Read the Studies Yet
Kane
demands posted here.
I've read the studies for years on both side of the debate, and what
little there is on the pro spank side is so weak it is ridiculous.
I'm tired of pro spankers demanding "proof" but not having read much
of anything themselves. I've read it. I'll tell you what it says, if
you don't like it GO FIND AND READ THE DAMN THING YOURSELF. No more
hairsplitting bullshit from you pack of vicious child abusers. Enough
is enough.
I'll no longer entertain a demand of proof regardless of whether I've
made a claim or not.
If you haven't read the studies don't bother to ask me to provide them
for you, get them yourself. Get over your abysmal ignorance. One can't
debate with the ignorant.
An example:
I've claimed that brainscan studies have clearly shown connects
between abuse to children and poor development of parts of the brain.
The only reply, even after I've posted the sources with links, is
"pseudoscience"
, "Cargo cult mentality," and not a single intelligent word about the
studies by reputable researchers in physiology, a hard science if
there ever was one.
Just bullshit and run from you crappers.
If you want to argue that "spanking isn't abuse" you are coming from
an opinion that is unsupported because you cannot identify what is and
isn't abuse and spanking except at the extremes.
The human brain and it's development give not a shit for your
opinions. If it is damaged it is damaged. Live with it and make your
argument for damage being acceptable to you if you insist and
defending spanking.
In other words try gettin honest.
We've had years of your bullshit here.
Your crap arguments are NOT acceptable.
If you have credible evidence that spanking at all it's levels has no
deleterious effects, run it on your here. I've found nothing but
bullshit on this, speculation and anecdotal nonsense.
It boils down to this. NOT striking a child causes no harm to the
brain and nervous system. Pain and fear DO.
The former leaves the child teachable by her environment including
caregivers, the latter, fear and pain, immediately puts at risk the
capacity to learn and develop normally.
So, show us the brain scan studies that make it clear that the brain
develops well with spanking and other forms of pain and fear.
When you've got the proof come on back.
As for Doan the duplicitious. I've had enough of his garbage.
He has three tasks to complete before I'll reply to his posts:
-Finish his "I dare you I double dare you" crap on the "never spanked"
claims;
-Prove he has the Ebrey study on street entries and debate from it;
-And finally, get to what the previous two were thrown in to avoid,
answer The Question as it was asked, not some bullshit he's making up,
or admit that parents cannot know where the line is between
non-injurious spanking and abusive injury.
And if I get just one "he ran and wouldn't debate me" that's it. I
will no longer respond to any post of his directly.
It's Doan that has run and refused to debate or even respond to his
own challenges. It's very plain to see who runs and who won't debate:
Doan.
When you can put up instead of weasel we might have a friendly chat,
but I don't expect much from you Doan.
Kane
Ron
"Kane" <pohakuy...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:7ed8d1be.03122...@posting.google.com...
Please list the studies, with URL's if possible. That way we can read them.
Ron
Kane
<apositi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>"Kane" <pohakuy...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
>news:7ed8d1be.03122...@posting.google.com...
>Please list the studies,
Been done, repeatedly.
>with URL's if possible.
There are all in this ng. We get tired of posting them over and over.
> That way we can read them.
I find that when offered such information freely it turns repidly in
to a nitpicking avoidance weasel dance very quickly. The research is
all available. I not hard to find.
If you wish to learn about research that questions the efficacy of
spanking go and find it and read it.
I have certainly taken the time, without requesting others do MY
research, looked at the materials available from the spanking side
(I'm unable to find a single study that shows that spanking does NOT
have long term negative effects.)
I am still looking.
I find a great deal of emotionaly charged nonsense about how spanking
doesn't hurt a child in the long run, that it isn't "hitting," that
parents know the limits, yet my own experience is exactly the
opposite. One can't spank without striking or hitting, there is ample
proof in our prisons, and foster homes that someone isn't able to make
such judgements.
A quick google will give you all you can possibly want or use of
studies on how spanking doesn't work and non-punitive methods do. This
ng alone will turn up dozens.
Happy to discuss them when you have read them.
Happy to discuss any studies or materials that claim or defend
spanking...but I don't think you can come up with anything I haven't
read.
I've read everything of Dobson, I've looked at the so called peer
reviews by pro spankers of CP studies that bring into question their
use. They are not much more than babble on the order of Doan's using a
medical researcher to demand medical experiment standards of social
scientist who cannot lawfully do to children what can be done to
adults (and that's getting less by the year) by medical
experimentation.
Frankly I don't NEED studies or anything else to know what cowardice
is. When some bullies, hits, threatens, anyone it's just bullying and
nothing more no matter what face is put on it.
It's not rocket science. Big doesn't hit little. Strong does not
threaten weak. Children don't need hitting or threatening to learn if
the caregive takes the little time and trouble required to parent
without pain and threat.
In fact as I raised my children I became increasingly bemused to
discover I was more and more an observer as they made more and better
choices. I was there to be a resource and for safety and not much
more, except of course we loved and trusted each other.
I am still looking for anyone to step forward with any study or peer
review that refutes Dennis Embry's 25 year old study on toddler street
entries (so if you find one let me know). And don't give me that
"psychologists don't know what they are talking about crap." He wasn't
a psychologist. Has worked for states and transportation traffic doing
studies. He wasn't even looking for a discipline model. He was
studying the incidence of toddler street entries because of the high
traffic death rate of such events. The outcome was a surprize to him
too...he once believed that pain was the best teacher in those
circumstances.
He had ZERO investment in a no spank or no punishment model...he
simply found objectively that positive methods beat the shit out of
threats and pain.
When you can defend, scientifically, the use of force on a child as
more effective in teaching and supporting their development let me
know. I have tried to find something and get nothing but ancient
superstitions and nonsense prattle.
Or we can go to the moral argument...and I would be very hard to
convince, since I've never had to hit a child or "spank" them to
successfuly instruct them. Never. And remember I've not only raised my
own but worked with hundreds of adjudicated youth in a mental health
treatment facility....where I destroyed punitive methods and put my
methods in place.
I was the highest paid juvenile mental health line worker in the state
because of my program success. And I continued for 13 more years
teaching others how to do it.
Convince me it's moral to deliberately use pain and fear to teach a
child.
Start with the brain scan studies about learning, and about the
development of brain based conscience. Those were scientific medical
studies, not psychological studies.
Read them, tell me what you think. Consider working up some
conclusions that would support the continued us of pain and fear for
parental teaching methods that would encorporate that information on
brain scans.
I've posted the URLs to them before. If you can be bothered to google
on my addy with [brain+scan] in the search field then I can assume you
can't be bothered to give this real thought.
By the way Ron, each time you accuse "us" of failing to back up our
claims, but put out yours that spanking is acceptable and effective
but DO NOT put up any proof it does look rather .... mmmm ...how shall
I say this nicely? Duplicitious?
Don't demand what you can't provide, and don't keep insisting we
defend what you haven't bothered to read and study.
It's not a debate if you do that.
>
>Ron
>
Thanks for the interest,
Kane
Greg Hanson
could you please post the newsgroup link to that message?
Even if a URL list is too long, that should not be.
Francis
his mom that she is a whore. When she isn't and the three other boys in
line watching this verbal abuse are getting to act the same because
there is NO physical reprocussions for his actions. The mother is a very
loving caring person whom can not lift a finger 'cause it isn't in her
too, so the child abuises her repeatly. Can you tell me what you do in
those instances. Believe me these four boys are probably the strogest
willed and missbeaved kids I have ever seen. Bye the way their father
died in a car accident over 4 years ago and he was the only one capable
of handling them, and that was a handfull. Please tell me your thoughts
of communication that has feeled misserbly.
Greg Hanson
already been ruined by spanking?
Do you really think no-spank parenting can
turn these violent kids around? Why not?
If you think violence isn't part of
the culture at school, you're kidding.
And isn't peer pressure REALLY strong?
Francis <francis...@verizon.net>
wrote in message news:<3wPFb.356$PJ6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
Ron
> >> Kane
> >
> >Please list the studies,
>
> Been done, repeatedly.
>
> >with URL's if possible.
>
> There are all in this ng. We get tired of posting them over and over.
>
> > That way we can read them.
(and snip again)
They may have been, but I don't frequent this ng so I have not seen them
listed. Its a reasonable request.
Ron
Greg Hanson
> Its a reasonable request.
Did you think that matters to Kane?
Kane
> Ron wrote
> > Its a reasonable request.
>
> Did you think that matters to Kane?
Of course it does.
As a reasonable request I asked Ron to simply google up the many
references to studies on this ng. In addition he might also google up
the subjects discussed and see what is available.
I've learned that folks that get others to do THEIR work are like
spectators as a wrestling match. They'll yell and scream advice but
the second they find themselves the target of one of the compatants
they'll piss and run.
I don't run errands for people here anymore.
If you want to debate me on a point do your own lookups. Do your own
reading.
Those that refuse to read and study on their own simply wish to
kabitz. Those who are serious DON'T refuse.
And you have no credibility with either Ron or myself, or anyone but
your plant friend and a few cowards that have run from these ngs.
You are a low life scum that lives off a women whose child you
attempted to use in a grand scheme to get the state to make you
wealthy....and you will fail there as you have failed at everything
else. Well, except can and bottle refunding...and my guess is you
can't even make a go at that...you've lied about even that limp excuse
for a job.
You might want to think twice about playing with the big boys,
Greegor. Even the ones you try to suck up to would stomp you like a
bug if they could, scum.
Kane
Doan
> Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<35120b16.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ron wrote
> > > Its a reasonable request.
> >
> > Did you think that matters to Kane?
>
> Of course it does.
>
> As a reasonable request I asked Ron to simply google up the many
> references to studies on this ng. In addition he might also google up
> the subjects discussed and see what is available.
>
Good advice. Just google to see how many times Kane cited the Embry
Study. Then ask if Kane has actually read the study! ;-)
> I've learned that folks that get others to do THEIR work are like
> spectators as a wrestling match. They'll yell and scream advice but
> the second they find themselves the target of one of the compatants
> they'll piss and run.
>
LOL! Got the study yet? ;-)
> I don't run errands for people here anymore.
>
Especially when they found out what a liar Kane is! ;-)
> If you want to debate me on a point do your own lookups. Do your own
> reading.
>
Lol! Wanna debate the Embry study, Kane? :-)
Doan
Kane
>On 24 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<35120b16.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Ron wrote
>> > > Its a reasonable request.
>> >
>> > Did you think that matters to Kane?
