Murray Straus, founder of the University of New Hampshire Family Research Lab
0:->
This page has been printed from the following URL:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07132006/nhnews-ph-por-murray.html
7-27-2006
PHOTO
Surrounded by family and friends, Murray Straus, founder of the
University of New Hampshire Family Research Lab, makes his way to the
Sheraton Harborside ballroom to celebrate his 80th birthday on Monday
evening in Portsmouth.
Photo by Jamie Cohen
A real family man
By Emily Aronson
earo...@seacoastonline.com
PORTSMOUTH -- He changed the way people think about family violence,
influenced generations of sociologists all over the world and has
authored more than 200 articles.
And at 80 years old, Murray Straus -- founder of the University of New
Hampshire's Family Research Laboratory -- has no plans to slow down.
In fact, it's his work that Straus said has kept him young at heart.
"I just love discovering new things, love to do research, love to teach
my classes. It's not work; it's what I love to do," Straus said Monday,
at his birthday party during a family violence research conference at
the Sheraton Harborside Hotel.
Wearing a white suit, a red rose in his lapel and a warm smile, Straus
greeted colleagues, former students, friends and family -- some of whom
traveled from as far as the Netherlands and Australia to attend the event.
Many remarked how good Straus looks for his age. David Finkelhor,
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory, showed a picture of
Murray's passport during a slideshow to prove that he was born in 1926.
Straus arrived at UNH in 1968 and dedicated his research to family
violence and its relationship to violence in the larger society, a
cornerstone of a new field of sociology. He co-authored numerous
publications about spousal and child abuse -- once thought of as private
matters -- including a book about the harmful effects of spanking children.
His complete resumé posted online takes up a whopping 24 pages.
"It's not true that Murray is married to his job," Finkelhor told
guests. "We've never seen him kiss his computer. His appointment book,
maybe, but it was just paternal."
Kathy Kendall-Tackett, an associate professor of psychology at UNH,
called Straus a wonderful scholar and mentor.
"His attitude for his work and his passion is just contagious," she
said. "He's always so generous with his time and his praise with students."
Kersti Yllo, a former student and sociology professor at Wheaton
College, thanked Straus as a feminist for his research in the 1970s
about sexual inequality and its impact on domestic violence. She also
thanked him as a mother for his work against corporal punishment.
"My children's SAT scores are apparently higher because I held back,"
she said as the room broke out in laughter.
Straus' wife, Dorothy, said it was great to see how many people came to
honor her husband, but assured that the decades of accomplishments and
accolades haven't gone to his head.
"My grandchildren say things like "he's just Murray to us,'" Dorothy said.
This page has been printed from the following URL:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07132006/nhnews-ph-por-murray.html
Copyright 1999 - 2004 Seacoast Newspapers, a division of Ottaway
Newspapers Inc., all rights reserved.
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
Greegor
the research?
Researchers should not start with a political agenda.
Finkelhor also.
Lest they end up like Herr Doktor Professor Sir Roy Meadows...
and his sicofant.
0:->
> If this guy is so very experienced then why did he screw up
> the research?
He did not "screw up the research."
Please show some support for your claim.
> Researchers should not start with a political agenda.
He didn't.
> Finkelhor also.
Neither are politically inclined. Both are long time academics with
respectable and reputable methods and professional recognition.
>
> Lest they end up like Herr Doktor Professor Sir Roy Meadows...
You seem obsessed.
>
> and his sicofant.
What's a "sicofant?"
I simply posted a notice about the birthday of a social scientist we all
are familiar with at least by name.
This seems to have struck a nerve with you.
0:->
Greegor
> Neither are politically inclined. Both are long time academics with
> respectable and reputable methods and professional recognition.
All of your GURUs are lily white and perfect of course!
Let nothing cramp that cultic mindset.
Doan
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > If this guy is so very experienced then why did he screw up
> > the research?
>
> He did not "screw up the research."
>
> Please show some support for your claim.
>
> > Researchers should not start with a political agenda.
>
> He didn't.
>
Yes, he did and admitted so.
Doan
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> Neither are politically inclined. Both are long time academics with
>> respectable and reputable methods and professional recognition.
>
> All of your GURUs are lily white
I don't have any Gurus. The closest I can think of was an Okinawan man
that kind of took me under his wing when I was a teen.
Boxer, jockey, race horse trainer, and a man of considerable character.
Spent his teens in the WWII internment camps (Okinawans are 'Japanese').
I learned, among other things, fine gardening from him. And an esoteric
form of Martial Arts then, that became quite popular world wide later.
He was not, as I recall, lily white.
> and perfect of course!
No one I've ever met is perfect. Are you assuming I think someone is?
> Let nothing cramp that cultic mindset.
I'm sorry you have the needs that you do, and that they are apparently
unmet. But, that's how life goes.
Be good.
0:->
An error on one portion of research by inaccuracy is not "screw up on
research." If ALL his finding was incorrect you might have an argument.
It was not. Most was solid and useful. And he acknowledged the
correctness of the reviewer on one item. Prove otherwise.
>
> Doan
Carlson LaVonne
Greegor wrote:
> If this guy is so very experienced then why did he screw up
> the research?
>
He didn't.
> Researchers should not start with a political agenda.
He started, like all researchers, with a research hypothesis for each
study he conducted. He then performed a literature review, designed the
study, including sample and research methodology, conducted the study,
analyzed the data, and discussed the results. Before publication, his
research, just like all research, was subjected to a thorough peer
review process.
What you are considering a political agenda is actually a hypothesis
that was tested through design and statistical analysis. The analysis
either supports, does not support, or partially supports any hypothesis.
In Straus's case, his research either supported or partially supported
his hypothesis
>
> Finkelhor also.
You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
What's a "sicofant?" You stated "Lest they end up like Herr Doktor
Professor Sir Roy Meadows...
and his sicofant."
Inquiring minds want to know.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
The closest things to gurus I've had would have to be my sixth grade
teacher and one of my Ph.D. advisors. Both believed in me, listened to
me, and encouraged me to pursue my goals.
They were Caucasian, so I suppose they could be considered "lily white"
-- if that's what Greegor means. But since they were human beings, they
were far from perfect.
I've met Murray Straus on several occassions. He's a kind and gentle
man with a brilliant mind, but I doubt he's perfect. I'm sure he would
agree with me.
Your post regarding Murray Straus' birthday certainly did set off a
nerve for Greegor, didn't it?
LaVonne
0:->
>
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> If this guy is so very experienced then why did he screw up
>> the research?
>>
> He didn't.
>
>> Researchers should not start with a political agenda.
>
> He started, like all researchers, with a research hypothesis for each
> study he conducted. He then performed a literature review, designed the
> study, including sample and research methodology, conducted the study,
> analyzed the data, and discussed the results. Before publication, his
> research, just like all research, was subjected to a thorough peer
> review process.
>
> What you are considering a political agenda is actually a hypothesis
> that was tested through design and statistical analysis. The analysis
> either supports, does not support, or partially supports any hypothesis.
> In Straus's case, his research either supported or partially supported
> his hypothesis
>>
>> Finkelhor also.
>
> You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.
>
> LaVonne
More amazing is that those that later criticized his work DID come with
a political agenda.... a very clear one.
And NO research to back their claim his was flawed.
I saw his response as quietly and politely dismissive of gnat-like
buzzing by little agenda pressing political hacks.
What has truly shocked me is the professional career shift of Ms
Baumrind and what appears to me to be a serious loss of objectivity she
once seemed so very much in command of in her work.
Best, Kane
0:->
> Kane,
>
> The closest things to gurus I've had would have to be my sixth grade
> teacher and one of my Ph.D. advisors. Both believed in me, listened to
> me, and encouraged me to pursue my goals.
>
> They were Caucasian, so I suppose they could be considered "lily white"
> -- if that's what Greegor means. But since they were human beings, they
> were far from perfect.
>
> I've met Murray Straus on several occassions. He's a kind and gentle
> man with a brilliant mind, but I doubt he's perfect. I'm sure he would
> agree with me.
>
> Your post regarding Murray Straus' birthday certainly did set off a
> nerve for Greegor, didn't it?
The normal state for bigots. Frankly I consider them very dangerous and
foolish people, but what are yah gonna do...free speech and all. 0:->
>
> LaVonne
>
> 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>
>>>> Neither are politically inclined. Both are long time academics with
>>>> respectable and reputable methods and professional recognition.
