’s 1979!  This is 2003!  A whole generation has been brought > >up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support > >structure to make it work.  Why no reduction in child abuse rate??? > >I didn’t fudge the data, Durrant did!  Are you accusing her of not > >being objective???? > >Where is the proof? > >And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. > > >LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge! > >Just having fun! > >Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-) > >So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects??? > >Sound like weasels! > >Then why did you brought it up???? > >LOL!  So you will force them???? > >How? > >LOL! > >LOL! > >You have no proof!  You can’t convince people if you don’t have > proof! > >LOL! > >LOL!  Have you stopped beating you wife yet? > >But you shouldn’t? > >They have every reason to make up their own mind!  You have the > burden > >to prove to them your claim! > >Why should I?  I don’t believe in them! > >LOL! They don’t see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! > >And you are??? > >LOL! > >And you will make up their mind for them??? > >Ah!  The enlightenned ones! > >I only response to what you brought up! > >And the answer have been given! > >And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better. > >Can you prove it? > >The question has been answered! > >No!  Your ad-hom just shows your true character! > >I already have – EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? > >Nope!  You just can’t handle the truth! > >I have – the FBI data.  Your defense of your lie is another lie – > it’s > >the computer!  :-) > >Answered! > >You want to run from the numbers you claimed now? > >Answered! > >And you admitted to lying! > >Run, Kane8! Run! > >Answered! > >Answered > >Coward! > >Answered! > >The dog ran with tails between his legs!  ;-) > And still, no answer to The Question, but a non answer.. > And still, no answer to the Doan Never Spanked Double Dare… > Kane

Response:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:53:07 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote:

..as answers to The Question and my responding claims and questions to his evasions. 217 lines of less than artful, if not persistent dodging. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Can’t stand your own, Kane??? >Being stupid, Kane? >So what’s the meaning of "neither"? >HA! HA! HA!  You are the one who is doing the evading!  What is the >meaning of "neither", Kane? >Evading again, Kane? >Nonsense! >LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place! >Then you are stupid! >You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking! >I know.  It shows! >LOL! >Diversion, again! >Weaseing! >Are you stupid…wait…you have already admitted to that! >You are just stupid! >LOL!  So that is why the violent crime WENT UP???  Logic and the >anti-spanking zealotS…. >I haven’t developed senility yet.  YOU ARE! >Absolutely, stupid! >Yup!  To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID! >LOL! >I have! >You were the one that accused me of lacking morals.  Don’t you remember, >old fart? >If it is "useless" to you, then don’t use it!  Let’s everyone else decide >for themselves if it useful nor not. >EVERYTHING! >Funny!  It is you with your back to the walls! >Who says? >LOL! >Isn’t it you who accused me of lying???  Look at the mirror lately? >LOL!  I am still here.  Where are they? >Really!  They all kept it in secret???  Logic and the anti-spanking >zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! >I am a mirror.  You are seeing yourself in it! >LOL!! >So we can’t make up our own mind???  Logic and the anti-spanking >zealotS… >Looking at the mirror again, Kane? >Delusion! >Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane?  Shame on you! >Already have – "reasonable standard"! >You used it on me!  At least I have the excuse of using a foreign >language.  What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? >Really?  Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0 >You really are stupid! >Of course I am not responsible.  They did make up their own mind! >Are you always this stupid??? >Says who? >LOL!  Funny that you would be talking about ethics! >Show me! >And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard. >Dogs have tail, Kane9! >LOL!  Do you use the "reasonable" standard? >LOL! >There you go, again.  You are the one searching for the answer, not I! >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. >Already have – reasonable standard! >The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it! >So you will make up their mind for them?  Logic and the anti-spanking >zealotS…. >So you are speaking for "them"? >ALL because they don’t know the difference between spankinng and >beating???   Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… >LOL!  And your proof is? >Weaseling, Kane! >And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the <1% extreme cases! >Ask a "reasonable person"!  Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency! >LOL!  Are we talking with a reasonable person here? >So what is the problem? >All because they don’t know the difference between a spankinng an a >beating???  Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS… >So you will make up their mind for them???? >So let ban it.  We don’t want to risk public safety, do we? >Isn’t this a double standard, Kane?  I already know the "reasonable >standard".  You don’t!  You should be the one that go looking for it! >Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! >Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! >LOL! >It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing >the difference from a beating.  And even according to the data you >privided, it is not "half" – YOU LIED!  Q.E.D. >What parent???  The only one I see asking that question is you! >Reasonable standard, Kane!  Are you so stupid! >SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM?  How about the other 99%+ that >don’t abuse their kids??? >Who are these phantom parents, Kane?  Most of these abusers are drugged >up to care!  You are being ridiculous, Kane! >Already answer the question – reasonable standard! >Children are not dogs nor houses!  You seem to be suggesting that >it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded.  Can they have children >too??? >We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem! >LOL!  I am very capable of taking care of myself. >NO!  Not from you! >Going off a tagent again, Kane??? >LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see! >And you are omniscient!  You know and keep track on everyone who >frequented this newsgroup????  ;-) >And you are the judge right, Kane? >LOL! >I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! >Thinking for yourself? >And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;- >To prove what a liar you are! >Weasleingg again, Kane? >LOL! >Already answered! >LOL! >Here comes the weasel! >Pop goes the weasel! >Where is this hypothetical parent? >LOL! >Really?  How many – millions????  ;-) >LOL!  Really, Kane?  Can we go looking for these dead bodies next time I >visit Colorado? ROTFLH!  Did you get that one from the National Enquirer? >LOL!  You are funny, Kane! >And I’ll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! >LOL! >You are being stupid again! >LOL! >LOL! >And I thought it was becasue of me! >Me too! >And I thought it because they don’t know the difference between a >spanking and beating! >Every minute so far. >Weasel! >Diversion! >Ha! Ha! Ha!  That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child >abuse! >HA! HA! HA!  And you accused me??? >I didn’t know you are bald! >So you want me to believe you – a liar???? >False analogy!  ;-) >If you want.  Shall I make up her mind then? >Sure!  I am not stupid!  After all, I was spanked!  What’s your >excuse? >But you said we all LIE!  That is normal according to you, a >"never-spanked" boy! >And one them disproved your claim. >Nope!  It didn’t say that! >It doesn’t! >Assertion without proof again, Kane! >:-) >Someone already have.  Look it up in google! >Didn’t you the one by Larzelere???  It’s like a rebuttal to the claim >by Durrant! >Did I brought up Durrant???? >And I thought they can’t "make up their mind"? >Reasonable standard! >Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their children; >and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking! >AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR! >If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within >burried your first source! >But you said spanking is down!   Using your logic, they must be lying >about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL! >Exactly!  You can’t have it both way! >Because not all abuses causes death!  That was the same argument you used >when  you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime! >Of course not! >I didn’t see you response to this! >So you  went to  Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane? >So outlawing pebbles will reduce it?  Logic and the anti-spanking >zealotS… >You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! >But that’s 1979!  This is 2003!  A whole generation has been brought >up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support >structure to make it work.  Why no reduction in child abuse rate??? >I didn’t fudge the data, Durrant did!  Are you accusing her of not >being objective???? >Where is the proof? >And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. >LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge! >Just having fun! >Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-) >So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects??? >Sound like weasels! >Then why did you brought it up???? >LOL!  So you will force them???? >How? >LOL! >LOL! >You have no proof!  You can’t convince people if you don’t have proof! >LOL! >LOL!  Have you stopped beating you wife yet? >But you shouldn’t? >They have every reason to make up their own mind!  You have the burden >to prove to them your claim! >Why should I?  I don’t believe in them! >LOL! They don’t see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! >And you are??? >LOL! >And you will make up their mind for them??? >Ah!  The enlightenned ones! >I only response to what you brought up! >And the answer have been given! >And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better. >Can you prove it? >The question has been answered! >No!  Your ad-hom just shows your true character! >I already have – EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? >Nope!  You just can’t handle the truth! >I have – the FBI data.  Your defense of your lie is another lie – it’s >the computer!  :-) >Answered! >You want to run from the numbers you claimed now? >Answered! >And you admitted to lying! >Run, Kane8! Run! >Answered! >Answered >Coward! >Answered! >The dog ran with tails between his legs!  ;-)

And still, no answer to The Question, but a non answer.. And still, no answer to the Doan Never Spanked Double Dare… Kane

Response:

On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:57:34 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: > >On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: > snip…………..

Can’t stand your own, Kane??? > >> I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I > >> don’t need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that > >> explained. > >Childish, Kane! > Diversion, Doan?

Being stupid, Kane? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes > >> >> "spanking" would be referred to, but I’ve always been annoyed by > >> the > >> >> use of the word "CP" and it’s intrusion into the discussion. > >> >So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither". > What > >> logic! > >> Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither" > was > >> exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP. > >What’s that again?  IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH?  :-) > No, putting yours back together for you.

So what’s the meaning of "neither"? > >> I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I > >> admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult > for > >> you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is > >> obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the > >> "reasonable person." > >I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said > "neither". > >Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking".  Please show me > >how is that proper English??? > Nonsense as usual, spiraling into evasive childishness. You are so > easily caught.

HA! HA! HA!  You are the one who is doing the evading!  What is the meaning of "neither", Kane? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> That choice of "CP"  avoids having to use real words, such as > >> >> "beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping," > >> >> "switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive > >> terms. > >> >LOL!  They are not stupid! > >> All of "they" or some of "they?"  That thing with plurals is > certainly > >> a challenge for you. > >ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are. > Are you claiming that "they" then are "all" not stupid? That would be > stupid of you, given that you have done considerable work to cast > doubt on the validity of their studies, even to the point of bringing > the totally ingenuous spoutings of medial researcher whose major > complaint is that they don’t "experiment" like his discipline. A major > yuk.

Evading again, Kane? > Then you go on shortly after, in your redunancy, to demand studies > that examine the efficacy of non CP methods that meet the same > standards of validity and science that YOU JUST POSTED THE GOOD > DOCTORS REFUTATION OF…and you use those same, NOW compromised > studies to support claims of yours. > That old duplicitous, "gotta have it both ways" silliness that is > theme for you.

Nonsense! > > Sound like the weather > >in Colorado must have freezed your brain.   Try sunny California! > You know perfectly well I live in neigher place. You’ve recently been > right here. Enjoy the visit? I did….R R R

LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines" > >> parents > >> >> sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear, > >> humiliation, > >> >> and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.") > >> >Then let’s outlaw them all!  NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18! > >> >Let’s get rid of juvenile halls! > >> I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile > >> hall with the children of families that don’t use pain parenting? > >Where do you get that? > Avoidance.  I "get that" from your sudden romp into

Then you are stupid! > >> >Then let’s outlaw them all!  NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18! > >> >Let’s get rid of juvenile halls! > when I was discussing the use of the term CP that tends to disguise > all the truly vicious things done to children in the name of "loving > discipline."

You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking! > You just gave a credibility demonstration in who is running from who > in the debates here.

I know.  It shows! > It’s NOT other posters that run from you, Artful Dodger. It’s you that > run even within the posts themselves.  You demonstrate it in nearly > every post you post.

LOL! > Now, if you wish to argue that the term CP isn’t a bit diverting from > the truth, a kind of PC term for torture of children, be my > guest…but it’s an opinion, not a exploration of the vagaries of > junvenile penology.

Diversion, again! > >> Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to > >> rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming > more > >> and more directed away from punishment models? > >So juvenile hall is NOT punishment??? > Are you completely blind? Where does "more directed away from > punishment models" say punish is missing? I states clearly that I am > aware there is punishment and I recognize that rehab is moving away > from that model.

Weaseing! > Are you insane…wait…wrong question. When did you GO insane?

Are you stupid…wait…you have already admitted to that! > Maybe you are going for the Pity Vote. Damned if I can figure out how > far you’ll go in deception before you are truly nuts.

You are just stupid! > >> And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted > to > >> you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply > >> denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore. > >Show me the data.  I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN! > You are insane., I showed you that you were using violent crime > without accounting for crime. Violence to children doesn’t just > produce violent acting out…it up’s their overall crime rate.

LOL!  So that is why the violent crime WENT UP???  Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS…. > Do you NEVER tired of posting from your faulty memory or lying?