>>
>> Of course it does.
>>
>> As a reasonable request I asked Ron to simply google up the many
>> references to studies on this ng. In addition he might also google
up
>> the subjects discussed and see what is available.
>>
>Good advice. Just google to see how many times Kane cited the Embry
>Study. Then ask if Kane has actually read the study! ;-)
Just google and find out how many times I cited the Embry quote in a
magazine article.
Then ask if Doan is willing to answer The Question honestly or is
desperately seeking anything that will take the spotlight off his not
having done so.
>> I've learned that folks that get others to do THEIR work are like
>> spectators as a wrestling match. They'll yell and scream advice but
>> the second they find themselves the target of one of the compatants
>> they'll piss and run.
>>
>LOL! Got the study yet? ;-)
If I cited anything from it you couldn't varify if it was true or I
just made it up to tease you.
What would it matter...YOU don't have it so I have no obligation to
debate you on it until you do. If
>> I don't run errands for people here anymore.
>>
>Especially when they found out what a liar Kane is! ;-)
And what would I be lying about?
>> If you want to debate me on a point do your own lookups. Do your
own
>> reading.
>>
>Lol! Wanna debate the Embry study, Kane? :-)
Sure. Can you prove you have a copy?
>Doan
Kane
Ron
already know about Chris' favorite study (begins with an S), what else is
out there?
You have to give me a place to start looking PPL.
Ron
"Kane" <pohakuy...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:7ed8d1be.03122...@posting.google.com...
Kane
<apositi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>OK, lets start by naming some of these studies. I got the Embry
study, I
>already know about Chris' favorite study (begins with an S), what
else is
>out there?
>
>You have to give me a place to start looking PPL.
Gershoff's review and analysis of much of the available work should be
helpful and a fair place to start. (If Doan was using his brain he
would have learned that this very study of research - which I believe
he claims to be familiar with - had the answer to The Question..see if
you can find it).
http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002/bul1284539.pdf
Further is the work of Martin Teicher, M. D.
<his bonifides certainly don't suggest a researcher in "soft
science.">
Martin H. Teicher, M.D., Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry
at Harvard Medical School and Director of the
internationally-recognized Clinical Chronobiology Laboratory at McLean
Hospital. His research studies range from inquiries into the molecular
mechanisms of brain development, through cellular neuroanatomy, to
regional neuropharmacology, up through studies of human behavior and
brain imaging. A researcher and clinician with an unusual background
in mathematics and technology, Dr. Teicher has succeeded in taking
problems from the bedside to the laboratory bench and has then
translated his findings back through clinical research trials to the
bedside and to the marketplace. His capacity to attack problems from
multiple levels in multiple domains has enabled him to pioneer new
areas, to provide theoretical models and to develop new tools for
clinicians.
He has been at the forefront of studies of actigraphy and motion
analysis as tools for research in psychiatry and developed a new
approach and software for non-linear multioscillator cosinor modeling.
Using these tools, Dr. Teicher delineated and defined the different
forms of rest-activity disturbance observed in many of the major
psychiatric disorders including depression in children, adults and
geriatric patients, ADHD, Post-traumatic stress disorder, and
Alzheimer's disease. He has written software for use in children or
adults that can automatically generate a comprehensive clinical report
on the subject's level of activity, possible sleep continuity, and
circadian patterns that will also indicate with a high level of
confidence whether these patterns are most consistent with major
unipolar depression, seasonal affective disorder, bipolar depression,
mania, ADHD, schizophrenia, or the co-morbid presentation of these
disorders.
Dr. Teicher has also collaborated with Perry Renshaw, MD, Ph.D. in the
Brain Imaging Center at McLean Hospital to markedly advance the
assessment of functional brain activity in psychiatric patients,
particularly children. Dr. Teicher and Dr. Renshaw's research teams
devised and validated a new method for functional MRI imaging
(T2-relaxometry) that provides indirect information about basal blood
volume that is not only safer for developing brains, but also has
higher resolution. Using this technique, this collaborative research
team provided the first evidence that there is an abnormality in the
paramagnetic properties of the striatum (specifically the putamen) in
children with ADHD and are most likely the result of alterations in
brain activity and cerebral blood volume. Furthermore, these changes
correlate strongly with the child's basal level of activity and
inattention using infrared motion analysis. T2-relation time in the
putamen changes significantly with drug treatment. The results of
these studies were published in Nature Medicine, and serve as the
basis for a pending patent.
In addition, Dr. Teicher has done seminal work on dopamine-receptor
pruning, a developmental phenomenon that occurs between adolescence
and adulthood. He is currently investigating the molecular mechanisms
that regulate the overproduction and pruning of these dopamine
receptors, along with the effects of exposure to early stress.
Dr. Martin Teicher has served on the Editorial Board of the Journal of
Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology since its inception, as has
been a Committee Member of the Neurochemistry and Neuropharmocology
Study Section of the National Institute of Mental Health. He is the
author of over 100 articles in the scientific literature.
<<in addition...and a reason I tend to trust Dr. Teicher, my being
very anti drugging of kids>>
a - In February of 1990, Dr. Martin Teicher, a Harvard psychiatrist,
reported in The American Journal of Psychiatry that six patients who
were depressed - but not suicidal - had developed intense, violent,
suicidal preoccupation within weeks of taking Prozac (emphasis added)
Subsequent letters from doctors published in The American Journal of
Psychiatry and The New England Journal of Medicine reported similar
findings. The report published in The New England Journal of Medicine
noted that the patients had not been suicidal before taking the drug
and that their suicidal thoughts ended abruptly upon ceasing it's use.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<end>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please remember these are not MY specific arguments against spanking,
but they do contribute to my overall views. Mine are both moral
issues, and my considerable experience with using non-cp and in fact
non-punishment methods. And the observation again and again of others
doing so, and the adults such parenting methods created...not even
anywhere near what you claimed failure to use pain for discipline is
supposed to produce.
Others have had similar experiences to mine....some quite recently:
http://sandradodd.com/spanking
There is of course a considerable list of non-spanking alternatives
offered. Those that either don't use punishment or tend to move
furtherest in that direction are the most successful in my experience.
And arguments, such as those tried by Doan, such as "that's anectodal"
and "that's not hard science" I consider the absolute height of
silliness. I'm not trying to prove the tensile strength of an alloy of
steel, and what neurobiologists (hardly a soft science) in various
disciplines are finding, along with the the anecdotes of parents
actually experiencing the changes I'm talking about carry considerably
weight with me.
The "studies?" Well, they point in a direction. I don't consider them
definitive...but then what is in any endeavor. Even the hard sciences
change as time passes and in recent years change comes faster than
ever.
One of my arguments against spanking is that we so often cannot know
the inner state of the child emotionally or physiologically. I worked
with children that had be physically disciplined and ended up in a
treatment center, only to discover after a neurological workup turned
out the be dysfuctional for physical reasons. "Screwed up wiring" we
called it, but the psychiatrists in charge of the cases could show us
the readouts and scans and point to the precise ways these children
COULD not possibly respond to ordinary parenting...and least of all to
pain and humiliation.
I'm afraid far too many children get hit that should not be for these
reasons let alone my moral bias.
Kane
>
>Ron
>
>"Kane" <pohakuy...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
>news:7ed8d1be.03122...@posting.google.com...
>> Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message
>news:<35120b16.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Ron wrote
>> > > Its a reasonable request.
>> >
>> > Did you think that matters to Kane?
>>
>> Of course it does.
>>
>> As a reasonable request I asked Ron to simply google up the many
>> references to studies on this ng. In addition he might also google
up
>> the subjects discussed and see what is available.
>>
>> I've learned that folks that get others to do THEIR work are like
>> spectators as a wrestling match. They'll yell and scream advice but
>> the second they find themselves the target of one of the compatants
>> they'll piss and run.
>>
>> I don't run errands for people here anymore.
>>
>> If you want to debate me on a point do your own lookups. Do your
own
>> reading.
>>
Doan
Let's start with the Embry study. Kane claimed to have read this study.
Let's see if he can tell us how large was the sample size. From his
continous puffering, I doubt if he really have read it! I will head
to the library during this Winter break.
Doan
Greg Hanson
Both Chris and Kane posted a short blurb which
most certainly is not a full report on research.
Kane even called it a "citation" which is a joke.
I searched the Web and found the guy's web site.
A link to his photo and his BIO are below.
In one of the old messages Chris made noises
that this guy started out believing in spanking
being more effective in the study?
Just a first impression from the name of the
guy's book and services operation, not to
mention some of the sub parts on the web site
certainly would not make you think the guy
ever believed in spanking.
I still have only the stupid little blurb
that Chris and Kane kept pretending was the research.
Can somebody give me a link to the full research?
PHOTO
http://www.paxis.org/people/Dr._Embry.jpg
http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Embry%20Biography-1999.html
Brief Biography of Dr. Dennis D. Embry: 1999
Phone: 520-299-6770 FAX: 520-299-6822
EMAIL & ADDRESS: dde...@NOSPAMpaxis.org
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
EMPLOYMENT: President/CEO, PAXIS Institute
EDUCATION:
B.A., University of Kansas, History and American Studies (Honors),
1972
M.A., University of Kansas, Child and Developmental Psychology, 1979
Ph.D., University of Kansas, Child and Developmental Psychology, 1981
Licensed Psychologist, State of Arizona, License # 1752
Dennis D. Embry has a Ph.D. in child and developmental psychology and
the President/CEO of PAXIS Institute in Tucson, Arizona. PAXIS
Institute has been founded to encourage the extensive collaboration
between science and practice of prevention in the United States and
internationally.
Dr. Embry has an international reputation in the area of designing,
testing and disseminating effective large-scale educational campaigns
to increase school and community safety, child safety, family
well-being and health. Those research projects have been contracted
and/or funded by such organizations as the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, U.S. Office of Education, the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety, The Moerk Company Foundation, the W.T. Grant
Foundation, DuPont, IBM and grants from a number of other companies,
non-profit foundations, and foreign governments—particularly as a
National Research Advisory Council Senior Fellow in New Zealand.
The hallmark of his work has been careful behavioral assessment of
changes induced in the everyday behavior of families, teachers and
children as a result of parent, school-based and child-training
materials. Another hallmark of his work has been a creative synthesis
of diverse bodies of scientific findings into practical, logical
action as well as testable theory. For example in the area of injury
control and violence prevention, his theoretical papers on
cognitive-imitative-social competencies (CIS, pronounced, "kiss") led
to the creation of only one of two randomized control group studies
showing positive results on youth violence. Fuller results of this
continuing research and development project (PeaceBuilders®) are in
revision for publication, and some have already been published in the
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Dr. Embry's work has reached
hundreds of thousands of children through such vehicles as the Safe
Playing Program, the Deployment and Reunion Series for the Gulf War
and Somalia, PeaceBuilders®, and PAX Leaders.