>>>
>>>
>>> All of your GURUs are lily white
>>
>>
>> I don't have any Gurus. The closest I can think of was an Okinawan man
>> that kind of took me under his wing when I was a teen.
>>
>> Boxer, jockey, race horse trainer, and a man of considerable
>> character. Spent his teens in the WWII internment camps (Okinawans are
>> 'Japanese').
>>
>> I learned, among other things, fine gardening from him. And an
>> esoteric form of Martial Arts then, that became quite popular world
>> wide later.
>>
>> He was not, as I recall, lily white.
>>
>> > and perfect of course!
>>
>> No one I've ever met is perfect. Are you assuming I think someone is?
>>
>>> Let nothing cramp that cultic mindset.
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you have the needs that you do, and that they are apparently
>> unmet. But, that's how life goes.
>>
>> Be good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Greegor
> You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.
>
> LaVonne
Do YOU believe you were abused as a child, LaVonne?
I've got a hypothesis.
0:->
You have a research modality you'd like to share with us?
And of course you are aware of the ethical constraints on research
wherein you cannot do it on those who do not volunteer to be subject?
You may observe of course, and develop a hypothesis thereby.
Have you one?
Can you support it logically and with corroborating research that agrees
with your hypothesis?
Let us know the result.
I'm very curious if you can do this.
It might change my opinion of you.
Not that that matters.
In the spirit of academic brotherhood I cannot fail to now offer my own
supporting evidence for my hypothesis:
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/paranoia.jsp
Definition
Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes
reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect
the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals,
or people in general, are "out to get them."
Description
Paranoid perceptions and behavior may appear as features of a number of
mental illnesses, including depression and dementia, but are most
prominent in three types of psychological disorders: paranoid
schizophrenia, delusional disorder (persecutory type), and paranoid
personality disorder (PPD).
Individuals with paranoid schizophrenia and persecutory delusional
disorder experience what is known as persecutory delusions: an
irrational, yet unshakable, belief that someone is plotting against
them. Persecutory delusions in paranoid schizophrenia are bizarre,
sometimes grandiose, and often accompanied by auditory hallucinations.
Delusions experienced by individuals with delusional disorder are more
plausible than those experienced by paranoid schizophrenics; not
bizarre, though still unjustified. Individuals with delusional disorder
may seem offbeat or quirky rather than mentally ill, and, as such, may
never seek treatment.
Persons with paranoid personality disorder tend to be self-centered,
self-important, defensive, and emotionally distant. Their paranoia
manifests itself in constant suspicions rather than full-blown
delusions. The disorder often impedes social and personal relationships
and career advancement. Some individuals with PPD are described as
"litigious," as they are constantly initiating frivolous law suits. PPD
is more common in men than in women, and typically begins in early
adulthood.
Causes and symptoms
The exact cause of paranoia is unknown. Potential causal factors may be
genetics, neurological abnormalities, changes in brain chemistry, and
stress. Paranoia is also a possible side effect of drug use and abuse
(for example, alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, PCP). Acute, or
short term, paranoia may occur in some individuals overwhelmed by stress.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth
edition (DSM-IV), the diagnostic standard for mental health
professionals in the United States, lists the following symptoms for
paranoid personality disorder:
* suspicious; unfounded suspicions; believes others are plotting
against him/her
* preoccupied with unsupported doubts about friends or associates
* reluctant to confide in others due to a fear that information may
be used against him/her
* reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks
* bears grudges
* perceives attacks on his/her reputation that are not clear to
others, and is quick to counterattack
* maintains unfounded suspicions regarding the fidelity of a spouse
or significant other
Diagnosis
Patients with paranoid symptoms should undergo a thorough physical
examination and patient history to rule out possible organic causes
(such as dementia) or environmental causes (such as extreme stress). If
a psychological cause is suspected, a psychologist will conduct an
interview with the patient and may administer one of several clinical
inventories, or tests, to evaluate mental status.
Treatment
Paranoia that is symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia, delusional
disorder, or paranoid personality disorder should be treated by a
psychologist and/or psychiatrist. Antipsychotic medication such as
thioridazine (Mellaril), haloperidol (Haldol), chlorpromazine
(Thorazine), clozapine (Clozaril), or risperidone (Risperdal) may be
prescribed, and cognitive therapy or psychotherapy may be employed to
help the patient cope with their paranoia and/or persecutory delusions.
Antipsychotic medication, however, is of uncertain benefit to
individuals with paranoid personality disorder and may pose long-term risks.
If an underlying condition, such as depression or drug abuse, is found
to be triggering the paranoia, an appropriate course of medication
and/or psychosocial therapy is employed to treat the primary disorder.
Prognosis
Because of the inherent mistrust felt by paranoid individuals, they
often must be coerced into entering treatment. As unwilling
participants, their recovery may be hampered by efforts to sabotage
treatment (for example, not taking medication or not being forthcoming
with a therapist), a lack of insight into their condition, or the belief
that the therapist is plotting against them. Albeit with restricted
lifestyles, some patients with PPD or persecutory delusional disorder
continue to function in society without treatment.
Key Terms
Persecutory delusion
A fixed, false, and inflexible belief that others are engaging in a
plot or plan to harm an individual.
For Your Information
Books
* American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Press, Inc., 1994.
* Maxmen, Jerrold S., and Nicholas G. Ward. "Personality
Disorders." In Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment. 2nd ed. New
York: W. W. Norton, 1995.
* Siegel, Ronald K. Whispers: The Voices of Paranoia. New York:
Crown, 1994.
* Maxmen, Jerrold S., and Nicholas G. Ward. "Schizophrenia and
Related Disorders." In Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment. 2nd
ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1995.
Periodicals
* Manschreck, Theo C. "Delusional Disorder: The Recognition and
Management of Paranoia." Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 57, supplement 3
(1996): 32-38.
Organizations
* American Psychiatric Association. 1400 K Street NW,
Washington DC 20005. (888) 357-7924. http://www.psych.org
* American Psychological Association (APA). 750 First St. NE,
Washington, DC 20002-4242. (202) 336-5700. ttp://www.apa.org
* National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI). Colonial Place
Three, 2107 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 300, Arlington, VA 22201-3042. (800)
950-6264. http://www.nami.org
* National Institute of Mental Health. Mental Health Public
Inquiries, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15C-05, Rockville, MD 20857. (888)
826-9438. http://www.nimh.nih.gov
Source: Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, Published December, 2002 by
the Gale Group
The Essay Author is Paula Anne Ford-Martin.
0:->
0:->
Well, enjoy it while you can.
0:->
Greegor
> You have a research modality you'd like to share with us?
> And of course you are aware of the ethical constraints on research
> wherein you cannot do it on those who do not volunteer to be subject?
Did that apply to the child victims of the infamous
University of Iowa stuttering experiments in the 1950's?
0:->
I'm presuming that would apply to the very thing I just pointed out.
If their parents were not volunteering them then yes, ethical
constraints were violated. Though at that time no such limit existed.
However, the current ethical limits on research are fairly new, by
historical standards.
I won't use their behaviors from the 50's to try and judge today's
standards. Nor would that excuse you using one of us for an actual
experiment (you did say you had a hypothesis and a question presumably
in pursuit of research) without our volunteering. Is your question in
the nature of research then?
We've come a long way. And things are different now.
So then, I notice you were so busy creatively, and likely too with your
'research' that you forget to answer my question.
It was, "... you have a research modality you'd like to share with us?
Carlson LaVonne
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!
Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
Greegor wrote:
Then by all means, post the hypotheses. Be sure to include both the
research hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Identify how your sample
will be selected, (how the sample is selected and the appropriate sample
size is very important to the generalizability and integrity of your
results.) Describe the methodology you will use, including the
statistical analysis and why this is appropriate for the particular
research study you are proposing.
I'll keep and eye on the thread so I don't miss your research design
when you have it worked up and time to respond.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>
>> Kane wrote
>>
>>> You have a research modality you'd like to share with us?
>>> And of course you are aware of the ethical constraints on research
>>> wherein you cannot do it on those who do not volunteer to be subject?
>>
>>
>> Did that apply to the child victims of the infamous
>> University of Iowa stuttering experiments in the 1950's?
>
>
> I'm presuming that would apply to the very thing I just pointed out.
>
> If their parents were not volunteering them then yes, ethical
> constraints were violated. Though at that time no such limit existed.
>
> However, the current ethical limits on research are fairly new, by
> historical standards.