I haven’t developed senility yet.  YOU ARE! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> I’ve never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on > >> your > >> >> use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar > with. > >> >> The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, > as > >> it > >> >> cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite > >> aware > >> >> of the limits of social science studies. > >> >You are wising up!  Good! > >> No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I’m not > doing > >> well, but I have a great deal of persistence. > >But you admitted to being stupid! > Absolutely. Everyone is stupid at times. ARE you claiming you are NOT?

Absolutely, stupid! > After the nonsense you have been posting for years? And the exhibition > you’ve been putting on for me that past few days?

Yup!  To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against > >> >> spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood > logical > >> >> defenses and arguments. > >> >I know!  I see it all the time.  Your argument consisted of > >> invectives, > >> >put downs, calling other women "smelly-cunt"…. > >> The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone > >> that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things. > >I know, including lying! > I have clearly posted, even in this very post, absolutely > incontrovertible proof of your lying, or your mental incapacity.

LOL! > YOU have not posted a thing that shows I’m lying.  Show me.

I have! > >> Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom > >> and putdowns  you use? > >ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like > you > >and Steve. You know, let you taste your own shits! > Oh, I see. The moral highground goes to the little liar then. Thanks > for the clarity.

You were the one that accused me of lacking morals.  Don’t you remember, old fart? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> >> Of course they cannot actually define the difference other > than > >> in > >> >> >> most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest > answer > >> to > >> >> >> where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend > >> there > >> >> is > >> >> >> no middle really…or it’s very broad and everyone gets to > >> decide > >> >> >> themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse. > >> >> >Have you ever been on jury?  Did they explain to you what > >> >> "reasonable" > >> >> >doublt is? > >> >> Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for > >> others > >> >> to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make > before > >> >> taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking > them. > >> >What are you talking about???  The purpose it serves can determine > >> >whether a person live or die!  Are you so stupid? > >> That’s why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor > charges > >> being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct. > >> My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that > >> backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and > >> admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under > consideration…. > >Weasel words again.  Are you so dishonest??? > I am claiming that your answer to The Ouestion, "reasonable > standards," is useless to the need I pointed out for an answer to The > Question. I am showing you WHY that is so. Parents to NOT have the > backups for using that standard, no judge, no jury, no police training > in the use of deadly force, or force.

If it is "useless" to you, then don’t use it!  Let’s everyone else decide for themselves if it useful nor not. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> No, point out to me what is weasely, or

… read more »

Response:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:57:34 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

snip………….. >> I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I >> don’t need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that >> explained. >Childish, Kane!

Diversion, Doan? >> >> Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes >> >> "spanking" would be referred to, but I’ve always been annoyed by >> the >> >> use of the word "CP" and it’s intrusion into the discussion. >> >So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither". What >> logic! >> Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither" was >> exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP. >What’s that again?  IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH?  :-)

No, putting yours back together for you. >> I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I >> admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult for >> you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is >> obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the >> "reasonable person." >I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said "neither". >Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking".  Please show me >how is that proper English???

Nonsense as usual, spiraling into evasive childishness. You are so easily caught. >> >> That choice of "CP"  avoids having to use real words, such as >> >> "beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping," >> >> "switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive >> terms. >> >LOL!  They are not stupid! >> All of "they" or some of "they?"  That thing with plurals is certainly >> a challenge for you. >ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are.

Are you claiming that "they" then are "all" not stupid? That would be stupid of you, given that you have done considerable work to cast doubt on the validity of their studies, even to the point of bringing the totally ingenuous spoutings of medial researcher whose major complaint is that they don’t "experiment" like his discipline. A major yuk. Then you go on shortly after, in your redunancy, to demand studies that examine the efficacy of non CP methods that meet the same standards of validity and science that YOU JUST POSTED THE GOOD DOCTORS REFUTATION OF…and you use those same, NOW compromised studies to support claims of yours. That old duplicitous, "gotta have it both ways" silliness that is theme for you. > Sound like the weather >in Colorado must have freezed your brain.   Try sunny California!

You know perfectly well I live in neigher place. You’ve recently been right here. Enjoy the visit? I did….R R R >> >> It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines" >> parents >> >> sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear, >> humiliation, >> >> and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.") >> >Then let’s outlaw them all!  NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18! >> >Let’s get rid of juvenile halls! >> I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile >> hall with the children of families that don’t use pain parenting? >Where do you get that?

Avoidance.  I "get that" from your sudden romp into >> >Then let’s outlaw them all!  NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18! >> >Let’s get rid of juvenile halls!

when I was discussing the use of the term CP that tends to disguise all the truly vicious things done to children in the name of "loving discipline." You just gave a credibility demonstration in who is running from who in the debates here. It’s NOT other posters that run from you, Artful Dodger. It’s you that run even within the posts themselves.  You demonstrate it in nearly every post you post. Now, if you wish to argue that the term CP isn’t a bit diverting from the truth, a kind of PC term for torture of children, be my guest…but it’s an opinion, not a exploration of the vagaries of junvenile penology. >> Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to >> rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming more >> and more directed away from punishment models? >So juvenile hall is NOT punishment???

Are you completely blind? Where does "more directed away from punishment models" say punish is missing? I states clearly that I am aware there is punishment and I recognize that rehab is moving away from that model. Are you insane…wait…wrong question. When did you GO insane? Maybe you are going for the Pity Vote. Damned if I can figure out how far you’ll go in deception before you are truly nuts. >> And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted to >> you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply >> denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore. >Show me the data.  I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN!

You are insane., I showed you that you were using violent crime without accounting for crime. Violence to children doesn’t just produce violent acting out…it up’s their overall crime rate. Do you NEVER tired of posting from your faulty memory or lying? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> I’ve never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on >> your >> >> use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with. >> >> The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as >> it >> >> cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite >> aware >> >> of the limits of social science studies. >> >You are wising up!  Good! >> No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I’m not doing >> well, but I have a great deal of persistence. >But you admitted to being stupid!

Absolutely. Everyone is stupid at times. ARE you claiming you are NOT? After the nonsense you have been posting for years? And the exhibition you’ve been putting on for me that past few days? >> >> They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against >> >> spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical >> >> defenses and arguments. >> >I know!  I see it all the time.  Your argument consisted of >> invectives, >> >put downs, calling other women "smelly-cunt"…. >> The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone >> that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things. >I know, including lying!

I have clearly posted, even in this very post, absolutely incontrovertible proof of your lying, or your mental incapacity. YOU have not posted a thing that shows I’m lying.  Show me. >> Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom >> and putdowns  you use? >ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like you >and Steve. You know, let you taste your own shits!

Oh, I see. The moral highground goes to the little liar then. Thanks for the clarity. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> >> Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than >> in >> >> >> most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer >> to >> >> >> where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend >> there >> >> is >> >> >> no middle really…or it’s very broad and everyone gets to >> decide >> >> >> themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse. >> >> >Have you ever been on jury?  Did they explain to you what >> >> "reasonable" >> >> >doublt is? >> >> Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for >> others >> >> to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before >> >> taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them. >> >What are you talking about???  The purpose it serves can determine >> >whether a person live or die!  Are you so stupid? >> That’s why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor charges >> being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct. >> My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that >> backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and >> admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under consideration…. >Weasel words again.  Are you so dishonest???

I am claiming that your answer to The Ouestion, "reasonable standards," is useless to the need I pointed out for an answer to The Question. I am showing you WHY that is so. Parents to NOT have the backups for using that standard, no judge, no jury, no police training in the use of deadly force, or force. No, point out to me what is weasely, or deceptive, or avoiding, or in any way dishonest  in my paragraph. You have done this for years when you are cornered. Parents cannot use "reasonable standards" as a measure of where the line is in stopping before injury using CP. If so you would have no difficulty in pointing that stoping place scientifically. Reasonable standards isn’t a measure, it is a part of a much more complex group problem solving practice. You have done it again. …  your  are completely refuted and all you can do is accuse the opponent of being dishonest. You done this to Chris when you were cornered, you’ve done it LaVonne, you’ve done it to Alborn, and in these past days you have exposed yourself publically again and again. >> ….is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by >> choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand, >> with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about spanking." >> I’m sorry if I was unclear. >No. You just tried to weasel!

If you think so you can show then where I have done so. All those resources for decision making by the use of "reasonable standards" are not available to the parent before they have erred and end up in the hands of the police, CPS, and the courts. Hence, little boy, it is YOU that is trying, and sadly failing, to weasel. I cannot solve complex problems without the time and resources, often computational, without … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:11:06 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:40:41 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: >> >On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: >> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:07:43 +1300, "ChrisScaife" >> >> <ChrisSca…@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >"Doan" <d…@usc.edu> wrote in message >> >> >news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0312041742370.22952-100000@skat.usc.edu… >> >> >> On 4 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote: >> >> >> > Doan:  It’s not the first time that I’ve seen >> >> >> > these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises >> >> >> > about how terrible human beings are. >> >> >We ARE discussing "beating" of children. >> >> Not according to the Doan coterie. We are discussing "spanking" and >> if >> >> you can’t determing the difference between spanking and beating, >> >> according to them, you are a logic impaired Anti Spanking Zealot, >> ASZ. >> >True!  Just ask the social science researchers if they their studies >> was >> >on spanking or "beating" >> I don’t need to ask. >I know!  You alredy "greased your butt"!

As I said below and you childishly attempted to divert from…… >> They were of neither. >Why?

I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I don’t need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that explained. >> Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes >> "spanking" would be referred to, but I’ve always been annoyed by the >> use of the word "CP" and it’s intrusion into the discussion. >So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither".  What

logic! Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither" was exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP. I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult for you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the "reasonable person." >> That choice of "CP"  avoids having to use real words, such as >> "beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping," >> "switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive terms. >LOL!  They are not stupid!

All of "they" or some of "they?"  That thing with plurals is certainly a challenge for you. >> It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines" parents >> sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear, humiliation, >> and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.") >Then let’s outlaw them all!  NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18! >Let’s get rid of juvenile halls!

I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile hall with the children of families that don’t use pain parenting? Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming more and more directed away from punishment models? And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted to you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore. >> I’ve never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on your >> use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with. >> The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as it >> cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite aware >> of the limits of social science studies. >You are wising up!  Good!

No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I’m not doing well, but I have a great deal of persistence. >> They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against >> spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical >> defenses and arguments. >I know!  I see it all the time.  Your argument consisted of invectives, >put downs, calling other women "smelly-cunt"….

The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things. Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom and putdowns  you use? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than in >> >> most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer to >> >> where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend there >> is >> >> no middle really…or it’s very broad and everyone gets to decide >> >> themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse. >> >Have you ever been on jury?  Did they explain to you what >> "reasonable" >> >doublt is? >> Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for others >> to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before >> taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them. >What are you talking about???  The purpose it serves can determine >whether a person live or die!  Are you so stupid?

That’s why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor charges being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct. My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under consideration…. ….is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand, with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about spanking." I’m sorry if I was unclear. Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going off on a divergence, and answering my actual statement? >> I cannot, because I’m rational and reasonable, make a defensible >> demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their choice. >Absolutely!

And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on where I’m going. >> The difference between us is that you lack the morals and conscience >> to then ask them to set guidelines. >What are you talking about?  The guidelines have been set in every >community!  Are so stupid – again?  ;-)

For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging the child and the consequences of doing so. The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or abuse except by their EFFECTS. If you have found otherwise I’d be most pleased to be advised. I have done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The Question in any statute or policy I’ve uncovered. >> All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes, that >> they know where the line is between spanking and abuse. >Exactly!  Just as every police must know the line between "reasonable >force" and "excessive force".

And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot refuse to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force" and be hired and retained as a LEO. I understand they also face some of the same consequential incentives that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect, prisoner, or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child would likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities, from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions. Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child? I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers, but they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most of the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly legal and have been for some time in all but one state. And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm and no in parental disciplining. So tell us, Doan…if everyone else in the world you keep bringing up cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their child, and with no training, no set guidelines beyond the admonishment to "do not harm the child" and "make up your own mind," how does that answer The Question? >> Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they would wish >> as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return very >> well. In fact very badly all in all. >Who are they?