Dr. Embry has been a consultant for a number of governments and
agencies internationally—the Federal Republic of Germany, federal and
state governments in Australia, New Zealand and Honduras. In the
United States, Dr. Embry has consulted with numerous projects and
programs, including Children's Television Workshop ("Sesame Street").
Based on Dr. Embry's experience as a faculty member at the University
of Kansas, at the Bureau of Child Research and the Department of Human
Development, he developed the desire to integrate his academic
research experience, clinical experience, and health
promotion/marketing experience. The result was the establishment of
Quality Time, Inc., designed to help companies and organizations with
health promotion/accident prevention campaigns and professional
services marketing. That company became Heartsprings, Inc.
Prior program development users of Dr. Embry's work include: the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, McDonald's affiliates, Hallmark
Cards Company Foundation, Psychiatric Institutes of America, Century
HealthCare, KennerParker Toys, the Health Care Corporation of America,
Vanderbilt University, Columbia University, the Federal Republic of
Germany, the U.S. Academy for Educational Development, the Federal
Government of Australia, the Pentagon, the USO, the American
Psychological Association, the Packard Foundation, various city and
state governments, school districts throughout the United States.
Additionally, Dr. Embry has helped develop community health promotion
campaigns with various network affiliates.
Dr. Embry has published peer-reviewed journal articles and chapters.
He is an author of a number of books, a weekly newspaper column,
magazine articles and a frequent public speaker. His work has been
publicized in major national media: the Today Show, Good Morning
America, Life Magazine, People Magazine, US News and World Report, LA
Times, Washington Post and various wire services. Many of his works
are available in the PAXIS Electronic Library.
Dr. Embry is active in community affairs—sitting on the Mayor's Task
Force on Children's Mental Health, the Children's Museum, FutureWave
in Santa Fe, a member of a number of community service boards and an
active member of St. Francis in the Foothills church in Tucson, where
he teaches Sunday School.
Greg Hanson
in Alamo, California..
Do you think he would have links to all of the studies, Kane?
Kane
Wow! I'm really impressed. Usually you just sit like a lump on the
couch unless there is a little girl to be showered.
> Both Chris and Kane posted a short blurb which
> most certainly is not a full report on research.
That's correct. Neither claimed it was a full report. If one wants a
full report then they must find the study.
> Kane even called it a "citation" which is a joke.
I take it you, the 4 year sabbatical boy, knows what a "citation" is.
"The act of citing.
A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
A source so cited; a quotation."
I cited the magazine article that quoted Dr. Embry.
> I searched the Web and found the guy's web site.
"Guy"? "Guy"? Okay, if you say so.
> A link to his photo and his BIO are below.
Gosh, will we find the he is a little girl showerer and sit on his as
sometimes bottle and can collector for refund pocket change?
> In one of the old messages Chris made noises
> that this guy started out believing in spanking
> being more effective in the study?
Why the question mark? Dr. Embry has said so before.
Actually though, you not knowing what a citation is, have misquoted.
He didn't say spanking....he simply said punishment.
> Just a first impression from the name of the
> guy's book and services operation, not to
> mention some of the sub parts on the web site
> certainly would not make you think the guy
> ever believed in spanking.
You can believe what you wish. On a scale of credibility he's a 10 you
are a -5.
> I still have only the stupid little blurb
> that Chris and Kane kept pretending was the research.
Please point out where either of us labeled the magazine article
citation as "research."
> Can somebody give me a link to the full research?
Sure, you have it below. Ask the Dr. Embry for it.
> PHOTO
> http://www.paxis.org/people/Dr._Embry.jpg
>
> http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Embry%20Biography-1999.html
>
> Brief Biography of Dr. Dennis D. Embry: 1999
> Phone: 520-299-6770 FAX: 520-299-6822
> EMAIL & ADDRESS: dde...@NOSPAMpaxis.org
> P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
> EMPLOYMENT: President/CEO, PAXIS Institute
> EDUCATION:
> B.A., University of Kansas, History and American Studies (Honors),
> 1972
Gee, the "guy" received a B.A. will "Honors"
> M.A., University of Kansas, Child and Developmental Psychology, 1979
7 years later and the "guy" was awarded his M.A.
> Ph.D., University of Kansas, Child and Developmental Psychology, 1981
And two years later the "guy" won his Ph.D...in, will dawgawn it,
Child and Developmental Psych.
One would hardly think the "guy" was qualified to discuss the subject
let alone do a study on it, would one?
> Licensed Psychologist, State of Arizona, License # 1752
> Dennis D. Embry has a Ph.D. in child and developmental psychology and
> the President/CEO of PAXIS Institute in Tucson, Arizona. PAXIS
> Institute has been founded to encourage the extensive collaboration
> between science and practice of prevention in the United States and
> internationally.
>
> Dr. Embry has an international reputation in the area of designing,
> testing and disseminating effective large-scale educational campaigns
> to increase school and community safety, child safety, family
> well-being and health.
Gosh, the "guy" only has an international reputation...why not
intergalactic so that Greegor the Whore will be sufficiently
impressed?
> Those research projects have been contracted
> and/or funded by such organizations as the U.S. Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention, U.S. Office of Education, the AAA Foundation
> for Traffic Safety, The Moerk Company Foundation, the W.T. Grant
> Foundation, DuPont, IBM and grants from a number of other companies,
> non-profit foundations, and foreign governments?particularly as a
> National Research Advisory Council Senior Fellow in New Zealand.
Wouldn't you know it...on the take. Why couldn't he live and work and
do research by moving in with a women and using HERE money. All he'd
have to do is get her child removed....a quick shower or two would
likely do it....then sue the state for not storing his shit.
> The hallmark of his work has been careful behavioral assessment of
> changes induced in the everyday behavior of families, teachers and
> children as a result of parent, school-based and child-training
> materials. Another hallmark of his work has been a creative synthesis
> of diverse bodies of scientific findings into practical, logical
> action as well as testable theory. For example in the area of injury
> control and violence prevention, his theoretical papers on
> cognitive-imitative-social competencies (CIS, pronounced, "kiss") led
> to the creation of only one of two randomized control group studies
> showing positive results on youth violence. Fuller results of this
> continuing research and development project (PeaceBuilders®) are in
> revision for publication, and some have already been published in the
> American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Dr. Embry's work has reached
> hundreds of thousands of children through such vehicles as the Safe
> Playing Program, the Deployment and Reunion Series for the Gulf War
> and Somalia, PeaceBuilders®, and PAX Leaders.
You'd think the "guy" would have something to show for all his
research, now wouldn't you? Just this silly stuff.
> Dr. Embry has been a consultant for a number of governments and
> agencies internationally?the Federal Republic of Germany, federal and
> Dr. Embry is active in community affairs?sitting on the Mayor's Task
> Force on Children's Mental Health, the Children's Museum, FutureWave
> in Santa Fe, a member of a number of community service boards and an
> active member of St. Francis in the Foothills church in Tucson, where
> he teaches Sunday School.
Just another "guy" like Greegor the Whore, who is on sabbatical still.
Now if only Dr. Embry could live up to the high levels of credibility,
intelligence, and all around little girl washer ability of Greegor, we
might believe his study on toddler street entry.
Kane
Greg Hanson
> So, Greegor. You seem to have a woodie for Straus...claiming he
> screwed up badly in his study.
> Care to discuss this further
Strauss screwed up the research by counting as non-spankers
many parents who spank rarely. Another Doctor pointed this
out to him and Strauss had to publicly admit to this big flaw.
Not exactly a minor flaw in his research.
Somewhat less than up to academic par.
Now he's applying his personal bias to research
about ""psychological aggression"".
It sounds like research where his personal bias
might be easier to conceal.
Kane
> > So, Greegor. You seem to have a woodie for Straus...claiming he
> > screwed up badly in his study.
> > Care to discuss this further
>
> Strauss screwed up the research by counting as non-spankers
> many parents who spank rarely.
Did you find that in the study? How was it "discovered" he screwed up?
> Another Doctor pointed this
> out to him and Strauss had to publicly admit to this big flaw.
Did you actually read the study? You need to.
> Not exactly a minor flaw in his research.
Possibly not a "flaw" at all. Did you read the study?
> Somewhat less than up to academic par.
No, actually researchers who submit their research for peer review
rarely escape SOME questioning and claims against their results. Have
you actually read the study?
> Now he's applying his personal bias to research
> about ""psychological aggression"".
> It sounds like research where his personal bias
> might be easier to conceal.
"Conceal"?
How would he do that given that even a dunce such as you note it?
You people are beyond belief. Deep in denial, minimizing the cruelty
and damage of CP, and busy with dreams of showering little girls. tsk
tsk tsk
My bet is that you had some times with the little girl that were
pleasant, where you actually met her needs, and that in addition to
using a cold shower to discipline the child she actually did wash off
the results of wetting herself.
That of course negates all the other cruelties you visited upon her,
right?
Just as all the other conclusions that can be drawn from the Straus
study can be magically made to go away because some one made a claim
about one portion of the study. Rather a minor portion of the study,
by the way.
Do you know what a thinking error is?
Kane
Doan
> Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<35120b16.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > Kane wrote
> > > So, Greegor. You seem to have a woodie for Straus...claiming he
> > > screwed up badly in his study.
> > > Care to discuss this further
> >
> > Strauss screwed up the research by counting as non-spankers
> > many parents who spank rarely.
>
> Did you find that in the study? How was it "discovered" he screwed up?
>
It has been "pointed out" many times.
"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the FAILURE of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (emphasis is mine)
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
> > Another Doctor pointed this
> > out to him and Strauss had to publicly admit to this big flaw.
>
> Did you actually read the study? You need to.
>
Actually, unlike you Kane, we do read the actual study. Here is Straus's
admission:
"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
> > Not exactly a minor flaw in his research.
>
> Possibly not a "flaw" at all. Did you read the study?
>
Anyone but the anti-spanking zealotS seems to miss the flaw/"failure to
perceive"! ;-)
Doan
Doan
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html
Try this link for the Gershoff (2002):
http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002
It presented both sides of the issue.