You are correct, Kane. Ethical limits have come a long way since the
1950's, in part due to past nonconsensual and exploitive research using
human subjects. All proposal research from Universities involving human
subjects must be approved by a Human Subjects Committee, which is not an
easy process if any part of the research looks even slightly
questionable. Parents may give consent for minor children to
participate in approved research.
>
> I won't use their behaviors from the 50's to try and judge today's
> standards. Nor would that excuse you using one of us for an actual
> experiment (you did say you had a hypothesis and a question presumably
> in pursuit of research) without our volunteering. Is your question in
> the nature of research then?
Not only would using one nonconsensual person in pursuit of research be
illegal and unethical, but a sample size of one or two is not a research
study. A sample size of one or two would be a case study, and the
parameters would be completely different.
I'm anxious to see Greegor's reseaarch design.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
0:-> wrote:
> Carlson LaVonne wrote:
>
>> Kane,
>>
>> The closest things to gurus I've had would have to be my sixth grade
>> teacher and one of my Ph.D. advisors. Both believed in me, listened
>> to me, and encouraged me to pursue my goals.
>>
>> They were Caucasian, so I suppose they could be considered "lily
>> white" -- if that's what Greegor means. But since they were human
>> beings, they were far from perfect.
>>
>> I've met Murray Straus on several occassions. He's a kind and gentle
>> man with a brilliant mind, but I doubt he's perfect. I'm sure he
>> would agree with me.
>>
>> Your post regarding Murray Straus' birthday certainly did set off a
>> nerve for Greegor, didn't it?
>
>
> The normal state for bigots. Frankly I consider them very dangerous and
> foolish people, but what are yah gonna do...free speech and all. 0:->
I suppose they are dangerous. I know they engage in foolish behavior.
But hey, I'm all for free speech. Based on several of my recent posts,
I received an email, the first in a long time, from an individual who
never felt right about spanking, has lurked on this ng for apparently a
couple of years, and asked me for more information on child development
and how to parent without spanking.
This is called "remembering the goal."
Sometimes, good things happen.
LaVonne
0:->
Regardless of the final decision of this person I extend my best wishes,
for at least he or she ASKED.
Thus proving rationality and good intent.
> LaVonne
Kane
>>
>>
>>>
>>> LaVonne
>>>
>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kane wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither are politically inclined. Both are long time academics with
>>>>>> respectable and reputable methods and professional recognition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of your GURUs are lily white
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any Gurus. The closest I can think of was an Okinawan
>>>> man that kind of took me under his wing when I was a teen.
>>>>
>>>> Boxer, jockey, race horse trainer, and a man of considerable
>>>> character. Spent his teens in the WWII internment camps (Okinawans
>>>> are 'Japanese').
>>>>
>>>> I learned, among other things, fine gardening from him. And an
>>>> esoteric form of Martial Arts then, that became quite popular world
>>>> wide later.
>>>>
>>>> He was not, as I recall, lily white.
>>>>
>>>> > and perfect of course!
>>>>
>>>> No one I've ever met is perfect. Are you assuming I think someone is?
>>>>
>>>>> Let nothing cramp that cultic mindset.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry you have the needs that you do, and that they are
>>>> apparently unmet. But, that's how life goes.
>>>>
>>>> Be good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Doan
> It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
> work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
> discredit his research because they didn't like the results!
>
You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?
> Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
> political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
> incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
> researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
> personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
> passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
> research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
> methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
> contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
> between this study and her previous work.
>
This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.
Doan
0:->
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
>
>> It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
>> work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
>> discredit his research because they didn't like the results!
>>
> You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
> the results?
Baumrind discredited herself at the conference in Berkeley when she
presented a "study" that she had avoided submitting for peer review.
It simply added more fuel to the flames of the spanking proponent
propagandists. But it was not 'science,' nor was it properly labeled as
research. You cannot remove the more critical components of the sample
and claim you have done anything BUT remove them. You have not showed
your claim to be true.
> You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
> abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
> done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?
She has so abandoned it. And LaVonne is not lying. Her earlier work did
NOT support CP as part of Authoritative parenting.
But later, she changed her mind, Doan. And "abandoned" is an excellent
word, and no lie, to use to relate her current stand to her previous one.
Any researcher that would, in a study of 'parenting' as per the issue of
spanking, remove those children that were spanked harder is NOT still
supporting "authoritative parenting," regardless of what she might
claim. She has badly damaged her credibility thereby.
The day she submits that "paper" she read at Berkeley to publication for
peer review, I'll reconsider my opinion. Though it would, if it passed
review at all, STILL advocate something she did NOT support
before...spanking.
"Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor
and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are
assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods
are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be
assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as
cooperative" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62)."
That WAS her position in 1991. Doan.
Notice what she states about "punitive?"
That would NOT support spanking as a parental choice of "Authoritative"
parents or parenting.
Even your Master, Lazerlere dare not claim, and did not, that Baumrind
supports spanking when she did her study in the 1990's. Nothing in his
view of her work, nor his citing and quoting would suggest she supported
ANY spanking at the time, as she apparently came to by fudged methods in
her "study' reported at Berkeley.
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html#table2
"Table 2 summarizes a range of specific parenting practices that were
significantly more characteristic of authoritative parents than of
either authoritarian or permissive parents (Baumrind, 1967). "
Authoritative parenting was seen by her as more characteristic of
Permissive than Authoritarian parenting in the chart shown.
No, Doan, YOU don't have any understanding of research and its
significance and routinely attempt to rearrange findings to suit your
agenda of advocating for spanking. Don't lie any more. You DO so
advocate. No reader here could possibly miss that you do.
>> Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
>> political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
>> incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
>> researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
>> personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
>> passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
>> research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
>> methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
>> contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
>> between this study and her previous work.
>>
> This study is the best study by far.
"This study?" Which study would that be. You support a study that did
NOT get submitted for peer review?
Which ARE you referring to?
The original study, that Lazerlere cites, and I have pointed to, from
1991, or her Berkeley presentation of a "study" she did not chose to
submit for publication?
The original did not support spanking as "Authoritative" parents, Doan.
> Even opponent to spanking like
> Murray Straus admit that.
Admit? To a study from 91 that did NOT support spanking? I guess so if
you say so. I know I WOULD ADMIT TO THE SAME THING because it supports
the position of anti spanking advocates.
> Can you compare and contrast the study
> she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
> above that this one was purely design?
The one NOT submitted for publication is NOT available. Of course it
cannot be compared. We must work for comments about it, since it's not
published anywhere.
And what does, "this one was purely design" mean, Doan?
> My bet is that you won't dare
> to because what you spewed above is just a lie.
"Won't dare" when what you ask for is impossible because one of the two
is not published?
That makes you a liar, Doan, with a major attempt to deceive, unless you
didn't know the Berkeley presentation was not reviewed for publication.
Here's another quote from Baumrind in the distant past:
"Baumrind called it "a warm, engaged rational parent-child relationship".
"The authoritative model of discipline," she wrote in 1966, "is
characterised by use of firm control contingently applied and justified
by rational explanation of consistently enforced rules.""
Does "rational explanation" look to YOU like "spank them."
> Prove me wrong and
> I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.
No you won't. You'll weasel just like you did with me, looking for ways
to escape out some minor semantic hole.
One can find comments about Baumrinds study presented at the conference,
but NO publication to cite fully.
How do you propose that LaVonne make this comparison?
If you believe it possible, why don't YOU make the comparison to show
that she supported CP in both instances, Doan?
You can't. It's that simple. It does not exist.
She did no such thing in the past.
She abandoned the concept of Authoritative parenting and moved to
support one of the principle components of Authoritarian parenting,
spanking.
Here are some comments that clarify:
http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today010828.html
"Dr. Baumrind, a psychologist known for her classic studies of
authoritative, authoritarian and permissive styles of child-rearing,
said she did not advocate spanking. ...
[[[ Past tense, Doan. And then goes on to, and note the date... ]]]
... But she argued that an occasional swat, when delivered in the
context of good child-rearing, had not been shown to do any harm. The
studies cited by opponents of corporal punishment, Dr. Baumrind
contended, often do not adequately distinguish the effects of spanking,
as practiced by nonabusive parents, from the impact of severe physical
punishment and abuse. Nor do they consider other factors that might
account for problems later in life, like whether parents are rejecting
or whether defiant or aggressive children might be more likely to be
spanked in the first place.