Parents, and those they might ask for guidance and information on The Question. > And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable >to  establish the point of no return?

Parents? The proof is in the abuse evidence. You posited a negative proof though. I am saying a point of no return cannot be clearly established and it is difficult that courts, police departments, mental health staff, and legislatures spend considerable time on the problem….that parents can simply ignore…as they so often do with your encouragement by distancing yourself from anything but "make up your own mind," and the posting of pro spanking and attacks on non-pain parenting. >> Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well as DOJ >> data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures to >> adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and spanking. >Really?  Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?

I am not going to run up the abuse statistics on every state for you as you pose evasive questions instead of answering my question: The Question. If you do not believe me these are extremely easy to access. Of course I cannot post the admissions that parents USE that excuse after injuring their child, but I don’t think anyone here would, even your sandbox butt buddy, would deny they do so. It not only IS a common defense, it fits with human mental processing…to … read more »

Response:

On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:11:06 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: > >On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: > >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:40:41 -0800, Doan <d…@usc.edu> wrote: > >> >On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:07:43 +1300, "ChrisScaife" > >> >> <ChrisSca…@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> >> >"Doan" <d…@usc.edu> wrote in message > >> >> >news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0312041742370.22952-100000@skat.usc.edu… > >> >> >> On 4 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote: > >> >> >> > Doan:  It’s not the first time that I’ve seen > >> >> >> > these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises > >> >> >> > about how terrible human beings are. > >> >> >We ARE discussing "beating" of children. > >> >> Not according to the Doan coterie. We are discussing "spanking" > and > >> if > >> >> you can’t determing the difference between spanking and beating, > >> >> according to them, you are a logic impaired Anti Spanking > Zealot, > >> ASZ. > >> >True!  Just ask the social science researchers if they their > studies > >> was > >> >on spanking or "beating" > >> I don’t need to ask. > >I know!  You alredy "greased your butt"! > As I said below and you childishly attempted to divert from……

Then you are accusing yourself of being childish!  THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS! > >> They were of neither. > >Why? > I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I > don’t need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that > explained.

Childish, Kane! > >> Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes > >> "spanking" would be referred to, but I’ve always been annoyed by > the > >> use of the word "CP" and it’s intrusion into the discussion. > >So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither".  What > logic! > Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither" was > exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP.

What’s that again?  IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH?  :-) > I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I > admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult for > you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is > obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the > "reasonable person."

I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said "neither". Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking".  Please show me how is that proper English??? > >> That choice of "CP"  avoids having to use real words, such as > >> "beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping," > >> "switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive > terms. > >LOL!  They are not stupid! > All of "they" or some of "they?"  That thing with plurals is certainly > a challenge for you.

ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are.  Sound like the weather in Colorado must have freezed your brain.   Try sunny California! > >> It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines" > parents > >> sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear, > humiliation, > >> and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.") > >Then let’s outlaw them all!  NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18! > >Let’s get rid of juvenile halls! > I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile > hall with the children of families that don’t use pain parenting?

Where do you get that? > Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to > rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming more > and more directed away from punishment models?

So juvenile hall is NOT punishment??? > And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted to > you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply > denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore.

Show me the data.  I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN! > >> I’ve never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on > your > >> use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with. > >> The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as > it > >> cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite > aware > >> of the limits of social science studies. > >You are wising up!  Good! > No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I’m not doing > well, but I have a great deal of persistence.

But you admitted to being stupid! > >> They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against > >> spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical > >> defenses and arguments. > >I know!  I see it all the time.  Your argument consisted of > invectives, > >put downs, calling other women "smelly-cunt"…. > The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone > that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things.

I know, including lying! > Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom > and putdowns  you use?

ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like you and Steve. You know, let you taste your own shits! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than > in > >> >> most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer > to > >> >> where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend > there > >> is > >> >> no middle really…or it’s very broad and everyone gets to > decide > >> >> themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse. > >> >Have you ever been on jury?  Did they explain to you what > >> "reasonable" > >> >doublt is? > >> Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for > others > >> to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before > >> taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them. > >What are you talking about???  The purpose it serves can determine > >whether a person live or die!  Are you so stupid? > That’s why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor charges > being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct. > My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that > backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and > admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under consideration….

Weasel words again.  Are you so dishonest??? > ….is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by > choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand, > with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about spanking." > I’m sorry if I was unclear.

No. You just tried to weasel! > Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going off > on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

You should take your own advice! > >> I cannot, because I’m rational and reasonable, make a defensible > >> demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their choice. > >Absolutely! > And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on where > I’m going.

"life" or "live"?  You going to the seventh plant! > >> The difference between us is that you lack the morals and > conscience > >> to then ask them to set guidelines. > >What are you talking about?  The guidelines have been set in every > >community!  Are so stupid – again?  ;-) > For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about > warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging > the child and the consequences of doing so.

What? > The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or abuse > except by their EFFECTS.

Exactly!  How else? > If you have found otherwise I’d be most pleased to be advised. I have > done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The Question in > any statute or policy I’ve uncovered.

Post one and we will discuss.   If you are that stupid then please don’t that others are too. > >> All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes, > that > >> they know where the line is between spanking and abuse. > >Exactly!  Just as every police must know the line between "reasonable > >force" and "excessive force". > And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot refuse > to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force" and > be hired and retained as a LEO.

Really???  Show me! > I understand they also face some of the same consequential incentives > that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect, prisoner, > or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child would > likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities, > from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and > demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and > imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions.

LOL!  Show me where a parent can shoot a child and defend it as "reasonable force"! > Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own > mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child?

And they can get away with it??? > I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers, but > they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most of > the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly > legal and have been for some time in all but one state. > And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly > protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm and > no in parental disciplining.

Same with the police use of "reasonable force".  And what percentage of parents misuse force, Kane? 1%, 5%, 10%??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So tell us, Doan…if everyone else in the world you keep bringing up > cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their child, > and

… read more »

Response:

Question:

thanks for posting that reference! — read and post, everyday!  its a commitment to yourself! rosie ALT.SUPPORT.DIET.LOW-CARB FAQ http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/ ALT.SUPPORT.DIET FAQ http://asd.dozer.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following is a copy from another forom, Sorry – do’nt know the source. I hope it helps: Sugar Alcohols Sugar Alcohol is neither a "sugar" nor an "alcohol".  Sugar alcohols such as Maltitol, Sorbitol, Mannitol, Xylitol, or HSH (commonly known as Lycasin) affect the blood glucose levels less dramatically than regular table Sugar (sucrose) as they are digested and absorbed much slower. Although little or no insulin is needed for metabolism of sugar alcohols they still must be counted as a carbohydrate in the meal plan. Sugar alcohols are not free foods. Foods containing "sugar alcohols" but no sugar can be labeled "SUGARFREE" according to the FDA. Excess consumption can cause abdominal discomfort and / or a laxative affect. Sorbitol Sorbitol occurs naturally in many edible fruits and berries. It is absorbed as readily as sugar by the body even though the body uses it in much the same way as sugar.  Sorbitol has a mildly sweet taste, about 60% as intense as cane sugar. Maltitol Maltitol is a disaccharide polyol produced from maltose, occurring widely in nature as in chicory and roasted malt and can be up to 90% as sweet as table sugar. It has a pleasant sweet taste with no after taste and has a less laxating effect than sorbitol or mannitol. Mannitol Mannitol is a monosaccharide polyol with about 70% the  sweetening power of table sugar. Excess consumption (over (20 grams) can have a laxative effect. Xylitol Xylitol is a monosaccaride polyol derived from fruits and vegetables (such as lettuce, carrots, strawberries) and from fibrous plants. HSH HSH (Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolsate) is from corn. The corn kernels are steeped, grounded and degerminated the hull, fibre and gluten are removed, leaving the liquid starch. This starch is then partially "hydrolized" into thick syrup. The syrup is then placed in a reaction vessel and hydrogen gas is pumped in. With the aid of a catalyst, these extra hydrogen atoms are fused into new molecules that change the syrup into HSH. Isomalt Isomalt is a fairly new sugar substitute, it was discovered in the early 1950’s by Sudzuker AG, the processor of sugar beets in Europe. Isomalt is 50% lower in calories than table sugar and only about 50% of it is metabolized by the body. I’ve seen several labels with "sugar alcohols" accounting for the entire carb count of a product (mostly sugar-free gummy bears.. ). Can someone tell me where to find more information about sugar alcohols, or does anyone have a "quick and dirty" answer for me as to what they are, and if they are acceptable? Thanks. -Kathy PS – I searched the one-click archives and deja.com, only to find some discussion of another sugar-free candy product…

Response:

Do you mean mannitol and sorbitol?  Those are sugars to be avoided, according to Atkins. K in Cali

:I’ve seen several labels with "sugar alcohols" accounting for the entire :carb count of a product (mostly sugar-free gummy bears.. ). : :Can someone tell me where to find more information about sugar alcohols, r does anyone have a "quick and dirty" answer for me as to what they :are, and if they are acceptable? : :Thanks. : :-Kathy : S – I searched the one-click archives and deja.com, only to find some :discussion of another sugar-free candy product…

Response:

I’ve seen several labels with "sugar alcohols" accounting for the entire carb count of a product (mostly sugar-free gummy bears.. ). Can someone tell me where to find more information about sugar alcohols, or does anyone have a "quick and dirty" answer for me as to what they are, and if they are acceptable? Thanks.   -Kathy PS – I searched the one-click archives and deja.com, only to find some discussion of another sugar-free candy product…

Response:

: Do you mean mannitol and sorbitol?  Those are sugars to be avoided, : according to Atkins. : K in Cali Hmmm..  I’m not sure, but I’ll check the labels next time I go to the store.  Thanks for the info. Off to dig up my ‘lowcarb gummy worm’ recipe.. -Kathy

Response:

The following is a copy from another forom, Sorry – do’nt know the source. I hope it helps:                 Sugar Alcohols Sugar Alcohol is neither a "sugar" nor an "alcohol".  Sugar alcohols such as Maltitol, Sorbitol, Mannitol, Xylitol, or HSH (commonly known as Lycasin) affect the blood glucose levels less dramatically than regular table Sugar (sucrose) as they are digested and absorbed much slower. Although little or no insulin is needed for metabolism of sugar alcohols they still must be counted as a carbohydrate in the meal plan. Sugar alcohols are not free foods. Foods containing "sugar alcohols" but no sugar can be labeled "SUGARFREE" according to the FDA. Excess consumption can cause abdominal discomfort and / or a laxative affect.                 Sorbitol Sorbitol occurs naturally in many edible fruits and berries. It is absorbed as readily as sugar by the body even though the body uses it in much the same way as sugar.  Sorbitol has a mildly sweet taste, about 60% as intense as cane sugar.                 Maltitol Maltitol is a disaccharide polyol produced from maltose, occurring widely in nature as in chicory and roasted malt and can be up to 90% as sweet as table sugar. It has a pleasant sweet taste with no after taste and has a less laxating effect than sorbitol or mannitol.                 Mannitol Mannitol is a monosaccharide polyol with about 70% the  sweetening power of table sugar. Excess consumption (over (20 grams) can have a laxative effect.                 Xylitol Xylitol is a monosaccaride polyol derived from fruits and vegetables (such as lettuce, carrots, strawberries) and from fibrous plants.                 HSH HSH (Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolsate) is from corn. The corn kernels are steeped, grounded and degerminated the hull, fibre and gluten are removed, leaving the liquid starch. This starch is then partially "hydrolized" into thick syrup. The syrup is then placed in a reaction vessel and hydrogen gas is pumped in. With the aid of a catalyst, these extra hydrogen atoms are fused into new molecules that change the syrup into HSH.                 Isomalt Isomalt is a fairly new sugar substitute, it was discovered in the early 1950’s by Sudzuker AG, the processor of sugar beets in Europe. Isomalt is 50% lower in calories than table sugar and only about 50% of it is metabolized by the body. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve seen several labels with "sugar alcohols" accounting for the entire carb count of a product (mostly sugar-free gummy bears.. ). Can someone tell me where to find more information about sugar alcohols, or does anyone have a "quick and dirty" answer for me as to what they are, and if they are acceptable? Thanks.   -Kathy PS – I searched the one-click archives and deja.com, only to find some discussion of another sugar-free candy product…