Doan
Doan
I will be heading to the library this week. As you noted,
Chris and Kane blabbed about this study alot but can't
provide little details. I doubt that Kane has actually
read it. He can't even answer the simple question about
the sample size in this study!
Doan
Kane
>On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<35120b16.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Kane wrote
>> > > So, Greegor. You seem to have a woodie for Straus...claiming he
>> > > screwed up badly in his study.
>> > > Care to discuss this further
>> >
>> > Strauss screwed up the research by counting as non-spankers
>> > many parents who spank rarely.
>>
>> Did you find that in the study? How was it "discovered" he screwed
up?
>>
>It has been "pointed out" many times.
Greegor will be eternally endebted.
>"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
>motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief
that
>good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
interpersonal
>violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love
and
>concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
>preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held
values may
>account for the FAILURE of Straus to perceive the serious limitation
of
>measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (emphasis is mine)
>(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
Yes, I know. I've read it many times. I've also asked that the
significance be clearly stated. You have failed to do so, again and
again. The one week reference period criticism is a claim, not proof,
that there is some "serious limitation."
What IS that limitation? Please clarify.
>> > Another Doctor pointed this
>> > out to him and Strauss had to publicly admit to this big flaw.
>>
>> Did you actually read the study? You need to.
>>
>Actually, unlike you Kane, we do read the actual study.
Actually I DO read the study. I also understand it. You apparently
give it meanings it does not have.
>Here is Straus's
>admission:
Your bias is clear in the use of the word "admission." Researchers
respond to claims of peer review all the time without it being called
an "admission."
So let's look at what Straus said in his "admission," shall we?
>"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood
that our
>no-spanking group includes occasional spankers.
Clear enough. No weaseling, like you.
>To the extent that this is
>the case,
OH? What does this mean? Apparently it means that NOT all in the
"non-spanking group" occasionally spank...gosh, I wonder what the
significance of that might be, you fucking little liar.
>the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
>the "none" group may indicate
"may indicate" certainly doesn't suggest that Straus is willing to
completely junk his research for a single item that may or may not
have occasional spankers.
You do recall that he was dealing with a week to week measure, do you
not?
And you are aware that even if some spanked and some didn't, those
that did weren't having their overall spanking measured, just whether
or not they spanked within the previous week?
>an improvement in the behavior of children whose
>parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
So I'll ask you again, and you'll refuse to answer again, just as you
did with The Question, by coming up with a non-answer answer: if the
trend is downward, that is the less spanking the less ASB, does that
prove spanking works to lower ASB, or that there is a strong
correlation between less spanking resulting in less ASB?
>> > Not exactly a minor flaw in his research.
>>
>> Possibly not a "flaw" at all. Did you read the study?
>>
>Anyone but the anti-spanking zealotS seems to miss the flaw/"failure
to
>perceive"! ;-)
I don't miss the words. I miss the significance. Surely you, in your
wisdom, knows the sigificance. Please clarify.
>
>Doan
>
And you have still failed to answer The Question. I'm not interested
in an answer to some OTHER question than I asked, only The Question,
as I asked it.
Referring the questioning parent on to another source isn't answering
The Question. Thank you for giving this the obviously serious thought
you have. I await your answer.
Still not going to answer, are you?
Kane
Kane
>
>I will be heading to the library this week. As you noted,
>Chris and Kane blabbed about this study alot but can't
>provide little details. I doubt that Kane has actually
>read it. He can't
Liar. I said I won't until YOU have the study to refer to because of
your lying ways.
>even answer the simple question about
>the sample size in this study!
Liar. Show me were I said I "couldn't" answer the question.
>
>Doan
Doan is a habitual liar, a not uncommon behavior for the spanked
child.
Kane
>
>On 25 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote:
>
>> I searched the newsgroup.
>> Both Chris and Kane posted a short blurb which
>> most certainly is not a full report on research.
>> Kane even called it a "citation" which is a joke.
>>
>> I searched the Web and found the guy's web site.
>> A link to his photo and his BIO are below.
>>
>> In one of the old messages Chris made noises
>> that this guy started out believing in spanking
>> being more effective in the study?
>>
>> Just a first impression from the name of the
>> guy's book and services operation, not to
>> mention some of the sub parts on the web site
>> certainly would not make you think the guy
>> ever believed in spanking.
>>
>> I still have only the stupid little blurb
>> that Chris and Kane kept pretending was the research.
>>
>> Can somebody give me a link to the full research?
>>
>> PHOTO
>> http://www.paxis.org/people/Dr._Embry.jpg
>>
>> http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Embry%20Biography-1999.html
>>
>> Brief Biography of Dr. Dennis D. Embry: 1999
>> Phone: 520-299-6770 FAX: 520-299-6822
>> EMAIL & ADDRESS: dde...@NOSPAMpaxis.org
>> P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
>> EMPLOYMENT: President/CEO, PAXIS Institute
>> EDUCATION:
>> B.A., University of Kansas, History and American Studies (Honors),
>> 1972
>> M.A., University of Kansas, Child and Developmental Psychology,
1979
>> Ph.D., University of Kansas, Child and Developmental Psychology,
1981
>> Licensed Psychologist, State of Arizona, License # 1752
>> Dennis D. Embry has a Ph.D. in child and developmental psychology
and
>> the President/CEO of PAXIS Institute in Tucson, Arizona. PAXIS
>> Institute has been founded to encourage the extensive collaboration
>> between science and practice of prevention in the United States and
>> internationally.
>>
>> Dr. Embry has an international reputation in the area of designing,
>> testing and disseminating effective large-scale educational
campaigns
>> to increase school and community safety, child safety, family
>> well-being and health. Those research projects have been contracted
>> and/or funded by such organizations as the U.S. Centers for Disease
>> Control and Prevention, U.S. Office of Education, the AAA
Foundation
>> for Traffic Safety, The Moerk Company Foundation, the W.T. Grant
>> Foundation, DuPont, IBM and grants from a number of other
companies,
>> non-profit foundations, and foreign governments—particularly as a
>> National Research Advisory Council Senior Fellow in New Zealand.
>>
>> The hallmark of his work has been careful behavioral assessment of
>> changes induced in the everyday behavior of families, teachers and
>> children as a result of parent, school-based and child-training
>> materials. Another hallmark of his work has been a creative
synthesis
>> of diverse bodies of scientific findings into practical, logical
>> action as well as testable theory. For example in the area of
injury
>> control and violence prevention, his theoretical papers on
>> cognitive-imitative-social competencies (CIS, pronounced, "kiss")
led
>> to the creation of only one of two randomized control group studies
>> showing positive results on youth violence. Fuller results of this
>> continuing research and development project (PeaceBuilders®) are in
>> revision for publication, and some have already been published in
the
>> American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Dr. Embry's work has
reached
>> hundreds of thousands of children through such vehicles as the Safe
>> Playing Program, the Deployment and Reunion Series for the Gulf War
>> and Somalia, PeaceBuilders®, and PAX Leaders.
>>
>> Dr. Embry has been a consultant for a number of governments and
>> agencies internationally—the Federal Republic of Germany, federal
>> Dr. Embry is active in community affairs—sitting on the Mayor's
Greg Hanson
Are you providing any research or
just your lousy little excerpts?
You think you're one of the "big boys"?
Sure, and I'm Gunga Din.
Kane
wrote:
>Kane:
>Are you providing any research or
>just your lousy little excerpts?
I provide pointers..links...to the studies where they exist.
>You think you're one of the "big boys"?
Sure. I notice YOU aren't responding to my request to answer The
Question, or....and this one really made me chuckle, something
substantive referring to the content of the Straus study I pointed you
to..
Opinions based on NOT having read the study don't count as answers.
I asked you to tell us what you thought negated the Straus study in
the Lazzelaire criticism.
>Sure, and I'm Gunga Din.
Yes, I know. He was a "waterboy." So were you until CPS stopped your
games.
Kane
Doan
It is in plain English is it not? ;-)
> What IS that limitation? Please clarify.
>
Why don't you ask Straus?
> >> > Another Doctor pointed this
> >> > out to him and Strauss had to publicly admit to this big flaw.
> >>
> >> Did you actually read the study? You need to.
> >>
> >Actually, unlike you Kane, we do read the actual study.
>
> Actually I DO read the study. I also understand it. You apparently
> give it meanings it does not have.
>
Apparently, Straus disagreed with you! ;-0
> >Here is Straus's
> >admission:
>
> Your bias is clear in the use of the word "admission." Researchers
> respond to claims of peer review all the time without it being called
> an "admission."
>
LOL! So it is not an admission that he goofed???
> So let's look at what Straus said in his "admission," shall we?
>
> >"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood
> that our
> >no-spanking group includes occasional spankers.
>
> Clear enough. No weaseling, like you.
>
"indebted"? Straus didn't know that his "no-spank" group was spanked???
;-)
> >To the extent that this is
> >the case,
>
> OH? What does this mean? Apparently it means that NOT all in the
> "non-spanking group" occasionally spank...gosh, I wonder what the
> significance of that might be, you fucking little liar.
>
An "admission" that his "no-spank" group was SPANKED, you fucking stupid!
;-)
> >the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> >the "none" group may indicate
>
> "may indicate" certainly doesn't suggest that Straus is willing to
> completely junk his research for a single item that may or may not
> have occasional spankers.
>
It goes against his premise that spanking, any spanking, is bad!
> You do recall that he was dealing with a week to week measure, do you
> not?
>
He was thinking his "no-spank" group showed benefit, stupid! :-)
> And you are aware that even if some spanked and some didn't, those
> that did weren't having their overall spanking measured, just whether
> or not they spanked within the previous week?
>
And that is the limitation that Straus did not see! How could that be
that 56% of the sample were "non-spanked"???
> >an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> >parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
>
> So I'll ask you again, and you'll refuse to answer again, just as you
> did with The Question, by coming up with a non-answer answer: if the
> trend is downward, that is the less spanking the less ASB, does that
> prove spanking works to lower ASB, or that there is a strong
> correlation between less spanking resulting in less ASB?
>
And you once again showing your stupidity! :-) Straus et al measured ASB
at t1 and again at t2; if the ASB decreased, it is a benefit. The
"no-spank" group showed a decrease in ASB. If this group were a true
"non-spank" group then Straus has made his case that "non-spanking"
has benefit. It turned out, however, that his "non-spank" group were
actually spanked thus showing the "benefit" of spanking, just as Larzelere
claimed!
> >> > Not exactly a minor flaw in his research.
> >>
> >> Possibly not a "flaw" at all. Did you read the study?