Dr. Baumrind described findings from her own research, an analysis of
data from a long-term study of more than 100 families, indicating that
mild to moderate spanking had no detrimental effects when such
confounding influences were separated out. When the parents who
delivered severe punishment — for example, frequently spanking with a
paddle or striking a child in the face — were removed from the analysis,
Dr. Baumrind and her colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Owens, found that few
harmful effects linked with spanking were left. And the few that
remained could be explained by other aspects of the parent-child
relationship. "
Baumrind has clearly moved to weasel wording. Trying to melt away the
opposition to spanking but NOT by clearly stating there were NO harmful
effects...and trying to explain them away by "other aspects" that GO
UNNAMED AND UNEXPLORED.
Baumrind went for NEVER including spanking as an alternative, clear up
to 1991, and that's over twenty years from her earliest quotes.
To the nonsense almost babbling acceptance of it as "harmless...but
maybe not quite totally harmless," (I paraphrase) nonsense above.
And when, at the Berkeley conference, Dr. Straus was asked and commented
on the quality of the research methods in Baumrind's study (the man is
polite to a fault and mild mannered), YOU and others, have carefully
avoided posting what ELSE he said.
""There is not absolutely conclusive evidence but there is very strong
evidence, and there's strong evidence that other methods work just as
well," said Dr. Straus, a co- author of "Beating the Devil Out of Them:
Corporal Punishment by American Families and Its Effects on Children.""
In other words, other methods than spanking.
Though you have consistently shown either the incapacity to think
logically and critically with objective analysis, even you have to admit
that if you have two methods with equal effect and one has risk of
injury and the other not, it is logical to chose the one that does not.
>
> Doan
>
YOU, apologize? Fat chance.
Baumrind has chosen and now advocates for a risk to children and the
relationship that she did NOT for over 20 years.
I leave you with her most telling weasel words, Doan:
"“I am not an advocate of spanking, but a blanket injunction against its
use is not warranted by the evidence. It is reliance on physical
punishment, not whether or not it is used at all, that is associated
with harm to the child.”"
And what I believe you would say ...
"I'm going to beat you, but just a little. For I, the all-knowing Doan
have discovered the magical boundary between harm and no harm in hitting
we call spanking not beating -- when it's done just a little."
0:->
0:->
You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.
Tell you anything?
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumreprint.pdf
DIANA BAUMRIND 2001:
Does causally relevant research support a blanket injunction against
disciplinary spanking by parents? Invited address presented at the
annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San
Francisco, CA. COST N/A QTY N/A
First not peer reviewed for professional journal publication, now not
even available as a personal report?
I suspect she's feeling the heat of her own decisions from her own
conscience, and trying to work them out for herself. I consider her an
honest researcher (and very talented) that has let politics and pressure
sway her beliefs. And that tends to destroy objectivity.
Best wishes, Kane
Doan
0:->
Thanks Doan.
And why would not being able to find something makes someone stupid?
It took you two years to find something right under your nose.
0:->
>
> Doan
0:->
I found, given some of her claims concerning the relative harmlessness
of spanking, this to be most telling from her own words, in "Results:"
"...frequency of
physical punishment was associated with detrimental child outcomes, as
anti-spanking advocates such as Straus claim.
However, there were few significant associations left to explain between
child outcomes and dimensional or categorical measures of normative
physical punishment, and these few were fully explained by plausible
third variables – including baseline child misbehavior, poor parenting
practices, or (in a cross-sectional analysis), adolescents’ perception
of their parents as loving and influential."
Have you ever read her description of "normative physical punishment?"
It is far less severe than the legal descriptions and case-law findings
allow it to be in parental discipline by use of CP.
So basically, just as I've repeatedly stated and YOU continue to ignore,
you cute little liar, the "study" does NOT transfer to the real world --
-- that world where parents spank in the manner the law allows (and
worse) and get away with it. And we have it linked to drug use, suicide,
domestic abuse, crime, and mental illness.
So basically what she is saying is there is still some risk, which would
lead one to believe that REAL WORLD SPANKING is a serious risk to
children and should be banned.
That portion of children and parents she dropped from the study
population are in fact what we have in the real world, Doan.
Yet she plays the political game of so reducing her study population
that we are left with a little academic exercise in how to not address
the real world.
She is arguing that "a little bit of arsenic is harmless" but cannot
really offer the particles per liter, or ounce, or gram, that are safe.
Only that it's 'tiny.'
And we have wells that have SOME arsenic in them and need to decide
whether or not to use the water, or for what that would be safe.
I'd say safety concerns would logically lead us to conclude that NOT
using the water at all would be safest.
If we can get, as Straus said, and the spanking compulsive ignore, the
same results (though some of us think 'better results') with other
methods that do not include CP, why take the risk?
Just for the fun of hitting our kids?
Just because we can?
Just because it makes us feel powerful?
I know a great many people that find it fun not hitting their kids.
And many that think it not okay to do it, "just because they can."
And interestingly, they feel very powerful in terms of the relationship
with their children, and the outcomes they see their children having
from being parented gently, with those "disciplines" that Baumrind
herself once made the mainstay of her "Authoritative" parenting
model....supportive disciplines. Not punitive ones.
You have a nice day, Doan and see if you can work all this out with your
conscience.
Especially your mom and what she might say about Fern's advocacy for
parents beating their children and YOU not stepping up and doing the
honorable thing and confronting Fern, since you are against beating
children.
0:->
Doan
It took me less than 30 secs with my search engine. You have been
bragging numerous times about your "formidable research skill". Even
worse, you are insinuating that Diana Baumrind has something to hide.
That's very dispicable of you!
> It took you two years to find something right under your nose.
>
It's very to find out that you are a liar, or "mendacious" if you want
to sound intellectual. ;-)
Doan
0:->
Isn't that lovely? Does it make you feel like a better person?
> You have been
> bragging numerous times about your "formidable research skill".
Naw, once and you kept bringing it up like the little dip you are.
> Even
> worse, you are insinuating that Diana Baumrind has something to hide.
Nope. Something to reconsider.
> That's very dispicable of you!
No, it's presumptuous of YOU to decide my motive. That is what's
despicable of YOU.
Especially given my comments concerning my respect for the greater body
of her work, and my puzzlement over the direction it went in 2001.
What I said was:
"You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.
Tell you anything?"
One, the document available through her site did in fact list it as not
available.
Two, my comment "tell you anything" could mean any number of things,
including what I mentioned earlier about her...that she may well be
doing some serious thinking about her research.
>> It took you two years to find something right under your nose.
>>
> It's very to find out that you are a liar, or "mendacious" if you want
> to sound intellectual. ;-)
What's "very to find out?"
I'm not intellectual. I'm educated. Are either a bad thing? If so how?
Are you not educated? Do you not use your intellect?
> Doan
You have managed to dig yourself yet another deep hole, Doan.
Happy to hand you the shovel though. And trust me to do it again.
I'm not a liar, Doan.
I make mistakes at times.
Show how mistakes are lies.
I have opinions, and state them as such. Show how opinions are lies.
Lies are deliberate attempts to deceive.
Show my deliberateness.
I have watched you, with the words on the page, try to make a statement
mean things it does not.
Like Straus' comments in compliment of Baumrind's research.
You post it sans his every next sentence.
I've been laughed at by fools for not only posting those portions of
studies, comments, data, that support my position but right along with
those, that material that can be used to argue against my position.
Who's the honest one between us, Doan?
The one that conceals information, or the one that tells it all on an
issue like Baumrind's Berkeley presentation?
Hmmm?
0:->
Greegor
spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
spanking as a parenting style!
Imagine the upset for these researchers!
Imagine doing research that basically disproves your own beliefs!
Kane carped about peer review again.
What happens if the research disproves the beliefs of every peer
reviewer?
Do they reject it because it refutes their common beliefs?
Would a whole panel of peer reviewers and the researcher themself
actually report results that refute their common beliefs?
0:->
> Just to simplify this for lay people, Baumrind was against
> spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
> spanking as a parenting style!
Actually, no it didn't. Even in her verbally delivered report at
Berkeley in 2001 she did not unequivocally support spanking.
You can read it. Doan posted a link to it. Go and read and show us
there, or in quotations of her she does anything but "excuse it," what I
believe was a political expedience since she teamed up with the
notorious Larzerele.
> Imagine the upset for these researchers!
> Imagine doing research that basically disproves your own beliefs!
Imagine that it did no such thing, nor did she say what you claim.
In fact if you had read even just what I quoted you'd know better, but
you have opinions based on primarily on your guesses that will support
your insinuations rather than facts that would blow your nonsense out of
the water.