Response:

lee, is this reference at your site?  if not?  steal it! — read and post, everyday!  its a commitment to yourself! rosie ALT.SUPPORT.DIET.LOW-CARB FAQ http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/ ALT.SUPPORT.DIET FAQ http://asd.dozer.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following is a copy from another forom, Sorry – do’nt know the source. I hope it helps: Sugar Alcohols Sugar Alcohol is neither a "sugar" nor an "alcohol".  Sugar alcohols such as Maltitol, Sorbitol, Mannitol, Xylitol, or HSH (commonly known as Lycasin) affect the blood glucose levels less dramatically than regular table Sugar (sucrose) as they are digested and absorbed much slower. Although little or no insulin is needed for metabolism of sugar alcohols they still must be counted as a carbohydrate in the meal plan. Sugar alcohols are not free foods. Foods containing "sugar alcohols" but no sugar can be labeled "SUGARFREE" according to the FDA. Excess consumption can cause abdominal discomfort and / or a laxative affect. Sorbitol Sorbitol occurs naturally in many edible fruits and berries. It is absorbed as readily as sugar by the body even though the body uses it in much the same way as sugar.  Sorbitol has a mildly sweet taste, about 60% as intense as cane sugar. Maltitol Maltitol is a disaccharide polyol produced from maltose, occurring widely in nature as in chicory and roasted malt and can be up to 90% as sweet as table sugar. It has a pleasant sweet taste with no after taste and has a less laxating effect than sorbitol or mannitol. Mannitol Mannitol is a monosaccharide polyol with about 70% the  sweetening power of table sugar. Excess consumption (over (20 grams) can have a laxative effect. Xylitol Xylitol is a monosaccaride polyol derived from fruits and vegetables (such as lettuce, carrots, strawberries) and from fibrous plants. HSH HSH (Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolsate) is from corn. The corn kernels are steeped, grounded and degerminated the hull, fibre and gluten are removed, leaving the liquid starch. This starch is then partially "hydrolized" into thick syrup. The syrup is then placed in a reaction vessel and hydrogen gas is pumped in. With the aid of a catalyst, these extra hydrogen atoms are fused into new molecules that change the syrup into HSH. Isomalt Isomalt is a fairly new sugar substitute, it was discovered in the early 1950’s by Sudzuker AG, the processor of sugar beets in Europe. Isomalt is 50% lower in calories than table sugar and only about 50% of it is metabolized by the body. I’ve seen several labels with "sugar alcohols" accounting for the entire carb count of a product (mostly sugar-free gummy bears.. ). Can someone tell me where to find more information about sugar alcohols, or does anyone have a "quick and dirty" answer for me as to what they are, and if they are acceptable? Thanks. -Kathy PS – I searched the one-click archives and deja.com, only to find some discussion of another sugar-free candy product…

Response:

Hi all, Looking at a label for LC bars, they say 22 carbs, -2 fiber, – 16 sugar alcohols = 4 total carb count. What are sugar alcohols, and can I really subtract them from the total carb count? Thanks, Greg

Response:

Hi all, Looking at a label for LC bars, they say 22 carbs, -2 fiber, – 16 sugar alcohols = 4 total carb count. What are sugar alcohols, and can I really subtract them from the total carb count? Thanks, Greg

Sugar alcohols are artificial sweeteners that affect individuals differently (they are used in manufactured goods because they have similar properties as sugar –i.e. they can carmelize and be sticky or syrupy).  Some people have no trouble with them at all and some do.  The only way to tell is to test them on yourself and see if you stop losing weight (or if you’re diabetic, if your blood sugar goes up too far or too fast) if so, then you have to count the carbs.    Maltitol (in combination with chocolate, why is not known yet) is the one most likely to give people weightloss problems.  However, it could also be the glycerine (also used as a sweetener sometimes)  that can cause stalls, so be aware of how things with glycerine (glycerol) in them affect you too. One last thing to note:  sugar alcohols should be eaten in moderation– more than one serving and you may regret it.  They have a laxitive effect (and painful gas if you eat too much too). — revek There were about a million zillion marriages and divorces between about twenty  writers and editors in the 1950s. Seems to have been their version of Magic: the Gathering. Or possibly Pokemon.– James Nicoll

Response:

Great info, thanks!  I had a similar question regarding a product we came across … and brought home: http://www.russellstover.com/jump.jsp?itemType=CATEGORY&itemID=82 Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/yvvf While I appreciate Russell Stover’s efforts at producing "low carb" products, I wondered if it isn’t just a matter of sleight of hand regarding how they’re counting carbs.  It seems suspicious or am I just paranoid? Their Peanut Butter Cups list the following: Serving size 4 pieces Total Carbohydrates: 19g   Dietary Fiber: 2g   Sugar Alcohol: 7g Therefore, they reckon it’s ~2.5g carbs per piece.  Some of their other products have even more sugar alcohols, hence even lower net carb ratings. However, the ingredients read like this: Chocolate flavored coating (maltitol, isomalt, cocoa butter, chocolate liquor insulin, erythritol, calcium carbonate, sodium caseinate, milk fat, natural and artificial flavors, soya lecithinian emulsifier, acesulfane-potassium sucralose and salt), peanut butter (…etc) The package boldly states "Carbs per piece 2.4".  Questions:  1) Is this deceptive, creative marketing, or a great product?  2) What is the relative % of people who digest (are affected by) sugar alcohols? Thanks!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sugar alcohols are artificial sweeteners that affect individuals differently (they are used in manufactured goods because they have similar properties as sugar –i.e. they can carmelize and be sticky or syrupy).  Some people have no trouble with them at all and some do.  The only way to tell is to test them on yourself and see if you stop losing weight (or if you’re diabetic, if your blood sugar goes up too far or too fast) if so, then you have to count the carbs.    Maltitol (in combination with chocolate, why is not known yet) is the one most likely to give people weightloss problems.  However, it could also be the glycerine (also used as a sweetener sometimes)  that can cause stalls, so be aware of how things with glycerine (glycerol) in them affect you too.

Response:

SRC: http://www.lowcarb.ca/tips/tips010.html ALL ABOUT SUGAR ALCOHOLS (MALTITOL, SORBITOL, ISOMALT , etc..) These sweeteners are neither sugars, nor alcohols, but they are carbohydrates nonetheless. They are sometimes called POLYOLS, to avoid confusion. At the present time, they have not been legally classified for product labelling purposes, as are sugars, starch and fiber. So, some manufacturers are choosing to omit them from the total carb count in the nutrient data panel of the label (they MUST however declare the amount of sugar alcohol in the ingredient list). Because they aren’t actually SUGAR, products that contain them may use the term "sugar free" on the label. Some manufacturers and distributors (esp. in Canada and Europe) are choosing to declare the full carbs in the nutrient data panel, and some diabetes associations and consumer groups are pressuring for gov’t legislation to make this a legal requirement. There are some claims that sugar alcohols don’t have carbs, and therefore don’t count; that they can be completely subtracted if listed on the label. This statement is not entirely "false" but it is misleading. Sugar alcohols do have carbs, and approx. 1/2 to 3/4 the calories of regular sugar. They are more slowly and incompletely absorbed from the small intestine than sugar, thus producing a much smaller and slower rise in blood sugar … and consequently insulin. But this is a YMMV thing. Some Type 1 diabetics have reported that they sense an immediate "sugar rush" from eating even a small amount. Others notice no change, and absolutely no effect on ketosis. Sugar alcohols do have carb calories and the body will use these as fuel, or store as fat, whether or not insulin is involved. You need to look at the total CALORIES for one serving of the product. Subtract from this total the number of calories from any protein in the product (prot = 4 cal. per gm), then subtract the calories from any FAT in the product (fat = 9 cal. per gm). What’s left is the calories from carbohydrate … divide this remainder by 4 (carbs = 4 cal. per gm). If the number you get is bigger than the number of carbs declared on the label, the product has hidden carbs, and it’s most likely the polyol. Calories do not just disappear into thin air! The "laxative effect" happens for two reasons. First, because the sugar alcohols are not completely absorbed, they hold on to a lot of water in the bowel. This causes diarrhea. Another consequence is that when undigested carbs reach the colon, the normal bacteria present there go WILD — resulting in unpleasant gas, and bloating. Sorbitol and mannitol are the worst offenders in this department, maltitol less so. The effect is dose-related — you would be wise to pay attention to the serving size listed on the product label. This amount would be considered "safe" for the average adult — make note of this before giving to a smaller child! Nothing like watching your kid doubled over with cramps and diarrhea because they ate too many "sugar free" sweets. To the best of my knowledge, sugar alcohols ARE safe for children, and pregnant/nursing mothers … just keep an eye on the dose. There are some newer sugar alcohols slowly making their way on the market, which have less laxative effect, and even less blood sugar and insulin consequence. Erythritol, isomalt and inulin are a few to watch for. There’s another called HSH (hydrolyzed starch hydrolysate) also called maltitol syrup. The thing is, the different sugar alcohols have different properties, and can’t be used for all things. Sorbitol is used in hard candies … it produces a nice, clear candy that doesn’t crystalize, and stays hard and dry in a humid environment. Because it doesn’t crystalize, sorbitol is used in ice cream to help it stay creamy. Mannitol also can absorb a lot of moisture before it gets damp and sticky, therefore it’s used to "dust" sticks of gum, to keep them dry. Maltitol and erythritol provide smooth bulk, and are ideal for chocolates and soft candies to give a creamy "melt in the mouth" quality. Sugar alcohols are not acted upon by bacteria in the mouth, and therefore do NOT cause tooth decay. In fact, xylitol actually INHIBITS oral bacteria, and is often used in sugarless mints and chewing gum for this reason. BOTTOM LINE We are all individuals, and our bodies will react differently to these products. Depending on other factors, such as what else we’ve consumed along with it or on an empty stomach, we may even find ourselves having totally different reactions each time we eat it. So proceed with caution. Be aware that there is potential to cause a rise in blood sugar and insulin … although slower. Also the possibility to knock you out of ketosis, if you’re following a ketogenic program such as Atkins. Pay attention to the serving SIZE. A 45-gram (1-1/2 oz) chocolate bar may state on the label that one serving is 15 grams (1/2 oz). That’s only 1/3 of the bar, so keep that in mind when you’re about to chow down. If you are following Induction level low carb eating, it would be wise to avoid these products until at LEAST the 2 weeks are up, and your body’s metabolism is settled well into ketosis and fat-burning mode. Same for other low carb programs, which may not be ketogenic, but do have strong effects on the metabolism (eg. Protein Power, Carb Addicts). Give your body the chance to adjust to the new WOE first, then cautiously add these products. KEYWORD moderation. Most low carbers find they can indulge very occasionally in a polyol-sweetened treat without consequence to their weight loss effort, and perhaps a mild laxative effect or some gas. It’s a trade-off, but helps to stave off cravings for high-sugar goodies. A problem could develop though, for someone with carb-addiction …. these candies just become a substitute addiction. Also, the sweet taste can trigger EMOTIONS (for an addict) that will result in a "rush" of hormones and enzymes in the body, ultimately leading to an insulin spike … and fat STORAGE. And remember that candy is NOT a meal substitute. There’s little or no protein, vitamins or essential fatty acids. RESOURCES "Reduced Calorie Sweeteners: Polyols" from the Calorie Control Council "Letter to Health Minister Allan Rock from CSPI Canada" Sept/00, urging accurate labelling of food products containing sugar alcohols, health warnings of the Gastrointestinal effects, and recommendations for control of dose per serving. "All About Polyols" from SPI Polyols (manufacturer) Happy Low Carbing!

