If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland
We should discuss socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the use
of CP. And how to address that issue.
Or is that too current and real for you?
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> We should discuss socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the use
> of CP. And how to address that issue.
Who is "we?"
> Or is that too current and real for you?
Are you addressing me, or the group?
> --
> beccafromlalaland
I've no problem addressing that issue. The answers are probably far out
of reach for most in this group though. Alan Greenspan does not post
here.
The more immediate and more accessible issues would have the most
immediate impact <pun intended> on the spanking issue.
I'm not here, though I can't speak for others, say Doan, to idly
distract and misdirect folks.
To me this is a practical matter of mitigating children's daily pain
and fear.
I'd be, when we are through discussing "socioeconomic status," going
back to the more proximate issues.
How to change attitude and long held beliefs seems more important to
me. While that's no easy job, it seems more accessible than how to
change socioeconomic status and hope that that has an effect on
spanking.
I don't think there's an appreciable drop in spanking rates until you
reach very high levels of income.
Now if you wanted to deal with abusive discipline, that could be
factored in with CPS data from the USDHS and you could find
socioeconomic influences.
I think it's time we welcomed discussion on what a law should look like
that bans spanking.
While I disagree with you that a 25 year old study is outdated (we use
the ancient research of others in current science and industry
commonly...take a class in electrical engineering for instance) I do
agree that there is "current" things to look at.
And what could be more current than a new law, either a state law for
each state, or though less my preference, a single federal law.
What should be in such a spanking or CP ban law?
But feel free to explore "socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor
in the use
of CP. And how to address that issue."
If I'm interested I'll be happy to contribute in whatever way I can.
Kane
beccafromlalaland
Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available to
parents after the fact. After they have been investigated for child
abuse, after their children have been placed in foster care when the
parents are either desperate to get their kids, or so angry that they
refuse to attend parenting workshops. I know in my state parenting
classes are available but certainly not encouraged for at risk parents
(young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who grew
up in abusive households)
I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need to
address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parenting
classes, give them mentors, teach them appropriate discipline
strategies. Give them a support network so when they feel overwhelmed
with the responsibilities of parenthood they can get help BEFORE there
is a problem.
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available to
> parents after the fact.
There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
health departments, some schools, private instructors are all available.
In fact, you can even find on-line classes.
> After they have been investigated for child
> abuse, after their children have been placed in foster care when the
> parents are either desperate to get their kids, or so angry that they
> refuse to attend parenting workshops.
How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were
compelled to?
The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places.
> I know in my state parenting
> classes are available but certainly not encouraged for at risk parents
> (young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who grew
> up in abusive households)
How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
publicized enough?
> I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need to
> address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parenting
> classes, give them mentors, teach them appropriate discipline
> strategies. Give them a support network so when they feel overwhelmed
> with the responsibilities of parenthood they can get help BEFORE there
> is a problem.
Two problems, I think.
One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS
intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued
with state legislators over this when one governor or another proposed
"early intervention" with new mothers in geographical areas considered
high risk, or with behaviors considered high risk. They understood
rather easily when I pointed out the BOR to them from the Constitution.
One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
protection statutes.
Thus we come around again to the law.
Two, money.
Who will provide this support network?
Churches, local interest groups, even the local health department
schedules a variety of things to get young parents involved, especially
new mothers, even providing child care during the meetings.
The problem is that the families that are targetted for this help can
refuse to respond, or simply not be interested, and that is certainly
their right. I do not support compelled services unless the level of
problem has reached a proportion that has involved child protection
services by the state.
And while at one time such programs could access hospital records for
new births, and visit the new mothers directly, they are now proscribed
from doing so by HIPAA. Any PR or marketing of the programs have to be
addressed into to already crowded media advertising world.
This is precisely why I support a law addressing the actual behavior.
There is nothing; poverty, large families, single parenting that MAKES a
parent spank a child.
A law will address the issue directly. It will mean nothing to those
that already do these things for their children. They won't be effected.
They already actively seek alternatives to CP. Collect and study
information about child development. Provide themselves with strees
reducing activities and strategies for when parenting overwhelms them.
In the law, I'll insist on having these issues addressed.
There must be public funding support for programs mandated to help those
charged and convicted of spanking. If not, there's little point in the
law, though these things in the past have tended to sort themselves out.
I imagine when women's sufferage was finally a fact there was some
support for teaching women the political processes they were about to
engage in.
There was supposed to be help for freed slaves, but that didn't go as well.
The law banning spanking would work for all concerned. The parent
convicted of spanking could then DEMAND state support for them to
rehabilitate. At least some reimbursement, some child care, some
training monies.
I'd be happy with that.
These problems you have mentioned are ones that have been addressed
before at great length by society. They have done pretty much all they
can do, sans constitutional violations, at this point. Now it's time to
move forward with a law.
> --
> beccafromlalaland
Kane
PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline
counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the
program, 0.7 entries per hour.
What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by
parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more
such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline.
Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped
considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as
opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the
baseline rate.
Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~
--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006
beccafromlalaland
0:-> Wrote:
>
>
> There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
> find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
> health departments, some schools, private instructors are all
> available.
>
> In fact, you can even find on-line classes.
>
In my area no one talks about parenting classes until it's too late.
They are not encouraged, they are only available at certain times that
make it inconveniant for working parents, no child care is available.
Most low income families that I know do not have a computer, nor do
they know how to use the internet, nor do they have time to go to the
library to take a class on how to use the internet. So how are they to
gain access to parenting classes?
kane Wrote:
>
> How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were
> compelled to?
>
> The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places.
>
>
How would you force people to obey a no-spanking law without first
setting up a support network, and educational resources?
The classes are not everywhere.
kane Wrote:
>
> How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
> publicized enough?
See above.
kane Wrote:
>
> Two problems, I think.
>
> One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS
> intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued
> with state legislators over this when one governor or another proposed
> "early intervention" with new mothers in geographical areas considered
> high risk, or with behaviors considered high risk. They understood
> rather easily when I pointed out the BOR to them from the
> Constitution.
>
> One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
> be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
> protection statutes.
>
I was once considered an at risk parent. I was 19 with a newborn, and
a history of family abuse. You know what my local hospital did upon
discharge from the maternity unit. Sent a nurse to my home once a week
for the first 6months of my child's life. She came to check up on my
child, and my physical and emotional recovery. She provided me with
information. She caught my post partum depression. She helped insure
that mother child bond grew properly. If at 6months she felt that we
needed more help she would have continued with her visits, and provided
me with more information.
Sometimes you have to go through the back door to get to the front
door.
kane Wrote:
>
> Two, money.
>
> Who will provide this support network?
>
> Churches, local interest groups, even the local health department
> schedules a variety of things to get young parents involved,
> especially
> new mothers, even providing child care during the meetings.
>
if you are talking passing of a Federal Law then it should be Federal
Money that pays for the classes, locations, and child care.
Local government would be responsible for the support network. In my
area most support groups for new parents, or parents with problems are
either offered at the Intermediate school district, or at the
Hospital.
kane Wrote:
>
> The problem is that the families that are targetted for this help can
> refuse to respond, or simply not be interested, and that is certainly
> their right. I do not support compelled services unless the level of
> problem has reached a proportion that has involved child protection
> services by the state.
>
yes that is certainly their right, but even having the help publicized
to a level that will continually remind them that it is available would
be a step in the right direction. As it stands now, you only hear of
parenting classes if you are ordered to take them or you are looking
for them.
Yet you support a law to prohibit spanking, without first having
programs in place to teach parents new techniques.
If we were a bunch of cannabals who didn't know how to butcher a cow,
would you be in support of a law that prohibits people eating without
first teaching people how to butcher a cow? (weird analogy, but I
think it works)
kane Wrote:
>
> And while at one time such programs could access hospital records for
> new births, and visit the new mothers directly, they are now
> proscribed
> from doing so by HIPAA. Any PR or marketing of the programs have to be
> addressed into to already crowded media advertising world.
As of september 2004 my local hospital was still sending nurses to new
mother's homes.
kane Wrote:
>
> There is nothing; poverty, large families, single parenting that MAKES
> a
> parent spank a child.
I disagree. perhaps the situation doesn't "make" them spank...but it
certainly makes it easier to spank.
kane Wrote:
>
> A law will address the issue directly.
>
How?? Do the laws against murder address the issues that cause a
person to murder? No they just provide incentive not to, and
punishment when you do.
Speaking of punishment...what type of punishment do you have in mind
for this law?
kane Wrote:
> . Provide themselves with strees
> reducing activities and strategies for when parenting overwhelms them.
Many single parent households, poor households, etc. Don't have the
luxuery of a parental "time out" They have to work, they have to
parent, they have to clean the house, they don't have the help needed
to take a break.
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> 0:-> Wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
> > find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
> > health departments, some schools, private instructors are all
> > available.
> >
> > In fact, you can even find on-line classes.
> >
>
> In my area no one talks about parenting classes until it's too late.
Who is responsible for that?
> They are not encouraged, they are only available at certain times that
> make it inconveniant for working parents, no child care is available.
Sorry about your area. Have you researched more?
> Most low income families that I know do not have a computer, nor do
> they know how to use the internet, nor do they have time to go to the
> library to take a class on how to use the internet. So how are they to
> gain access to parenting classes?
I have no idea. How do they find time to watch TV? Bowl? Tavern hang?
Check again with your county health department for available child
rearing classes.
By the way, I know many low income families and very few lack a
computer. They are just so cheap these days. Used are going for $50 to
a hundred bucks, with software installed, lots of it, including a
browser. And kids are taught computer use in public schools.
I'm still puzzled though that you think the community has some
responsibility above and beyond the parents themselves to aquire better
parenting skills, so they won't feel the need to spank.
Remember, we are talking about making it a law not to spank. That is a
motivator. Just like traffic laws that require being able to pass a
driving test. Or a food handler's permit. Or practicing law. It's the
person's responsibility...not one elses.
No matter how available parenting information might be you cannot force
people to access it unless you have a law that makes it illegal to
spank.
Non consentual spanking is assault if performed on an adult. How can it
logically not be just because it's performed on a child.
Kane
beccafromlalaland
I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
Dodging?
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom
from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-)
Doan
0:->
> I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
> questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
That is untrue. I have responded to every post and to every question. I
have asked questions of my own where you asked and confined your premise
to your geo area. I have asked when the question did not make sense in
context. And I have have asked, then gone on to answer the question you
poses or comment you offered where I thought I was being invited to.
>
> Dodging?
>
If you can find a place I dodged please point it out and I'll happily
answer, or where I cannot admit I cannot. I will also ask questions to
gain more information about your question so that I can, hopefully, answer.
You did not attribute in the post I'm responding to now any of the prior
posts. When I read them over, as I just did, I do NOT see where your
accusation is true.
But I'm open for correction if you'll point out my 'dodging.'
In fact, I'll go back over my own posts in this thread and do it FOR
you. Feel free to correct my doing so. I do not hide, dodge, mislead,
lie, or otherwise attempt to obfuscate these issues.
And never have.
Kane
0:->
beccafromlalalands comment and question in a recent post to me:
"I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
Dodging?
-- beccafromlalaland "
I shall attempt either to answer any unanswered questions or admit that
I do not have an answer. My comments [[ will be in square brackets ]].
0:-> wrote:
> beccafromlalaland wrote:
>
>>We should discuss socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the use
>>of CP. And how to address that issue.
>
>
> Who is "we?"
[[ I was not asked a question ]]
>
>
>>Or is that too current and real for you?
>
>
> Are you addressing me, or the group?
[[ becca did not use my name and I'm not the only person here. But I'll
attempt to directly answer assuming, since we went on after this post,
she does mean me in this instance. No it is not to current nor too real,
and I've responded to it by stating so further in the post. It is just
not relevant to what I wish to discuss. ]]
>
>
>>--
>>beccafromlalaland
>
>
> I've no problem addressing that issue. The answers are probably far out
> of reach for most in this group though. Alan Greenspan does not post
> here.
[[ While my answer was whimsical it's obvious that I do not consider it
possible to solve economic problems before addressing the spanking
issue. If we waited for economic answers for the solution to problems
we'd have the cart before the horse. ]]
>
> The more immediate and more accessible issues would have the most
> immediate impact <pun intended> on the spanking issue.
>
> I'm not here, though I can't speak for others, say Doan, to idly
> distract and misdirect folks.
>
> To me this is a practical matter of mitigating children's daily pain
> and fear.
>
> I'd be, when we are through discussing "socioeconomic status," going
> back to the more proximate issues.
>
> How to change attitude and long held beliefs seems more important to
> me. While that's no easy job, it seems more accessible than how to
> change socioeconomic status and hope that that has an effect on
> spanking.
[[ I continue to address your question, becca. I am not dodging. I am
not an economist, thus can't answer such questions authoritatively. And
they are a diversion from the real issue here. Related by not pivotal. ]]
>
> I don't think there's an appreciable drop in spanking rates until you
> reach very high levels of income.
>
> Now if you wanted to deal with abusive discipline, that could be
> factored in with CPS data from the USDHS and you could find
> socioeconomic influences.
[[ I continue to answer your original question, the best I can...no
dodgin' here, or do you consider that I am not whatever kind of
professional that would be involved for any question you ask as my
"dodging?" ]]
>
> I think it's time we welcomed discussion on what a law should look like
> that bans spanking.
>
> While I disagree with you that a 25 year old study is outdated (we use
> the ancient research of others in current science and industry
> commonly...take a class in electrical engineering for instance) I do
> agree that there is "current" things to look at.
>
> And what could be more current than a new law, either a state law for
> each state, or though less my preference, a single federal law.
>
> What should be in such a spanking or CP ban law?
>
> But feel free to explore "socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor
> in the use
> of CP. And how to address that issue."
[[ While I cannot, nor do I wish to spend time on an issue that others
could better address, socioeconomic status, I am inviting you to if you
have something to say. What's "dodging" about that? ]]
>
> If I'm interested I'll be happy to contribute in whatever way I can.
>
[[ And I'm still open to more questions on YOUR issue if you wish to ask
them. You did NOT take that invitation. I could call you a "dodger" for
that, but will not since in the normal course of a conversational
exchange, debate or otherwise, people move on from subject to subject,
issue to issue, item to item, as a matter of course. In this group
presently posting only Doan would stoop to such low tactics and ploys. I
can't imagine that you would, purposefully. Why accuse me of dodging
"and did not answer any of my questions," as you put it? That's simply
not true. ]]
> Kane
>
Thank you for reading. On to the next post in this series to see if I
failed to answer any questions, let alone "did not answer any."
0:->
that I only asked questions, and avoided her questions and didn't answer
'any' of them. As in:
"I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
Dodging?
-- beccafromlalaland "
0:-> wrote:
>
> beccafromlalaland wrote:
> > Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available to
> > parents after the fact.
>
> There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
> find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
> health departments, some schools, private instructors are all available.
[[ While you forgot the question mark and I could have passed over this
I presumed a question from the grammar and answered. Is this one of the
'any' I'm supposed to not have answered? I elaborated in fact. ]]
>
> In fact, you can even find on-line classes.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dastb
>
> > After they have been investigated for child
> > abuse, after their children have been placed in foster care when the
> > parents are either desperate to get their kids, or so angry that they
> > refuse to attend parenting workshops.
>
> How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were
> compelled to?
[[ Again your comment, and my response, that is in fact an answer within
a question. You are asking me to get them to classes they don't wan tot
go to by posing the obvious. YOu compell them by law. People assigned to
traffic school can be as angry as they want, but they stand to pay a
hefty fine and even lose their driving priveleges if they do not attend. ]]
>
> The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7fzqp
>
> > I know in my state parenting
> > classes are available but certainly not encouraged for at risk parents
> > (young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who grew
> > up in abusive households)
[[ I find it odd that you chopped the above comment by you from later
posts .. then shortly thereafter asked me if I was "dodging." ]]
> How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
> publicized enough?
[[ When you quoted by attribution later, these clarifying questions of
mine were left lonely and dangling without your previous comment for the
obvious understanding that I wanted to know something relevant to your
statement. ]]
> > I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need to
> > address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parenting
> > classes, give them mentors, teach them appropriate discipline
> > strategies. Give them a support network so when they feel overwhelmed
> > with the responsibilities of parenthood they can get help BEFORE there
> > is a problem.
>
> Two problems, I think.
[[ Again, how am I dodging if you pose a solution and I discuss the
issues and difficulties from the real world, as I do below? ]]
[[ You accused me of dodging. Where? This elaborate and informational
commentary of mine was 'dodging?' Please explain. ]]
>
> > --
> > beccafromlalaland
>
> Kane
> PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline
> counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the
> program, 0.7 entries per hour.
>
> What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by
> parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more
> such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline.
>
> Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped
> considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as
> opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the
> baseline rate.
>
> Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
> children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~
[[ In fact, becca, I gave some information above that you pointedly
ignored. As you said you would. I could accuse you of dodging, but I
have not, only offerred the information and encouraged your commenting
or discussion. Who's dodging here? ]]
Kane
0:->
in fact beccafromlalaland by asking me the following is accurate:
"I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
Dodging?
-- beccafromlalaland "
[[ Sadly it's so chopped with removal of some commentary by becca that
indeed in parts it does appear as though I had asked questions...but she
cut her OWN portions at times...leaving my question dangling as though
it was out of thin air rather than relevant and congruent with the
progression of the discussion. ]]
0:-> wrote:
> beccafromlalaland wrote:
>
>>0:-> Wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
>>>find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
>>>health departments, some schools, private instructors are all
>>>available.
>>>
>>>In fact, you can even find on-line classes.
>>>
>>
>>In my area no one talks about parenting classes until it's too late.
[[ I certainly don't have an answer for that...since I don't know why
that condition exists in her area, and much less so in mine. ]]
>
> Who is responsible for that?
[[ Hence my question above. ]]
>
>>They are not encouraged, they are only available at certain times that
>>make it inconveniant for working parents, no child care is available.
>
>
> Sorry about your area. Have you researched more?
[[ What could I possible answer but concern and a question of my own..to
see if in fact becca had done a thorough search. There are certainly
more options available than "no child are is available." Mother's coops,
for instance are all over the place these days. ]]
>
>>Most low income families that I know do not have a computer, nor do
>>they know how to use the internet, nor do they have time to go to the
>>library to take a class on how to use the internet. So how are they to
>>gain access to parenting classes?
>
>
> I have no idea. How do they find time to watch TV? Bowl? Tavern hang?
>
> Check again with your county health department for available child
> rearing classes.
[[ I answer the question and ask one as well, highly relevant to the
issue.. .I find a great many parents that are on limited incomes do a
lot of couch sitting watching TV, or spending time and money on their
own entertainment, but NOT on improving child rearing skills. Their
choice, of course. I am answering and asking questions....hardly what
could be called "dodging." Unless one speaks Doanese of course. ]]
> By the way, I know many low income families and very few lack a
> computer. They are just so cheap these days. Used are going for $50 to
> a hundred bucks, with software installed, lots of it, including a
> browser. And kids are taught computer use in public schools.
>
> I'm still puzzled though that you think the community has some
> responsibility above and beyond the parents themselves to aquire better
> parenting skills, so they won't feel the need to spank.
>
> Remember, we are talking about making it a law not to spank. That is a
> motivator. Just like traffic laws that require being able to pass a
> driving test. Or a food handler's permit. Or practicing law. It's the
> person's responsibility...not one elses.
>
> No matter how available parenting information might be you cannot force
> people to access it unless you have a law that makes it illegal to
> spank.
>
> Non consentual spanking is assault if performed on an adult. How can it
> logically not be just because it's performed on a child.
[[ I just went on at great lenght to respond directly to becca's
comments and questions. "Dodging?" Where? ]]
>
> Kane
>
>>kane Wrote:
>>
>>>How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were
>>>compelled to?
>>>
>>>The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How would you force people to obey a no-spanking law without first
>>setting up a support network, and educational resources?
>>
>>The classes are not everywhere.
>>
>>kane Wrote:
>>
>>>How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
>>>publicized enough?
>>
>>See above.
[[ Here I asked a perfectly understandable question to a statement that
has been chopped from the thread...why I cannot say, I certainly didn't
remove anything in this thread at any point. becca claimed they families
were not encouraged. I want to know more so I can answer more. ]]
[[ The above is a series of odd juxtapositions of my prior comments, and
becca's responses WITHOUT MY REPONSE..as I made NONE, until just today,
because I had not seen this post. And the out of context cut and pasting
reminds me of someone. ]]
Kane
0:->
> That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom
> from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-)
You post to another with an ad hom at me and warn her to watch for me
using ad hom. Interesting, isn't it.
Her question asking if I was dodging based on my non answers to her
questions and only asking questions myself amounts to a false
accusation. Reading over my posts in this thread and my reponses there
is no such thing going on on my part. It's you that dodge Doan, constantly.
> Doan
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
>
>
>>I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
>>questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
>>
>>Dodging?
I invite either you are "becca" to prove that I "... only responded to
those items that," I " ... could ask more questions...and did not answer
any of my questions."
It's your kind of phony balony, Doan. The usual.
You lost this debate years ago on facts, now you just dribble along.
0:->
>>--
>>beccafromlalaland
beccafromlalaland
Kane,
While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you failed
to answer the second half.
The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.
The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law.
Read the second half of my post.
and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey
on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words
are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes.
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
Thanks, beccafromlalaland! That's very neat. How do I join the board?
Doan
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Kane,
>
> While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you failed
> to answer the second half.
>
> The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
> behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.
>
> The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
> proposed law.
>
> Read the second half of my post.
Your post claiming I failed to respond to these things was posted on
Jan 30th at 7:32 pm
.......................................................................
7. beccafromlalaland
Jan 30, 7:29 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: beccafromlalaland
<beccafromlalaland.22h...@news.parentingbanter.com> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:29:37 +0000
Local: Mon, Jan 30 2006 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask
more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
Dodging?
--
beccafromlalaland
.........................................................
All the responses I made to your question posed to me from you first
post...the one suggesting an exploration of socio economic issues
follow. I'll confine myself to cut and paste from my own posts, leaving
yours out, but respond to precisely what you now claim I did not.
And referring to your current claim of "The one that addressed HOW you
would propose stopping the offending behavior without first TEACHING
people how to stop. The One that asked what Punishment you propose for
violating your proposed law. "
You postulated that classes were available only after the fact and not
available. I responded with:
"Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
health departments, some schools, private instructors are all
available.
In fact, you can even find on-line classes.
How is that NOT answering your question about teaching?
In fact, I answered WHY we cannot get them educated before the fact
BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO COMPELL THEM UNLESS WE BRING SOME
CHARGE AGAINST THEM. And I pointed out that is what family court and
CPS is FOR.
"One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS
intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued
with state legislators over this when one governor or another proposed
"early intervention" with new mothers in geographical areas considered
high risk, or with behaviors considered high risk. They understood
rather easily when I pointed out the BOR to them from the Constitution.
One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
protection statutes. "
I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, did I not?
I know of know legal policy that can get people educated before the
fact.
I do know though that efforts have been made by encorporating such
education into the highschool classroom in some areas. I did not
mention that before, because it IS NOT A MANDATORY class subject. And
it can't be made to be.
Unless you wish to try and convince parents it's more important than
math.
In fact I went on at great length to answer your question in
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/d37ea8d3d6a3da36?hl=en&
4. 0:->
Jan 29, 5:16 pm hide options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: "0:->" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:16:19 -0800
Then in your message #5 that followed you asked me how one could force
them to obey a law they had been provided services to allow them to:
"How would you force people to obey a no-spanking law without first
setting up a support network, and educational resources?
The classes are not everywhere. "
I respond in message #5 as follows:
"Check again with your county health department for available child
rearing classes. "
"I'm still puzzled though that you think the community has some
responsibility above and beyond the parents themselves to aquire better
parenting skills, so they won't feel the need to spank.
Remember, we are talking about making it a law not to spank. That is a
motivator. Just like traffic laws that require being able to pass a
driving test. Or a food handler's permit. Or practicing law. It's the
person's responsibility...not one elses.
No matter how available parenting information might be you cannot force
people to access it unless you have a law that makes it illegal to
spank. "
I even pointed out how to access free computer access, and cheap
computers.
And you followed all my attempts to answer the questions you actually
asked with this insult:
"
7. beccafromlalaland
I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask
more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
Dodging? "
Then in your message, #5 in the thread, you asked:
"Speaking of punishment...what type of punishment do you have in mind
for this law? "
Which I had ALREADY COVERED IN DEPTH in my prior post, #4 in the
series.
Read it again and tell me that I did not answer your question.
It may not be to YOUR satisfaction, but I sure as hell did NOT ignore
your question.
I included only ONE penalty...(and I don't consider it a "punishment"
that they be required to "rehabilitate."
So obviously I did not advocate a punishment. If that is what you
consider not answering your question, think you should read my message
again, or are you playing "Doan" on me now?
Pick a single word and hairsplit down to the point YOU can make a claim
about MY intent or failure that is NOT actually in evidence?
Did you miss where I DID in fact answer that question in the only way
it can be answered, by referrence to current child abuse statutes (and
one would presume their penalties listed) in the states?
"The only legal action would be child
protection statutes."
I did not LIST the penalties because I would have to review all states
to do so.
>
> and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey
> on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words
> are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes.
My own newsreaders and google manage to do the same. I'm not sure what
you are referring to, SINCE YOU DON'T INCLUDED my "actually neatly
Quoted " comments in this post where you are simply referring to them.
In fact the ONLY instance of my comments in this post ARE MY OWN CUT
AND PASTE from prior posts.
You did it again. You accused me of something but left all referrences
to it ABSENT from view.
> --
> beccafromlalaland
And you have NOT, yourself, responded to many of MY questions and
commentary. Why is THAT?
I have answered all of yours.
Kane
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Kane,
>
> While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you failed
> to answer the second half.
>
> The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
> behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.
You do by the way understand how incongruent that question is, don't
you?
I said, by emposing state states on child abuse that exist NOW. I'm not
going to list them all.
> The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
> proposed law.
I answered that and you are now doing what amounts to harrassment. Very
Doanlike harrassment.
>
> Read the second half of my post.
I read it all, and answered it all, and responded in another posted
reply to this same message with more detailed information citations of
prior posts and all.
> and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey
> on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words
> are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes.
That makes no difference how the formatting is done. If it's missing,
it's missing because you left it out.
> --
> beccafromlalaland
Doan is pulling your chain and you are obeying. He must be pleased to
have created a little servant.
0:->
0:->
> That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom
> from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-)
Only to harassment, and lies, unlike you Doan.
Hence, it's not typical, and further that would make it misleading on
your part.
You are lying, in other words.
Why do you lie about me?
So, simply to harass?
You seem to be attempting to woe "becca" rather energetically.
> Doan
0:->
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
>
>
>>I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
>>questions...and did not answer any of my questions.
>>
>>Dodging?
>>
>>
>>--
>>beccafromlalaland
>>
>
>
beccafromlalaland
Kane,
You're right I did edit some of what you wrote. I took out items that
were irrelevant to what I wished to ask you or comment on. For example
the URL you provided for online parenting classes. It was unnecessary
for me to quote the URL, it would have been redundant as I had not
comment on the URL in question.
When I removed my comments that triggered your
comments/questions/rebuttal leaving your comments "lonely and dangling"
I did so that those reading along didn't have to sift through 300lines
of dialogue to catch up to what we are talking about, and I presumed
that you would know/remember what our conversation was about. Perhaps
I presumed wrongly.
As for you quoting the Embry study again...you cannot accuse me of
dodging because I had already stated I would not be baited into a long
drawn out discussion on a teeny tiny report from 25yrs ago.
To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack of
available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federal
government. There is no funding.
My comment "see above" in response to your question "How are they not
encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
publicized enough?" was to save myself time typing out the answer
because i had just answered it above. You have a knack for asking the
same questions several ways trying to get different answers so you can
trip people up with their words.
I split up one very long paragraph of yours so I could comment on
individual portions in the hopes that it would be less confusing. But
I see you were confused by it. Perhaps you should carefully read next
time.
You keep saying that you responded to
"The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.
The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law."
I have read and reread your posts...and you did NOT answer these
questions. If you feel you did, perhaps you can do a little copy and
paste yourself in your next messege and point them out to me.
I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of
your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am
responding to...but I've been wrong before.
--
beccafromlalaland
beccafromlalaland
Doan,
Go to parentingbanner.com in the bluish tool bar at the top should be
a button to click to subscribe or join or something along those lines.
Being able to directly quote people makes things easier.
Although I didn't quote Kane in my prior post because it would have
been more confusing trying to filter through the bs to get to the heart
of what he was trying to say.
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Kane,
>
> You're right I did edit some of what you wrote. I took out items that
> were irrelevant to what I wished to ask you or comment on. For example
> the URL you provided for online parenting classes. It was unnecessary
> for me to quote the URL, it would have been redundant as I had not
> comment on the URL in question.
Your accusation was that I did not respond to your questions.
> When I removed my comments that triggered your
> comments/questions/rebuttal leaving your comments "lonely and dangling"
> I did so that those reading along didn't have to sift through 300lines
> of dialogue to catch up to what we are talking about, and I presumed
> that you would know/remember what our conversation was about. Perhaps
> I presumed wrongly.
I don't have a problem with someone snipping my remarks. I do if they
refer back to them for information or claiming I did or didn't say
something.
> As for you quoting the Embry study again...you cannot accuse me of
> dodging because I had already stated I would not be baited into a long
> drawn out discussion on a teeny tiny report from 25yrs ago.
It is not a teeny tiny report. It's a longitudinal study of
considerable scientific rigorously applied research methods. It
explored, for the first time in all research before, and possibly
since, a direct observation of applied methods of parenting on one
subject. A near perfect field study to my mind.
Each of the 33 subject families were described in depth, each child
also. The simple method of teaching rather than using CP to try and
create a child response by pain aversion was elegant and refined as no
other study had ever attempted.
And the basics of social science research accepted methodology has not
changed all that much in 25 years. Standards and analysis are still
much the same.
You may do what you wish, but making value comments on a study you have
not seen is unacceptable judgement of that study.
> To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack of
> available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federal
> government. There is no funding.
The Federal government is not allowed to withhold funding to one state
while funding another for the various grants and programs. If your
state doesn't have them someone there is not doing the relatively
simple work to apply for them.
Hence, I have no answer to YOUR problem beyond what I already offered,
and why I asked you questions sometimes rather than answer. I did not
have enough information to give a credible answer to you. I do not
believe I asked evasive questions, hence your rhetorical question that
in fact accused me of dodging was uncalled for.
> My comment "see above" in response to your question "How are they not
> encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
> publicized enough?" was to save myself time typing out the answer
> because i had just answered it above. You have a knack for asking the
> same questions several ways trying to get different answers so you can
> trip people up with their words.
That is untrue. You are projecting Doans most common methods on me.
Just as now, and throughout the thread, when you gave me more
information requested I answered your questions more fully and did NOT
use that information to "trip" you "up with" your "words."
If you think so, point it out. If true have have most abject apologies
I only have come back at your with some harshness when YOU appeared to
be playing the "Doan Game" with me. A harassing false insinutation
like, "Dodging?"
> I split up one very long paragraph of yours so I could comment on
> individual portions in the hopes that it would be less confusing. But
> I see you were confused by it. Perhaps you should carefully read next
> time.
Perhaps I should. And that I did when you accused me of "Dodging?" We
both know that was an accusation in a rhetorical form.
Upon reading your prior posts and my responses I found NO instances
where I had failed to answer you as fully as was possible, nor did I
ask any questions that were not calculated to gain more information so
I could give an answer...which I then did IF you tendered the
information asked for.
I did it again in this post, without any attempts to 'trip' you up with
your own words.
> You keep saying that you responded to
>
> "The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
> behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.
>
> The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
> proposed law."
>
> I have read and reread your posts...and you did NOT answer these
> questions. If you feel you did, perhaps you can do a little copy and
> paste yourself in your next messege and point them out to me.
I don't even need to go back. I can tell you from memory, and in a most
recent post to you pointed them out yet again.
To your first question I answered by pointing out that I would put
requirements in the law to provide for services to the accused. I made
that very clear.
To our second question I answered that the charges and penalties should
be taken from state statutes currently used to prosecute child abuse
NOW.
>
> I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of
> your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am
> responding to...but I've been wrong before.
You are simply using harassing language to accuse me of what I have not
done. Why would answering your questions then or now be "butt
cover.....?"
You came back at me accusing me of dodging. I have pointed out to you
my prior posts responding to the specific questions you said I did not
respond to. Is that "butt cover.....," to point those out to you when
you asked me to?
Or did you wish to make an accusation and I NOT respond in defense of
my post's contents?
Let's see it again, shall we?
Here is yesterday's post to you answering all your questions in full,
using citations and links back to my messages, and quoting the exact
words I used back then. And they WERE answers to your two questions
above.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/633f218eb338b2ba?hl=en&
Why are you still denying that I answered you when the proof is right
in front of your eyes?
Here is a requote of my original posted comments to your questions from
my message cited above as to link:
"One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
protection statutes. "
That actually answers both your questions.
One cannot get a parent to be trained if they do not want to...so
obviously, along with the list of sources I know are available
elsewhere (I cannot solve YOUR local problem so don't ask me to and
it's NOT a dodge for me to so state), the answer to your question is
that there must be enforcement.
As to how to force that? That's your second question, what penalty or
punishment would the law apply. "The only legal action would be child
protection statutes." is my answer.
And as I said, I'm not going to list all the states statutes. And that
too is NOT dodging.
If you want an exact answer, as you seemed to for your "lack of
resources in my state," response, and since I do NOT know your state of
residence, then who could I be dodging not to have an answer beyond
what I gave?
> --
> beccafromlalaland
You are looking more and more like you simply wish to pick a fight, and
you are an admirer of Doan and his shoddy sick little tricks.
Why are you stating falsely that I did not answer your questions?
You may not like my answers, but they are answers and fair and as
accurate as they can be under the limitations of your information to me
at each step our our posted exchanges.
When you told me more, I answered more fully.
Kane
beccafromlalaland
Kane,
You have my apologies I clearly misunderstood your responses.
The current statute for child abuse involves the children being taken
away from the parents until said parents complete the required
punishment complete parenting classes and prove that they are stable.
This can take Months to Years to complete depending on the severity of
abuse, and in many cases never happens. During that time children are
placed with a suitable family member, foster or group home.
This is understandable in situations of abuse.
I do not believe spanking "is" abuse. I believe it is a misguided
attempt at discipline, from loving parents who do not have the tools
available to them to use gentle discipline.
If you propose to remove the children from a home, from their loving
parents who do not "know" any other/better way of discipline then you
are NOT only punishing the Parents, you are punishing the Children.
You can say that a law against spanking will provide the incentive to
gain the necessary skills to stop spanking.
That may be true...or people will just find new ways to hide their
behavior.
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Kane,
>
> You have my apologies I clearly misunderstood your responses.
I should work to be more clear. Your criticism is actually helpful in
that way.
This is too important to not be clear.
> The current statute for child abuse involves the children being taken
> away from the parents until said parents complete the required
> punishment complete parenting classes and prove that they are stable.
Actually there are other outcomes in most states. My state and all
those around me do not have a "punishment" penalty. And they do not
take all children away. A fair percentage remain with the parent while
the parent does the various service plan goals.
Some can be as simple as having a "homemaker" come in and work on
programs to housekeep, food buying and prep, child and baby care,
budgeting skill building. And most important, self care.
In 1980-81 when I did my practicum and ended up being hired for a year
part time on a work study program, because of my background, I wound up
supervising homemakers, and participating in parent training. Child
care was provided by the state, on the premises. I used to coordinate
those services and rent, or borrow facilities in folks neighborhood so
they would not have to travel far....and at that they were provided bus
tickets if needed.
> This can take Months to Years to complete depending on the severity of
> abuse, and in many cases never happens. During that time children are
> placed with a suitable family member, foster or group home.
Yes.
> This is understandable in situations of abuse.
Some folks have a very hard time getting through it, but have some
pretty major life problems that negatively impacts their ability to
keep their child safe.
> I do not believe spanking "is" abuse.
We differ on this.
> I believe it is a misguided
> attempt at discipline, from loving parents who do not have the tools
> available to them to use gentle discipline.
We agree on this, to a point. Some folks confuse attachment and
ownership with love.
> If you propose to remove the children from a home, from their loving
> parents who do not "know" any other/better way of discipline then you
> are NOT only punishing the Parents, you are punishing the Children.
I don't. That's only ONE possibly outcome of a child abuse founding.
That happens in cases where there is more damage to the child.
> You can say that a law against spanking will provide the incentive to
> gain the necessary skills to stop spanking.
Yes. I've seen many parents learn to parent better because they were on
a CPS services plan, and in most of those cases I knew about them
because a relative (I used to help relatives with various aspects of
foster and adoption) had the child in their care temporarily.
I got to watch the return of the children to their bio parent too.
> That may be true...or people will just find new ways to hide their
> behavior.
That will always be true. People will always find ways to hide their
crimes.
I'm sure you can see that that does not mean we simply should not have
laws.
You will find that laws against spanking have worked in many other
countries.
And people don't lose their children for 'spanking.' Not there, and not
here. People aren't even reported for spanking. They are reported for
suspected abuse.
My best guess is that when spanking is illegal that won't change in the
least. You'd be surprized how many people that spank also abuse.
Like drug use now....people don't lose their children because of drug
use. They come to the attention of CPS because of the things they do or
fail to do as a result of drug use.
Crime...got to jail...can't care for kids....tweaking...can't care for
kids....crashing...can't care for kids.....etc. etc etc.
The only "drug" crime that will result in children being removed for
THE CRIME, is having children present in a meth lab. Some states have
gone one step further, but I can't fault them on that -- just having a
child in a household where drug SALES are taking place.
> --
> beccafromlalaland
Best wishes. Kane
Doan
Thank you, beccafromlalaland. It looks like it's a moderated group.
Can you tell me who are the moderators? If they are anything like Kane,
I'll pass. ;-)
Doan
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> > That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom
> > from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-)
>
> Only to harassment, and lies, unlike you Doan.
>
An me, ONLY TO YOU and your kinds! ;-)
> Hence, it's not typical, and further that would make it misleading on
> your part.
>
> You are lying, in other words.
>
> Why do you lie about me?
>
> So, simply to harass?
>
I don't, I simply stated the facts. Just ask beccafromlalaland who is
believable, you or me?
> You seem to be attempting to woe "becca" rather energetically.
>
I simple give her the respect that she has given me. I am not trying
to convince her to spank her kids, nor anybody else for that matter.
Funny thing is you can't even "woe" her. Tell her where you teach, or
how much knowledge you have about the Hutterites, or how you are so
much smarter than Dr. Embry (no punishment). ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
........more lying evasive nonsense......
Try posting the truth about your self and I'll get back to you,
spanking compulsive apologist.
You lie.
Doan
LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.
YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.
>
> YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)
About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud.
Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical
analysis of your posting history.
0:->
Why are you shouting?
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.
> >
> > YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)
>
> About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud.
>
LOL! What do you want to know about me? I don't hide behind a pseudonym!
> Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical
> analysis of your posting history.
>
I didn't call anyone a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
> 0:->
>
> Why are you shouting?
Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their
heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.
> > >
> > > YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)
> >
> > About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud.
> >
> LOL! What do you want to know about me? I don't hide behind a pseudonym!
>
> > Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical
> > analysis of your posting history.
> >
> I didn't call anyone a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
We can always count on you to signal clearly when you have exposed your
ass.
R R R R R R to bad child. Others can read and think.
> > 0:->
> >
> > Why are you shouting?
>
> Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their
> heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-)
So tell us this "TRUTH" you are yelling then?
It's like "The Question," isn't it droany? The line is where ever you
spankers say it is. R R R R R R.
What a child you are.
> Doan
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On 7 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.
> > > >
> > > > YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)
> > >
> > > About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud.
> > >
> > LOL! What do you want to know about me? I don't hide behind a pseudonym!
> >
> > > Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical
> > > analysis of your posting history.
> > >
> > I didn't call anyone a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
>
> We can always count on you to signal clearly when you have exposed your
> ass.
>
Yup! When I have to go to the bathroom. It's then that I see you face.
;-)
> R R R R R R to bad child. Others can read and think.
Except the ignoranus kane0!
>
> > > 0:->
> > >
> > > Why are you shouting?
> >
> > Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their
> > heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-)
>
> So tell us this "TRUTH" you are yelling then?
>
Yes. It's the recommended non-cp alternative according to the
anti-spanking zealotS. ;-)
> It's like "The Question," isn't it droany? The line is where ever you
> spankers say it is. R R R R R R.
>
Nope! It's where "reasonable" people say it is. Have you checked Canada?
> What a child you are.
>
What an ignoranus you are.
Doan
0:->
Sure. Show us where it says they have identified the line that cannot
be crossed over.
Be as precise as they were. 0:->
Doan
13 subjects is not teeny tiny? ;-)
> Each of the 33 subject families were described in depth, each child
> also. The simple method of teaching rather than using CP to try and
> create a child response by pain aversion was elegant and refined as no
> other study had ever attempted.
>
LOL! Of course, you know that beccafromlalaland doesn't have the Embry
study yet, right Kane? So you can just spout your BS and she wouldn't
know it, right Kane? Tell her many of those children were spanked and
how many times they were spanked, Kane. Go ahead, Kane! Make my day!
;-)
> And the basics of social science research accepted methodology has not
> changed all that much in 25 years. Standards and analysis are still
> much the same.
>
LOL!
> You may do what you wish, but making value comments on a study you have
> not seen is unacceptable judgement of that study.
>
And that also applies to you! ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball
is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study.
Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove
you do.
You haven't.
Hence your ploys go nowhere.
Let me know when you are ready to answer my questions that prove you
have the study.
Submission of bits and pieces you have picked up from other
people/sources are insufficient.
The only proof will be correct answers to my questions on what is on
which page, or similar.
Your childishness is noted. You are boring.
Kane
Doan
On 8 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On 4 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> .....snip the childish evasive nonsense.........
>
> No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball
> is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study.
>
> Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove
> you do.
>
LOL! Of course you don't dare to debate me. You would rather debate
with someone who don't have the study, like beccafromlalaland. That
way you can LIE without being afraid of getting caught! Watch what
you're saying or you will have to eat your "mistakes"! ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On 4 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > .....snip the childish evasive nonsense.........
> >
> > No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball
> > is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study.
> >
> > Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove
> > you do.
> >
> LOL! Of course you don't dare to debate me.
Where did I say I don't' dare to debate you? I'm responding to YOUR
daring me to debate you. I simply won't until you prove you have the
study I have.
Why did you excise the content?
>You would rather debate
> with someone who don't have the study, like beccafromlalaland.
I don't recall offerring to debate her. I invited her to get the study.
She said you were making her familiar with the study. Aren't you going
to send her the study? 0:->
>That
> way you can LIE without being afraid of getting caught!
Now how could I do that if you have the study? In fact, how could I do
that if she has the study? You won't give it to her?
> Watch what
> you're saying or you will have to eat your "mistakes"! ;-)
Schoolboy childish threats again?
You mean I have to parse each sentence of the smallest possible tiny
flaw or you'll jump on it and scream "LIAR!"?
You are such child. I'll discuss the Embry study with anyone I wish to
Doan. I only promised I wouldn't with you until you had your own
copy....which you have repeatedly failed to prove.
0:->
> Doan
It's not about CP for you Doan. It's about winning little childish
arguments about what "effect" means.
Childish nonsense.
Kane
Doan
Kane,
Do you know how insulting this is? I hope you will wise up and
apologize to beccafromlalaland. It went far beyond harassment!
She is a decent person who is also on the anti-spanking's side.
DON'T BE STUPID!
Doan
Doan
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> Kane
> PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline
> counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the
> program, 0.7 entries per hour.
>
> What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by
> parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more
> such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline.
>
> Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped
> considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as
> opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the
> baseline rate.
>
> Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
> children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~
>
Kane,
Are you claiming that the above statements are TRUE 100%? And that it
is not something you made up as you go along. Here is your chance to
rectify your "mistake", if any. ;-) I am just setting the stage in
case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see
this study for what it is and not Embry according Kane. Go ahead, Kane!
Make my day! ;-)
Doan
0:->
It's not insulting. It in response to her comments about my posting
that were inaccurate. Those where she claimed I had not responded to
her questions, and I had.
Who was insulted?
"Far beyond harrassment?" What would you call it?
She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for
your bs.
I'm not stupid. You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else
that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from
this ng.
> Doan
Stop being a child.
0:->
Doan
beccafromlaland!
> "Far beyond harrassment?" What would you call it?
>
Exactly
> She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for
> your bs.
>
> I'm not stupid. You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else
> that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from
> this ng.
>
You are STUPID!
> > Doan
>
> Stop being a child.
>
STOP BEING AN ASS-HOLE!
Doan
0:->
Exactly what?
> > She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for
> > your bs.
> >
> > >I'm not stupid.
> > You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else
> > that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from
> > this ng.
> >
> You are STUPID!
You are if you think others are fooled by your claims to not having an
agenda other than supporting parents "making up their own mind."
You'd done everything possibly to influence them to make them up to
spank, and defended spanking your entire posting history here, and
argued against non spanking.
> > > Doan
> >
> > Stop being a child.
> >
> STOP BEING AN ASS-HOLE!
Now now. Temper temper, child.
R R R R R
> Doan
Kane
Doan
So, Kane, are you going to answer my question?
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> So, Kane, are you going to answer my question?
When I find out what it is, exactly.
> Doan
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Doan wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Kane
> > > PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline
> > > counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the
> > > program, 0.7 entries per hour.
> > >
> > > What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by
> > > parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more
> > > such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline.
> > >
> > > Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped
> > > considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as
> > > opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the
> > > baseline rate.
> > >
> > > Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
> > > children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~
> > >
> > Kane,
> > Are you claiming that the above statements are TRUE 100%?
Are you going to claim that your statements are always 100% true? Why,
if not, would you hold me to 100%, other than to have some pissyassed
argument with me over the meaning of a single word that isn't relevant
to the entire statement or article, as you did with "effect" when I
made clear the Canadian study was "correlationa?" Rather than accept my
explanation you simple could not longer argue the content and tried to
play weasel with one word.
You are a cowardly unethical immoral lying pissant, actually. And
you've been posting this same way for years.
And that it
> > is not something you made up as you go along. Here is your chance to
> > rectify your "mistake", if any. ;-)
There is nothing to rectify unless I made a mistake in the nature of a
typo or misunstanding.
YOu, when you debate, instead of seeking clarification and better
information, simply want to take a mistake or something you disagree
with and call the other person a liar, liar.
> I am just setting the stage in
> > case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see
> > this study for what it is and not Embry according Kane.
I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one
she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have said
exists in the study.
But you, little lying child who does NOT have they study, or you would
have known that 13 was NOT the size of the sample and participants,
will continue to try and fake it.
When the study comes up you will be exposed for the liar you are. Now
all you have to do is convince becca that there is not reason to get
the study.
> >
> > Go ahead, Kane!
> > Make my day! ;-)
What a child.
I'm sitting here with the study at my left hand. It's been in my files
for years. I've watched you try to weasel about it. Other's on this ng
have a copy of my copy and know you are lying and weaseling and you
still go on pretending.
The fact you would NOT prove you had the report I did by correctly
answering just a few identifying features of the report makes plain
what a thoroughgoing liar and cheat you are.
Shame on you. And shame has come to your family because of this lying
practice of yours.
You are lower than a dog.
> > Doan
I hope they never have to find out what you have done to their good
name.
Kane
Doan
On 8 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> Doan wrote:
> > So, Kane, are you going to answer my question?
>
> When I find out what it is, exactly.
>
"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."
Are you the Embry study said that?
That sounds like you. ;-)
> > I am just setting the stage in
> > > case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see
> > > this study for what it is and not Embry according Kane.
>
> I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one
> she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have said
> exists in the study.
>
That there still that were spanked for entering the streets?
> But you, little lying child who does NOT have they study, or you would
> have known that 13 was NOT the size of the sample and participants,
> will continue to try and fake it.
>
LOL!
> When the study comes up you will be exposed for the liar you are. Now
> all you have to do is convince becca that there is not reason to get
> the study.
>
LOL!
> > >
> > > Go ahead, Kane!
> > > Make my day! ;-)
>
> What a child.
>
> I'm sitting here with the study at my left hand. It's been in my files
> for years. I've watched you try to weasel about it. Other's on this ng
> have a copy of my copy and know you are lying and weaseling and you
> still go on pretending.
>
LOL! Is it in PDF format? Are you imaginary friends still alive?
I am still waiting for beccafromlalaland to sneak it to me. ;-)
Can you send her a copy, please? Otherwise, I have to come up with
another sock, like AFfromdreamland! ;-)
> The fact you would NOT prove you had the report I did by correctly
> answering just a few identifying features of the report makes plain
> what a thoroughgoing liar and cheat you are.
>
Funny how I was able to point beccafromlalaland to where to go to
get this study. You, however, said it can only be gotten from Dr. Embry!
;-)
> S
hame on you. And shame has come to your family because of this lying
> practice of yours.
> You are lower than a dog.
>
You meant like Kane9, Kane8....all the way down to Kane0? ;-)
> > > Doan
>
> I hope they never have to find out what you have done to their good
> name.
>
LOL! At least I am not hiding my name like you? Too ashame of your
real name?
Doan
beccafromlalaland
0:-> Wrote:
>
>
> I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one
> she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have
> said
> exists in the study.
>
>
>
Kane,
Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and
get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have
implied may happen with your above statement.
What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report"
Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of
you.
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Kane,
>
> Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and
> get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have
> implied may happen with your above statement.
>
> What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report"
> Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of
> you.
>
>
> --
> beccafromlalaland
>
You want to see all the stories that Kane had been telling about the
Embry study? Here is the one posted by Kane back in April 1, 2004.
He accused Alina from Mexico as being my sock puppet. Sound familiar? ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services
From: pohakuyakok...@subdimension.com (Kane) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1 Apr 2004 15:38:01 -0800
Local: Thurs, Apr 1 2004 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 04:49:26 -0800, Doan <d...@usc.edu> wrote:
....something that makes one
go.....hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....<thanks Arsenio>
Now why would "Alina" ask ME instead of you? R R R R R R. And since my
addy is a dead end and yours is NOT, why did "Alina" not just send you
an email back channel like the two people that asked me for the
study....since they have my addy.
Really really odd, isn't it?
R R R R R R R R R R R R R......<oh dear.....me oh my>
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>On 30 Mar 2004, Kane wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2004 15:50:07 -0800, Gree...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson)
>> wrote:
>> >Commander McBrag provide the Embry study?
>> >Unlikely. And if he does, he will fill it with
>> >his usual raving commentary.
>> At 80 some pages that would be quite an accomplishment.
>> Can Doan provide us with even ONE page number correctly related to
a
>> question from it? Not so far.
>I can provide a copy of the Embry Study to anyone who wanted it. I
have
>made this offer before and I am still offering it. So far, Gerald
and
>Aline have asked you for it,
Opps! Wait. What could this be? A little typo, or a little slip of
honesty from the unconscious that some folks don't even believe
in....R R R R R
"Aline?" What an interesting name. It rings a bell with me, but for
the life of me I just can't remember where. Something connected to my
old school ties, or maybe when I was really really little and attended
training for a religious rite with the other little kiddies.
Hmmmm.....maybe it'll come back to me if I give
it.....mmmmpphhhhhh......time. R
> why can't you provide it?
Goodness me oh my. Droany seemed to have snipped that portion of my
post where I answered that question.
And I have provided it, twice now. If and when the recipients care to
tell you so they will. Until then, sweat little Droaner. They KNOW I
told the truth...you they may have a bit of doubt about.
The next time you create a sock story do a better job. You might want
to check in with the couch croucher buddy of yours. He knows a number
of puppet masters...not much better than you though.
"Alina" made her or its case for working with a child. Nothing in the
study is useful for that.
If you were honest you would have TOLD "Alina" 'Aline' that. Anyone
with the real 25 year old study would have NOT offered it to someone
trying to make parenting decisions...it's useful for that....the web
page for Paxis is the place to send a "mommy" who's child is
conveniently to young to discuss actual discipline problems.
Everying going on in this thread is becoming more charmingly
convoluted. I do so love puzzles. I've actually made a bit of an
income with solving one particular puzzle game over the years. Wanna
guess which one? Very popular.
Now I happily pointed Alina to the site where the outcomes and tools
used are offered. If Alina wants more support to decide on whether or
not to use the training materials THAT would be the place to ask for
them.
The study is very old, over 25 years, and is a tool for debate at this
time, not for parenting children.
You screwed up yet again.
In fact you screwed up so bad I can hardly stop laughing.
Here's why:
There is an "Aline" associated with USC. Which of course YOU know, and
if that particular Aline were not in the habit....R R R or should I
say, Habit, and a tad younger she MIGHT have noticed your addy and
just trotted over to see you...R R R R R
http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/summer99/alumninews/AP_g...
So when you have a moment ring her up if she's still living, Class of
`42, R R R R R, tell her you used her name for a scam.....and it
didn't work.
Aline Marie Gerber, who is pictured on her Alumni Profile page in
Habit as a nun.
Gosh, why didn't you give your puppet a last name, like maybe, R R R
R, "Doheny?"
Your spanish isn't bad, but I suspect, like all your other drivel, you
had someone translate for you. What a sap.
Good one, Droaner, when you lie you go bigtime don't you. I wonder how
she'd like knowing you used HER name for this sickness of yours.
And....mmmmpphhhhh....R R R R, if you hadn't slipped and used the real
name you cobbled the sock puppet name, "Alina" from, I might never
have caught you....but don't count on it. My research skills are
formidable, as some twits here have found out the hard way.
>Doan
So, shall we wait to see what happens? Why of course we will, because
when Aline, opps, "Alina" says the study has arrived I'll have the
same questions for "Alina" that I had for you.
We'll see if you have the study I have.
I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the
internet. That's a lot of graphics to send.
And please, do try to lie your way out with a "coincidence" argument.
It fits right in there with all the other times you've been caught
lying.
BINGO.......R R R R......BANGO......R R R R R R R
R........B!O!N!G!O!!!!!
Now go stand in front of the mirror and tell youself in a confident,
yelling voice, "I STILL HAVE FACE."
Kane
18. Doan
Apr 1 2004, 9:16 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services
From: Doan <d...@usc.edu> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:16:11 -0800
Local: Thurs, Apr 1 2004 9:16 pm
Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
This gotta be the best April's Fool joke! ;-)
Doan
Doan
Here's more fun with kane:
47. Kane
Apr 4 2004, 5:57 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services
From: pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 4 Apr 2004 06:57:01 -0700
Local: Sun, Apr 4 2004 5:57 am
Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 22:00:29 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
>> On 3 Apr 2004 19:09:50 -0800, al...@et.com.mx (Alina) wrote:
>> >pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message
<news:7ed8d1be.04033...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> On 31 Mar 2004 06:51:35 -0800, al...@et.com.mx (Alina) wrote:
>> >> If you aren't interested in debare, as you seem not to be, but
>> >> interested in the concepts of teaching your child, as you DO
seem
>> to
>> >> be, I'd suggest you check out the following website...it is by
Dr.
>> >> Embry's group.
>> >> http://www.paxtalk.com/ Lots of talk about the concepts.
>> >> You won't run in to Doan there though. Well, maybe not...R R R R
>> >> For an overview of the program:
>> >> http://www.paxis.org/
>> >> Best of luck.
>> >> There's nothing in the study but dry data and discription of the
>> >> methodology. I don't think your 4mo old would respond.
>> >> Kane
>> >Thanks.
>> Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study
though,
>> why not ask Doan. He's much closer to you.
>> USC is not that far from the US-Mexican border. You could, if you
>> leave closeby it, get together with him and that nice nun with the
>> name so like yours, "Aline," over a cup of coffee on campus. She's
in
>> a nice facility. Beautifil old mansion now a library.
>> What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what
you
>> were looking for there? Many other websites have good information
on
>> child rearing without punishment.
>> How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know,
were
>> is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive
>> spanking and abuse?
>> I'd be interested in another non-spanker's opinion.
>> Kane
>LOL! So Alina turned out not to be me afterall.
Really?
I don't recall any evidence of that.
> I am disappointed! :-(
Guess you'll have to be.
>Doan
You will find yourself even moreso as time passes.
I don't debate with people that answer simple questions like The
Question by evasions and with no support - outside of more of the same
- and nonsense evasions.
I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
But any discussion of Embry between you and I is no longer possible.
You are just left with a few more months of keeping up your record of
evasive weaseling and claiming wins you haven't had.
Enjoy your public masterbation spectacle.
Kane
48. Doan
Apr 4 2004, 10:08 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services
From: Doan <do...@usc.edu> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:08:51 -0700
Local: Sun, Apr 4 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
On 4 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 22:00:29 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
> >On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:
> >> On 3 Apr 2004 19:09:50 -0800, al...@et.com.mx (Alina) wrote:
> >> >pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message
<news:7ed8d1be.04033...@posting.google.com>...
> >> >> On 31 Mar 2004 06:51:35 -0800, al...@et.com.mx (Alina) wrote:
> >> >> If you aren't interested in debare, as you seem not to be, but
> >> >> interested in the concepts of teaching your child, as you DO
> seem
> >> to
> >> >> be, I'd suggest you check out the following website...it is by
> Dr.
> >> >> Embry's group.
> >> >> http://www.paxtalk.com/ Lots of talk about the concepts.
> >> >> You won't run in to Doan there though. Well, maybe not...R R R R
> >> >> For an overview of the program:
> >> >> http://www.paxis.org/
> >> >> Best of luck.
> >> >> There's nothing in the study but dry data and discription of the
> >> >> methodology. I don't think your 4mo old would respond.
> >> >> Kane
> >> >Thanks.
> >> Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study
> though,
> >> why not ask Doan. He's much closer to you.
> >> USC is not that far from the US-Mexican border. You could, if you
> >> leave closeby it, get together with him and that nice nun with the
> >> name so like yours, "Aline," over a cup of coffee on campus. She's
> in
> >> a nice facility. Beautifil old mansion now a library.
> >> What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what
> you
> >> were looking for there? Many other websites have good information
> on
> >> child rearing without punishment.
> >> How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know,
> were
> >> is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive
> >> spanking and abuse?
> >> I'd be interested in another non-spanker's opinion.
> >> Kane
> >LOL! So Alina turned out not to be me afterall.
> Really?
YUP!
> I don't recall any evidence of that.
And you have evidence that I am? ;-)
> > I am disappointed! :-(
> Guess you'll have to be.
I am! :-0
> >Doan
> You will find yourself even moreso as time passes.
> I don't debate with people that answer simple questions like The
> Question by evasions and with no support - outside of more of the same
> - and nonsense evasions.
Weasel!
> I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
ALREADY HAVE, STUPID!
> But any discussion of Embry between you and I is no longer possible.
> You are just left with a few more months of keeping up your record of
> evasive weaseling and claiming wins you haven't had.
Run like a dog, Kane2! ;-)
> Enjoy your public masterbation spectacle.
Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! You mom must be proud!
Doan
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
Doan
Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane:
"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."
Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are
available, the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's
world. ;-)
Doan
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
> > Kane,
> >
> > Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and
> > get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have
> > implied may happen with your above statement.
> >
> > What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report"
> > Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of
> > you.
> >
> >
> > --
> > beccafromlalaland
> >
>
> You want to see all the stories that Kane had been telling about the
> Embry study? Here is the one posted by Kane back in April 1, 2004.
> He accused Alina from Mexico as being my sock puppet. Sound familiar? ;-)
Posting history for "Alina" from "Mexico" when I asked "her" why she
hadn't gotten "the study" you claimed you provide, said, "I can't
afford the postage and he wants me to send him a stamped evelope." Come
on Doan. No one is that poor. Not even in Mexico.
Hell, Doan, it even sound like "becca."
4/6/2004 6:59 PM
"I don't want to be rude, but I am not interested in your ongoing
online argument with Doan, or to scam either of you two.
I have, however, asked him for that study. It is ME that is taking
long now, because he has asked that I send an envelope so he can snail
mail it back. Baby is still a little sick so I have not gone out or
done much.
If it helps you in any way, yes, I will let you know when I have it."
4/15/2004 5:06 AM
"Um... no, I have done nothing about it yet :-/
I *will* let you know as soon as anything happens.
Best regards,
Alina."
In checking "Alina's" posting history I find, even with repeats on her
only about fifty post, and only 26 originals. ONE only to a group that
should have been somewhere, given the health issues, she would have
very likely posted many times. Her ONE and only post there appeared to
pick up the thread, as though she was engaged previously in the thread.
Nonsense.
She posted ONE post in Spanish. One. And never showed up in that group
again.
Her last post anywhere was after a great long gap and right about the
time I started pointing out to you AGAIN that you were "Alina."
Interesting coincidence, eh?
"
Alina
Dec 6 2005, 6:30 pm hide options
From: "Alina" <a...@et.com.mx> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:30:28 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 6 2005 6:30 pm
Subject: Would you test your child?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
If your child reaches say, age 2 without showing any signs yet, would
you perfor a genetical test just to make sure ? "
No further commentary from Alina. Just that single post in the thread
"she" created.
Yer a phony Doan. You always have been and always will be.
That you lied and attempted to defraud everyone in the ng and I caught
you at it?
Sure, funny as hell. Write Alina and have her pop into the group.
Have her put me straight on this. And see if she can fingure out why
you would call her "Aline" when there's not the slightest chance of a
typo. "A" is too far from "E" for a slip up and to the right.
Yer just bluffin' yet again. All you ever have done.
Isn't it cute that right after that last response to me about getting
the Embry study from you, nothing further happened?
Why didn't you send it to her. She told me you had not. Why, I even
communicated personally with her by e-mail. 0:->
0:->
> 0:-> Wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one
>>she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have
>>said
>>exists in the study.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Kane,
>
> Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan and
> get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have
> implied may happen with your above statement.
Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.
He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in
the report I have.
>
> What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report"
> Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of
> you.
The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not
published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
publication on this. Is he?
Do you have the one he is pointing you to?
What would the name of it be?
And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
Doan and I, on the Embry report?
Kane
Doan
Still no answer, Kane?
Doan
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Doan wrote:
>
> On 8 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > So, Kane, are you going to answer my question?
> >
> > When I find out what it is, exactly.
> >
> "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
> had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."
>
> Are you sure the Embry study said that?
>
0:->
Doan wrote:
> Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane:
>
> "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
> directly from Dr. Embry."
>
> Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are
> available,
You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:->
Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very
reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the
same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you?
0;->
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane:
> >
> > "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
> > directly from Dr. Embry."
> >
> > Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are
> > available,
>
> You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:->
> Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very
> reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the
> same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you?
>
> 0;->
>
You aren't willing to give her a copy of yours neither. I've offered
to send her a copy but she would rather get her own. I thought you
said it is ONLY available from Dr. Embry. Were you LYING or just
another "MISTAKE"?
Doan
beccafromlalaland
0:-> Wrote:
>
>
> Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
> according
> to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
> same
> report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.
If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.
kane Wrote:
>
> He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information
> in
> the report I have.
Arrogant?
kane Wrote:
>
> The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are
> not
> published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
> notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
> considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
> publication on this. Is he?
From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any
scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small to
be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.
The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic
outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes
and all. So you only have the "report"
kane Wrote:
>
> Do you have the one he is pointing you to?
>
>
> What would the name of it be?
>
> And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
> Doan and I, on the Embry report?
I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been
discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would
request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.
When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one
learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context of
what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.
As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's
not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound
similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean
you are one and the same?
Kane
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
>
> 0:-> Wrote:
> >
> >
> > Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
> > according
> > to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
> > same
> > report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.
>
> If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
> research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
> But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
> difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
> and I have found. It's suspicious.
>
Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no
baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether
their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were
available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can
claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple
logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data
in the study support this claim from Kane:
"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."
Doan
Jeremy James
possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of
view. Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth
Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not
spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below
link is actually just one of several:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a
lot of nonsense. Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia
and 50% National Enquirer.
Don't believe everything you read.
"beccafromlalaland" <beccafromlal...@news.parentingbanter.com>
wrote in message news:beccafromlal...@news.parentingbanter.com...
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> 0:-> Wrote:
> >
> >
> > Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
> > according
> > to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
> > same
> > report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.
>
> If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
> research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done
many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to
child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the
non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had
participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this
one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting
skills they might apply to this study.
In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE
OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
> But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
> difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
> and I have found. It's suspicious.
What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."
(The non-"observed" where NOT excluded from the study.They are as
thoroughly described as part of the sample as the 13 are. In fact the 20
and 13 are described in Table 1 under "Subjects" as: Observed and
Non-Observed Participating Children by Sex, Age, and Special
Characteristics. And their parents, described in Table 2 as
"Occupational Status of Participating Parents" numbered from S1 through
S33....that is why I have consistently used the number 33....but the
author of the abstract did NOT read the entire report and understand
that the two groups WERE in fact participants in the study. The 13 are
used for the active portion of the study, that is their street entry and
multivariate information is used.
What I find significant is that Doan never KNEW there were 33 children
in all. )
>
> kane Wrote:
> >
> > He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information
> > in
> > the report I have.
>
> Arrogant?
Yes, he is that.
You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and
mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I
knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same
subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program
package."
The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
statement SAYS it was meant to examined.
He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be.
> kane Wrote:
> >
> > The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are
> > not
> > published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing,
> > notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and
> > considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional
> > publication on this. Is he?
>
> From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any
> scholarly journals.
Not only did I never claim it was, I expressly pointed out to Doan a
very long time ago that it was not and that that was why one had to get
it from Embry. At that time I was unaware that AAA still would provide
it (they ended printing some years back -- which I already knew) on a
"copy on demand" for 10 cents a page.
Things change. When they do, Doan will claim you lied. Funny little
monkeyboy.
> Probably because the sample size is too small to
> be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results.
It was NOT a survey study to determine "average" results against a
representative larger population. It was an experimental study to
determine the outcomes of applying a packaged parenting program. Nothing
else. Stop Doananating.
A research sample is a research sample. This study was not presented as
anything but what it was. 13 observed children and families. It means
what it means, and sample size is NOT critical because it is NOT being
presented as a "representative sample" study. No larger population is
being considered.
AND, what Doan doesn't know, until now, of course, is that this study
has been replicated and is in good standing with peers.
Closed multivarate studies (which is what is meant by "experiments") are
NOT about projecting the results on a larger population, but simply
experimenting. 13 is a MORE than adequate number to TEST A THEORY.
They would like there to be more study, and application against larger
populations, and they even did some math projections, if their results
could be duplicated in the larger population, that calculated the
projected better outcome for injury and death of children in street
traffic accidents.
In fact, you can test a theory with ONE as a sample, and present it, and
let others in the field go from there. They can chose to ignore your
work, or run their own replication and see what they get.
Doan is doing everything possible to confuse and divert because he knows
damn well what Embry showed.
And similar work has been done in applied psychology for years, some of
which Embry drew upon to cite in his own work -- as research experiment
study reports are must do to for professional credibility.
I have a habit of citing rather a lot myself, or hadn't you noticed.
> The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic
> outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes
> and all. So you only have the "report"
That is what is submitted. If you wish "the study" which would be all
notes, charts, field records of observers, etc. then you would have to
go to, if it were a thesis or dissertation, the dissertation and thesis
stores and buy a copy. Xerox owns them.
This is neither. It was a study done for AAA and is available, according
to them, for .10 cents per page, 140 pages total. Some years back I
could not get it from that source as they simply listed it as "out of
print." Things change.
Doan will continue to criticize this "study" for something it was not
intended to be. His usual bullshit "debate," and you are falling for it.
This was not a survey. It was an experiment. They are very different in
makeup and criteria.
What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though
the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL,
over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by
children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being
used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the
workshop).
That's a lot of lives to be saved, and injuries not happening if the
results will extrapolate. In the report Embry gives some of the criteria
needed in delivery to increase the likelihood of it working in the
larger community.
One consistent thing I found was a direct correlation between reduction
in the rate of street entries to the reduction in parental reprimands.
Less repremands equated with LESS street entries.
And most remarkable, from the DISCUSSION portion of the report, the
following:
"A parent workshop and special storybooks for their children were
effective in reducing children's entries into the street to a rate
approximately 10% of that observed during baseline." ...
and:
"The package (of materials and training) also increased parents' use of
praise and reward for safe play and children's correct identification of
photographs depicting safe play. The program reduced the rate at which
parents reprimanded their chidren for unsafe play. ... In summary, the
package succeeded in altering all the various taget behaviors of
participating children and their parents."
>
> kane Wrote:
> >
> > Do you have the one he is pointing you to?
> >
> >
> > What would the name of it be?
> >
> > And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange,
> > Doan and I, on the Embry report?
>
> I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has been
> discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would
> request that I name it, when we all already know it's title.
No, that would not be odd at all if you found yourself with a prior
study with a different name.
There was a prior study. It was reported by "Report #1. It was not the
same as this study. One might think of this one as the second phase. I
don't know Embry's thinking, but if he had not planned to go on after
the first study, what he found apparently influenced him to go on and
learn more.
But as I said, I don't know that. It's simpy speculation and logical.
It's how I would, and have proceeded. I tend, when I found something
that either confounds my beliefs, or suggests much more to the story
than I currently know, to explore more.
> When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one
> learns about another.
Yep. But I have to ask, "another" what?
> Your statements made no sense in the context of
> what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further.
I am sorry if I was unclear. That's just part of sorting through things
by use of the written word.
I've not claimed you shouldn't or questioned you for doing so, only
remarked that you said you were no longer interested, but apparently
still are. I admire that.
> As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's
> not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound
> similar.
I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I said that something you
said sounded like "Alina/Aline."
I was not pointing out that you sound the same, but that a comment very
specifically did. That has little to do with age and intelligence. How
do you know you and "Alina/Aline" are the same intelligence?
> You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean
> you are one and the same?
What is it you find similar? He's a fetishist trying to get you to
engage for the sake of his sexual arrousal. I prefer engaging you for my
intellectual stimulation. 0:->
I was not suggesting you and Aline/Alina are the same person, but rather
that you have the same influences. One a primary influence, the other
secondary. 0:->
>
> Kane
>
> --
> beccafromlalaland
As for why I asked about the title, and why I've known that Doan did not
have this particular study, I quote from the same section of this one:
"The present study reveals the possibility of making durable, positive
changes in children's pedestrian-accident related behavior near their
home---better effects than obtained previously in a modeling-only
condition (Embry & Malfetti, 1980)."
So you see, THIS study followed closely on the heels of a prior study,
referred to above, and in fact elsewhere in this study report. This
study report was first published by AAA in 1981.
And as for the two populations, "observed" and "unobserved," and their
participation: "Why was their a differential rate of correct responses
to generalization probes among observed and nonobserved children,
favoring nonobserved children?" (this goes to clarify BASELINE observed
and nonobserved, not unobsered in the active portion of the experiment)
The answer in the study had to do with age. The baseline "unobserved"
children were older.
Cognition was different.
In other words, the "unobserved" were not ignored. Just not observed in
some portions.
Do get a copy of the study if you can.
I can tell you that UC Sacramento lists a copy in their library, but
unless you have privs you cannot get it. Doan could, but he is no more
interested in getting this study and honestly dealing with it than
having a broken leg.
It shoots huge holes in one of the darling arguments of the pro spanking
nonsense minded folks posted here for years.
None of them would ever try to find this study.
AAA has had the report for a very long time....1981. It's been
superceded by more research since, but NONE of that negated Embry and
Malfetti's findings. Nothing.
In fact, one day the truth will come out. That parents that reprimand,
and those that in fact use Corporal Punishment show up in the family
profile of child victims of vehicle accidents more.
In other words, they are teaching their child to run into the street.
It's just not popular to say so as yet. Embry in discussing this issue
says in regard to the one family that had a child that did NOT improve,
"Since the family profile resembled that of children who had been
involved in accidents (Backett & Johnsont, 1959), lack of success with
the family is a matter of some concern."
My own take, exactly, having worked with families since the mid-70's.
Spankers and punishers have a higher incidence of "problem" children. Of
course they say it's a "chicken or the egg" question of having to be
harsher with the more 'difficult child.'
Having turned such families around many times I've disproven that to my
own satisfaction repeatedly.
Once again. This was not a survey of the incidence of some phenomena in
a sample population. This was an experiment conducted along the standard
guidelines for such human experiments, apparently conducted with
considerable attention to ethics (as Embry's remarks show) and with an
outcome that it is said was prompted by a turnaround in Embry's own
beliefs prior to his FIRST experimental study....that spanking worked.
Embry apparently thought it did. He learned, as serious scientists so
often do, that the conventional wisdom was anything but wise.
In this study, by the way, observers were trained to track "Punishment"
which right from the page, is define as "grabbing, squeezing hard, and
spanking."
Doan has built a wondeful castle of lies, out of bits and pieces of
information, a bit of deduction, and his own imagination. He misses the
details, which I can read at my leisure from the actual report -- of
the most RECENT of the Embry studies on street entries.
And the abstract that comes with this study report #2?
Mine, the one accompanying the report opens with the line: "Children
enjoy playing outdoors, but playing around traffic leads to pedestrian
accidents." ...
The Doan abstract opens with: "A traffic safety program consisting of a
workshop for parents and the use of special storybooks with their
children was effective in reducing 13 preschool children's entries into
the street to a rate approximately 10% of that previously observed. " ...
Now of the two, I actually prefer the one Doan copied and pasted. It is
much more descriptive overall, and makes very clear he has come into
that dead end he's tried so carefully to avoid....evidence that spanking
and CP does NOT work.
He thinks he's a happy boy because he sees all kinds of ways to continue
to obfuscate, but he's wrong. He's simply taken himself out of the picture.
An EXPERIMENTAL sample of 13 is NOT an insignificant number, nor does it
call into question his reported outcomes. And there were 20 others that
were assessed...and showed also that there was an increased
understanding and response from children concerning safe play around
street traffic.
Altogether, a nightmare for the liars, and or fools that have populated
this ng in favor of and support of (Doan) spanking as a reasonable
choice for parents.
Just as other ways humans have done things for "thousands of years" and
"it worked" this barbaric and outmoded method of child control will come
to an end.
And often America is in the forefront of such changes. The law is coming.
Thanks for your input.
Kane
0:->
You forfeited any right to a response from me some time ago on the Embry
study, Doan.
So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it.
You are now reduced again to simply what you have always been: a dancing
screeching hysterical monkeyboy flapping your arms and dancing around
the sidelines.
Sidelining is all you have ever done.
Enjoy.
0:->
> Doan
0:->
> Very well spoken Becca.
Jeremy, you are here solely to excite yourself sexually. You are a
spanking fetishist.
That presumes that good parenting takes a much removed position compared
to getting and wanking a woodie.
Go away.
If someone is determined to prove a point, it is
> possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of
> view.
Circular reasoning. There are lots of ways to use the Web.
> Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth
> Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not
> spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below
> link is actually just one of several:
>
> http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
It's a put-on, dummyboy. And you are trying to use it to engage someone
in your pet fetish. Conning them into talking about spanking with no
idea you are wanking to their posts. Give it up.
From the page above:
"The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of
the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is
the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside
the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc.
factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore,
we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following,
which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the
dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb,
vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt
Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns,
toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic
ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air
freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel,
pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper
torso or halibut."
> The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a
> lot of nonsense.
Or satire, irony, and just plain silly fun.
> Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia
> and 50% National Enquirer.
Oh, I'd give the National Enquirer a lot high percentage. I suspect
there are a lot more of you than us.
>
> Don't believe everything you read.
That, of course, is patronizing becca like she's an ignorant child. She
is not.
You are just trolling for those that will discuss "spanking" with you.
Give it up, "spanking personals boy."
Kane
Doan
So are you going to answer my question, Kane? Where in this study did
it say anything about spanking?
Doan
Doan
Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL! In other words, Doan caught me LYING again so I will
avoid answering him at all cost! Damn, first he caught me with my
"mistake" on the Hutterites, then my bs on the MacMillan study and now,
my LIES on the Embry study.
Doan
0:->
How would you know one way or the other?
Do you get the feeling that I might have been just a step ahead of you?
R R R R
Doan, like I said. YOU challenged ME. I agreed to debate Embry with you
WHEN you proved you had the same report I did. You refused to
participate at that point, despite many offers to, if you would admit
you lied, send you the report myself. You did't follow through.
You continued to fabricate. Your posting of an abstract shows damn well
you did not have, and still do not have the study.
You haven't sent her a copy. You didn't send "Aline/Alina" a copy, but
cause that was you sock, little boy.
And, just so you can continue to dance, and play with others over the
Embry study, I'll tell you were to get it. UC Sacramento, at Davis of
course, WERE I WENT to School for a time, says they have a listing. A
copy? I do not know.
And, you can get it for 10 cents a page, (140 pages) from AAA. Look it
up. The report I have with appendixes is only about 70+ pages, but I
presume AAA includes the workbook and or other materials.
But your time with me is up. Dance monkeyboy.
> so I will
> avoid answering him at all cost! Damn, first he caught me with my
> "mistake" on the Hutterites,
You didn't "catch me." I posted the correction myself. That's hardly
"catching."
Yer just a common liar, Doan. You used to have a least a little talent
when trying it, but you long ago reverted to monkeyboy behavior.
> then my bs on the MacMillan study and now,
There was no BS on the Canadian study. Just exchanges and
clarifications.
> my LIES on the Embry study.
What "LIES?"
You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the Embry
study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get
away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self,
Doan.
You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've
done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie.
How do YOU know where I got that statement about spanking and increased
running into the street? You don't. So you do not know if it's true or
not.
> Doan
Dance little monkeyboy. Aline wants a waltz.
Doan
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
> from the report:
> "METHOD
> Subjects
> Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
> observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
> children and their parents participated in the program but where not
> observed."
>
"Participating families were divided into observed and non-observed
subjects on the basis of one of two factors: (a) the family had
participated in the Practical Parenting Class offered at the University,
or (b) initial baseline observations revealed a zero or near-zero rate of
entry into the street."
"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."
Doan
Doan
> What "LIES?"
>
Where shall I begin? ;-)
LIE #1:
"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."
LIE #2:
No punishment and reward.
(p.19) "Parents received a handout on using sticker charts and Sit and
Watch (a punishment procedure also known at Time Out)."
You want more? Just ask! ;-)
> You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've
> done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie.
>
> How do YOU know where I got that statement about spanking and increased
> running into the street? You don't. So you do not know if it's true or
> not.
>
LOL! I know for SURE that it is not in this study. That is why I asked
and that is why you have done everthing to evade.
Doan
0:->
"You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the
Embry
study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get
away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self,
Doan."
You ran out of time, Doan. Long ago.
Dance Monkeyboy.
> Doan
Maybe next time you'll deal honestly with me, but I doubt it.
Game, set, bingo.
0:->
0:->
> On 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>
>>What "LIES?"
>>
>
> Where shall I begin? ;-)
>
> LIE #1:
> "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
> directly from Dr. Embry."
At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
YOU are lying.
> LIE #2:
> No punishment and reward.
Where did I say that? I sure didn't say there was no "reward."
I said I disagreed with Embry's characterization of the Time out
procedure as "punishment." I could hardly call it punishment if I did
not think it to BE punishment.
And that's because in the report the description in more detail of the
Sit and Watch procedure was anything but a punishment. In fact, it was
"rehearsed" with the child so it would not be seen as such by the child.
> (p.19) "Parents received a handout on using sticker charts and Sit and
> Watch (a punishment procedure also known at Time Out)."
>
> You want more? Just ask! ;-)
I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"
>
>>You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've
>>done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie.
>>
>>How do YOU know where I got that statement about spanking and increased
>>running into the street? You don't. So you do not know if it's true or
>>not.
>>
>
> LOL! I know for SURE that it is not in this study. That is why I asked
> and that is why you have done everthing to evade.
>
> Doan
>
You've lied again, twice. Provide a citation for were I said there was
no "punishment and reward."
And you are concealing, by focusing on these irrelevant to the findings,
bits and pieces, the meat of the experiment.
By the way, when did a 13 sample size (actually comprising almost twice
that many participants...if you count ALL, the children AND their
parents) get to be irrelevant in an experiment?
This wasn't a representative sample. It was an experimental sample.
And it's been replicated. 0:-> Successfully.
You don't want to reveal what they found do you? Not until you have
gotten a chance to influence, like any good little propagandist,
everyone's understanding.
Your phony bullshit is piling up around you, Doan.
Dance monkeyboy.
0:->
Doan
LOL! So you will only debate the Embry study with someone who haven't
read it yet, like beccafromlalaland?
BTW, can you send her a copy of this precious study so she can sneak it
to me? ;-)
Doan
Doan
>
> beccafromlalaland wrote:
> > 0:-> Wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
> > > according
> > > to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
> > > same
> > > report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.
> >
> > If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
> > research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
>
> Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done
> many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to
> child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the
> non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had
> participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this
> one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting
> skills they might apply to this study.
>
> In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE
> OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
>
Why are you shouting? ;-)
Do you always made things up as you go along, Kane? Actually, the
"prior" study they talked about is the 1980 study titled:
"Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School,
Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, Field Testing Version". James L.
Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia
University.
With your "formidable research skills", you should have known that, Kane!
;-) And you should have known that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT! Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane? ;-)
Doan
Doan
>
> Yes, he is that.
>
> You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and
> mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I
> knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same
> subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program
> package."
>
1980:
Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School,
Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, Field Testing Version. James L.
Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia
University.
1981:
Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parenting
Training & Symbolic Modeling for Children; An Experimental Analysis in
the Natural Environment. Dennis Embry, University of Kansas, James L.
Malfetti, Columbia University.
1982:
Safe Playing-Final Report on Field Test. Dennis Embry, James L. Malfetti,
Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia University
Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane?
> The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
> famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
> there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
> demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
> statement SAYS it was meant to examined.
>
Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-)
> He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be.
>
Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane. Why the adhom when I have so
NICE to you? Is it your mom again? ;-)
Doan
0:->
From what do you draw that conclusion?
> BTW, can you send her a copy of this precious study so she can sneak it
> to me? ;-)
Nope.
You finally have access to a copy, apparently. Up until now you've lied.
Nothing new.
And you are still lying by misleading...trying desperately to lead
people AWAY from any interest in this remarkable study that shots a huge
hole through the "spanking them to save their lives" bullshit you have
defended in this ng.
0:->
>
> Doan
>
Born liar?
Darned if I can be sure, but you sure do work at it.
0:->
you'll respond to.
Or did you miss this one from me:
............................................
Doan wrote:
Dance monkeyboy.
0:->
0:->
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> > Arrogant?
>>
>>Yes, he is that.
>>
>>You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and
>>mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I
>>knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same
>>subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program
>>package."
>>
>
> LOL! Actually, there were THREE, Kane.
Irrelevant.
> 1980:
> Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School,
> Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, Field Testing Version. James L.
> Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia
> University.
>
> 1981:
> Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parenting
> Training & Symbolic Modeling for Children; An Experimental Analysis in
> the Natural Environment. Dennis Embry, University of Kansas, James L.
> Malfetti, Columbia University.
>
> 1982:
> Safe Playing-Final Report on Field Test. Dennis Embry, James L. Malfetti,
> Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia University
>
> Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane?
So, during the time you didn't post that there were three, you were lying?
>>The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
>>famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
>>there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
>>demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
>>statement SAYS it was meant to examined.
>>
>
> Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-)
Nope. I did not list any other study than the one I was interested in,
Doan. That's hardly making things up.
>
>>He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be.
>>
>
> Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane.
You? Gee I hope not. You are so good at that yourself.
> Why the adhom when I have so
> NICE to you?
Your claim lacks any proofs.
> Is it your mom again? ;-)
Couldn't be.
>
> Doan
>
And the ad hom was accurate: Doan is an "arrogant bullshitter. Always
has been, always will be."
0:->
0:->
You sure spend a lot of time on your employer's computer, just lying.
0:->
tdo...@gmail.com
>
>Irrelevant.
So the TRUTH is irrelevant to you? ;-)
>> Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane?
>
>So, during the time you didn't post that there were three, you were lying?
Only if I said there were two. I didn't, you did; thus you are the
LIAR! ;-)
>>>The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
>>>famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
>>t>here, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
>>>demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
>>>statement SAYS it was meant to examined.
>
>> Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-)
>
>Nope. I did not list any other study than the one I was interested in,
>Doan. That's hardly making things up.
So saying TWO when there were THREE is not making things up???
>>>He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be.
>
>> Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane.
>
>You? Gee I hope not. You are so good at that yourself.
>
> > Why the adhom when I have so NICE to you?
>
>Your claim lacks any proofs.
LOL!
>> Is it your mom again? ;-)
>
>Couldn't be.
So your mom didn't approve? ;-)
Doan
tdo...@gmail.com
>
>You sure spend a lot of time on your employer's computer, just lying.
LOL! But who will then point out your "MISTAKES"?
Doan
tdo...@gmail.com
Doan
Doan
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
> on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
> challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"
>
Really? Here is the actual quotes:
Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
play.
Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.
This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "
Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)
Doan
0:->
Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
all our argument on this issue. Why is that?
Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?
Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
"punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
which of course you are avoiding.
0:->
No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.
Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
larger discussion.
In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.
> Doan
0:->
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
> > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
> > > challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"
> > >
> >
> > Really? Here is the actual quotes:
> >
> > Doan:
> > He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
> > safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
> > play.
> >
> > Kane:
> > "Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
> > other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
> > actually works and the power of learning through modeling.
> >
> > This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "
> >
> > Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)
>
> Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
> all our argument on this issue. Why is that?
>
Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
did no such thing." don't you understand?
> Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
> Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?
>
> Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
> safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
> "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
> which of course you are avoiding.
>
Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"!
You are a proven LIAR! ;-)
> 0:->
>
> No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
> out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.
>
In which context is "he did no such thing."?
> Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
> larger discussion.
>
> In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
> as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.
>
LOL!
Doan
0:->
> On 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
> > > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
> > > > challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? Here is the actual quotes:
> > >
> > > Doan:
> > > He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
> > > safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
> > > play.
> > >
> > > Kane:
> > > "Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
> > > other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
> > > actually works and the power of learning through modeling.
> > >
> > > This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "
> > >
> > > Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)
> >
> > Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
> > all our argument on this issue. Why is that?
> >
> Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
> did no such thing." don't you understand?
Which part do you not understand in the context of what I said next? Is
that how to win an argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and
clarification?
It's cleary how you dodge the issues.
You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out,
for unsafe play."
I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of
who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the
same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I
said "Actually he did no such thing."
In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit
and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play.
That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was
NOT punishment in my book.
Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive
lying.
How delusional are you?
> > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
> > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?
> >
> > Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
> > safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
> > "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
> > which of course you are avoiding.
> >
> Because Embry said so!
I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again.
> And you said "he did no such thing"!
> You are a proven LIAR! ;-)
No, I did NOT say he said no such thing.
I said that he 'did' no such thing. "Sit and Watch," as I explained
later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind
'punishment.'
In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable
lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he
has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.'
If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is
defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is
NOT coded as "punishment."
That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and
Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment.
How much longer are you going to lie about this?
> > 0:->
> >
> > No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
> > out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.
> >
> In which context is "he did no such thing."?
The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged
it.
I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider
Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months
ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did.
I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly
state, and obviously so, by my standards.
If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as
thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him?
The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:->
And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before
actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to
it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely.
Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely.
By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that
might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards.
I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study
the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases.
Then when you've given becca a copy, <smirk> try to convince here. I
don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I
gave away. Did you?
> > Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
> > larger discussion.
> >
> > In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
> > as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.
> >
> LOL!
Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense lies?
Why do you think I call you "monkeyboy?" You jibber and screech, but
you don't actually say much.
> Doan
Kane
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
> > > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
> > > > challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? Here is the actual quotes:
> > >
> > > Doan:
> > > He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for
> > > safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe
> > > play.
> > >
> > > Kane:
> > > "Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
> > > other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
> > > actually works and the power of learning through modeling.
> > >
> > > This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "
> > >
> > > Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)
> >
> > Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
> > all our argument on this issue. Why is that?
> >
> Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
> did no such thing." don't you understand?
Which part to you not understandin the context of what I said next? Is
that how to win and argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and
clarification?
It's cleary how you dodge the issues.
You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out,
for unsafe play."
I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of
who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the
same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I
said "Actually he did no such thing."
That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was
NOT punishment in my book.
Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive
lying.
> > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
> > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?
> >
> > Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
> > safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
> > "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
> > which of course you are avoiding.
> >
> Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"!
> You are a proven LIAR! ;-)
No, I did NOT say he said no such thing. I said that he 'did' no such
thing. Sit and Watch, as I explained later and you keep hiding our
conversation on it, is not to my mind 'punishment.' IN the study
methods describe by HIM he in fact goes to considerable lengths to not
only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he has his observers
post it differently than 'punishment.'
If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is
defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank."
How much longer are you going to lie about this?
> > 0:->
> >
> > No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
> > out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.
> >
> In which context is "he did no such thing."?
The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged
it. I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not
consider Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it we have established
months ago I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I
did.
I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. Obviously by
my standards. And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children
before using to reduce the likelihood of "punishment" reaction. It was
a time to sit and observe others playing safely.
By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that
might appear as punishment, but not to mine. I would not even allow the
child to presume it was punishment. Study the study monkeyboy. Try to
get out of your biases.
> > Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
> > larger discussion.
> >
> > In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
> > as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.
> >
> LOL!
Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense?
> Doan
Kane
Doan
Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> It's cleary how you dodge the issues.
>
> You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out,
> for unsafe play."
>
And you said: "he did no such thing."
> I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of
> who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the
> same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I
> said "Actually he did no such thing."
>
So you disagree with him so you claimed "he did no such thing."???
You are speaking for Dr. Embry?
> In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit
> and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play.
>
And Dr. Embry called that procedure PUNISHMENT!
> That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was
> NOT punishment in my book.
>
So you said "he did no such thing"??? What is this "thing" that he did
not do?
> Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive
> lying.
> How delusional are you?
>
Actually that perfectly would describe you! ;-)
> > > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
> > > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?
> > >
> > > Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
> > > safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
> > > "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
> > > which of course you are avoiding.
> > >
> > Because Embry said so!
>
> I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again.
>
Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
> > And you said "he did no such thing"!
> > You are a proven LIAR! ;-)
>
> No, I did NOT say he said no such thing.
>
> I said that he 'did' no such thing. "Sit and Watch," as I explained
> later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind
> 'punishment.'
>
So what is it in Dr. Embry's mind? He did or he did not?
> In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable
> lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he
> has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.'
>
But he called it PUNISHMENT did he not?
> If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is
> defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is
> NOT coded as "punishment."
>
So how many children were "grab, squeeze hard, and spanked"?
> That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and
> Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment.
>
So "he did no such thing"??? ;-)
> How much longer are you going to lie about this?
>
You should ask yourself that!
> > > 0:->
> > >
> > > No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
> > > out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.
> > >
> > In which context is "he did no such thing."?
>
> The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged
> it.
>
So what is this "thing" that he did not do?
> I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider
> Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months
> ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did.
>
> I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly
> state, and obviously so, by my standards.
>
He didn't do what?
> If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as
> thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him?
>
Because you said he didn't DO it. He did, just like I said: "prescribed
punishment, using time-out for unsafe play."
Did he not do that?
> The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:->
>
The reason is it YOU that wish not to debate because you LIED!
> And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before
> actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to
> it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely.
>
And he called it PUNISHMENT!
> Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely.
>
> By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that
> might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards.
>
What did Dr. Embry call it?
> I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study
> the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases.
>
You are not the one conducting the study, Dr. Embry was. The study
said PUNISHMENT did it not?
> Then when you've given becca a copy, <smirk> try to convince here. I
> don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I
> gave away. Did you?
>
How could I, I have to get one from my sock puppet first. ;-)
How about Annafromdreamland? ;-0
Doan
Doan
> You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts
> you'll respond to.
>
> Or did you miss this one from me:
> ............................................
>
> Doan wrote:
>
> > On 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> What "LIES?"
> >>
> >
> > Where shall I begin? ;-)
> >
> > LIE #1:
> > "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
> > directly from Dr. Embry."
>
>
> At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
> available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
> copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
> YOU are lying.
>
LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan?
I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-)
Doan
0:->
You never have before, and you haven't now.
What inter library loan?
One avaiable to the general public?
Please clarify.
By the way, have you any research available on the efficacy of
CP/Spanking as an effective long term teaching strategy for parents?
We've been waiting years, and nothing?
And yes, there is plenty of material, one of which you have now,
finally (liar), about none CP methods being more effective.
And no, we won't provide it in some format you insist it much be in.
When YOU provide real research on spanking's effectiveness your demands
will be easily met. Because, Doan, there is no such thing, nor will
there ever be. All use of pain and humiliation has been proven to be
ineffective with other variables being MORE important overall to the
responses of the subjects studied. Even Singapore is a case in point.
What "works" there does not in other places.
Spanking has been thoroughly discredited scientificially. You know it,
I know it, and the majority of those that have posted in this ng in the
past, knows it as well.
That's why, you sad, silly, anachronistic holdout, they are gone and
you have nothing left but harrassment.
Rather childish harassment at that.
All YOU can do now is harass people that come here wishing to
rationally discuss current research. You've tried it again twice with
current posts attempting to do just that.
Do you know where the saying, "the bitter end" comes from?
You, child, are at the end of your rope. The bitter end.
Sorry 'bout that. 0;->
> Doan
Kane
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts
> > > you'll respond to.
> > >
> > > Or did you miss this one from me:
> > > ............................................
> > >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 10 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> What "LIES?"
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Where shall I begin? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > LIE #1:
> > > > "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
> > > > directly from Dr. Embry."
> > >
> > >
> > > At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
> > > available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
> > > copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
> > > YOU are lying.
> > >
> > LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan?
> > I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-)
>
> You never have before, and you haven't now.
>
> What inter library loan?
>
> One avaiable to the general public?
>
Yes. Just go to any public library and ask. Are you saying that you were
so stupid as to not know that? ;-)
BTW, when was the AAA Foundation list these copies as "out of print"? I
just checked with them and they said it has always been available. Can
it be that you were "mistaken"? ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan
Heh! Kane spoke the truth for a change. ;-)
Doan
On 11 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> .
>
>
0:->
beccafromlalaland
Kane,
Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that
in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. In case
you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making
her own decisions. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly,
just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. I am
building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and
what I am reading on my own.
I have one question for you...well maybe two.
You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something
to that effect.
In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.
0:-> Wrote:
>
>
> What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even
> though
> the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was
> STILL,
> over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by
> children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being
> used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to
> the
> workshop).
>
>
Now for my second question :-)
If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course
of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this
experiment proved anything? Young Children mature and learn a LOT in
6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and
gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll
probably end up road kill. The fact that they parents were not
consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as
accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size)
For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group,
Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna
see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Kane,
>
> Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that
> in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him.
Some of your responses have influenced my opinion.
> In case
> you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making
> her own decisions.
Yes.
> I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly,
> just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly.
Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division?
> I am
> building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and
> what I am reading on my own.
Okay. It did not appear as though you were before.
> I have one question for you...well maybe two.
>
> You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something
> to that effect.
That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments
have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but
significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in
a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that
power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things?
No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and
ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful
example and a valid experiment.
http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-1.htm
The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad'
(guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were
involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty
small sample, even by Embry's standards.
Yet it stands as a benchmark for how corruptable we humans can be in
situations were we weild such extraordinary power.
I in fact, used to use it in parenting classes to point out how very
easy it is abuse children and presume it's perfectly right to do so. We
simply have so very much power.
So, 13 mights seem small to you, but it's not in reality.
> In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
> an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
> accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
> still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
> putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
> feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.
Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many
years.
I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for
validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to
with terms such as "true."
Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more
trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted
studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either
side.
>
> 0:-> Wrote:
> >
> >
> > What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even
> > though
> > the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was
> > STILL,
> > over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by
> > children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being
> > used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to
> > the
> > workshop).
> >
> >
>
>
> Now for my second question :-)
>
> If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course
> of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this
> experiment proved anything?
By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in
anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not
totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible
criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed
to be consistent in their actions.
The best that can be done is to gather a generalized group wish similar
characteristics that matter. Age of child subjects in this case.
> Young Children mature and learn a LOT in
> 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and
> gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll
> probably end up road kill.
Yes, that is true.
And, the sample would all age at the same rate.
And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product
against other children how did not and the outcomes would be
significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?
What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat
consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a
reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did
not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly
apply the program.
> The fact that they parents were not
> consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as
> accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size)
Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers
did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain
consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects.
That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from
Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him?
I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical
doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid
because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments
(and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational
survey).
The problem of course, besides the unethical demand for one kind of
research to be conducted by the rules of another that did not and
cannot apply to both kinds, was that the good doctor insisted that it
be a 'destructive' experiment.
In other words, saying we cannot learn if children turn out badly from
spanking must require that children be taken at birth, raised in exact
replicated invironments, and spanked or not on certain determined
schedules and methods. I presume at the end point they'd have to be
autopsied to measure brain weight, and characteristics.
Totally bogus demands on social science survey and experimental
studies.
In fact, that's what blew out the Standford Prisoner experiment. It was
destructive of the subjects.
Embry did a remarkable job. And he didn't have 13 subject. He had 13
FAMILIES, about twice the number of actual participants.
Both child and parents outcomes were considered. Not just the number of
street entries, but how parents handled children in parenting matters.
> For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group,
> Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna
> see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.
Oh brother.
You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic?
Yes, there WAS such a control group. It's called the number of
fatalities of toddler's in street entry accidents.
They did in fact come back in 6 months, after "we're gonna do this" and
they did count the number of attempted or actual street entries.
Were do you think the currently 10% of the prior to the program number
of street entries
came from?
I think you need the study. Are you having trouble finding it? It's
fairly cheep from AAA if you want it, or you can use the inter-library
system at your local library. We'll assume they have access to college
and university library materials.
If you have trouble getting it let me know. Or better, Doan. He seems
to think it's now easy to get. 0:->
Or do you wish to discuss it with only information coming from me?
I might make a mistake, after all, or according to Doan, lie.
You wouldn't want that, now would you?
> --
> beccafromlalaland
Kane
Doan
The question you have been avoiding, Kane, is where in the study can you
find data to back up your claim:
"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."
IS THIS ANOTHER "MISTAKE"? In fact the actual study said NOTHING about
spanking but reprimand. Here is the quotes:
"While some may find it strange that reprimands might increase the chances
of a child going into the street, the literature on the experimental
analysis of behavior is replete with examples of how "attention to
inappropriate behavior" increases the chances of more inappropriate
behavior. Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely to have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."
Here is another chance for you to rectify your "mistake", Kane. Do the
honorable thing and apologize! ;-)
Doan
Doan
What? You are not my sock puppet? How else can I get my hand on this
precious study, the one that can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself?
;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
> In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
> an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
> accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
> still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
> putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
> feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.
>
What I found telling was this:
"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."
It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he
wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for
running into the street!
Doan
0:->
The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy.
Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those
children were, many of them, products of families that had done a
previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing
the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone
else.
Learn to read. Learn to think.
However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you
managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge.
Good for you.
There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children
were picked.
Start your fucking harassing again, and you get ..
It's called, diddly squat.
>
> Doan
Kane
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
> >
> > > In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
> > > an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
> > > accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
> > > still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
> > > putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
> > > feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.
> > >
> > What I found telling was this:
> >
> > "Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
> > were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
> > experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
> > result of participation."
> >
> > It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he
> > wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for
> > running into the street!
>
> The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy.
>
LOL! Are you sure?
> Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those
> children were, many of them, products of families that had done a
> previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing
> the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone
> else.
>
Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show
you:
Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and
1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10%
(13/130).
Are you with me so far?
Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3 after.
The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced
to 14%!
> Learn to read. Learn to think.
>
I hope you take your own advice! ;-)
> However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you
> managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge.
>
And instead of lying, you show your stupidity again! ;-)
> Good for you.
>
Not good for your mom! ;-)
> There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children
> were picked.
>
> Start your fucking harassing again, and you get ..
>
Oops! Resorting to adhom again, ignoranus kane0? Tell me that it makes
your mom proud. ;-)
> It's called, diddly squat.
>
Just like the size of your brain? ;-)
Doan
beccafromlalaland
0:-> Wrote:
>
> Some of your responses have influenced my opinion.
>
even so, I would appreciate you treating me as an individual.
0:-> Wrote:
>
>
> Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division?
>
Simple pie division of course (can you see the sarcasm dripping?)
0:-> Wrote:
>
> That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments
> have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but
> significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in
> a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that
> power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things?
I have not heard or read about this experiment.
0:-> Wrote:
>
> No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and
> ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful
> example and a valid experiment.
> The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad'
> (guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects
> were
> involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty
> small sample, even by Embry's standards.
and I would question it's validity, of couse "some" people in
positions of power without checks and balances would abuse the power
given them...but certainly not all. I'll read the webpage you supplied
and comment further at a later time.
0:-> Wrote:
>
>
> Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many
> years.
> I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials
> for
> validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to
> with terms such as "true."
I come from a background of perhaps more scientific research. Give me
anything on Human communication, or Radio and Television broadcasting.
Even Adversiting and Public Relations. and I know what you're talking
about and what is expected in research. I don't think I said that 50
or more is required (although I may be mistaken, can't remember what I
wrote) but having 50 or more trials or subjects makes the outcome of
the work more....plausable (that may not be the word I want to use, I
have a baby on my lap so I'm not fully engaged at the moment) And
you're right the word True isn't an appropriate word. I think the word
is PROVE in order to Prove the hypothesis you must have a base from
which to build your research. A broad base (more subjects, or more
trials) builds a strong foundation to build from there.
0:-> Wrote:
>
> Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more
> trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted
> studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either
> side.
I do not have a reference for that. Unless you want to talk to one of
my college Proffs :-)
0:-> Wrote:
>
> By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in
> anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not
> totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible
> criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or
> guaranteed
> to be consistent in their actions.
and that is precisly why a larger pool of participants is needed.
Because you can't count on Human's being consitant. With a larger
group of participants you can weed out those who followed the protocol
exactly, somewhat, mostly, or not at all. It gives a better Idea of
what works what doesn't. And makes the research results stronger.
Having a larger participation base would help support the evidence
found in this study.
0:-> Wrote:
>
> Yes, that is true.
>
> And, the sample would all age at the same rate. they would all age at the same or near the same rate but they would not
mature at the same rate nor have the same level of awareness. And I
think you're forgetting a very important peice of the puzzle. Not all
of the protocal would work for each family, there has to be room for
error. There is little room for that in a small sample size. That is
why MORE participants is needed
0:-> Wrote:
>
> And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product
> against other children how did not and the outcomes would be
> significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?[
sorry I did not follow this portion
[QUOTE=0:->
What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat
consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a
reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did
not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly
apply the program.
well that's good at least. But again not everything in the protocal
would work for all children or families. A larger sample size would be
imperitive to "truly" see accurate numbers. For this group...Yippe, but
that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results.
If you are going to use this study as a jumping off point to "no
spanking" you have to fill in the blanks...unfortunatly I don't feel
this does a good job of giving a peek at the "big picture"
0:-> Wrote:
Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers
did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain
consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects.
Of course that's not possible in such a small sample size. But in a
LARGER base group the % of error could be reduced greatly.
0:-> Wrote:
That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from
Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him?
I'm sorry you don't like answering my honest questions.
0:-> Wrote:
I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical
doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid
because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health
experiments
(and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational
survey).
perhaps it was a mistake, you seem to make quite a few of them.
0:-> Wrote:
Oh brother.
You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic?
If you could see the big eye roll that i did when I read that...NO I
dont' mean allowing toddler to go into traffic. I mean a group that was
observed without using the protocal. A Control group is a group just
allowed to continue on their merry way. In this such experiment that
would allow the researcher to see if the number of street entries reduced
acourding to the age of the subject. As I suggested earlier We don't know
if the protocal really worked or if the kids became more aware of the
possibility of being flattened like a pancake.
I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a
copy...why don't you send me yours LOL!
I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my
Alma Mater.
--
beccafromlalaland
0:->
Opps! There went your example purity. Why those particular figures?
What an idiot.
> The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
> avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced
> to 14%!
So, you stand prepared to support the idea of contaminated samples.
You are so easy to bait it brings tears to my eyes.
You seemed completely in love with contamination by removal when a
certain female researcher stripped away the more severe spankers in her
"study."
Baumrind was a laughing stock among attendees at that conference, Doan,
just as you are here. Imagine. One is doing a study on how children
react, antisocially, to being spanked and REMOVE the group that would
in fact show that it's true they react more antisocially.
But YOU want this particular sample contaminated in YOUR favor.
You are without honor. But then we knew that all along.
The object dummy, was to run and experiment on people that had NO prior
knowledge of the methods in the training package. And NO skills of that
particular kind.
It wasn't a survey to see how many HAD certain skills or not, but to
test if those skills could be taught and applied.
You've got rotten tofu for brains.
> > Learn to read. Learn to think.
> >
> I hope you take your own advice! ;-)
Mmmmhhhmmmm...yep. I read your posts and watch you stupidly fall into
traps of your own making.
YOU JUST SUPPORTED CONTAMINATED SAMPLES. And I even TOLD YOU why they
could not use those children. But away you go with your bogus
manipulated formula.
Same old shit.
> > However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you
> > managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge.
> >
> And instead of lying, you show your stupidity again! ;-)
R R R R....oh sure Doan. R R R ..goodun'
> > Good for you.
> >
> Not good for your mom! ;-)
> > There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children
> > were picked.
> >
> > Start your fucking harassing again, and you get ..
> >
> Oops! Resorting to adhom again, ignoranus kane0?
tit for tat. My mom taught me to give as good or better than I got.
Like the echo effect?
> Tell me that it makes
> your mom proud. ;-)
Can't. Have no idea.
If you lose either of your parents ask me, and I'll avoid mentioning
them to harass you.
Deal?
> > It's called, diddly squat.
> >
> Just like the size of your brain? ;-)
Yeah, like you caught on in time to cut off your support of
contaminated samples.
>
> Doan
Doan the Brilliant.
0:->
Doan
And have you sneak a copy of this precious study to me? ;-)
Doan
beccafromlalaland
Doan Wrote:
> Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show
> you:
>
> Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and
> 1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10%
> (13/130).
>
> Are you with me so far?
>
> Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3
> after.
> The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
> avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only
> reduced
> to 14%!
>
Hey look at that...Doan proved something. :-) Good for you :-)
Now Kane...I know not all of us are number people (I can barely balance
my checkbook) but surely you could have figured this one out.
--
beccafromlalaland