> Kane carped about peer review again.
Carped? Peer review isn't something one "carps" about unless all those
scientist that both submit to it and require it from colleagues for
credibility (and research grant competition) are carping, Greg.
> What happens if the research disproves the beliefs of every peer
> reviewer?
Then more research is called for?
The title of this thread in the subject field is right on target.
Science isn't about discovering "truths" for all time. The greatest
scientist of all time didn't just stop when they made their famous
discoveries. They went on to study and search more.
> Do they reject it because it refutes their common beliefs?
That is entirely possible. Bias is a constant problem for scientists.
Honest ones both admit it and subject themselves to review because of
trying to overcome it and bring greater credibility to their efforts.
In fact, in the doc I quoted for Doan on what Dr. Straus said about
Baumrind's report on her study and the study itself, not only did he say
that the research in fact shows other methods than CP work at least as
well, BUT that there is much more research to do.
> Would a whole panel of peer reviewers and the researcher themself
> actually report results that refute their common beliefs?
I can't speak for them all, or even for one, but I know that I have
reported results that I did not believe in because the facts where there.
People can be objective and accurate and STILL not support the findings
they report.
My own position on spanking includes acceptance, as I have stated, even
today, that CP may well accomplish what non CP and non Punishment
methods can, but I am not willing to take the risk that goes with CP.
No my personal experience tells me something quite different than that
"scientists" have found.
Putting that together with my position that risk assessment demands I
support NON-CP methods and you know what I'm talking about.
All the other things you claim about my position are lies, Greg. Your's
and Doan's.
Doan
You claimed that the study is not available even if if one pays for it!
I've demonstrated what a FOOL you are in public! ;-) Just like when
you claimed the Embry Study weren't available; just like when you made
claim about the Hutterites with their "non-violent" parenting methods.
When are you gonna learn STUPID "never-spanked" boy? ;-)
Doan
Doan
So prove it to me that her research methodology is so poor that she did
pass peer-review, that she had to hide it. Come on, Kane0. Why is
it that even Straus had to admit that this one is the BEST? You are VERY
STUPID, you know? By saying this one is bad, you have implicitly trashed
all the research on spanking by anti-spanking researchers because NONE
of them can compare to the one done by Dr. Baumrind. The truth hurts,
Kane0. And you can't handle the truth! ;-)
Doan
Doan
Better than you, definitely! ;-) Since you were the one that claimed
to have "formidable research skill", I just love it when I can
demonstrated to the world what a FOOL you are.
> > You have been
> > bragging numerous times about your "formidable research skill".
>
> Naw, once and you kept bringing it up like the little dip you are.
>
Hihihi! So what happpenned to that "formidable research skill"?
Could it be typical of a "never-spanked" kid like you; an empty Kane
making lot of noise? ;-)
> > Even
> > worse, you are insinuating that Diana Baumrind has something to hide.
>
> Nope. Something to reconsider.
>
Nope. Just your dispicable character showing. Learn that from your mom?
;-)
> > That's very dispicable of you!
>
> No, it's presumptuous of YOU to decide my motive. That is what's
> despicable of YOU.
>
That's your character, as clear as a jelly-fish; everbody can see through
you. ;-)
> Especially given my comments concerning my respect for the greater body
> of her work, and my puzzlement over the direction it went in 2001.
>
> What I said was:
>
> "You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
> verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
> pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.
>
> Tell you anything?"
>
> One, the document available through her site did in fact list it as not
> available.
>
> Two, my comment "tell you anything" could mean any number of things,
> including what I mentioned earlier about her...that she may well be
> doing some serious thinking about her research.
>
Hihihi! See if you can get anyone to believe you. Try and convince
beccafromlalaland!
> >> It took you two years to find something right under your nose.
> >>
> > It's very to find out that you are a liar, or "mendacious" if you want
> > to sound intellectual. ;-)
>
> What's "very to find out?"
>
> I'm not intellectual. I'm educated. Are either a bad thing? If so how?
>
Nope! You are just plain STUPID, just as Chris said! ;-)
> Are you not educated? Do you not use your intellect?
>
You don't see me claiming that my mom approved of me calling other people
"smelly-cunt" do you? That is neither educatated nor intellectual! ;-)
> > Doan
>
> You have managed to dig yourself yet another deep hole, Doan.
>
> Happy to hand you the shovel though. And trust me to do it again.
>
> I'm not a liar, Doan.
>
Sure! Anyone on this newsgroup believe that Kane, the "never-spanked"
boy, is not a liar?
> I make mistakes at times.
>
> Show how mistakes are lies.
>
> I have opinions, and state them as such. Show how opinions are lies.
>
> Lies are deliberate attempts to deceive.
>
> Show my deliberateness.
>
> I have watched you, with the words on the page, try to make a statement
> mean things it does not.
>
> Like Straus' comments in compliment of Baumrind's research.
>
He didn't say it's the best single study on spanking?
> You post it sans his every next sentence.
>
> I've been laughed at by fools for not only posting those portions of
> studies, comments, data, that support my position but right along with
> those, that material that can be used to argue against my position.
>
> Who's the honest one between us, Doan?
>
Who on this newsgroup think that Kane0 is honest?
> The one that conceals information, or the one that tells it all on an
> issue like Baumrind's Berkeley presentation?
>
I posted the link so that everyone can see it for themselves. You and
LaVonne lied about it. You two even stooped so low that to lied that
Baumrind has abandoned "authoritavite parenting". Do you really so STUPID
to think that anyone with normal intelligence would believe that? No
wonder Chris Dugan called you STUPID! You have made a mockery of the
anti-spanking agenda without even knowing it. Wonder why Chris stopped
posting here? ;-)
Doan
0:->
That's what the page referred by Ms Baumrind's site says. "N/A" as in
not available.
Why would I look further?
> I've demonstrated what a FOOL you are in public! ;-)
Because I didn't look further than the official listing of her
publications were it said this particular one was "N/A?"
If you strain real real hard you can squeeze something out, but not
that, dummy.
> Just like when
> you claimed the Embry Study weren't available;
Same thing, only Dr. Embry told me personally the particular study I
wanted was not available. He kindly had his staff copy and mail them to me.
It's quite possible he was mistaken, but most of your information used
to claim you had the study was from bits and pieces that could be picked
up in references TO his study, and not even the one I had.
> just like when you made
> claim about the Hutterites with their "non-violent" parenting methods.
You seem to have forgotten that I contacted a Hutterite representative
to verify what had been published about them by another source, and when
I learned that the source was incorrect I came back to the newsgroup,
quoting the representative and correcting the misinformation.
> When are you gonna learn STUPID "never-spanked" boy? ;-)
Learn what? How to be responsible and honest with errors and oversights
rather than lie like you do to cover-up?
Or is it learn to be a liar that continues to post about issues that
have been resolved in your opponents favor when you can't argue the
current points of debate?
As you are doing now? Sorry I don't wish to be you, or to indulge in the
moral and ethical dysfunctions you wallow in.
I notice you have nothing to say about having quoted only that
cherry-picked portion of the quote from Dr. Straus at the Berkeley
conference, Doan, and avoided the rest of what he said.
Nor have you been willing to discuss that Dr. Baumrind appears to have
abandoned her former stance against spanking, and no "allows" for it on
the grounds that "a little arsenic won't hurt you."
Why is that I wonder?
Arsenic is, like spanking may one day be proven in life long studies of
subjects, cumulatively a killer even in very tiny amounts spread over time.
We can't get it out of our bodies without special treatment.
I consider spanking as the same kind of risk.
Especially having seen both prison populations and teens that have all
been spanked to one degree or another.
And the severity didn't seem to be the deciding factor...interestingly
enough.
I am looking forward to, as Dr. Straus made perfectly clear at Berkeley,
to the longitudinal studies in the future that will show what I theorize
now.
And consider, I believe the Dr. Baumrind said much the same thing.
In the meantime, between the two choices, each of which both researchers
seem to think can accomplish some of the same things, I think I'll
continue to go with the one obviously having less risk.
I am still looking for a case of a parent having escalated their
discipline from "non-CP" methods, to murder by physical abuse.
> Doan
Yes, and your name is all you have left. And you've sullied that.
Especially by not taking a stand against Fern's support of something you
claim to be against.
Or you could take a decent moral stand now and clear both your
credibility a bit, and the honor you owe your family, and denounce what
Fern supported.
Care to clean up your act?
Not likely.
0:->
0:->
Not having made such a claim I'd hardly engage in something I don't
believe.
I post the facts, and let you draw your own conclusions. Is that the one
you draw?
> Come on, Kane0. Why is
> it that even Straus had to admit that this one is the BEST?
He referred to the methodology, not the outcomes assumed by the researcher.
> You are VERY
> STUPID, you know?
Don't you wish.
> By saying this one is bad,
Nope. I've said that it is politically loaded in her conclusions
publicly stated.
> you have implicitly trashed
> all the research on spanking by anti-spanking researchers because NONE
> of them can compare to the one done by Dr. Baumrind.
They can't compare?
I'm afraid you do not understand research any better than Greg.
> The truth hurts,
> Kane0.
I am sorry for your pain. Take an aspirin.
> And you can't handle the truth! ;-)
You can't produce it. Your attempts to twist logic are so comical,
especially in that you think others can't see you doing it.
The only ones that would agree with your are those like Greg that live
for something to relieve his hatred of authority...he'll eat anything.
And swallow.
> Doan
So you close having ignored the argument, the main points, below.
Why is that I wonder...let's look, shall we?
>
>> "...frequency of
>> physical punishment was associated with detrimental child outcomes, as
>> anti-spanking advocates such as Straus claim.
>>
>> However, there were few significant associations left to explain between
>> child outcomes and dimensional or categorical measures of normative
>> physical punishment, and these few were fully explained by plausible
>> third variables ? including baseline child misbehavior, poor parenting
>> practices, or (in a cross-sectional analysis), adolescents? perception
>> of their parents as loving and influential."
>>
>> Have you ever read her description of "normative physical punishment?"
No response, Doan? No notice of her attempt to dismiss variables she did
not control for?
Straus was caught in the halls of Berkeley by the media. What could he
say without time to sit down and consider the full content of her
presentation and the study report itself? He's a polite man.
>> It is far less severe than the legal descriptions and case-law findings
>> allow it to be in parental discipline by use of CP.
No comment, Doan? I presume your concession to logic and reality.
>>
>> So basically, just as I've repeatedly stated and YOU continue to ignore,
>> you cute little liar, the "study" does NOT transfer to the real world --
>>
>> -- that world where parents spank in the manner the law allows (and
>> worse) and get away with it. And we have it linked to drug use, suicide,
>> domestic abuse, crime, and mental illness.
No comment, Doan? I presume your concession to logic and reality.
>>
>> So basically what she is saying is there is still some risk, which would
>> lead one to believe that REAL WORLD SPANKING is a serious risk to
>> children and should be banned.
>>
>> That portion of children and parents she dropped from the study
>> population are in fact what we have in the real world, Doan.
No comment, Doan? I presume your concession to logic and reality.
>>
>> Yet she plays the political game of so reducing her study population
>> that we are left with a little academic exercise in how to not address
>> the real world.
>>
>> She is arguing that "a little bit of arsenic is harmless" but cannot
>> really offer the particles per liter, or ounce, or gram, that are safe.
>>
>> Only that it's 'tiny.'
>>
>> And we have wells that have SOME arsenic in them and need to decide
>> whether or not to use the water, or for what that would be safe.
>>
>> I'd say safety concerns would logically lead us to conclude that NOT
>> using the water at all would be safest.
>>
>> If we can get, as Straus said, and the spanking compulsive ignore, the
>> same results (though some of us think 'better results') with other
>> methods that do not include CP, why take the risk?
>>
>> Just for the fun of hitting our kids?
>>
>> Just because we can?
>>
>> Just because it makes us feel powerful?
>>
>> I know a great many people that find it fun not hitting their kids.
>>
>> And many that think it not okay to do it, "just because they can."
Looks to me like you've moved totally "debate" by personal attack, Doan.
Anyone that refuses to respond to these points I've made is obviously
not about debating at all, or dealing with facts.
>> And interestingly, they feel very powerful in terms of the relationship
>> with their children, and the outcomes they see their children having
>> from being parented gently, with those "disciplines" that Baumrind
>> herself once made the mainstay of her "Authoritative" parenting
>> model....supportive disciplines. Not punitive ones.
>>
>> You have a nice day, Doan and see if you can work all this out with your
>> conscience.
>>
>> Especially your mom and what she might say about Fern's advocacy for
>> parents beating their children and YOU not stepping up and doing the
>> honorable thing and confronting Fern, since you are against beating
>> children.
Still avoiding this issue, Doan?
When you could take the moral high ground by condemning such gross
support of child beating.
Tsk.
0:->
Quote exactly what was said.
> Do you really so STUPID
> to think that anyone with normal intelligence would believe that?
"Do you really so STUPID"[SIC] as to be unable to put an intelligible
sentence together?
> No
> wonder Chris Dugan called you STUPID!
Because we disagreed on a political issue unrelated to spanking? And off
topic for this group.
You are making up things again by innuendo rather than facts.
> You have made a mockery of the
> anti-spanking agenda without even knowing it.
My comments don't do that.
> Wonder why Chris stopped
> posting here? ;-)
Tired of jousting with those of low moral character such as you, that
would lie at the drop of a noun or verb?
>
> Doan
Doan, you've done nothing but prove yet again, to those that have
followed you for long enough, and seen our exchanges in full, what a
despicable liar you are.
Chris saw it. Other posters have seen it and left in disgust because you
will NOT debate the issues, nor will you adhere to rules of logic, and
address the fact as presented, but rather spin them and claim they are
other than they are.
Your misrepresentation of Dr. Straus is the prime example. A thread
running through your lies and dodges, and retreats for years of posting
history.
Greegor
Doan wrote to Kane
Greegor
0:->
> ROFL!
You shouldn't laugh at him for cutting my response to his claim, Greg.
It's not nice, even if he is funny in his hysterical lying screeching
monkeyboy mode.
0;->
Doan
He was laughing at you, STUPID!
Doan
Greegor
> Persons with paranoid personality disorder tend to be self-centered,
> self-important, defensive, and emotionally distant. Their paranoia
> manifests itself in constant suspicions rather than full-blown
> delusions. The disorder often impedes social and personal relationships
> and career advancement. Some individuals with PPD are described as
> "litigious," as they are constantly initiating frivolous law suits. PPD
> is more common in men than in women, and typically begins in early
> adulthood.
Is that "frivolous law suits" part really in there?
Does that include your ""lawyer approved""
threatgram or "letter of intent"? :)
0:->
> Kane quoted DSM
>> Persons with paranoid personality disorder tend to be self-centered,
>> self-important, defensive, and emotionally distant. Their paranoia
>> manifests itself in constant suspicions rather than full-blown
>> delusions. The disorder often impedes social and personal relationships
>> and career advancement. Some individuals with PPD are described as
>> "litigious," as they are constantly initiating frivolous law suits. PPD
>> is more common in men than in women, and typically begins in early
>> adulthood.
>
> Is that "frivolous law suits" part really in there?
Sure is.
> Does that include your ""lawyer approved""
> threatgram or "letter of intent"? :)
Nope.
I've posted no "threatgram."
Nor is a letter of intent related to paranoia unless I had not been
threatened.
I have been. Directly, via e-mail.
The name of someone in this ng was brought up by the author.
Care to continue your foolishness?
I post what MIGHT happen, should something ELSE happen. That's not
paranoia.
For it to be I'd have to make a factless claim that I had been attacked
or that someone said they would attack me when it was not true.
I haven't claimed I was attacked, but I did claim that someone said they
would.
And they did say so.
Someone in this newsgroups name was included, besides the author.
If you want more details you'll have to wait until someone actually DOES
something. Then your notice will be official.
Until then, your continued harassment and deeper involvement thereby is
duly noted. Your choice.
I'm advised not to release details. It might make me seem to be
instigating in case or when something does happens.
I'm not instigating. I'm reporting.
0:->
Carlson LaVonne
through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
anything that one wants on a personal website. This was a highly
criticized piece of "research" when it was presented, and when the peer
review process began. I have no idea if she has since passed the peer
review process necessary publication in a peer-reviewed research
journal, but if all she has on her website is this study from 2001 which
hadn't yet passed peer-review, I suspect it still has not.
This is not indicative of her earlier work, and in looking at her
analyses, I doubt that it has been published. I could be wrong. Could
anyone do some checking, along with me? And by the way, a peer review
group is not selected by opinions that agree or disagree with the
research being reviewed. One of the jobs of the peer review group is to
analyze the statistical strength and research methodology of the study
in light of the conclusions.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
Greegor wrote:
> Just to simplify this for lay people, Baumrind was against
> spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
> spanking as a parenting style!