Response:

: I also ate 1 lb os SK recently and almost exploded. If I ate a pound of sauerkraut, I’d become a fire hazard!  LOL! David

Response:

: I wonder though, how about consuming hard to digest carbs, such as : carbs in beans for instance? Or carbs in vegetables that are not too : starchy? Do they also mess your blood sugar? Thanks for the kind words.  I don’t know about beans because I avoid them. Veggies, like tomatoes and peppers, don’t seem to bother me, but I don’t measure my blood sugar immediately after consuming them.  I only check my fasting blood-sugar when I get up in the morning.  Beans and sauerkraut cause me intestinal gas problems, however, sugar alcohols don’t.  Maltitol, no problem.  Cellulose gets me 10 miles per cubic foot. Why? Who knows.  At this point in my life, I have found that acceptance can sometimes be easier than understanding. David

Response:

My experience with Russell Stover low carb chocolates was that they raised my blood sugar almost as high as the same size regular Russell Stover candies, but it took longer for them to show up on my meter.  I did a comparison test when they first came out because Russell Stover chocolates used to be one of my very favorite treats and I really hoped they would work for me. But they don’t. The low carb versions also tasted much  worse than the real thing. — Jenny Cut the carbs to respond to my new email address! New photo: http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm Weight: 168.5/137 Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998 – HBa1c 5.2 10/03 Low Carb 9/1998 – 8/2001 and 11/10/02 – Now http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each month *  Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings * Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise Starting from Zero *  Do Starch Blockers Work? * NEW! Why the Low Carb Diet is Great for Diabetes  * NEW!  Low Carb Strategies for People with Diabetes

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Great info, thanks!  I had a similar question regarding a product we came across … and brought home: http://www.russellstover.com/jump.jsp?itemType=CATEGORY&itemID=82 Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/yvvf While I appreciate Russell Stover’s efforts at producing "low carb" products, I wondered if it isn’t just a matter of sleight of hand regarding how they’re counting carbs.  It seems suspicious or am I just paranoid? Their Peanut Butter Cups list the following: Serving size 4 pieces Total Carbohydrates: 19g   Dietary Fiber: 2g   Sugar Alcohol: 7g Therefore, they reckon it’s ~2.5g carbs per piece.  Some of their other products have even more sugar alcohols, hence even lower net carb ratings. However, the ingredients read like this: Chocolate flavored coating (maltitol, isomalt, cocoa butter, chocolate liquor insulin, erythritol, calcium carbonate, sodium caseinate, milk fat, natural and artificial flavors, soya lecithinian emulsifier, acesulfane-potassium sucralose and salt), peanut butter (…etc) The package boldly states "Carbs per piece 2.4".  Questions:  1) Is this deceptive, creative marketing, or a great product?  2) What is the relative % of people who digest (are affected by) sugar alcohols? Thanks! Sugar alcohols are artificial sweeteners that affect individuals differently (they are used in manufactured goods because they have similar properties as sugar –i.e. they can carmelize and be sticky or syrupy).  Some people have no trouble with them at all and some do.  The only way to tell is to test them on yourself and see if you stop losing weight (or if you’re diabetic, if your blood sugar goes up too far or too fast) if so, then you have to count the carbs.    Maltitol (in combination with chocolate, why is not known yet) is the one most likely to give people weightloss problems.  However, it could also be the glycerine (also used as a sweetener sometimes)  that can cause stalls, so be aware of how things with glycerine (glycerol) in them affect you too.

Response:

: Seriously speaking, I am befuddled as to why people put that trash in : their mouths. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know why I walked down that destructive path.  For me, low-carbing is essentially a diet of denial.  (I won’t quibble the conceptual difference between a diet and a "way of eating". I’ll be on this diet or eating regimen for the rest of my life.)  When some food product promises a way for me to enjoy something that I am forced to deny myself, I feel compelled to give it a try.  So I ate Atkins bars and drank Atkins shakes and promptly gained four pounds in a single week, despite the "net" numbers of carbs. I miss sugary desserts and treats.  I envy "normal" people.  But I have a dietary problem.  I am insulin resistant at best and diabetic at worst. When I’m not low-carbing, my blood sugar is 170 or better.  When I’m restricting carbs to 20 grams or less per day, my blood sugar is less than 110, and I physically feel better.  No lethargy.  No headache.  No dizziness. For me, it’s a maturity thing.  My character has to fight my genetic make-up, and I am forced to admit to myself that there is no magic pill or magic (read "net-carb") treat. David

Response:

: You just have to experiment (after induction). Just wanted to say I always enjoy your informative posts.  That’s all. David

Response:

What are sugar alcohols, and can I really subtract them from the total carb count?

    I have found that maltitol products tend to stall my weight loss… You have to be very careful when shopping at a "low-carb" grocery.  If you look hard enough, though, there are some good sucralose (Splenda) sweetened chocolate products, that work great for me.  (My favorite is Keto Nuts.) — Speaking for myself, not Intel or Aracnet.

Response:

: You just have to experiment (after induction). Just wanted to say I always enjoy your informative posts.  That’s all.

Ditto – good info, revek!

Response:

You just have to experiment (after induction). Just wanted to say I always enjoy your informative posts.  That’s all. Ditto – good info, revek!

<blush aw.  :) — revek You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.

Response:

Great info, thanks!  I had a similar question regarding a product we came across … and brought home: http://www.russellstover.com/jump.jsp?itemType=CATEGORY&itemID=82 Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/yvvf While I appreciate Russell Stover’s efforts at producing "low carb" products, I wondered if it isn’t just a matter of sleight of hand regarding how they’re counting carbs.  It seems suspicious or am I just paranoid?

Depends.  How is it sleight of hand, exactly?  All the carbs are listed.  It’s up to you to decide to count the sugar alcohols or not. The reasoning behind not counting SAs is because they generally don’t effect the blood sugar of *normal people or if they do, it is a far less significant effect (with the exception of maltitol when combined with chocolate). Normal people meaning healthy non-diabetics.  Lowcarb candies and bars are designed for weight loss, not as a dietetic aid. Their Peanut Butter Cups list the following: Serving size 4 pieces Total Carbohydrates: 19g   Dietary Fiber: 2g   Sugar Alcohol: 7g Therefore, they reckon it’s ~2.5g carbs per piece.  Some of their other products have even more sugar alcohols, hence even lower net carb ratings. However, the ingredients read like this: Chocolate flavored coating (maltitol,

Sugar alcohol isomalt, same  cocoa butter, chocolate liquor insulin,

Did you type that right? erythritol, Sugar alcohol— I have tested this one at home, and there is no intestinal discomfort as with other SAs and since I didn’t get the munchies afterward, no sigificant bs/insulin swing either.  That’s just me though.  You may be different. calcium carbonate, sodium caseinate, milk fat, natural and artificial flavors, soya lecithinian emulsifier, acesulfane-potassium

artificial sweetener (but not a sugar alcohol)  sucralose artificial sweetener also known as splenda (but not a sugar alcohol)  and salt), peanut butter (…etc) The package boldly states "Carbs per piece 2.4".  Questions:  1) Is this deceptive, creative marketing, or a great product?

All three or none of the above, depending on your personal view.  The nutritional label follows FDA regulations showing the total carbs not just the net,  so I’d say the bold statement is part of the front package (haven’t looked lately) and therefore falls under the label marketing (which should be read, as always "buyer beware"), and if it doesn’t cause you problems of one kind or another and helps you stay on the lowcarb path, then it’s a great product in my book. The nutritional label didn’t always follow FDA regulations, because the manufactures took the stance that as the SA carbs weren’t absorbed like regular carbs (in normal people remember) that they shouldn’t *have to be listed.  FDA disagreed.  There was some squabbling, and when the dust settled the new labels came out.   This has led some people to believe that there is some nefarious maliciousness on the part of any manufacturers who tried to deceive the public.  2) What is the relative % of people who digest (are affected by) sugar alcohols?

I’d say near 100 percent, one way or another.  :)  Some people have trouble of two different kinds.  Either they get baaaaad painful gas and loose bowels (caused from incomplete breakdown of the SA in the upper intestine, causing much partytime in the lower intestine), or they get a bs rise.  Usually.  Some poor folks get both.  There are a few who don’t get either, and lose weight on them just fine.  Some people also stop losing weight, even though they are within their carb and calorie ranges, but have no other reaction. You just have to experiment (after induction). — revek "It’s called ‘quantum telepathy’: I can read minds, but only if they’re very, very small."

Response:

I have not bought any foods with sugar alcohols in them, but tonight I was tempted by a small chocolate bar, so I bought it.  I have not eaten it yet, because I figured it was better to get information from all of you smart lowcarbers before I ate this thing. I have heard bits and pieces about sugar alcohols….such as:  some people absorb them, other people it just goes straight thru, and they are to be subtracted from the total amount of carbs. So, what’s the scoop?  I intend on reading up on them before I eat it, just in case. Maybe I sound weird….but I am just being careful, because my weight loss is very slow for some reason… Thanks, Kerri —   ~~Kerri~~ 154/136/120   6/10/2003         5′2"

Response:

I have not bought any foods with sugar alcohols in them, but tonight I was tempted by a small chocolate bar, so I bought it.  I have not eaten it yet, because I figured it was better to get information from all of you smart lowcarbers before I ate this thing. I have heard bits and pieces about sugar alcohols….such as:  some people absorb them, other people it just goes straight thru, and they are to be subtracted from the total amount of carbs. So, what’s the scoop?  I intend on reading up on them before I eat it, just in case. Maybe I sound weird….but I am just being careful, because my weight loss is very slow for some reason… Thanks, Kerri

I had ten pieces of hard candy (two serving sizes) with sugar alcohols and I had hours of miserable dire rear.  (that’s my cute way of saying diarrhea or however it’s spelled) so I guess they went right through me.  Wasn’t worth it though. What I would do if I were you is schedule a chocolate "cheat" and let yourself have one or two bites of some real, good chocolate on a day when you’ve been religiously on plan for the rest of the day, assuming you’re not on Induction.  Eat the real chocolate slowly and savor it. — -Michelle Levin (Luna) http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna

Response:

I have not bought any foods with sugar alcohols in them, but tonight I was tempted by a small chocolate bar, so I bought it.  I have not eaten it yet, because I figured it was better to get information from all of you smart lowcarbers before I ate this thing. I have heard bits and pieces about sugar alcohols….such as:  some people absorb them, other people it just goes straight thru,

Yup.  YMMV.  Try a little bit and see how you respond.   and they are to be subtracted from the total amount of carbs. So, what’s the scoop?  I intend on reading up on them before I eat it, just in case. Maybe I sound weird….but I am just being careful, because my weight loss is very slow for some reason…

Priscilla — Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.   (thanks be to topfive.com)

Response:

Well I just ate it… Wow, it was good:) I read some info on them, but it doesnt say anything about effecting some people differently. Eating one is probably not going to help me figure that out:) Kerri —   ~~Kerri~~ 154/136/120   6/10/2003         5′2"

Response:

Not finding any info on the web… Are they absorbed?  So this thing had 14.7 sugar alcohols in it….??  How bad did I go over? Ugh, I am worried now…lol —   ~~Kerri~~ 154/136/120   6/10/2003         5′2"

Response:

As a snack, I keep a supply of low-carb chocolate bars made with maltitol (a sugar alcohol). My weight keeps coming off, never had any of the "dire" problems Luna described. I love ‘em. Odd thing — I was never much of a chocolate eater before I started this diet. Try Ross Chocolates — http://www.rosschocolates.net/   They’re excellent. More than excellent. (1.1g – 3.9g net carbs) CarboLite bars are good too, if a bit small. (1.3g net carbs) Scott

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not finding any info on the web… Are they absorbed?  So this thing had 14.7 sugar alcohols in it….??  How bad did I go over? Ugh, I am worried now…lol —   ~~Kerri~~ 154/136/120   6/10/2003         5′2"

Response:

Not finding any info on the web… Are they absorbed?  So this thing had 14.7 sugar alcohols in it….??  How bad did I go over? Ugh, I am worried now…lol

There are several ways to try to figure out how YOU respond to them. The most accurate would be a blood sugar reading.  Several people have their blood sugar climb quickly, just as if they’ve eaten sugar. Others have almost no change in the blood sugar, and of course there is every possibility in between.  It’s worth noting that several people reported having a DELAYED increase in blood sugar.  Instead of an almost immediate rise it was delayed hours – but ultimately went just as high.  This should be just as bad for your overall health as an immediate jump, but if the "standard" tests stopped at 2 hours they may not have caught them since people were talking about jumps in blood sugar after 3 or even 4 hours.  I’ll also note that the tests for "impact carbs" were almost certainly done with "normal, healthy" people who are not diabetic or pre-diabetic, do not have hyperinsulinism and so on.  In short, people who don’t react very much to sugar to begin with.  Lots of overweight people are much more sensitive to sugar, whether or not they are diabetic.  I would love to see some blood sugar tests done on sugar alcohols where the test subjects all started with diabetes or IGT (Impaired Glucose Tolerance).  I rather imagine that the results wouldn’t be to the liking of the companies that make and advertise these products – but I can’t prove it. Ketostix can tell you if you’ve knocked yourself out of ketosis. However, they only measure the "excess" ketones that are being dumped in the urine.  It’s quite possible to be in ketosis and have ketones in the blood without having any in the urine.  People who exercise a lot may use up the ketones (in the blood) as fuel, leaving no excess to be dumped. How you feel overall.  Some people can tell if they have had too many carbs.  For example, those who reported that greatly-desired burst of energy after a few days on LC may report that they feel "tired" if they have too many carbs.  The list of possible reactions is long – you just have to know how your body reacts.  On the other hand, many people (like myself) did not note any particular change going onto LC (no headaches, no burst of energy, etc.) and don’t notice any change going off. Your intestinal tract.  In general, it seems that the more problems with gas or diarrhea people report, the less they are digesting and the lower the impact on blood sugar.  In general, Maltitol seems more associated with gas and Lactitol seems more associated with diarrhea, but either product can apparently result in either symptom.   As for myself, I haven’t done blood work specifically for sugar alcohols and I can’t tell the difference overall between in and out of ketosis.  The ketostix tell me that they knock me out of ketosis, however, and my intestinal symptoms are pretty mild compared to what other people report, so I’m treating them like sugar.  Isomalt seems much the same as Lactitol to my system.