> >>
> >Anyone but the anti-spanking zealotS seems to miss the flaw/"failure
> to
> >perceive"! ;-)
>
> I don't miss the words. I miss the significance. Surely you, in your
> wisdom, knows the sigificance. Please clarify.
Then you are just stupid! ;-) Read the above section again!
>
> >
> >Doan
> >
>
> And you have still failed to answer The Question. I'm not interested
> in an answer to some OTHER question than I asked, only The Question,
> as I asked it.
>
The question has been answered - reasonable person standard!
> Referring the questioning parent on to another source isn't answering
> The Question. Thank you for giving this the obviously serious thought
> you have. I await your answer.
>
> Still not going to answer, are you?
>
What is the sample size of the Embry study again, Kane? You have it?
You don't have it? You've read it? You have not read it? Which is
is it? :-0
Doan
Doan
Doan
On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
Doan
can gleam off the anti-spanking websites! :-) See how
he weaseled about the Embry study?
Doan
Kane
>Kane can't! ;-) The only research he knows is what he
>can gleam off the anti-spanking websites! :-)
I've posted links to other studies. The problem is that there are no
viable studies on the prospank side...just babbling rhetoric such as
you post.
>See how
>he weaseled about the Embry study?
How did I weasel again? Want to quote me accurately, or do your usual
childish ad hom with no basis, attributions stripped so no one can see
how you lie?
You are a stunted warped little child, Doan. Spanked by those who were
supposed to protect you. You'll likely never get over it...at least
not until you admit you didn't deserve to be spanked, ever.
And let your anger at your parents surface.
Until that time we'll be treated to your bitter attempts to justify
them with attacks on those you know are right. Spanking is unecessary
and dangerous.
Or would you like another go at The Question?
Now there was a classic Doan weasel: make up a question to replace The
Question that kinda sorta maybe LOOKS like The Question but isn't
really the question at all.
That was a classic from you. I've seen you scream at Chris for
instance, with your "dare yah" and "see see" claiming, with the
evidence right in front of your face on the very post you are babbling
in that YOU don't understand what you are looking at.
We no doubt will see considerable more of this until you wise up to
vicious treatment of your parents toward you.
>Doan
I could almost .. no, I do feel sorry for you.
Kane
Kane
>On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:42:22 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gre...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<35120b16.03122...@posting.google.com>...
It does not explain what that limitation might be.
>> What IS that limitation? Please clarify.
>>
>Why don't you ask Straus?
Because he didn't say it. The one who did failed to point out what the
"serious limitation" might be.
I though maybe you'd like to rescue is obvious pro spank bias and try
to turn it into something objective.
Guess not, eh?
>
>> >> > Another Doctor pointed this
>> >> > out to him and Strauss had to publicly admit to this big flaw.
>> >>
>> >> Did you actually read the study? You need to.
>> >>
>> >Actually, unlike you Kane, we do read the actual study.
>>
>> Actually I DO read the study. I also understand it. You apparently
>> give it meanings it does not have.
>>
>Apparently, Straus disagreed with you! ;-0
You'll have to show me. A "flaw" does not negate an entire research
project, unless of course it does...now we need to see WHERE AND HOW
IT DOES.
And no, I don't think Straus "disagreed" with me. He said what he said
and I say what I say.
The rest of the study stands.
>
>> >Here is Straus's
>> >admission:
>>
>> Your bias is clear in the use of the word "admission." Researchers
>> respond to claims of peer review all the time without it being
called
>> an "admission."
>>
>LOL! So it is not an admission that he goofed???
No. He graciously accepted that at the time he didn't have the
information, and that he appreciated it being brought to his
attention.
>> So let's look at what Straus said in his "admission," shall we?
>>
>> >"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the
likelihood
>> that our
>> >no-spanking group includes occasional spankers.
>>
>> Clear enough. No weaseling, like you.
>>
>"indebted"? Straus didn't know that his "no-spank" group was
spanked???
>;-)
I couldn't say for certain but it certainly appears likely or he would
have said so.
Are you calling Straus a liar? YOU, of all people?
>
>> >To the extent that this is
>> >the case,
>>
>> OH? What does this mean? Apparently it means that NOT all in the
>> "non-spanking group" occasionally spank...gosh, I wonder what the
>> significance of that might be, you fucking little liar.
>>
>An "admission" that his "no-spank" group was SPANKED, you fucking
stupid!
>;-)
Simply stating something was "significant" doesn't explain what that
significance is, Doan, "you fucking stupid!"
Your inability to point out what IS significant suggests you have
posted this for years with no point to make whatsoever except your
spanked bias.
You are a perfect profile of a spanked child as an adult.
The very first thing spanked children have to do, usually as toddlers
or younger, is form the basic lie...that they deserve to be spanked,
to have pain from their parents. The next lie the have to build is
that they are loved...in fact in adult life the will say that their
parents love for them was the reason the parent spanked them.
The self fulfilling prophecy.
It teaches them to lie FIRST TO THEMSELVES then to anyone else that
would present the truth to them. Children don't NEED to be spanked to
learn.
>> >the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
>> >the "none" group may indicate
>>
>> "may indicate" certainly doesn't suggest that Straus is willing to
>> completely junk his research for a single item that may or may not
>> have occasional spankers.
>>
>It goes against his premise that spanking, any spanking, is bad!
Does he actually say that? Or are you drawing that from OTHERS opinion
of him?
And tell me, what spanking is good? Tell me what it does that is good.
I'd like to hear you defend it.
And while you are at it notice that you are NOT maintaining a neutral
position. You are NOT letting others make up their own mind. You are
doing everything you can think of to influence them to make up their
mind YOUR way.....the justification of spanking that will serve to
protect you from the truth.
Your parents didn't love you enough to take the trouble to learn to
parent you without pain.
>> You do recall that he was dealing with a week to week measure, do
you
>> not?
>>
>He was thinking his "no-spank" group showed benefit, stupid! :-)
And it did. With every reduction in spanking ABS went down.
>> And you are aware that even if some spanked and some didn't, those
>> that did weren't having their overall spanking measured, just
whether
>> or not they spanked within the previous week?
>>
>And that is the limitation that Straus did not see! How could that
be
>that 56% of the sample were "non-spanked"???
I do not know. Have you ever bothered to ask him, as you demand of me,
when I have no questions of him? YOU are the one with the attempts to
refute.
I'm willing to read and ponder and put his work up against my own
experience. And my personal experience carries considerably more
weight than someone elses study. YOU are the one with the questions.
Are you afraid to ask him?
Of course you are, because he'll spot you for a sick minded spanked
child that must protect your world view at all costs.
>
>> >an improvement in the behavior of children whose
>> >parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
>>
>> So I'll ask you again, and you'll refuse to answer again, just as
you
>> did with The Question, by coming up with a non-answer answer: if
the
>> trend is downward, that is the less spanking the less ASB, does
that
>> prove spanking works to lower ASB, or that there is a strong
>> correlation between less spanking resulting in less ASB?
>>
>And you once again showing your stupidity! :-) Straus et al measured
ASB
>at t1 and again at t2; if the ASB decreased, it is a benefit. The
>"no-spank" group showed a decrease in ASB.
It turned out it was even less spanked than any other group, was it
not?
>If this group were a true
>"non-spank" group then Straus has made his case that "non-spanking"
>has benefit.
If you are unable to extrapolate from the trend line how can you claim
to understand statistical analysis.
>It turned out, however, that his "non-spank" group were
>actually spanked thus showing the "benefit" of spanking, just as
Larzelere
>claimed!
How idiotic.
Here is one of those classic "Doans."
Was there not LESS ABS with this "spanked-non-spanked" group? They
being least spanked of all?
Do you not see the trend line?
Do you actually think that had he had a cohort that had been totally
free of spanking that the ABS would have gone UP?
You are thoroughly a spanked child, Doan. Lying to everyone but more
important lying most significantly and cleverly to yourself.
> > >> > Not exactly a minor flaw in his research.
>> >>
>> >> Possibly not a "flaw" at all. Did you read the study?
>> >>
>> >Anyone but the anti-spanking zealotS seems to miss the
flaw/"failure
>> to
>> >perceive"! ;-)
>>
>> I don't miss the words. I miss the significance. Surely you, in
your
>> wisdom, knows the sigificance. Please clarify.
>
>Then you are just stupid! ;-) Read the above section again!
Read it. My assessment stands. The less spanking the less ABS on a
trend line.
My personal experience with not only non-cp, but non-punishment tells
me clearly where the line would have gone in any children NOT SPANKED.
Were all the children in his "non-spanked" group spanked?
Let me put it this way. Had the ABS for this group been zero you'd
have something to debate...not totally accurate of course, but more
meat than you have now.
>> >
>> >Doan
>> >
>>
>> And you have still failed to answer The Question. I'm not
interested
>> in an answer to some OTHER question than I asked, only The
Question,
>> as I asked it.
>>
>The question has been answered - reasonable person standard!
That is not the question I asked. I asked how a parent could use a
measure, not some loosely ill defined "standard" that is different
from person to person and in fact from state to state in their laws.
In other words, you did NOT answer The Question. You could have well
have said, "blue bonnets."
>> Referring the questioning parent on to another source isn't
answering
>> The Question. Thank you for giving this the obviously serious
thought
>> you have. I await your answer.
>>
>> Still not going to answer, are you?
>>
>What is the sample size of the Embry study again, Kane?
Either answer The Question I asked, and resolve your double dare on
what I did or didn't say about being spanked or non-spanked, or come
up with the study.
Then I'll discuss it with you.
>You have it?
I have it.
>You don't have it?
No, you don't have it so you couldn't check my statements about it and
would go off on another of your lying toots were I to share even one
thing with you.
We aren't going to play that game with you. Exercising people to
inflate your flacid ego doesn't work with me. YOU'LL come up with what
I demand or NO PLAY.
Got that, asshole. And it will be YOU that has run and weaseled as
we've seen you do for weeks now.
>You've read it? You have not read it? Which is
>is it? :-0
Guess stupid spanked child. And any claim either way, since you have
NO way of knowing, would be a lie, but then that's really all you do,
invent clever lies, run them out long enough for most readers to give
up in disgust and forget where you started. Then start gibbering and
jumping up and down screaming "they ran, they wouldn't debate me."
You have NOT answer The Question. YOU are therefor a liar exposed
again and again. Tell us the force and frequency and child based
variables that a parent must use to avoid moving from spanking to
abuse.
Weasel.
>Doan
Kane
Kane
>Typical weasel words from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
So, did I say I couldn't answer or wouldn't answer until you have the study?
Frequently spanked weasel boy......
>
>Doan
Kane
>
>On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:02 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I will be heading to the library this week. As you noted,
>> >Chris and Kane blabbed about this study alot but can't
>> >provide little details. I doubt that Kane has actually
>> >read it. He can't
>>
>> Liar. I said I won't until YOU have the study to refer to because of
>> your lying ways.
>>
>> >even answer the simple question about
>> >the sample size in this study!
>>
>> Liar. Show me were I said I "couldn't" answer the question.
>> >
>> >Doan
>>
>> Doan is a habitual liar, a not uncommon behavior for the spanked
>> child.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>>
>>
>> >
Kane
> This is the link for the Buamrind & Owens (2001):
>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html
I believe Ron asked for the studies, the research, did he not?
As in "Please list the studies." And he mentioned URLs to the
studies, not an article in a campus newspaper.
Apparently you have a different standard for yourself than others.
Interesting.
Is this the same study that Baumrind presented without peer review to
a convention of psychologists? The one that turned out to have all the
cohort stripped away that SHE determined "spanking amounted to
"abuse"?"
Funny, YOU don't seem to be able to come up with a delimiter for that.
How was she able to, and if she did I'd love to see the measuring
instrument. It could finally amount to and answer to The Question.
Do YOU have a link to the study, Doan?
> Try this link for the Gershoff (2002):
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002
interesting series....and non of them research. This nothing more than
Gershoff's analysis of the exsisting material from other's research,
and attempts by known prospankers to refute her.
>
> It presented both sides of the issue.
Well, I suggest you read the last item carefully if you want a
balanced view, but again, this ISN'T the research, but commentary on
the research and commentary on the commentary.
It's just your usual dance, Doan.
Now come up with the Embry study and let's talk...but remember, I've
warned you. No more bullshit about anything.
Either answer The Question definitively or admit you cannot and that
no one can (and I notice in the citations above some attempts were
made and STILL it can't be answered except after the fact....don't do
injury).
And I will not debate with you if you do not settle the issue you
brought up as a challenge that I invited you to complete. Just was it
you think I said...or do you think we are far enough from the issue so
that neither I or others can't really find out what I said about being
spanked or not?
No Embry study work until these other two issues are settled, Doan,
and don't try your crap about "he wouldn't debate me."
The point is YOU wouldn't answer simple questions YOU PUT UP AS
CHALLENGES.
And that is going to haunt you for a great long time unless you come
clean now.
The Question, and the dare on non-spanked.
What's it gonna be, sucker?
> Doan
Kane
Doan
On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:05:53 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Typical weasel words from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
>
> So, did I say I couldn't answer or wouldn't answer until you have the study?
>
I now have the study. It would be fun to see you do the dance now.
Go ahead! What is the sample size? Got you, "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
Doan
Kane
>
>On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:05:53 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Typical weasel words from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
>>
>> So, did I say I couldn't answer or wouldn't answer until you have
the study?
>>
>I now have the study.
Good. Can't wait for you to not only prove it, but to answer the two
issues that must be answered before I'll debate you on Embry.
You do recall you snipped these, right?
One: The Question...and no, it has not been answered.
Two: Prove that I said one way or another that I said I had never been
spanked.
>It would be fun to see you do the dance now.
I don't dance with a dunce. You haven't proven you have the study. And
you haven't answered The Question or responded to my answer to your
challenge.
>Go ahead! What is the sample size?
Go ahead and answer The Question.
You brought up the Embry study during the time we were exchanging
posts on The Question. Once The Question is answered we can move on.
You also brought up the issue of my saying or not saying I had never
been spanked. Once this and The Question have been resolved we can get
to Embry.
And you still have to prove you have it. And no. YOU brought up the
Embry issue as a citation of the study. I did not. I cited and even
reproduced on occasion, the Embry letter quoted in a magazine
article.....so the ball is in your court.
>Got you, "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
No Doan, as usual you weasel.
You haven't answered The Question and you are still calling me
"never-spanked boy" without knowing one way or another if I was or
not.
You don't get to dodge this time. I'm not jumping around following you
wherever you seem to want to dodge next. You'll answer in order.
I've repeatedly told you the criteria for debate, and you've
continually ignored it.
That IS what you do so that any opponent cannot debate with you. YOU
weasel and when caught simply weasel again.
Until you answer the two issues, one I challenged you on and you
failed to come through, and the other a "double dare yah" from you
that I challenged you to prove, nothing is happening.
>Doan
Now run about waving your arms screaming "he wouldn't debate me, he
ran." It's not going to have any more power now than it has when
you've tried it before.
You are a little boy, still arrested emotionally at the age you were
when you were first struck by your parent or parents. You'll stay
their until you grow up and admit what happened to you was a vicious
betrayal of parents visited on a poor innocent child.
You exhibit the classic signs of it with your demanding, your twisting
and turning away from the very challenged YOU pose, changing them,
rewording them, refusing to answer simple questions or admit you
cannot.
That is the behavior of a child that has been taught to lie to protect
himself.
Growup, or get out. These are the only choices you have.
Well, I guess there is a third: continue to make a fool of yourself.
Kane
Doan
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:41:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:05:53 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Typical weasel words from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
> >>
> >> So, did I say I couldn't answer or wouldn't answer until you have
> the study?
> >>
> >I now have the study.
>
> Good. Can't wait for you to not only prove it, but to answer the two
> issues that must be answered before I'll debate you on Embry.
>
Here comes the dance! ;-)
> You do recall you snipped these, right?
>
> One: The Question...and no, it has not been answered.
>
Already answered - there is a line and you proved its existence by
admitting that you know the difference between spanking and abuse.
> Two: Prove that I said one way or another that I said I had never been
> spanked.
>
The "burden of proof" is on you! :-)
> >It would be fun to see you do the dance now.
>
> I don't dance with a dunce. You haven't proven you have the study. And
> you haven't answered The Question or responded to my answer to your
> challenge.
>
I can tell you that the sample size is too small! My bet is that you
don't have and can't answer anything about it. :-) Thank you for urging
me to get a copy of this study. It gives me another chance to point out
that the emperor has no clothes. :-{]
Doan
Kane
>On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:41:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:05:53 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Typical weasel words from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
>> >>
>> >> So, did I say I couldn't answer or wouldn't answer until you
have
>> the study?
>> >>
>> >I now have the study.
>>
>> Good. Can't wait for you to not only prove it, but to answer the
two
>> issues that must be answered before I'll debate you on Embry.
>>
>Here comes the dance! ;-)
Says The Dodger.
>> You do recall you snipped these, right?
>>
>> One: The Question...and no, it has not been answered.
>>
>Already answered -
Nope, and all you will do now is repeat your dodge.
>there is a line
Then you should be able to describe it perfectly well in terms of the
question....give it so that parents who are considering spanking can
know exactly where that line is. Not "standard." Not an approximation,
or something we all "agree on" as of course we don't, but as precise
as that used to control auto traffic speed.
One isn't made to guess what the limit it. It is posted clearly. I am
asking YOU to post it clearly.
>and you proved its existence
Of course it exists. It's just that it is not visible or attainable by
anyone at this point in history. We simple don't know enough. And
children are not cookie cutter produced. Each is different.
>by
>admitting
When are you going to grow up and admit you don't know and neither
does anyone else? Spanking is a high risk behavior simply because the
variables are so numerous and most unavailable.
>that you know the difference between spanking and abuse.
Of course I know the difference as long as we go way over the line.
But I do not know the line of demarcation. Neither do you or anyone
else.
I know the extremes, and I also know that many a parent fails on the
fuzziness of the actual line, and ends up injuring their child.
We, you and I, are working on an actual line of demarcation. I noticed
you carefully snipped the criteria I have so often given you for The
Question.
Yet you still claim there is some line somewhere...okay.
Where? Show us. Saying I proved it or that it's a reasonable standard
is a weasel answer. Even if I, YOU have failed to point out the line.
And this "standard" you keep desperately babbling about is no standard
at all, just a kind of rule of thumb agreement that once over they
line we know we went over it, but we still don't know exactly where it
is.
In other words...dummy.....everyone has to guess and the child has to
take the damage should it occur.
In other words....dummy....those who chose NOT to spank are not
willing to take that risk on their child.
>> Two: Prove that I said one way or another that I said I had never
been
>> spanked.
>>
>The "burden of proof" is on you! :-)
I believe that is what is called a lie. That suggests I challenged
YOU. No, that isn't what happened. You keep claiming I'm never
spanked. I have said you don't know one way or the other. You then
"double dared" me (R R R R R R...what a maroon) to prove you wrong. A
fifth grader could see through that ploy.
So who has the burden of proof again?
Personally I don't care one way or another since I didn't bring it up.
Care to go back and see if I did?
>> >It would be fun to see you do the dance now.
>>
>> I don't dance with a dunce. You haven't proven you have the study.
And
>> you haven't answered The Question or responded to my answer to your
>> challenge.
>>
>I can tell you that the sample size is too small!
As I said before. If you want to debate Embry and have any response
from me you'll have to do three things. Clear up your challenge to me
when YOU brought up whether or not I said I was spanked or unspanked,
answer The Question so that it provides a sensible measure for
parents, and prove you have the study.
>My bet is that you
>don't have and can't answer anything about it. :-)
But YOU do? R R R R
You would lose your shirt at Poker.
>Thank you for urging
>me to get a copy of this study.
You are entirely welcome. You going to post it for all to see or are
you going to dance and dodge some more?
Don't get into a poker game. A granny could see through your bluff.
>It gives me another chance to point out
>that the emperor has no clothes. :-{]
You've grown a mustache for New Years. Isn't that CUTE!
You think you can refute the Embry study? R R R R
Hell you can't even prove something you accused me of, nor answer a
simple question that most spanking parents that have come here claim
to know, and YOU have claimed to know but can't produce.
How do you expect to bring your childish arrested development to the
Embry study and post anything credible in refutation?
I'll invite Dr. Embry to drop in and watch.
Doan, you are a lightweight. You have been as far back as the archives
include you in this ng. Your arguments are specious nonsense based on
your own warped spanked child views.
Your parents didn't love you enough to figure out how or care to
figure out how to parent you without pain. It shows in everything you
do here.
You are still dodging. You are still dancing. You are still behaving
like a 5th grader out for recess. You NEVER answer anything straight
forwardly.
And in the end YOU are the one to suffer, because YOU lie to YOU.
I pity you.
>Doan
Kane
Kane
Doan
about the Embry study. Just I expected, he hasn't read it and don't even
have a copy. For if he has the study, he would have known how
ridiculously small the sample size is make any conclusion. 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. Poor Kane, like a little dog out of his environment, he is lost!
;-)
Doan
Kane
>Watch how the "never-spanked" Kane dance! ;-) He can't say a single
fact
>about the Embry study.
There is a world of difference between can't and won't Doan. And I
told you I won't unless you meet the criteria for debate.
YOU haven't met the criteria. And it's very very easy to do so.
>Just I expected, he hasn't read it and don't even
>have a copy.
What your muddy little spanked brain comes up with is your problem.
>For if he has the study, he would have known how
>ridiculously small the sample size is make any conclusion.
R R R R .... what I know is you have to go back and hunt again, if you
have it at all. You have the preliminary small study that so stunned
Dr. Embry with its results he did a followup larger study.
And we aren't going to debate any portions until you get that one and
we aren't going to debate until you meet the two other criteria...the
never-spanked issue, and The Question.
>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.
(on the last item...it's proof positive if you have the study at
all..that you have the oldest, smallest study...not the larger one he
did later).
What a stupid ploy. If I'm not talking about it how do you know
whether I know about those things or not? On the other hand that
information is already published and has been for some time in usenet.
http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html
Which is a citation of Chris Dugan quoting the letter from Embry to
the magazine that published it. It says:
"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing
dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.
"
Still the fifth grader at recess jumping about and clowing.
>Poor Kane, like a little dog out of his environment, he is lost!
>;-)
The pitiful spanked child is still desperately clinging to anything
that will justify the spankings his parents served up to him.
>Doan
Isn't it odd that you still don't have the study I do, if you have
anything at all but what you are making up.
By the way: The Question, and "never-spanked."
Kane
> On 30 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:21:53 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:41:09 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >On 29 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:05:53 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu>
wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Typical weasel words from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, did I say I couldn't answer or wouldn't answer until you
>> have
>> >> the study?
>> >> >>
>> >> >I now have the study.
>> >>
>> >> Good. Can't wait for you to not only prove it, but to answer the
>> two
>> >> issues that must be answered before I'll debate you on Embry.
>> >>
>> >Here comes the dance! ;-)
>>
>> Says The Dodger.
>>
>> >> You do recall you snipped these, right?
>> >>
>> >> One: The Question...and no, it has not been answered.
>> >>
>> >> Two: Prove that I said one way or another that I said I had
never
>> been
>> >> spanked.
>> >>
>> >The "burden of proof" is on you! :-)
>>
>> I believe that is what is called a lie. That suggests I challenged
>> YOU. No, that isn't what happened. You keep claiming I'm never
>> spanked. I have said you don't know one way or the other. You then
>> "double dared" me (R R R R R R...what a maroon) to prove you wrong.
A
>> fifth grader could see through that ploy.
>>
>> So who has the burden of proof again?
>>
>> Personally I don't care one way or another since I didn't bring it
up.
>> Care to go back and see if I did?
>>
>> >> >It would be fun to see you do the dance now.
>> >>
>> >> I don't dance with a dunce. You haven't proven you have the
study.
>> And
>> >> you haven't answered The Question or responded to my answer to
your
>> >> challenge.
>> >>
Doan
On 30 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:58:00 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Watch how the "never-spanked" Kane dance! ;-) He can't say a single
> fact
> >about the Embry study.
>
> There is a world of difference between can't and won't Doan. And I
> told you I won't unless you meet the criteria for debate.
>
And the dance goes on! ;-)
> YOU haven't met the criteria. And it's very very easy to do so.
>
> >Just I expected, he hasn't read it and don't even
> >have a copy.
>
> What your muddy little spanked brain comes up with is your problem.
>
LOl! Dancing in the rain, Kane?
> >For if he has the study, he would have known how
> >ridiculously small the sample size is make any conclusion.
>
> R R R R .... what I know is you have to go back and hunt again, if you
> have it at all. You have the preliminary small study that so stunned
> Dr. Embry with its results he did a followup larger study.
>
Another lie! How LARGE is this larger study? I bet you can't answer this
one neither?
> And we aren't going to debate any portions until you get that one and
> we aren't going to debate until you meet the two other criteria...the
> never-spanked issue, and The Question.
>
And the dance continues! ;-)
> >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.
>
> (on the last item...it's proof positive if you have the study at
> all..that you have the oldest, smallest study...not the larger one he
> did later).
>
I can post the data if you ask nicely. ;-)
> What a stupid ploy. If I'm not talking about it how do you know
> whether I know about those things or not? On the other hand that
> information is already published and has been for some time in usenet.
> http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html
> Which is a citation of Chris Dugan quoting the letter from Embry to
> the magazine that published it. It says:
>
> "1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on
> the grass or sidewalk.'
> 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing
> dangerously.
> 3. Praise your child for safe play.
> "
>
> Still the fifth grader at recess jumping about and clowing.
>
Just as I expected. The only thing you know about the Embry study is a
propaganda piece from an anti-spanking website! Why don't you take
LaVonne's advice and go to the source, Kane?
> >Poor Kane, like a little dog out of his environment, he is lost!
> >;-)
>
> The pitiful spanked child is still desperately clinging to anything
> that will justify the spankings his parents served up to him.
>
> >Doan
And you are a "never-spanked" boy! :->
> Isn't it odd that you still don't have the study I do, if you have
> anything at all but what you are making up.
>
LOL! You can't even tell me what the sample size is? That is proof
that you don't have it! ;-)
> By the way: The Question, and "never-spanked."
>
And the "burden of proof" using YOUR LOGIC! Ouch! ;-)
Doan
Kane
>
>On 30 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:58:00 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Watch how the "never-spanked" Kane dance! ;-) He can't say a
single
>> fact
>> >about the Embry study.
>>
>> There is a world of difference between can't and won't Doan. And I
>> told you I won't unless you meet the criteria for debate.
>>
>And the dance goes on! ;-)
Yes, you certainly do.
>> YOU haven't met the criteria. And it's very very easy to do so.
>>
>> >Just I expected, he hasn't read it and don't even
>> >have a copy.
>>
>> What your muddy little spanked brain comes up with is your problem.
>>
>LOl! Dancing in the rain, Kane?
All yah got, Doan?
>> >For if he has the study, he would have known how
>> >ridiculously small the sample size is make any conclusion.
>>
>> R R R R .... what I know is you have to go back and hunt again, if
you
>> have it at all. You have the preliminary small study that so
stunned
>> Dr. Embry with its results he did a followup larger study.
>>
>Another lie! How LARGE is this larger study? I bet you can't answer
this
>one neither?
Actually he did a series of followup studies, most in New Zealand.
And you still haven't answered the question and you are obviously
sitting on the prelminary study if you have anything at all.
>> And we aren't going to debate any portions until you get that one
and
>> we aren't going to debate until you meet the two other
criteria...the
>> never-spanked issue, and The Question.
>>
>And the dance continues! ;-)
Yes, all you have to do is answer The Question honestly...but you
won't. Typical of a spanked child.
>> >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.
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.
>> (on the last item...it's proof positive if you have the study at
>> all..that you have the oldest, smallest study...not the larger one
he
>> did later).
>>
>I can post the data if you ask nicely. ;-)
It's not up to me. It's entirely up to you. But I see you are still
playing in the schoolyard.
I'm not going to debate the study with you until you meet the criteria
for debate...so far, no luck.
>> What a stupid ploy. If I'm not talking about it how do you know
>> whether I know about those things or not? On the other hand that
>> information is already published and has been for some time in
usenet.
>> http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html
>> Which is a citation of Chris Dugan quoting the letter from Embry to
>> the magazine that published it. It says:
>>
>> "1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on
>> the grass or sidewalk.'
>> 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing
>> dangerously.
>> 3. Praise your child for safe play.
>> "
>>
>> Still the fifth grader at recess jumping about and clowing.
>>
>Just as I expected. The only thing you know about the Embry study
is a
>propaganda piece from an anti-spanking website! Why don't you take
>LaVonne's advice and go to the source, Kane?
Why don't you? I have the study and I am beginning to suspect you
don't.
>> >Poor Kane, like a little dog out of his environment, he is lost!
>> >;-)
>>
>> The pitiful spanked child is still desperately clinging to anything
>> that will justify the spankings his parents served up to him.
>>
>> >Doan
>And you are a "never-spanked" boy! :->
Prove it.
>> Isn't it odd that you still don't have the study I do, if you have
>> anything at all but what you are making up.
>>
>LOL! You can't even tell me what the sample size is? That is proof
>that you don't have it! ;-)
Won't tell you. Won't debate without you meeting the criteria. You
play. I'm serious.
>> By the way: The Question, and "never-spanked."
>>
>And the "burden of proof" using YOUR LOGIC! Ouch! ;-)
Weasel dodging again.
Yes, you DO have the burden of proof or you have to admit you can't
answer.
You don't have the study and you can't answer The Question nor prove I
was spanked or not, right?
Hence, you are a liar. And sadly more to yourself than anyone else.
That is typical of the spanked child.
You'll continue to dance until your opponent leaves in
disgust...right?
No substance. No facts. No reasonable standards of debate. Nothing but
dancing.
Or are you ready to grow up?
>
>Doan
This is my last post to you until you do the three things required for
debate on the Embry study.
1- answer The Question
2- prove I was never spanked
3- prove you actually have the real Embry study...not the prelim.
The only responses you'll get from here out until you do is the above.
Kane
Doan
The little dog danced and the little dog ran! Pity! ;-)
Doan
Kane
snip..........
>> This is my last post to you until you do the three things required
for
>> debate on the Embry study.
>>
>> 1- answer The Question
>> 2- prove I was never spanked
>> 3- prove you actually have the real Embry study...not the prelim.
>>
>> The only responses you'll get from here out until you do is the
above.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>The little dog danced and the little dog ran!
Please don't call yourself a little dog. It's really a very nasty
insult.
> Pity! ;-)
Yes. It is.
Why did you?
When all you have to do is answer one simple question, provide a
substantiation of the never-spanked challenge you made and I answered,
and provide one simple proof you have the Embry study. }:-]
Is it too much for you, spanked child? If so, we understand.
>Doan
1- answer The Question
2- prove I said I was "never spanked" by anyone
Doan
"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as: helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used, number of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental estimates
of how often child went into the street."
You need to read the study again, Kane! :-)
And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT:
1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%
Now that I have this study, I am willing to provide it to any one who
asked. Just send me an email. Or you could try asking Kane! ;-)
Doan
Doan
Then you just committed the same mistake that your master Chris Dugan
made. He also claimed that it wasn't Straus' words when in fact what
I quoted is Straus' own words!
You are a few years late and a lot of braim cells short! What a pity! :-)
Doan
Doan
As usuall, I providd the data from the studies in dispute, the
anti-spanking zealotS provided NOTHING! I wonder why? :-)
Have anyone gotten the answer to the question of what is the sample size
of the Embry study???
Doan
Kane
snip.................
>"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as:
helpfulness
>of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
>stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used, number
of
>times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
>PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental estimates
>of how often child went into the street."
>
>You need to read the study again, Kane! :-)
>
>And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
>PUNISHMENT:
>
>1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
>2) child talked back - 8.6%
>3) child cried - 8.6%
>4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
>5) other children around 5.7%
>6) No excuse 5.7%
>7) child stubborn 2.9%
>8) hard to use it 2.9%
>9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
>10) Answer left blank 5.7%
>
>
>Now that I have this study, I am willing to provide it to any one who
>asked. Just send me an email. Or you could try asking Kane! ;-)
>
>Doan
"This is my last post to you until you do the three things required
for debate on the Embry study.
1- answer The Question
2- prove I said I was "never spanked" by anyone
3- prove you actually have the real Embry study...not the prelim.
The only responses you'll get from here out until you do is the above.
Kane"
It's the smaller prior study, not the later larger. When you have the
real study let us know.
Kane
Kane
Two points. You didn't answer the question this time either. What
might the serious limitation consist of that would show that Straus'
bias effected the study, and what would be the serious limitation of
the one week period for the purposes of the study, and finally; are
you sure you quoted Straus' own words?
You'll find few people referring to themselves in the second person as
below. Someone discussed Straus and his motives and labelled them as a
"serious limitation."
I do not believe that Straus is quoting himself, do you? or is this
not the quote you are referring to? (and isn't it nice of me to give
you a bailout opportunity?)
"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research
is motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief
that good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
interpersonal violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when
motivated by
love and concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent
methods
of preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held
values may account for the FAILURE of Straus to perceive the serious
limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (emphasis
is mine)
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
> You are a few years late and a lot of braim cells short! What a pity! :-)
What is a pity is your emotional and psychological immaturity, no
doubt arrested when you were spanked as a child.
Please explain how Straus might be quoting Straus, as you appear to be
claiming. All it will take is a citation to the source of that quote.
One that we can check out of course.
As in: "These deeply held values may account for the FAILURE of Straus
to perceive the serious limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week
reference period."
Still shucking and jivin' Doan?
> Doan
Kane
Doan
LOL! You are not fooling anyone, Kane. I am willing to provide this
study to anyone that asked, can you do the same? You can't even provide
the sample size of this study. What a pity!
Doan
Doan
It is Straus et al, stupid!
> I do not believe that Straus is quoting himself, do you? or is this
> not the quote you are referring to? (and isn't it nice of me to give
> you a bailout opportunity?)
>
> "Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research
> is motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief
> that good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
> interpersonal violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when
> motivated by
> love and concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent
> methods
> of preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held
> values may account for the FAILURE of Straus to perceive the serious
> limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (emphasis
> is mine)
> (ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
>
Oh, how stupid can you be, Kane? I cited the source! Why don't you
look it up? Or at least, ask your master, Chris Dugan! ;-)
> > You are a few years late and a lot of braim cells short! What a pity! :-)
>
> What is a pity is your emotional and psychological immaturity, no
> doubt arrested when you were spanked as a child.
>
And you are a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
> Please explain how Straus might be quoting Straus, as you appear to be
> claiming. All it will take is a citation to the source of that quote.
> One that we can check out of course.
>
Are you blind? I CITED THE SOURCE!
> As in: "These deeply held values may account for the FAILURE of Straus
> to perceive the serious limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week
> reference period."
>
> Still shucking and jivin' Doan?
>
Like I said, you made the same mistake that Chris Dugan made - just a few
years later! ;-)
Doan
Kane
>On 31 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>It is Straus et al, stupid!
I believe you said, "I quoted is Straus' own words!" right up above.
>> I do not believe that Straus is quoting himself, do you? or is this
>> not the quote you are referring to? (and isn't it nice of me to
give
>> you a bailout opportunity?)
>>
>> "Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research
>> is motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held
belief
>> that good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
>> interpersonal violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when
>> motivated by
>> love and concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent
>> methods
>> of preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held
>> values may account for the FAILURE of Straus to perceive the
serious
>> limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(emphasis
>> is mine)
>> (ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
>>
>Oh, how stupid can you be, Kane? I cited the source! Why don't
you
>look it up? Or at least, ask your master, Chris Dugan! ;-)
I did look it up. I was unable to find any referrance to "ARCHIVES, In
Reply. March 1998"
Nor did the quoted item appear in any sort of search I tried. Possibly
you can be more specific.
>> > You are a few years late and a lot of braim cells short! What a
pity! :-)
>>
>> What is a pity is your emotional and psychological immaturity, no
>> doubt arrested when you were spanked as a child.
>>
>And you are a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
You'll never know.
>> Please explain how Straus might be quoting Straus, as you appear to
be
>> claiming. All it will take is a citation to the source of that
quote.
>> One that we can check out of course.
>>
>Are you blind? I CITED THE SOURCE!
You claim you are citing he source, yet you haven't actually provided
the source. Am I to take your word?
>> As in: "These deeply held values may account for the FAILURE of
Straus
>> to perceive the serious limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week
>> reference period."
>>
>> Still shucking and jivin' Doan?
>>
>Like I said, you made the same mistake that Chris Dugan made - just a
few
>years later! ;-)
It would help make your point if you didn't play at obscurring by
picking a "citation" that appears to be someone speaking about Straus
rather than Straus himself speaking in his own words. That in itself
shows how misleading and devious you are, spanked boy.
And to claim you are providing a citation without identifying where
the quote is taken from other than yet another layer of citation is
rather cute, don't you think?
It's obvious how you lie. Quite devious, but also very revealing of
your true nature, spanked boy. Sorry about your parents.
Give a clear referrance to the original source if you don't mind, not
where it might or might not have been archived.
..........earning his nickname once again, Duplicitious.....
>Doan
Kane
Kane
Nor am I interested in doing so, devious one. If you have the only
study done by Embry then you have met ONE of the criteria for me to
engage in discussion or debate. You have two to go.
>I am willing to provide this
>study to anyone that asked,
That's nice.
>can you do the same?
Of course.
>You can't even provide
>the sample size of this study.
You are lying, as usual.
My having, my being able to, and my chosing to or not is my
perogative. Not yours. What YOU do is up to you.
> What a pity!
Yes, you certainly are. You aren't running this show, Doan. You are
simply making a fool of yourself.
You have two more requirements before I'll discuss Embry with you in
any way.
YOU brought up two diversions trying to weasel out of answering The
Question in the form I asked it.
The Embry Toddler Street Entry study from nearly 25 years ago is ONE
of the criteria.
You know the other two.
Still going to dance so you won't actually have to debate?
How long will it take you to wake up, little spanked boy?
>Doan
Kane
Kane
>
>On 31 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:02:36 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >As usuall, I providd the data from the studies in dispute,
>>
>> After two weeks of jive and nonsense. And you still haven't met the
>> criteria for debate.
>>
>> >the
>> >anti-spanking zealotS provided NOTHING!
>>
>> Nothing? Really? Years of posting studies here you call "NOTHING!"?
>>
>> Tsk, Doan. Tsk. Lying to yourself again I see.
>>
>> >I wonder why? :-)
>>
>> You seem to be wondering rather a lot. How about wondering how you
can
>> look at a liar in the mirror every morning and not throw up.
>>
>> >Have anyone gotten the answer to the question of what is the
sample
>> size
>> >of the Embry study???
>>
>> Gee, Doan. I thought YOU had the study. Why would YOU ask if anyone
>> else has the sample size number?
>>
>> And I already told you that if you have the smaller number you have
>> the first, limited, study that triggered the later larger studies.
>>
>> In other words, booby, you don't have the study in question.
>>
>LOL! You are not fooling anyone, "nver-spanked" boy.
Tell you what. Well leave, when you have met the debate criteria, the
other NZ studies for later, and we'll discuss the study YOU have. I
notice you are already making claims that are going to bury you, just
as you did with Chris some years ago.
But that will have to wait for the two more items you have to
complete.
One....The Question.
Two...."never-spanked."
>LaVonne must be
>ashamed to see a "never-spanked" boy like you resorting to lying. :-)
While I can't speak for LaVonne my bet is she is watching you go
through your age old usual verbally misleading calesthenics and LHAO
at you.
That is if she hasn't gotten, as I have, how desperately sad you are
in your frantic defense of your parents for what they did to you.
What is even sadder is that you may well sway some who come here
hoping for more clarity, themselves struggling with their own
brutalized childhood (as yours was) and easily fall into your
claptrap.
>You are doing a real dis-service to the anti-spanking agenda.
Think so?
>Keep
>posting, Kane. ;-)
While I can still draw breath you can count on it. Year after year of
letting you expose yourself more and more. I look forward to it. I
hope you do. The truth is in that damaged brain of yours, Doan, just
cooking away. Sooner or later the pot will boil over.
You were an abused child, Doan, and your love for your parents is NOT
based on trust but rather on fear of their threatened withdrawal of
love that is so obvious in pain parenting...just as all spanked
children have to hide from themselves the same thing.
You'll do it to YOUR children too, Doan, unless you manage to break
free before you have any.
Now and then a person does break free of it, and they DO manage to
forgive their parents because they know their parents did what they
knew how to do, and that's all they could do.
But the tiny, beaten, humiliated, whimpering child in you is still
cowering behind this bravado facade of pro spanking nonsense. It's in
everything you write, day after day.
You'll come to know it one day clearly.
>Doan
Kane
Doan
Then you are just plain stupid! ;-) How is it that your master, Chris
Dugan, was able to find it?
> Nor did the quoted item appear in any sort of search I tried. Possibly
> you can be more specific.
>
Try walking to the library; that is how I found the Embry study. You
know, the one that you didn't read, read it, didn't have it, have it,
the one with Sit and Watch PUNISHMENT??? ;-)
Doan
Doan
So you are the one that is running away from the debate, not I! :-)
Doan