Diana Baumrind has never supported spanking as a parenting style. This
is true even in her latest study, that to my knowledge has never been
published. And, the research methodology of this latest study
confounded the research community, because the study was so poorly designed.
>
> Imagine the upset for these researchers!
Many were upset to see a wonderful researcher attempt to publish
something so poorly designed.
> Imagine doing research that basically disproves your own beliefs!
Actually, that is what research is all about. But conducting a rather
poorly designed study and then claiming results is less than professional.
>
> Kane carped about peer review again.
> What happens if the research disproves the beliefs of every peer
> reviewer?
You apparently know very little about the peer review process. Peers
are drawn from a group of individuals regarded as knowledgeable in the
statistical design, methodology, and conclusion process. This has
nothing to do with personal opinion. It it a matter of choosing
individuals who are familiar with the specific design and methodology of
the research.
> Do they reject it because it refutes their common beliefs?
Read my statement above.
>
> Would a whole panel of peer reviewers and the researcher themself
> actually report results that refute their common beliefs?
Of course, if the methodology, statistical analysis, and resulting
results and discussion section were sound.
Got it yet?
LaVonne
>
Doan
>
>
> Greegor wrote:
>
> > Just to simplify this for lay people, Baumrind was against
> > spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
> > spanking as a parenting style!
>
> Diana Baumrind has never supported spanking as a parenting style. This
> is true even in her latest study, that to my knowledge has never been
> published. And, the research methodology of this latest study
> confounded the research community, because the study was so poorly designed.
How so? Even Straus, who didn't agree with the results, had admitted that
this study is the BEST single study on spanking. Quotes: "I said that her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting
her conclusions" So either you are right and Straus is wrong or Straus is
right and you, as usual, are out to mislead people to further you
anti-spankign agenda. Which is it?
Doan
0:->
Straus is polite, and you are stupid to try and demand that there are
are only two possible choices.
But thats you, stupid for years, and getting stupider.
Want to discuss me mistake in posting a full page, and then
acknowledging you were correct in pointing out copyright infringement,
and then discuss with us your defense of ChrisC for doing considerably
worse and NEVER ACKNOWLEDGING and instead attacking his victim, as he did?
How is it you defended that?
Could it be Doan, I'm not harassing but you in fact am dead on right
about you and your lack of honor and ethics?
>
> Doan
>
You have a lot of growing to do, child. And it's getting to be time you
get started.
Kane
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just to simplify this for lay people, Baumrind was against
> >>> spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
> >>> spanking as a parenting style!
> >> Diana Baumrind has never supported spanking as a parenting style. This
> >> is true even in her latest study, that to my knowledge has never been
> >> published. And, the research methodology of this latest study
> >> confounded the research community, because the study was so poorly designed.
> >
> > How so? Even Straus, who didn't agree with the results, had admitted that
> > this study is the BEST single study on spanking. Quotes: "I said that her
> > study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting
> > her conclusions" So either you are right and Straus is wrong or Straus is
> > right and you, as usual, are out to mislead people to further you
> > anti-spankign agenda. Which is it?
>
> Straus is polite, and you are stupid to try and demand that there are
> are only two possible choices.
>
"Polite"? Hihihi. He is stating a fact! He is not a liar like you and
LaVonne. I gave her a chance to point out the problem with the "research
methodology" by comparing this one and the one Dr. Baumrind did on
parenting styles. She can't.
> But thats you, stupid for years, and getting stupider.
>
Hahaha! Look in the mirror, "never-spanked" boy, and see if anyone can
be as stupid as you. ;-)
Doan
0:->
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just to simplify this for lay people, Baumrind was against
>>>>> spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
>>>>> spanking as a parenting style!
>>>> Diana Baumrind has never supported spanking as a parenting style. This
>>>> is true even in her latest study, that to my knowledge has never been
>>>> published. And, the research methodology of this latest study
>>>> confounded the research community, because the study was so poorly designed.
>>> How so? Even Straus, who didn't agree with the results, had admitted that
>>> this study is the BEST single study on spanking. Quotes: "I said that her
>>> study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting
>>> her conclusions" So either you are right and Straus is wrong or Straus is
>>> right and you, as usual, are out to mislead people to further you
>>> anti-spankign agenda. Which is it?
>> Straus is polite, and you are stupid to try and demand that there are
>> are only two possible choices.
>>
> "Polite"? Hihihi. He is stating a fact!
He is polite.
> He is not a liar like you and
> LaVonne.
Not at issue here.
> I gave her a chance to point out the problem with the "research
> methodology" by comparing this one and the one Dr. Baumrind did on
> parenting styles. She can't.
What you actually said in this thread, the ONLY other post by you so
far, is this:
"How so? Even Straus, who didn't agree with the results, had admitted
that this study is the BEST single study on spanking. Quotes: "I said
that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons
for not accepting her conclusions" So either you are right and Straus
is wrong or Straus is right and you, as usual, are out to mislead people
to further you anti-spankign agenda. Which is it?
Doan"
I see NO invitation to do a comparison between the two studies, the
Berkeley presentation and her work back in the 90's.
Are you lying yet again? Or are you suffering from Gregorian Syndrome
where you simply make up things?
If I recall, she pointed out that no peer review has been performed, to
her knowledge. That seems a fair of making a comparison, if she wished
to do so. When both studies are presented with peer review we'll have
something to compare, now won't we?
Now if YOU wish to compare the two for research methodology rigor why
don't YOU prove YOUR claim, Doan? Or do you fancy yourself some kind of
saintly crusader for the pro spanking crowd, to important to lower
yourself to actually proving your claims?
So, let's consider again; why, if the study presented at Berkeley is so
wonderful, as you think a polite Dr. Straus put it (excellent), has it
not been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed professional or
academic journal?
Just an oversight?
>> But thats you, stupid for years, and getting stupider.
>>
> Hahaha! Look in the mirror, "never-spanked" boy, and see if anyone can
> be as stupid as you. ;-)
Speaking of chances for comparison:
I gave you a chance to reply to your condemnation of me for "copyright
infringement" which I've acknowledged and apologized for.
You know, the instance were I pointed out that you defended ChrisC. who
not only did this but changed critical content of the work he
plagiarized, failing to acknowledge the author, and making it appear as
part of a campaign against anti spanking advocates. And in addition had
the gall to accuse HER of plagiarism.
Cute, given that the actual author IS a an anti spanking advocate.
Can we expect your explanation of defending him, or an apology to me
anytime soon?
>
> Doan
>
There is nothing quite so fascinating to me to observe, as I have for
all these years, the stupid who fancy themselves intelligent.
Especially as they resort, when caught, to school boy empty taunts.
Give me another "look in the mirror," Stupid.
0:-> <-:0
Nope. Nothing different.
Now you?
Doan
Doan
Doan
See my post on Monday July 31.
Doan
0:->
> Apparently, Kane0 missed this one.
Apparently, Dancing, Screeching, Lying, Hysterical Monkeyboy missed what
I actually said: "What you actually said in this thread," as in the
thread to which you and I were posting at the time.
Why not wait around a bit before you "declare" she hasn't answered it,
eh, Little Dancing, Screeching, Lying, Hysterical Monkeyboy?
On the other hand, why should she? The uproar at the time, never met
with peer review, over the paper should be enough to indicate there is
something no quite right about the claims made?
0:->
Doan
Yup. I have been waiting. Why don't you ask your master LaVonne if she
can response to me directly instead of using you as her little dog to
do the barking for her? My bet is that she wont dare. ;-)
Doan
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, 0:-> wrote:
0:->
> Yup. I have been waiting. Why don't you ask your master LaVonne
What would make you think she's my master?
> if she
> can response to me directly
I don't discuss these thread subject with her. We discuss gardening, and
sometimes child issues not being currently discussed. I express my OWN
views of the thread in the thread.
> instead of using you as her little dog to
> do the barking for her? My bet is that she wont dare. ;-)
I presume she'll read your post eventually. My guess is that at the
moment, and you'd know if you read the news, she a bit busy trying to
stay cool, and as a fellow gardener trying to salvage some of her garden
from the heat wave she's in.
You are rude, mannerless, and a selfish little brute, and you attack
people that want to reduce the abuse to children and champion people
that want to increase it...unless of course you wish to clean up your
back trail on this newsgroup and show yo actually take the stand you
claim you do...one that appears to be neutrality.
One that has not been.
No honestly neutral person, even if they did chose to debate one side or
the other, would allow things like beatings and plagiarism from anyone
without speaking up honorably.
It's all up to you.
0:->
0:->
> If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going
> through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
> anything that one wants on a personal website. This was a highly
> criticized piece of "research" when it was presented, and when the peer
> review process began. I have no idea if she has since passed the peer
> review process necessary publication in a peer-reviewed research
> journal, but if all she has on her website is this study from 2001 which
> hadn't yet passed peer-review, I suspect it still has not.
>
> This is not indicative of her earlier work, and in looking at her
> analyses, I doubt that it has been published. I could be wrong. Could
> anyone do some checking, along with me? And by the way, a peer review
> group is not selected by opinions that agree or disagree with the
> research being reviewed. One of the jobs of the peer review group is to
> analyze the statistical strength and research methodology of the study
> in light of the conclusions.
>
> LaVonne
Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference
concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth.
It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is
what he had to say in total:
http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
"I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several reporters
after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:
1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79
cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she has
split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and 8
cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent
variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to
be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand
because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off.
Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment
for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given,
they would they show that, although the differences are not significant
because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking,
the worse the outcome for the child. " ...
More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented
critically and negatively on Straus' work.
Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific
research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in
finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children.
In fact, much of her presentation,
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn propaganda
ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come
to defend them.
The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive,
but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA, and
academic and liberal location.
In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research' was
almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent -
child interactions.
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
... "The study I will discuss today was
designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by
mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data
base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten
the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on child
outcomes." ...
One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time?
And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods
suggested by the age groupings?
And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it for
peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her
statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication has
happened.
We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it.
A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did NOT
in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her
reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking
severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes that
practice of spanking.
No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her correctly:
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
"First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be
distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and
intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of “spanking”, the FSP
sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of
physical punishment was normative for that population."
If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an
accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and
bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking
advocate.
Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study by
finding her description of what is and isn't normative.
One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the
poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and
well inside the legal limitations.
Greegor
And you answered that you (as a child ) did not think you
were abused, but you did not answer the question about
whether NOW you look back and think you were abused.
I asked DO YOU not just DID YOU.
In case you think I didn't ask it that way, please
see the quoted text below.
I hope that you will see that the question I asked
was not if you DID think you were abused.
NO WONDER you think the answer is irrelevant!
You answered the wrong question!
DO you think you were abused as a child?
Greegor, Another question you never answered....
1 Carlson LaVonne Jul 25
Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
2 Greegor Jul 27
3 0:-> Jul 27
4 Carlson LaVonne Jul 27
5 0:-> Jul 27
DOES LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
6 Greegor Jul 28
7 Greegor Jul 28
LaVonne, Do you believe you were abused as a child?
8 Greegor Jul 28
9 0:-> Jul 28
DOES LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
10 Greegor Jul 28
LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
11 Greegor Jul 28
12 0:-> Jul 28
Does LAVONNE believe she was abused as a child?
13 Greegor Aug 1
Place a bet, folks -- will Greegor answer the question?
14 Carlson LaVonne Jul 27
Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
15 Greegor Jul 28
DOES LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
16 Greegor Jul 28
Re: Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
17 0:-> Jul 28
18 Greegor Aug 1
19 0:-> Aug 1
LaVonne wrote
>You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.
Greg wrote
> Do YOU believe you were abused as a child, LaVonne?
> I've got a hypothesis.
LaVonne wrote
> Then by all means, post the hypotheses. Be sure to include both the
> research hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Identify how your sample
> will be selected, (how the sample is selected and the appropriate sample
> size is very important to the generalizability and integrity of your
> results.) Describe the methodology you will use, including the
> statistical analysis and why this is appropriate for the particular
> research study you are proposing.
> I'll keep and eye on the thread so I don't miss your research design
> when you have it worked up and time to respond.
FINALLY! In a different message thread!
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services
Message Thread: LaVonne, being treated less than an animal, and abused
to boot
From: Carlson LaVonne Thurs, Aug 3 2006 5:11 pm
Okay, everyone. This is getting a little bit tedious from the very
tedious posters. I never though that I was treated less than an
animal when I was growing up. Of course, whether or not I
had that thought is totally irrelevant, but you now have your
answer. Growing up, I never thought I was abused.
So now you have your answer.
Of course, that answer is also irrelevant to what I have been posting.
So stop it, grow up, and learn to debate as adults! LaVonne
From: Doan Thurs, Aug 3 2006 5:49 pm
So the spanking you received is not abuse but any other parents who
spank their kids are abusing their kids? So, when your parents
spanked you, they did no treat you less than animals but
any other parents who spank their kids are treating their
kids less than animals? I got it now. ;-) Doan
From: Doan Mon, Aug 21 2006 1:28 pm
So the question for Lavonne is if you didn't think that you were
neither
abused or treated less than animals when your parents spanked you, why
do you
then think that other parents did when they spanked their kids? Isn't
that hypocritical of you, LaVonne? Doan
Greegor
0:->
Greegor
Then she finally answers with snide comments,
but she answered the wrong question.
Was it deliberate or a ""mistake"" LaVonne?
Let me guess, she'll drop out of sight for months and
THEN reappear and complain that someone ELSE
is not very responsive!
0:->
> Were the questions too hard for LaVonne to answer herself?
I'm not her, so I'd have a real hard time answering your innuendo
accurately. So why ask me?
> Then she finally answers with snide comments,
> but she answered the wrong question.
In other words, you did not like her answers. And you could not answer
her questions of you, so you take an attack posture. Nice debating ploy.
> Was it deliberate or a ""mistake"" LaVonne?
Double quotes? Gee that must make it really really """true""" then.
> Let me guess, she'll drop out of sight for months and
> THEN reappear and complain that someone ELSE
> is not very responsive!
R R R R R R. It's summer stupid. She's a college instructor/lecturer.
What do they do in the summer time, usually, stupid?
You who went on a three, or was it five year, sabbatical?
She's likely off traveling or vacationing someplace nice and peaceful
where pissants such as you don't tend to hang out.
If you can speculate on what others might have thought as children being
relevant to current debate, then I can speculate on how you think NOW to
what you must have endured as a child.
I suspect it was so horrible for you both that you have suppressed it
and have grown up to become anti authority reactive self deluding twits.
Neither of you deal much in reality. There's a clue for you.
0:->
Greegor
> So why ask me?
What part of "Paging Doktor Carlson!" don't you get?
0:->
What part of 'attribution abortion' don't you get?
0:->
Greegor
> W <snip!>
0:->
> Kane wrote
What part of my post does Greg not understand?
Now to whom would I be addressing my comment too? To Greg? Why would I
use third person grammatically if that were the case?
Look dummy, you spoke of her in the third person, as though she were not
there and you were addressing others.
>> W <snip!>
Why don't you go back to school. It failed you the last four times
through 7th grade, apparently.
"Greegor wrote:
> Were the questions too hard for LaVonne to answer herself? "
Now asked me the stupid question again about what part I might not
understand, and know that it's YOU that cannot write a coherent post.
And you that fails to understand even your own post's contents.
Greegor
0:->
> Kane, Are you intentionally ""Bogarting"" a question to LaVonne?
Nope. You did not ask LaVonne.
Learn standard English, or live with the embarrassing consequences.
This is not addressed to LaVonne, and this is what you posted:
"Were the questions too hard for LaVonne to answer herself?
Then she finally answers with snide comments,
but she answered the wrong question.
Was it deliberate or a ""mistake"" LaVonne?
Let me guess, she'll drop out of sight for months and
THEN reappear and complain that someone ELSE
is not very responsive!"
If you chose to speak or write in the third person (do you understand
what that means?) you are NOT speaking to the person named.
Anyone seeing or hearing can presume you are speaking to them.
That IS why I responded as I did.
Now, learn to speak and write standard English. It will make your
petitions and testimony so much more acceptable. And maybe you'll forget
the hyperbole.
If you don't want someone else to respond, DON'T THIRD PARTY the
individual.
Greegor
0:->
> Paging Doktor Carlson!
What would be the purpose of misspelling Doctor, Greg?
Greegor
> What would be the purpose of misspelling Doctor, Greg?
Was it an offending letter?
0:->
I've no idea. I don't know your intent and that's why I asked.
What are you insinuating, if anything?
And why?
0:->