Response:

Thanks for the information Harold.  I believe I will treat them as "real" sugar as I really have no way of testing my blood sugar.  My sister has the juvenile diabetes, so I could test myself on her stuff, but I don’t really know if it’s that important. I only bought the product to try it, and not because I was having a craving. I do believe I will steer clear of them, since I believe I am sensitive since I gained about 33lbs in about three months (the weight I am currently losing). Scott, I intend to not have any of these "bars", but if I get some insane craving for chocolate, I guess it would be better to eat one of those bars, than to get a real candy bar! Thank you all for giving me the info I wanted:) Kerri —   ~~Kerri~~ 154/136/120   6/10/2003         5′2"

Response:

I had ten pieces of hard candy (two serving sizes) with sugar alcohols and I had hours of miserable dire rear.  (that’s my cute way of saying diarrhea or however it’s spelled) so I guess they went right through me.

Had 2 Keto chocolate keto bars for lunch yesterday and was sick as a dog all night. Glad to read the answer here. Thanks for the tip. I HAD  forgot what they do to me. Warren

Response:

Kerri, I bet you’ll find you do a whole lot better if you buy an expensive 70% chocolate bar and eat one square when you get a chocolate craving. These premium high cocoa bars taste great and they only have about 2 gms per square. I find that unlike the sugar alcohol stuff, they don’t give me cravings. Droste extra dark, Lindt 70%, and Valrhona dark are some of the brands you can find in fancy food stores. — Jenny 168.5/138.5  30 lbs lost by 8/2/03! Low Carb 9/1998 – 8/2001 and 11/10/02 – Now http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each month *  Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings * Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise Starting from Zero *  NEW! Do Starch Blockers Work?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for the information Harold.  I believe I will treat them as "real" sugar as I really have no way of testing my blood sugar.  My sister has the juvenile diabetes, so I could test myself on her stuff, but I don’t really know if it’s that important. I only bought the product to try it, and not because I was having a craving. I do believe I will steer clear of them, since I believe I am sensitive since I gained about 33lbs in about three months (the weight I am currently losing). Scott, I intend to not have any of these "bars", but if I get some insane craving for chocolate, I guess it would be better to eat one of those bars, than to get a real candy bar! Thank you all for giving me the info I wanted:) Kerri —   ~~Kerri~~ 154/136/120   6/10/2003         5′2"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerri, I bet you’ll find you do a whole lot better if you buy an expensive 70% chocolate bar and eat one square when you get a chocolate craving. These premium high cocoa bars taste great and they only have about 2 gms per square. I find that unlike the sugar alcohol stuff, they don’t give me cravings. Droste extra dark, Lindt 70%, and Valrhona dark are some of the brands you can find in fancy food stores. — Jenny 168.5/138.5  30 lbs lost by 8/2/03! Low Carb 9/1998 – 8/2001 and 11/10/02 – Now

Don’t forget Scharffen-Berger. — Bob M in CT

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerri, I bet you’ll find you do a whole lot better if you buy an expensive 70% chocolate bar and eat one square when you get a chocolate craving. These premium high cocoa bars taste great and they only have about 2 gms per square. I find that unlike the sugar alcohol stuff, they don’t give me cravings. Droste extra dark, Lindt 70%, and Valrhona dark are some of the brands you can find in fancy food stores.

Jenny Don’t forget Scharffen-Berger.

Seconded.  A little bit can be quite satisfying!  After reading all this about the low-carb chocolates, I am sorry I bought a couple of bars to try in the future.   — Jean B., 12 miles west of Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerri, I bet you’ll find you do a whole lot better if you buy an expensive 70% chocolate bar and eat one square when you get a chocolate craving. These premium high cocoa bars taste great and they only have about 2 gms per square. I find that unlike the sugar alcohol stuff, they don’t give me cravings. Droste extra dark, Lindt 70%, and Valrhona dark are some of the brands you can find in fancy food stores. Jenny Don’t forget Scharffen-Berger. Seconded.  A little bit can be quite satisfying!  After reading all this about the low-carb chocolates, I am sorry I bought a couple of bars to try in the future.  

Bought some, tried it.  They’re ok, but nothing like quality chocolate. Waiting to see if they have the warned about laxative effect due to the sugar alchohols. Chuck Demas —   Eat Healthy        |   _ _   | Nothing would be done at all,   Die Anyway         |    v    | That no one could find fault with it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerri, I bet you’ll find you do a whole lot better if you buy an expensive 70% chocolate bar and eat one square when you get a chocolate craving. These premium high cocoa bars taste great and they only have about 2 gms per square. I find that unlike the sugar alcohol stuff, they don’t give me cravings. Droste extra dark, Lindt 70%, and Valrhona dark are some of the brands you can find in fancy food stores. Jenny Don’t forget Scharffen-Berger. Seconded.  A little bit can be quite satisfying!  After reading all this about the low-carb chocolates, I am sorry I bought a couple of bars to try in the future.   Bought some, tried it.  They’re ok, but nothing like quality chocolate. Waiting to see if they have the warned about laxative effect due to the sugar alchohols. Chuck Demas

SWEETENERS+++++++ TO ALL:  After reading these posts I dug out my Atkins book (new addition, paperback PG.128) RE: Artificial sweeteners: "…the following are allowed: sucralose (Splenda), saccharin, cyclamate, acesfulfame-K. Natural sweeteners ending in the suffix "-ose" (ie: maltose, fructose) should be AVOIDED".<but not sucralose which remember is Splenda brand do not affect blood sugar and are acceptable."    I just purchased some Atkins breakfast bars that have glycerin in them counted as a carb. But the box says "Count only 2 carbs". So I guess brands with glycerin are okay also.    Personally having the option of a crunchy "fake" chocolate bar has helped me commit to this WOE. Between that and Atkins ice cream I feel that I miss nothing from the way that I ate before. I eat low carb bread, low carb tortillas, low carb sweets. I enjoy my food, but the scale keeps going down.    I tried Atkins three years ago but gave up at 6 weeks because I felt so deprived. I do not feel that way at all now with so many low carb alternatives out there for us!!!    I say if you like the low carb candies and it keeps you on track, then enjoy them !!!     -Christy 209/198/135  Started LC July 2003

Response:

I have never had a problem with weight loss and having anything with sugar alcohols in it.  GOD I LIVE ON TOFUTTI FUDGE POPS!!!!! LOVE THEM!! But here is the catch.  I learned my lesson by buying Sugar Free Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. OH MY GOODNESS they were awesome.  Well not having ANY candy in over 2 month I ate the whole bag (there were like 8-10 in there).  BOMBS AWAY! Within 2 hours the stomach started to gurgle.  Then it got LOUDER.  Then it was followed by diarrea – and ALOT of it. So I have learned my sugar alcohol cutoff is around 20 before I get any of the side effects of that. But again I got sugar free dots and gummy bears.  What the hell I tried them – I figured I would have around 5-10 and be safe—–uuuuhhh WRONG.  Difference is they gave me TONS of gas. So stupid me still eats them and one day I didnt keep track of the amount, so I suffered the price, or shall I say my butt did. Needless to say, what I learned by eating sugar alcohols is moderation.  Took a LONG TIME to get there lol – but I learned it. Sorry for the gross story, but I know many of us have experienced it! .

Question:

that sounds about right.  I paid $850 for new york to las vegas I am looking for the best price to ship my Ford Taurus from Los Angeles to Wilmington, North Carolina.  The lowest price I found including insurance was $825.  Anyone got better info.

Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

I am looking for the best price to ship my Ford Taurus from Los Angeles to Wilmington, North Carolina.  The lowest price I found including insurance was $825.  Anyone got better info.

Response:

I am looking for the best price to ship my Ford Taurus from Los Angeles to Wilmington, North Carolina.  The lowest price I found including insurance was $825.  Anyone got better info.

Isn’t that more than the car is worth? <g I had to ask. Brian

Response:

I am looking for the best price to ship my Ford Taurus from Los Angeles to Wilmington, North Carolina.  The lowest price I found including insurance was $825.  Anyone got better info.

Sounds like a bargain to me, compared to driving the car yourself. I’d take it. One thing you might consider (and I use "might" with some hesitation) is whether or not *your own* car insurance could be used, and to not use theirs. (Same as for car rental, turning down the CDW). But again, I’d probably run with the $825 deal you have, as is. It hurts the wallet, but putting 2700 miles on the car would cost just as much (if not more), and that’s before accounting for the time spent driving.  :o Barry L. Camp

Response:

I am looking for the best price to ship my Ford Taurus from Los Angeles to Wilmington, North Carolina.  The lowest price I found including insurance was $825.  Anyone got better info.

That’s a very good price. Try www. car-go-ship.com. They gave me a good price on shipping my Willys Wagon from Colorado to Wisconsin and I was very happy with the whole experience. Cheers,  - Jeff G

Response:

Question:

In the UK, they use the phrase "x in y" as in "1 in 30". (snip)

So a 4 is pretty steep! Tom

Response:

Eke, That explains why the police think I’m speeding and I don’t! Tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "…  Since the hypotenuse is only going to be around 2/10% greater than the run on a 6% grade, surface measurements were usually ignored.  . . ."

Response:

Eke, That explains why the police think I’m speeding and I don’t! Tom "…  Since the hypotenuse is only going to be around 2/10% greater than the run on a 6% grade, surface measurements were usually ignored.  . . ."

"But officer! I wasn’t going 120 kph down the hill, I was only doing 119.796!"

Response:

Grade = 100 x (rise / run). (note – "rise" and "run" are not defined but I’d assume "run" to be the driving, or terrain, distance)

You would assume wrong the run is the horizontal distance not the slope distance. Slopes are calculated by the vertical distance (rise) divided by the horizontal distance (run) x 100 to give you the percentage of grade.

Response:

The folks who say it doesn’t make much difference on any grade that a vehicle will encounter are correct – but I’d still like to know for sure how it’s actually calculated. It’s hard enough for me to remember anything, and what little I mangage to remember, I don’t want to be wrong.

You could alway take the distance traveled on a grade x the cosine of the angle from horizontal to give you the horizontal distance you have traveled. Practically speaking, it’s enough for me to know that I don’t want to hike very far up a grade much more than 15%.

another way to look at it is a 15% grade is only 0.15 feet per 1 foot of travel.

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? I’ve seen several correct answers (6 feet/100′) but wish to add that a "100% grade" is not vertical, as some suppose, but a 45 degree incline.   FYI, 6% is the max grade on interstate highways, and 4% is considered steep on rails. Will KD3XR

Do you know whether that max has always been in effect or if it’s more recent than the construction of some of the interstate highways? I recall a couple of grades marked "8%" on I-68 in western Maryland. We were eastbound, somewhere west of the junction with US 219/US 40 (exit 14). Or perhaps exceptions are granted in a few cases? steve

Response:

Interestingly, DeLormes TopoUSA 4.0 (and perhaps earlier versions) will "profile" a stretch of road (and trails, railroads, power lines, and some other things). Among the viewing options are the following, along with how that software defines it. It is quite interesting. However, one caveat, it doesn’t seem to realize rivers and canyons are usually transcended by bridges. On one stretch of a trip we’re planning it shows the road crossing a rather deep canyon. However, the profile for the road shows the road going straight down the canyon wall on one side and straight up the other side. Anyhow, here’s some of the profile information: Linear Distance = The flat distance of the profile. Does not take elevation into account. Terrain Distance = The distance of the profile accounting for elevation rise and descent. Climbing Distance = The terrain distance spent gaining elevation. Climbing Elevation = The amount of ascending vertical distance. Grade = 100 x (rise / run). (note – "rise" and "run" are not defined but I’d assume "run" to be the driving, or terrain, distance) Average Grade = 100 x (rise / run). The process for obtaining the average grade for a road section being profiled is as follows: A road section contains multiple line segments. Each segment within the road has a distance and a grade. For example, flat terrain has a grade of 0% and a 45 degree slope has a grade of 100%. A slope greater than 45 degrees has a grade greater than 100%. The distance of each segment is multiplied by its grade. The resulting numbers for each segment are then added and the sum of all the segment numbers is divided by the total distance of the road section being profiled to get the average grade. –current elevation, minimum elevation, maximum elevation, and several other items are available. steve

It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6%

incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height.

Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway… That’s  why  I wouldn’t be caught going anywhere without my sine/cosine

tables, because I want to know exactly how much ground I’ve lost by travelling 100 ft. up or down a 6% grade.  I’m also grateful that the road builders always do inclines in whole degrees,

because the tables I use doesn’t go into partial degrees.  It boggles the mind to even contemplate

the consequences if they – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – didn’t.  ;) Paul

Response:

It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6% incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height. Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway…

That’s  why  I wouldn’t be caught going anywhere without my sine/cosine tables, because I want to know exactly how much ground I’ve lost by travelling 100 ft. up or down a 6% grade.  I’m also grateful that the road builders always do inclines in whole degrees, because the tables I use doesn’t go into partial degrees.  It boggles the mind to even contemplate the consequences if they didn’t.  ;) Paul

Response:

Oh, ok. I stated the assumption thinking someone would straighten me out if wrong but I did think I was probably correct. Thanks for the info. steve

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Grade = 100 x (rise / run). (note – "rise" and "run" are not defined but I’d assume "run" to be the driving, or terrain, distance) You would assume wrong the run is the horizontal distance not the slope distance. Slopes are calculated by the vertical distance (rise) divided by the horizontal distance (run) x 100 to give you the percentage of grade.

Response:

Some grades in Utah are 10%, no shoulder or guard rail…GREAT SPORT going downhill.  My wife’s knucles are still white all she could see was sky and clouds. That’s enough grade for me thank you. Digger, AKA Grumps (old and crusty) hometown.aol.com/jynndi/myhomepage/profile.html All errors; spilling, grimatical, ore tieping intenshunal.

Response:

In the UK, they use the phrase "x in y" as in "1 in 30". As a couple of folks point out, the "y" dimension is the projected horizontal distance as shown on a map, not the distance traveled on the road. In trigonometric terms you’re looking at the tangent rather than the sine of the angle. Frank Damp Anacortes, WA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6% incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height. Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway… That’s what I also thought, but howstuffworks explains this in detail, and they use the road distance (hypotenuse) instead of the horizontal distance. Is there a definitive, credible source for the real answer? If you are talking roofs, the run is not the hypotenuse.  The run is the adjacent side.  The rise is the opposite side. — Frank Tabor

Roofs, I know about. Roads, I thought I knew about – but maybe I don’t. Howstuffworks went to a lot of trouble to talk about hypotenuses and sines instead of adjacents and tangents when describing road grade. The folks who say it doesn’t make much difference on any grade that a vehicle will encounter are correct – but I’d still like to know for sure how it’s actually calculated. It’s hard enough for me to remember anything, and what little I mangage to remember, I don’t want to be wrong. Practically speaking, it’s enough for me to know that I don’t want to hike very far up a grade much more than 15%. — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ??

I’ve seen several correct answers (6 feet/100′) but wish to add that a "100% grade" is not vertical, as some suppose, but a 45 degree incline.   FYI, 6% is the max grade on interstate highways, and 4% is considered steep on rails. Will KD3XR

Response:

It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation.

I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6% incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height. Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway…

Response:

nit nit nit

Response:

It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6% incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height. Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway…

That’s what I also thought, but howstuffworks explains this in detail, and they use the road distance (hypotenuse) instead of the horizontal distance. Is there a definitive, credible source for the real answer? — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

Response:

It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6%

incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height.

Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway… That’s what I also thought, but howstuffworks explains this in detail, and they use the road distance (hypotenuse) instead of the horizontal distance. Is there a definitive, credible source for the real answer? — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

Many, many moons ago, I worked summers with the Colorado Highway Department when they were building a new road over Cumbres Pass. When engineers laid out the roadway, they only used only horizontal and vertical measurements in the traverse, so published distances will be fractionally shorter than their actual length.  Since the hypotenuse is only going to be around 2/10% greater than the run on a 6% grade, surface measurements were usually ignored. That variation did make it difficult to match up centerlines on curvy sections, and when laying out for the painting crews, we would often be as much as 3′ off, necessitating field "easements" to make the paint stripes meet. When going over Cumbres Pass last week, I could still see where we made those adjustments forty years ago . . . Zeke H.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6% incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height. Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway… That’s what I also thought, but howstuffworks explains this in detail, and they use the road distance (hypotenuse) instead of the horizontal distance. Is there a definitive, credible source for the real answer? — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

It is the Horizontal distance that is used to calculate the slope and not the slope distance (or hypotenuse). Have not tried to find a source online but you could always check the library for "Elementrar Surveying 5th Ed." by Russel C Brinker page 74 fig. 4-12.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation. I know this is something of a nit, but to be absolutely correct, 6% incline means that for every 100 ft of *horizontal* movement, one loses (or gains) 6 feet of height. Of course, at very small angles, the horizontal distance is *almost* equal to the distance travelled along the roadway… That’s what I also thought, but howstuffworks explains this in detail, and they use the road distance (hypotenuse) instead of the horizontal distance. Is there a definitive, credible source for the real answer? — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work. It is the Horizontal distance that is used to calculate the slope and not the slope distance (or hypotenuse). Have not tried to find a source online but you could always check the library for "Elementrar Surveying 5th Ed." by Russel C Brinker page 74 fig. 4-12.

That should read "Elementary Surveying 5th Ed."  sorry for the spelling error

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? and for how long ?? what it generally means to me is that i slip over to the slower right hand lane and let all the traffic pass …… jtb

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? and for how long ?? what it generally means to me is that i slip over to the slower right hand lane and let all the traffic pass …… jtb

The percent term in roadbeds is the number of feet rise per 100 linear feet of hill. Thus your 6% grade rises 6 feet in 100 feet.

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? and for how long ?? what it generally means to me is that i slip over to the slower right hand lane and let all the traffic pass …… jtb

It refers to the incline, or change in elevation.  6% means that for every 100 ft. you travel, you will gain or lose 6 ft. in elevation.  The signs are usually at the top of a hill to warn you of steep downhill grades, but occasionally, particularly steep hills may have a sign on the bottom. Paul

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? and for how long ?? what it generally means to me is that i slip over to the slower right hand lane and let all the traffic pass …… jtb

A six percent grade changes elevation 6′ in every 100′, on the average. Usually there will be short stretches of steeper or shallower grades, but they tend to average out over the length of the grade. Without knowing anything about your rig, I don’t know whether the steepness of the grade is is of concern to you or not.  In my 24′ C, I pretty much ignore the signs, but were I towing a big fiver with a light truck, I would approach the grade very conservatively … Zeke H.

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? and for how long ?? what it generally means to me is that i slip over to the slower right hand lane and let all the traffic pass …… jtb

6% means a 6 foot drop (or rise) in 100 feet.

Response:

while travelling the highways throughout the country you sometimes see road signs that state 6% grade .. anyone have an explanation of what that means ?? 6% of what ?? and for how long ?? what it generally means to me is that i slip over to the slower right hand lane and let all the traffic pass …… jtb 6% means a 6 foot drop (or rise) in 100 feet.

Or 6% is about 316.8 FT per mile, usually 1 mile unless the signs say "next nn miles".

Response:

Question:

Todd, This isn’t any different from using several different technologies for cell phones, file formats for word processors, etc. The odds of everyone coming together on a standard are slim. Plus, the accounting software market has consolidated so well that it is almost down to a big two or three package race. Regards, Wayne http://www.s-consult.com MAS90 , MAS200 and Accounting Software Consulting Mail: wayne at s-consult_com Disclaimer: We are consultants for MAS90 accounting software so if this message is giving advice on accounting software you should naturally consider it biased and use our thoughts in conjunction with your own research.

Response:

BTW I thought I would repost one of my 1999 rants on this, below. Also-I should have disclosed, I am involved in a standardization effort for GL interfaces.  I work full time on this and I’m not going to quit until the SME has free access to their own data, and has the independent means to buy and sell without paying *any rent whatsoever* to any rent collectors, gatekeepers, or lock-in artists including software companies, telecom companies, and the banking industry. See the research on the arapXML website for our GL schema, and competing schemas like the XEGL schema. Todd Boyle CPA  9745-128th Ave NE  Kirkland WA my employer www.netaccount.com our project www.arapxml.net   my website www.gldialtone.com Newsgroups: alt.accounting View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original Format Many accounting software users are aware their data is locked into a proprietary data format.  We are growing more aware each day that our accounting software vendors are almost 100% united in the goal of allowing access to internet commerce only thru controlled avenues. Our dear software vendors know that we need to send bills, payments, POS, and other transactions on the internet: Let me count the ways they will extract fees from us, 1. lock us into their own website (eg Intuit) and then sell us all      kinds of ecommerce services and completely unrelated junk, eg, insurance      just a little higher than we can get them elsewhere.  Why else      would they run a website? <grin 2. make us subsidize their VAR network (eg AccPac, GP, Solomon) by making      these simple ecommerce capabilities seem like real complex addons.      Nothing secures their future better than a well-fed VAR channel. 3. sell their customers down the river, by selling out to bigger more powerful      companies more expert at reaming us (Peachtree-Sage, lacerte-Intuit) 4. or just leave us alone, tax us once a year for upgrades and ride the      long long tail of revenue while cutting costs.  Let us suffer, until      we are forced to migrate to another product to send bills, make      payments, send POs etc over the internet. These are not bad things.  This is just the way things work nowadays– relationships between consenting adults. What is happening in accounting is not different than the operating system wars, the browser wars, office suites, internet services like AOL/MSN, or dozens of other markets. Why is it so hard to achieve a good-performing, open computing platform even though so many talent people have tried so hard, for so long? We realize that all large-scale software such as operating systems or even browsers, require hundreds of person-years of development. But, is accounting really that complex? We realize that in nature, dynamic systems have two states: equilibrium and disequilibrium, e.g.  A pencil standing on its point is not in equilibrium, but one laying flat is in equilibrium. We understand the strong, natural forces that created the current equilibrium state, of a single dominant operating system.  The economic resources of Microsoft expanded geometrically while the resources available to competitors vanished. We are totally aware that accounting software costs a lot of money to write, and that all the best developers are wooed and captured into the most profitable software companies, where they usually prostitute themselves by writing lock-in, proprietary software and refusing to interoperate with the rest of the computing environment. Commercial television, for example, achieves economic net gain by getting more money from YOU, the viewer than it costs to operate the networks and produce the content.   Similarly, a WinTel computer loaded with commercial accounting software has its primary goal, maximizing the money it collects from YOU, and minimizing the whole cost put into the platform.  Stand across the room and look at your computer.  This thing is a parasite!   What is this thing? Now look for some memes, to escape from this melancholy: maybe all these hundreds of commercial shrinkwrap software packages exist only because they simply exist.  Maybe there is really no rational process.  Like a profusion of weeds they have found soil and sunlight.  They fill every inch of the terrain, and this gives you the illusion that they are the only solution.  Maybe they are a popular delusion. Because millions of users use them, they also occupy every inch of mindshare.  consultants, CPAs and users have limited time to learn accounting softare.  Like kelloggs and general mills, the quickbooks and peachtree occupy all the available supermarket shelf, no newcomers can get shelf space and the game is over. Clearly there are better technologies that achieve the needs of business better.   But you never heard of it, or considered using it — you never imagined that your work could be done quicker and cheaper, because the best solution is not on the top 50 list of accounting software, because in turn, those software technologies don’t have any intrinsic revenue payoff.  For example, look at the drug industry which utterly ignores natural substances that cannot be patented to lock in revenue. Leaf thru the pages of The CPA Software News, which is 80 solid pages of reviews and advertisements for at least 150 software packages.  So much, much work, so many packages.  So many users! This is how we spend the days of our lives. Not a single linux or open source package. Not a word about it. David B. Moody, one of the deep thinkers tells us on p. 68 that your software is about to be deep-sixed, if it’s "a program using an obscure language that was popular in berkeley in the 1970s". He goes on to say your software is about to be deep sixed, if your software has a sole developer, and other inaccurate generalizations. David also wrote a feature article on internet accounting.   No clue is offered as to what internet accounting will be, or its potentials, or examples.  Instead, David runs thru some featuresets for Great Plains, Realworld etc. resembling internet (browser access, etc.) with not a single word about the main obvious needs of small business:  * send an invoice electronically,  * send a PO,  * make a payment, and based on open standards instead of lock-in to single provider.   In fact, most of the content of Software News consists of announcements or reports of Software Vendors latest versions and features, which are 100% consisting of more and more programming on their groovy little standalone package, to woo the user into staying another couple of years.   The rest of the announcements and review are alliances, buyouts and collaboration between providers (business works and goldmine, etc) which are again, 100% characterized by hard-coded programming products which only let the user connect in a controlled way, with a certain other controlled destination. Why is this?  Because the industry finds soil and sunshine and just continues this growth, like weeds.  –a perfectly natural process. SO:  don’t be soil.   don’t settle for lock-in. Get ahold of any decent accounting software to put in front of the user, that has an open interface.  Several good packages exist in Delphi, Foxpro, running on Pervasive or Sybase SQL Anywhere. Follow the instructions and use the SDK or whatever you can find, to make the thing work with your own business, and import and export XML or ASCII to and from the internet. Go forth and find cheap providers for ecommerce that are based on open standards and free competitive pricing. Rest assured that free, open internet providers will exist who will find a way to deliver your invoices to your customers.  And get your payment to suppliers paid.  And interface your purchasing with multiple suppliers instead of locking you into a small set of high-price suppliers on their Gateway. Your principle challenge today is avoiding letting your accounting software vendor lock you in.   * Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107 * XML Accounting Web ledger ASP netledger, web GL Dialtone, whatever.

Response:

The software marketplace is an unregulated, and rather disorderly phenomenon.  Companies in the software industry need to maximize their profitability and if they don’t follow this imperative of course, they get farther and farther behind. If it were profitable for accounting software vendors to implement open interfaces, or agree on standards for interfaces, it would have happened long ago. When consumers of accounting software demand open interfaces in sufficient numbers to influence the market, i.e. basing their purchase decisions on interoperability with other software, the accounting software vendors always respond.  But it just ain’t happening. 1.  The largest customers, such as governments and the G 500 companies, are fully awake to this issue, but have *such* large and diverse operations they’ve surrendered to single Vendor ERP. They have armies of EAI vendors and consultants gluing things together.  In effect the G500 and governments are no longer any significant force in the standardization of accounting software interfaces and are actually hostile to it, since it empowers their smaller competitors. 2.  Midrange accounting customers are also aware of the problem but powerless to act individually.  They haven’t got people to spare on standards processes or ideological purity and simply buy what works best for lowest immediate price.  Their assesmnet of the net present value of openness is negative (i.e. they think it’s smart to buy monolithic lock-in software and won’t buy GLs which are inferior.  Perhaps they don’t dare lose any competitiveness in their indigenous market by using 5 year old designs in Linux that have no CRM, etc. ) 3.  The best hope for standardisation is the SME and individual but we are probably many years before enough small businesses will reach any level of understanding.  In other words, they will keep buying the leading "integrated accounting software" (i.e. the monolithic software that has no interoperability with anybody else:  Quickbooks.  Regarding their preannounced but vaporous XML interface and developer network costing $1000, I will believe it when I start seeing successful exchange of XML purchase, sale, and payment data in my local PC that doesn’t require the extra $1000. 4.  Internet.   There are new generations of devices, mostly handheld wireless, which will enable the owner to send and receive digitally signed, non-repudiable purchases, sales and payments electronically.   When these exist, the ravenous hordes of very good web developers will finally be able to provide hacker-proof internet business solutions.  This stuff is going to hit the accounting vendors like smallpox hit the native Americans because they just don’t get it.   There won’t be any accounting software.  It will be the network itself, which is your accounting software.   The handshakes you make with customers and suppliers (the transactions) will be in a nice, safe place where THEY can’t repudiate them and the data is never lost.  Isn’t that nice? Todd – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve asked our var and gp themselves repeatedly for a data dictionary and data flow documentation (and also an E-R diagram), and I’ve always been referred to the on-line resources (Tools-Resources-Tables/Fields).  Supposedly nothing else exists, which I find hard to believe (I doubt they gave Microsoft that answer when MS was in the process of buying them).  I usually use these menus and also the time-consuming trial-and-error method to find the required tables/fields. Integration Mgr has its own help file if I remember correctly — take a look your eEnterprise directory.  However, it isn’t the most refined of upload apps; it takes some time to get used to it. If you come across any specific problems/questions, just e-mail me at help you out as much as I can.  Take it easy, W.B. Does someone know where online I can find a data dictionary for the GL module within Great Plains? Or at least something that details the file layout needed for this. Also, I’m wanting to some documentation on Integration Manager. Does someone know where I can find something online. Maybe a .pdf file or something? Thanks!

Response:

I’ve asked our var and gp themselves repeatedly for a data dictionary and data flow documentation (and also an E-R diagram), and I’ve always been referred to the on-line resources (Tools-Resources-Tables/Fields).  Supposedly nothing else exists, which I find hard to believe (I doubt they gave Microsoft that answer when MS was in the process of buying them).  I usually use these menus and also the time-consuming trial-and-error method to find the required tables/fields. Integration Mgr has its own help file if I remember correctly — take a look your eEnterprise directory.  However, it isn’t the most refined of upload apps; it takes some time to get used to it. If you come across any specific problems/questions, just e-mail me at help you out as much as I can.  Take it easy, W.B. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does someone know where online I can find a data dictionary for the GL module within Great Plains? Or at least something that details the file layout needed for this. Also, I’m wanting to some documentation on Integration Manager. Does someone know where I can find something online. Maybe a .pdf file or something? Thanks!

Response:

Does someone know where online I can find a data dictionary for the GL module within Great Plains? Or at least something that details the file layout needed for this. Also, I’m wanting to some documentation on Integration Manager. Does someone know where I can find something online. Maybe a .pdf file or something? Thanks!

Response:

Question:

I’m helping out a friend who runs a small business and is using QuickBooks.  It is a small operation and she is updating her computer (a Mac G3).  She has used QB for about 4 yr.. and her biggest complaint is that she can’t remove customers from her records.  She runs a home nursing service and most of her clients die or only need her services for a couple of months.  She says that processing invoices at the end of the month really is slow – hence the new computer.  She’s willing to upgrade QB or go to Peachtree but would like the ability to delete or at least de-activate clients.  Does the latest version of QB provide for this?  I think she would be more comfortable with QB if it can solve her problem.  Keep in mind she knows nothing about accounting, (as was evident when I looked at her set-up last weekend), and more or less does her own bookkeeping.  Any suggestions would be appreciated V. Powell U. of N. Texas – grad. school acct..

Response:

writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m helping out a friend who runs a small business and is using QuickBooks.  It is a small operation and she is updating her computer (a Mac G3).  She has used QB for about 4 yr.. and her biggest complaint is that she can’t remove customers from her records.  She runs a home nursing service and most of her clients die or only need her services for a couple of months.  She says that processing invoices at the end of the month really is slow – hence the new computer.  She’s willing to upgrade QB or go to Peachtree but would like the ability to delete or at least de-activate clients.  Does the latest version of QB provide for this?  I think she would be more comfortable with QB if it can solve her problem.  Keep in mind she knows nothing about accounting, (as was evident when I looked at her set-up last weekend), and more or less does her own bookkeeping.  Any suggestions would be appreciated V. Powell U. of N. Texas – grad. school acct..

Both V5.0, and 6.0, you can mark customers ‘inactive’. This does not remove them, but hides them from day-to-day use. There is also an option in Condense to remove inactive customers (say, after a year, and their invoices have been condensed out). Unforunately, 5 & 6 are only available in PC. Both can import 4.0 MAC files, though, if saved in Windows format. Kevin (Former QB TSR)

Response:

Question:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of changing the par value of the shares in a pooled fund? I am currently working for a non- profit institution and have been instructed  to change it. I would like to know of literature,guidelines and or precedent for this type of revaluation.

Response:

Increasing the par value can cause the shareholder to legally owe the amount of the increase – I know this can happen in the event of liquidation but I am not sure if it applies to other circumstances. (an accounting student)

Response:

Question:

According to a certain, well-known British music paper,the oh-so hot Counting Crows (currently riding high with Mr. Jones) are called Accounting Crows in their native S.F., Cal., because of their lucrative deal with Geffen Records. How about that! Alex Nieminen                   "Mr. Jones and me, we’re going to be Journalist                       big stars" Paasikiventie 8 F 45 FIN-33230 TAMPERE                Copyright: Adam Duritz, EMI Blackwood Music. FINLAND

Response:

: I recently saw someone refer to ‘Ace of Base’ as ‘Waste of Tape’.  My : Here’s one: Taste of Mace,Pink ‘Rhoid, : Depeche Mode: Fresh Load : Urethra Franklin : Depeche Commode English translation – "Fast toilet" or "Hurry toilet". –Chris Chris Bradley         | "Chris is missing that circuit that the rest of us have

Response:

I recently saw someone refer to ‘Ace of Base’ as ‘Waste of Tape’.  My Here’s one: Taste of Mace,Pink ‘Rhoid, Depeche Mode: Fresh Load U2: Yoo-Hoo (Bono slurps down some Yoo-Hoo!) this is getting too stupid…sorry Urethra Franklin Depeche Commode Has anyone mentioned the ever popular Stone Pimple Toilets?

I like Douche Commode and Stone Temple Pearl Jam. (Hey, I actually like Depeche Mode, too.)

Response:

I recently saw someone refer to ‘Ace of Base’ as ‘Waste of Tape’.  My Here’s one: Taste of Mace,Pink ‘Rhoid, Depeche Mode: Fresh Load U2: Yoo-Hoo (Bono slurps down some Yoo-Hoo!) this is getting too stupid…sorry Urethra Franklin Depeche Commode

Has anyone mentioned the ever popular Stone Pimple Toilets? Thankfully, I did NOT make that one up… [grievous] — avalanche.master.song||shallow.hole||dead.sun.rising||loud.sounds.dopa glisten||stay.here||sado.feedback.loop||screaming.slave||armageddon x7 goden||les.privilege.des.mort||lick.forever.dog||blackhole.dub||pretty ||knuckles.the.dog||painted.life||who.gave.her.the.roses?||heresy.pt.5

Response:

I recently saw someone refer to ‘Ace of Base’ as ‘Waste of Tape’.  My Here’s one: Taste of Mace,Pink ‘Rhoid, Depeche Mode: Fresh Load U2: Yoo-Hoo (Bono slurps down some Yoo-Hoo!) this is getting too stupid…sorry

Urethra Franklin Depeche Commode — "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"                                                         -HEBREWS

Response: