 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / February 2006If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
We should discuss socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the us of CP. And how to address that issue. Or is that too current and real for you -- beccafromlalaland > We should discuss socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the use > of CP. And how to address that issue. Who is "we?" > Or is that too current and real for you? Are you addressing me, or the group? > -- > beccafromlalaland I've no problem addressing that issue. The answers are probably far out of reach for most in this group though. Alan Greenspan does not post here. The more immediate and more accessible issues would have the most immediate impact <pun intended> on the spanking issue. I'm not here, though I can't speak for others, say Doan, to idly distract and misdirect folks. To me this is a practical matter of mitigating children's daily pain and fear. I'd be, when we are through discussing "socioeconomic status," going back to the more proximate issues. How to change attitude and long held beliefs seems more important to me. While that's no easy job, it seems more accessible than how to change socioeconomic status and hope that that has an effect on spanking. I don't think there's an appreciable drop in spanking rates until you reach very high levels of income. Now if you wanted to deal with abusive discipline, that could be factored in with CPS data from the USDHS and you could find socioeconomic influences. I think it's time we welcomed discussion on what a law should look like that bans spanking. While I disagree with you that a 25 year old study is outdated (we use the ancient research of others in current science and industry commonly...take a class in electrical engineering for instance) I do agree that there is "current" things to look at. And what could be more current than a new law, either a state law for each state, or though less my preference, a single federal law. What should be in such a spanking or CP ban law? But feel free to explore "socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the use of CP. And how to address that issue." If I'm interested I'll be happy to contribute in whatever way I can. Kane Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available t parents after the fact. After they have been investigated for chil abuse, after their children have been placed in foster care when th parents are either desperate to get their kids, or so angry that the refuse to attend parenting workshops. I know in my state parentin classes are available but certainly not encouraged for at risk parent (young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who gre up in abusive households) I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need t address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parentin classes, give them mentors, teach them appropriate disciplin strategies. Give them a support network so when they feel overwhelme with the responsibilities of parenthood they can get help BEFORE ther is a problem -- beccafromlalaland > Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available to > parents after the fact. There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental health departments, some schools, private instructors are all available. In fact, you can even find on-line classes. http://tinyurl.com/dastb > After they have been investigated for child > abuse, after their children have been placed in foster care when the > parents are either desperate to get their kids, or so angry that they > refuse to attend parenting workshops. How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were compelled to? The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places. http://tinyurl.com/7fzqp > I know in my state parenting > classes are available but certainly not encouraged for at risk parents > (young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who grew > up in abusive households) How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not publicized enough? > I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need to > address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parenting > classes, give them mentors, teach them appropriate discipline > strategies. Give them a support network so when they feel overwhelmed > with the responsibilities of parenthood they can get help BEFORE there > is a problem. Two problems, I think. One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued with state legislators over this when one governor or another proposed "early intervention" with new mothers in geographical areas considered high risk, or with behaviors considered high risk. They understood rather easily when I pointed out the BOR to them from the Constitution. One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child protection statutes. Thus we come around again to the law. Two, money. Who will provide this support network? Churches, local interest groups, even the local health department schedules a variety of things to get young parents involved, especially new mothers, even providing child care during the meetings. The problem is that the families that are targetted for this help can refuse to respond, or simply not be interested, and that is certainly their right. I do not support compelled services unless the level of problem has reached a proportion that has involved child protection services by the state. And while at one time such programs could access hospital records for new births, and visit the new mothers directly, they are now proscribed from doing so by HIPAA. Any PR or marketing of the programs have to be addressed into to already crowded media advertising world. This is precisely why I support a law addressing the actual behavior. There is nothing; poverty, large families, single parenting that MAKES a parent spank a child. A law will address the issue directly. It will mean nothing to those that already do these things for their children. They won't be effected. They already actively seek alternatives to CP. Collect and study information about child development. Provide themselves with strees reducing activities and strategies for when parenting overwhelms them. In the law, I'll insist on having these issues addressed. There must be public funding support for programs mandated to help those charged and convicted of spanking. If not, there's little point in the law, though these things in the past have tended to sort themselves out. I imagine when women's sufferage was finally a fact there was some support for teaching women the political processes they were about to engage in. There was supposed to be help for freed slaves, but that didn't go as well. The law banning spanking would work for all concerned. The parent convicted of spanking could then DEMAND state support for them to rehabilitate. At least some reimbursement, some child care, some training monies. I'd be happy with that. These problems you have mentioned are ones that have been addressed before at great length by society. They have done pretty much all they can do, sans constitutional violations, at this point. Now it's time to move forward with a law. > -- > beccafromlalaland Kane PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the program, 0.7 entries per hour. What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline. Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the baseline rate. Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~  SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 0:-> Wrote: > There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can > find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental > health departments, some schools, private instructors are al > available. > > In fact, you can even find on-line classes. In my area no one talks about parenting classes until it's too late. They are not encouraged, they are only available at certain times tha make it inconveniant for working parents, no child care is available. Most low income families that I know do not have a computer, nor d they know how to use the internet, nor do they have time to go to th library to take a class on how to use the internet. So how are they t gain access to parenting classes? kane Wrote: > How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were > compelled to? > > The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places. How would you force people to obey a no-spanking law without firs setting up a support network, and educational resources? The classes are not everywhere. kane Wrote: > How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not > publicized enough? See above. kane Wrote: > Two problems, I think. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child > protection statutes. I was once considered an at risk parent. I was 19 with a newborn, an a history of family abuse. You know what my local hospital did upo discharge from the maternity unit. Sent a nurse to my home once a wee for the first 6months of my child's life. She came to check up on m child, and my physical and emotional recovery. She provided me wit information. She caught my post partum depression. She helped insur that mother child bond grew properly. If at 6months she felt that w needed more help she would have continued with her visits, and provide me with more information. Sometimes you have to go through the back door to get to the fron door. kane Wrote: > Two, money. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > especially > new mothers, even providing child care during the meetings. if you are talking passing of a Federal Law then it should be Federa Money that pays for the classes, locations, and child care. Local government would be responsible for the support network. In m area most support groups for new parents, or parents with problems ar either offered at the Intermediate school district, or at th Hospital. kane Wrote: > The problem is that the families that are targetted for this help can > refuse to respond, or simply not be interested, and that is certainly > their right. I do not support compelled services unless the level of > problem has reached a proportion that has involved child protection > services by the state. yes that is certainly their right, but even having the help publicize to a level that will continually remind them that it is available woul be a step in the right direction. As it stands now, you only hear o parenting classes if you are ordered to take them or you are lookin for them. Yet you support a law to prohibit spanking, without first havin programs in place to teach parents new techniques. If we were a bunch of cannabals who didn't know how to butcher a cow would you be in support of a law that prohibits people eating withou first teaching people how to butcher a cow? (weird analogy, but I think it works) kane Wrote: > And while at one time such programs could access hospital records for > new births, and visit the new mothers directly, they are now > proscribed > from doing so by HIPAA. Any PR or marketing of the programs have to be > addressed into to already crowded media advertising world. As of september 2004 my local hospital was still sending nurses to new mother's homes. kane Wrote: > There is nothing; poverty, large families, single parenting that MAKES > a > parent spank a child. I disagree. perhaps the situation doesn't "make" them spank...but it certainly makes it easier to spank. kane Wrote: > A law will address the issue directly. How?? Do the laws against murder address the issues that cause a person to murder? No they just provide incentive not to, and punishment when you do. Speaking of punishment...what type of punishment do you have in mind for this law? kane Wrote: > . Provide themselves with strees > reducing activities and strategies for when parenting overwhelms them. Many single parent households, poor households, etc. Don't have the luxuery of a parental "time out" They have to work, they have to parent, they have to clean the house, they don't have the help needed to take a break. Signaturebeccafromlalaland > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > In my area no one talks about parenting classes until it's too late. Who is responsible for that? > They are not encouraged, they are only available at certain times that > make it inconveniant for working parents, no child care is available. Sorry about your area. Have you researched more? > Most low income families that I know do not have a computer, nor do > they know how to use the internet, nor do they have time to go to the > library to take a class on how to use the internet. So how are they to > gain access to parenting classes? I have no idea. How do they find time to watch TV? Bowl? Tavern hang? Check again with your county health department for available child rearing classes. By the way, I know many low income families and very few lack a computer. They are just so cheap these days. Used are going for $50 to a hundred bucks, with software installed, lots of it, including a browser. And kids are taught computer use in public schools. I'm still puzzled though that you think the community has some responsibility above and beyond the parents themselves to aquire better parenting skills, so they won't feel the need to spank. Remember, we are talking about making it a law not to spank. That is a motivator. Just like traffic laws that require being able to pass a driving test. Or a food handler's permit. Or practicing law. It's the person's responsibility...not one elses. No matter how available parenting information might be you cannot force people to access it unless you have a law that makes it illegal to spank. Non consentual spanking is assault if performed on an adult. How can it logically not be just because it's performed on a child. Kane > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > parent, they have to clean the house, they don't have the help needed > to take a break. I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask mor questions...and did not answer any of my questions. Dodging -- beccafromlalaland That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-) Doan > I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more > questions...and did not answer any of my questions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland > That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom > from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-) You post to another with an ad hom at me and warn her to watch for me using ad hom. Interesting, isn't it. Her question asking if I was dodging based on my non answers to her questions and only asking questions myself amounts to a false accusation. Reading over my posts in this thread and my reponses there is no such thing going on on my part. It's you that dodge Doan, constantly. > Doan > >>I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more >>questions...and did not answer any of my questions. >> >>Dodging? I invite either you are "becca" to prove that I "... only responded to those items that," I " ... could ask more questions...and did not answer any of my questions." It's your kind of phony balony, Doan. The usual. You lost this debate years ago on facts, now you just dribble along. 0:-> >>-- >>beccafromlalaland SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 Kane, While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you faile to answer the second half. The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offendin behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop. The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating you proposed law. Read the second half of my post. and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mose on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your word are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes -- beccafromlalaland > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland Thanks, beccafromlalaland! That's very neat. How do I join the board? Doan > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Read the second half of my post. Your post claiming I failed to respond to these things was posted on Jan 30th at 7:32 pm ....................................................................... 7. beccafromlalaland Jan 30, 7:29 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking From: beccafromlalaland <beccafromlalaland.22h...@news.parentingbanter.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:29:37 +0000 Local: Mon, Jan 30 2006 7:29 pm Subject: Re: If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more questions...and did not answer any of my questions. Dodging? -- beccafromlalaland ......................................................... All the responses I made to your question posed to me from you first post...the one suggesting an exploration of socio economic issues follow. I'll confine myself to cut and paste from my own posts, leaving yours out, but respond to precisely what you now claim I did not. And referring to your current claim of "The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop. The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your proposed law. " You postulated that classes were available only after the fact and not available. I responded with: "Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental health departments, some schools, private instructors are all available. In fact, you can even find on-line classes. http://tinyurl.com/dastb " How is that NOT answering your question about teaching? In fact, I answered WHY we cannot get them educated before the fact BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO COMPELL THEM UNLESS WE BRING SOME CHARGE AGAINST THEM. And I pointed out that is what family court and CPS is FOR. "One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued with state legislators over this when one governor or another proposed "early intervention" with new mothers in geographical areas considered high risk, or with behaviors considered high risk. They understood rather easily when I pointed out the BOR to them from the Constitution. One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child protection statutes. " I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, did I not? I know of know legal policy that can get people educated before the fact. I do know though that efforts have been made by encorporating such education into the highschool classroom in some areas. I did not mention that before, because it IS NOT A MANDATORY class subject. And it can't be made to be. Unless you wish to try and convince parents it's more important than math. In fact I went on at great length to answer your question in http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/d37ea8d3d6a3da36?hl=en& 4. 0:-> Jan 29, 5:16 pm hide options Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking From: "0:->" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:16:19 -0800 Then in your message #5 that followed you asked me how one could force them to obey a law they had been provided services to allow them to: "How would you force people to obey a no-spanking law without first setting up a support network, and educational resources? The classes are not everywhere. " I respond in message #5 as follows: "Check again with your county health department for available child rearing classes. " "I'm still puzzled though that you think the community has some responsibility above and beyond the parents themselves to aquire better parenting skills, so they won't feel the need to spank. Remember, we are talking about making it a law not to spank. That is a motivator. Just like traffic laws that require being able to pass a driving test. Or a food handler's permit. Or practicing law. It's the person's responsibility...not one elses. No matter how available parenting information might be you cannot force people to access it unless you have a law that makes it illegal to spank. " I even pointed out how to access free computer access, and cheap computers. And you followed all my attempts to answer the questions you actually asked with this insult: " 7. beccafromlalaland I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more questions...and did not answer any of my questions. Dodging? " Then in your message, #5 in the thread, you asked: "Speaking of punishment...what type of punishment do you have in mind for this law? " Which I had ALREADY COVERED IN DEPTH in my prior post, #4 in the series. Read it again and tell me that I did not answer your question. It may not be to YOUR satisfaction, but I sure as hell did NOT ignore your question. I included only ONE penalty...(and I don't consider it a "punishment" that they be required to "rehabilitate." So obviously I did not advocate a punishment. If that is what you consider not answering your question, think you should read my message again, or are you playing "Doan" on me now? Pick a single word and hairsplit down to the point YOU can make a claim about MY intent or failure that is NOT actually in evidence? Did you miss where I DID in fact answer that question in the only way it can be answered, by referrence to current child abuse statutes (and one would presume their penalties listed) in the states? "The only legal action would be child protection statutes." I did not LIST the penalties because I would have to review all states to do so. > and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey > on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words > are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes. My own newsreaders and google manage to do the same. I'm not sure what you are referring to, SINCE YOU DON'T INCLUDED my "actually neatly Quoted " comments in this post where you are simply referring to them. In fact the ONLY instance of my comments in this post ARE MY OWN CUT AND PASTE from prior posts. You did it again. You accused me of something but left all referrences to it ABSENT from view. > -- > beccafromlalaland And you have NOT, yourself, responded to many of MY questions and commentary. Why is THAT? I have answered all of yours. Kane > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending > behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop. You do by the way understand how incongruent that question is, don't you? I said, by emposing state states on child abuse that exist NOW. I'm not going to list them all. > The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your > proposed law. I answered that and you are now doing what amounts to harrassment. Very Doanlike harrassment. > Read the second half of my post. I read it all, and answered it all, and responded in another posted reply to this same message with more detailed information citations of prior posts and all. > and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey > on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words > are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes. That makes no difference how the formatting is done. If it's missing, it's missing because you left it out. > -- > beccafromlalaland Doan is pulling your chain and you are obeying. He must be pleased to have created a little servant. 0:-> Kane, You're right I did edit some of what you wrote. I took out items tha were irrelevant to what I wished to ask you or comment on. For exampl the URL you provided for online parenting classes. It was unnecessar for me to quote the URL, it would have been redundant as I had no comment on the URL in question. When I removed my comments that triggered you comments/questions/rebuttal leaving your comments "lonely and dangling I did so that those reading along didn't have to sift through 300line of dialogue to catch up to what we are talking about, and I presume that you would know/remember what our conversation was about. Perhap I presumed wrongly. As for you quoting the Embry study again...you cannot accuse me o dodging because I had already stated I would not be baited into a lon drawn out discussion on a teeny tiny report from 25yrs ago. To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack o available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federa government. There is no funding. My comment "see above" in response to your question "How are they no encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not publicized enough?" was to save myself time typing out the answe because i had just answered it above. You have a knack for asking th same questions several ways trying to get different answers so you ca trip people up with their words. I split up one very long paragraph of yours so I could comment o individual portions in the hopes that it would be less confusing. Bu I see you were confused by it. Perhaps you should carefully read nex time. You keep saying that you responded to "The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop. The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your proposed law." I have read and reread your posts...and you did NOT answer thes questions. If you feel you did, perhaps you can do a little copy an paste yourself in your next messege and point them out to me. I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions o your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I a responding to...but I've been wrong before -- beccafromlalaland Doan, Go to parentingbanner.com in the bluish tool bar at the top should b a button to click to subscribe or join or something along those lines Being able to directly quote people makes things easier. Although I didn't quote Kane in my prior post because it would hav been more confusing trying to filter through the bs to get to the hear of what he was trying to say -- beccafromlalaland Thank you, beccafromlalaland. It looks like it's a moderated group. Can you tell me who are the moderators? If they are anything like Kane, I'll pass. ;-) Doan > Doan, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for me to quote the URL, it would have been redundant as I had not > comment on the URL in question. Your accusation was that I did not respond to your questions. > When I removed my comments that triggered your > comments/questions/rebuttal leaving your comments "lonely and dangling" > I did so that those reading along didn't have to sift through 300lines > of dialogue to catch up to what we are talking about, and I presumed > that you would know/remember what our conversation was about. Perhaps > I presumed wrongly. I don't have a problem with someone snipping my remarks. I do if they refer back to them for information or claiming I did or didn't say something. > As for you quoting the Embry study again...you cannot accuse me of > dodging because I had already stated I would not be baited into a long > drawn out discussion on a teeny tiny report from 25yrs ago. It is not a teeny tiny report. It's a longitudinal study of considerable scientific rigorously applied research methods. It explored, for the first time in all research before, and possibly since, a direct observation of applied methods of parenting on one subject. A near perfect field study to my mind. Each of the 33 subject families were described in depth, each child also. The simple method of teaching rather than using CP to try and create a child response by pain aversion was elegant and refined as no other study had ever attempted. And the basics of social science research accepted methodology has not changed all that much in 25 years. Standards and analysis are still much the same. You may do what you wish, but making value comments on a study you have not seen is unacceptable judgement of that study. > To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack of > available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federal > government. There is no funding. The Federal government is not allowed to withhold funding to one state while funding another for the various grants and programs. If your state doesn't have them someone there is not doing the relatively simple work to apply for them. Hence, I have no answer to YOUR problem beyond what I already offered, and why I asked you questions sometimes rather than answer. I did not have enough information to give a credible answer to you. I do not believe I asked evasive questions, hence your rhetorical question that in fact accused me of dodging was uncalled for. > My comment "see above" in response to your question "How are they not > encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not > publicized enough?" was to save myself time typing out the answer > because i had just answered it above. You have a knack for asking the > same questions several ways trying to get different answers so you can > trip people up with their words. That is untrue. You are projecting Doans most common methods on me. Just as now, and throughout the thread, when you gave me more information requested I answered your questions more fully and did NOT use that information to "trip" you "up with" your "words." If you think so, point it out. If true have have most abject apologies I only have come back at your with some harshness when YOU appeared to be playing the "Doan Game" with me. A harassing false insinutation like, "Dodging?" > I split up one very long paragraph of yours so I could comment on > individual portions in the hopes that it would be less confusing. But > I see you were confused by it. Perhaps you should carefully read next > time. Perhaps I should. And that I did when you accused me of "Dodging?" We both know that was an accusation in a rhetorical form. Upon reading your prior posts and my responses I found NO instances where I had failed to answer you as fully as was possible, nor did I ask any questions that were not calculated to gain more information so I could give an answer...which I then did IF you tendered the information asked for. I did it again in this post, without any attempts to 'trip' you up with your own words. > You keep saying that you responded to > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > questions. If you feel you did, perhaps you can do a little copy and > paste yourself in your next messege and point them out to me. I don't even need to go back. I can tell you from memory, and in a most recent post to you pointed them out yet again. To your first question I answered by pointing out that I would put requirements in the law to provide for services to the accused. I made that very clear. To our second question I answered that the charges and penalties should be taken from state statutes currently used to prosecute child abuse NOW. > I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of > your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am > responding to...but I've been wrong before. You are simply using harassing language to accuse me of what I have not done. Why would answering your questions then or now be "butt cover.....?" You came back at me accusing me of dodging. I have pointed out to you my prior posts responding to the specific questions you said I did not respond to. Is that "butt cover.....," to point those out to you when you asked me to? Or did you wish to make an accusation and I NOT respond in defense of my post's contents? Let's see it again, shall we? Here is yesterday's post to you answering all your questions in full, using citations and links back to my messages, and quoting the exact words I used back then. And they WERE answers to your two questions above. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/633f218eb338b2ba?hl=en& Why are you still denying that I answered you when the proof is right in front of your eyes? Here is a requote of my original posted comments to your questions from my message cited above as to link: "One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child protection statutes. " That actually answers both your questions. One cannot get a parent to be trained if they do not want to...so obviously, along with the list of sources I know are available elsewhere (I cannot solve YOUR local problem so don't ask me to and it's NOT a dodge for me to so state), the answer to your question is that there must be enforcement. As to how to force that? That's your second question, what penalty or punishment would the law apply. "The only legal action would be child protection statutes." is my answer. And as I said, I'm not going to list all the states statutes. And that too is NOT dodging. If you want an exact answer, as you seemed to for your "lack of resources in my state," response, and since I do NOT know your state of residence, then who could I be dodging not to have an answer beyond what I gave? > -- > beccafromlalaland You are looking more and more like you simply wish to pick a fight, and you are an admirer of Doan and his shoddy sick little tricks. Why are you stating falsely that I did not answer your questions? You may not like my answers, but they are answers and fair and as accurate as they can be under the limitations of your information to me at each step our our posted exchanges. When you told me more, I answered more fully. Kane Kane, You have my apologies I clearly misunderstood your responses. The current statute for child abuse involves the children being take away from the parents until said parents complete the require punishment complete parenting classes and prove that they are stable This can take Months to Years to complete depending on the severity o abuse, and in many cases never happens. During that time children ar placed with a suitable family member, foster or group home. This is understandable in situations of abuse. I do not believe spanking "is" abuse. I believe it is a misguide attempt at discipline, from loving parents who do not have the tool available to them to use gentle discipline. If you propose to remove the children from a home, from their lovin parents who do not "know" any other/better way of discipline then yo are NOT only punishing the Parents, you are punishing the Children. You can say that a law against spanking will provide the incentive t gain the necessary skills to stop spanking. That may be true...or people will just find new ways to hide thei behavior -- beccafromlalaland > Kane, > > You have my apologies I clearly misunderstood your responses. I should work to be more clear. Your criticism is actually helpful in that way. This is too important to not be clear. > The current statute for child abuse involves the children being taken > away from the parents until said parents complete the required > punishment complete parenting classes and prove that they are stable. Actually there are other outcomes in most states. My state and all those around me do not have a "punishment" penalty. And they do not take all children away. A fair percentage remain with the parent while the parent does the various service plan goals. Some can be as simple as having a "homemaker" come in and work on programs to housekeep, food buying and prep, child and baby care, budgeting skill building. And most important, self care. In 1980-81 when I did my practicum and ended up being hired for a year part time on a work study program, because of my background, I wound up supervising homemakers, and participating in parent training. Child care was provided by the state, on the premises. I used to coordinate those services and rent, or borrow facilities in folks neighborhood so they would not have to travel far....and at that they were provided bus tickets if needed. > This can take Months to Years to complete depending on the severity of > abuse, and in many cases never happens. During that time children are > placed with a suitable family member, foster or group home. Yes. > This is understandable in situations of abuse. Some folks have a very hard time getting through it, but have some pretty major life problems that negatively impacts their ability to keep their child safe. > I do not believe spanking "is" abuse. We differ on this. > I believe it is a misguided > attempt at discipline, from loving parents who do not have the tools > available to them to use gentle discipline. We agree on this, to a point. Some folks confuse attachment and ownership with love. > If you propose to remove the children from a home, from their loving > parents who do not "know" any other/better way of discipline then you > are NOT only punishing the Parents, you are punishing the Children. I don't. That's only ONE possibly outcome of a child abuse founding. That happens in cases where there is more damage to the child. > You can say that a law against spanking will provide the incentive to > gain the necessary skills to stop spanking. Yes. I've seen many parents learn to parent better because they were on a CPS services plan, and in most of those cases I knew about them because a relative (I used to help relatives with various aspects of foster and adoption) had the child in their care temporarily. I got to watch the return of the children to their bio parent too. > That may be true...or people will just find new ways to hide their > behavior. That will always be true. People will always find ways to hide their crimes. I'm sure you can see that that does not mean we simply should not have laws. You will find that laws against spanking have worked in many other countries. And people don't lose their children for 'spanking.' Not there, and not here. People aren't even reported for spanking. They are reported for suspected abuse. My best guess is that when spanking is illegal that won't change in the least. You'd be surprized how many people that spank also abuse. Like drug use now....people don't lose their children because of drug use. They come to the attention of CPS because of the things they do or fail to do as a result of drug use. Crime...got to jail...can't care for kids....tweaking...can't care for kids....crashing...can't care for kids.....etc. etc etc. The only "drug" crime that will result in children being removed for THE CRIME, is having children present in a meth lab. Some states have gone one step further, but I can't fault them on that -- just having a child in a household where drug SALES are taking place. Best wishes. Kane > > Kane, > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > since, a direct observation of applied methods of parenting on one > subject. A near perfect field study to my mind. 13 subjects is not teeny tiny? ;-) > Each of the 33 subject families were described in depth, each child > also. The simple method of teaching rather than using CP to try and > create a child response by pain aversion was elegant and refined as no > other study had ever attempted. LOL! Of course, you know that beccafromlalaland doesn't have the Embry study yet, right Kane? So you can just spout your BS and she wouldn't know it, right Kane? Tell her many of those children were spanked and how many times they were spanked, Kane. Go ahead, Kane! Make my day! ;-) > And the basics of social science research accepted methodology has not > changed all that much in 25 years. Standards and analysis are still > much the same. LOL! > You may do what you wish, but making value comments on a study you have > not seen is unacceptable judgement of that study. And that also applies to you! ;-) Doan > > To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack of > > available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federal [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > > Kane .....snip the childish evasive nonsense......... No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study. Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove you do. You haven't. Hence your ploys go nowhere. Let me know when you are ready to answer my questions that prove you have the study. Submission of bits and pieces you have picked up from other people/sources are insufficient. The only proof will be correct answers to my questions on what is on which page, or similar. Your childishness is noted. You are boring. Kane > .....snip the childish evasive nonsense......... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove > you do. LOL! Of course you don't dare to debate me. You would rather debate with someone who don't have the study, like beccafromlalaland. That way you can LIE without being afraid of getting caught! Watch what you're saying or you will have to eat your "mistakes"! ;-) Doan > > .....snip the childish evasive nonsense......... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > LOL! Of course you don't dare to debate me. Where did I say I don't' dare to debate you? I'm responding to YOUR daring me to debate you. I simply won't until you prove you have the study I have. Why did you excise the content? >You would rather debate > with someone who don't have the study, like beccafromlalaland. I don't recall offerring to debate her. I invited her to get the study. She said you were making her familiar with the study. Aren't you going to send her the study? 0:-> >That > way you can LIE without being afraid of getting caught! Now how could I do that if you have the study? In fact, how could I do that if she has the study? You won't give it to her? > Watch what > you're saying or you will have to eat your "mistakes"! ;-) Schoolboy childish threats again? You mean I have to parse each sentence of the smallest possible tiny flaw or you'll jump on it and scream "LIAR!"? You are such child. I'll discuss the Embry study with anyone I wish to Doan. I only promised I wouldn't with you until you had your own copy....which you have repeatedly failed to prove. 0:-> > Doan It's not about CP for you Doan. It's about winning little childish arguments about what "effect" means. Childish nonsense. Kane > > Kane, > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > 0:-> Kane, Do you know how insulting this is? I hope you will wise up and apologize to beccafromlalaland. It went far beyond harassment! She is a decent person who is also on the anti-spanking's side. DON'T BE STUPID! Doan > > > Kane, > > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > She is a decent person who is also on the anti-spanking's side. > DON'T BE STUPID! It's not insulting. It in response to her comments about my posting that were inaccurate. Those where she claimed I had not responded to her questions, and I had. Who was insulted? "Far beyond harrassment?" What would you call it? She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for your bs. I'm not stupid. You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from this ng. > Doan Stop being a child. 0:-> > > > > Kane, > > > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Who was insulted? beccafromlaland! > "Far beyond harrassment?" What would you call it? Exactly > She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for > your bs. > > I'm not stupid. You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else > that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from > this ng. You are STUPID! > > Doan > > Stop being a child. STOP BEING AN ASS-HOLE! Doan > > > > > Kane, > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > > Exactly Exactly what? > > She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for > > your bs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > You are STUPID! You are if you think others are fooled by your claims to not having an agenda other than supporting parents "making up their own mind." You'd done everything possibly to influence them to make them up to spank, and defended spanking your entire posting history here, and argued against non spanking. > > > Doan > > > > Stop being a child. > > > STOP BEING AN ASS-HOLE! Now now. Temper temper, child. R R R R R > Doan Kane > That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom > from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-) Only to harassment, and lies, unlike you Doan. Hence, it's not typical, and further that would make it misleading on your part. You are lying, in other words. Why do you lie about me? So, simply to harass? You seem to be attempting to woe "becca" rather energetically. > Doan 0:-> >>I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more >>questions...and did not answer any of my questions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>-- >>beccafromlalaland SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > > That's just typical of ignoranus kane0. Be prepare for the adhom > > from him, beccafromlalalan. ;-) > > Only to harassment, and lies, unlike you Doan. An me, ONLY TO YOU and your kinds! ;-) > Hence, it's not typical, and further that would make it misleading on > your part. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, simply to harass? I don't, I simply stated the facts. Just ask beccafromlalaland who is believable, you or me? > You seem to be attempting to woe "becca" rather energetically. I simple give her the respect that she has given me. I am not trying to convince her to spank her kids, nor anybody else for that matter. Funny thing is you can't even "woe" her. Tell her where you teach, or how much knowledge you have about the Hutterites, or how you are so much smarter than Dr. Embry (no punishment). ;-) Doan > > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very > alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 ........more lying evasive nonsense...... Try posting the truth about your self and I'll get back to you, spanking compulsive apologist. You lie. LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth. YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-) Doan > ........more lying evasive nonsense...... > > Try posting the truth about your self and I'll get back to you, > spanking compulsive apologist. > > You lie. > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth. > > YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-) About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud. Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical analysis of your posting history. 0:-> Why are you shouting? > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > You lie. > > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth. > > > > YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-) > > About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud. LOL! What do you want to know about me? I don't hide behind a pseudonym! > Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical > analysis of your posting history. I didn't call anyone a "smelly-c.nt"! ;-) > 0:-> > > Why are you shouting? Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-) Doan > > > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > I didn't call anyone a "smelly-c.nt"! ;-) We can always count on you to signal clearly when you have exposed your a.s. R R R R R R to bad child. Others can read and think. > > 0:-> > > > > Why are you shouting? > > Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their > heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-) So tell us this "TRUTH" you are yelling then? It's like "The Question," isn't it droany? The line is where ever you spankers say it is. R R R R R R. What a child you are. > Doan > > > > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > We can always count on you to signal clearly when you have exposed your > a.s. Yup! When I have to go to the bathroom. It's then that I see you face. ;-) > R R R R R R to bad child. Others can read and think. Except the ignoranus kane0! > > > 0:-> > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So tell us this "TRUTH" you are yelling then? Yes. It's the recommended non-cp alternative according to the anti-spanking zealotS. ;-) > It's like "The Question," isn't it droany? The line is where ever you > spankers say it is. R R R R R R. Nope! It's where "reasonable" people say it is. Have you checked Canada? > What a child you are. What an ignoranus you are. Doan > > > > > LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > Nope! It's where "reasonable" people say it is. Have you checked Canada? Sure. Show us where it says they have identified the line that cannot be crossed over. Be as precise as they were. 0:-> > > What a child you are. > > > What an ignoranus you are. > > Doan > I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more > questions...and did not answer any of my questions. That is untrue. I have responded to every post and to every question. I have asked questions of my own where you asked and confined your premise to your geo area. I have asked when the question did not make sense in context. And I have have asked, then gone on to answer the question you poses or comment you offered where I thought I was being invited to. > Dodging? If you can find a place I dodged please point it out and I'll happily answer, or where I cannot admit I cannot. I will also ask questions to gain more information about your question so that I can, hopefully, answer. You did not attribute in the post I'm responding to now any of the prior posts. When I read them over, as I just did, I do NOT see where your accusation is true. But I'm open for correction if you'll point out my 'dodging.' In fact, I'll go back over my own posts in this thread and do it FOR you. Feel free to correct my doing so. I do not hide, dodge, mislead, lie, or otherwise attempt to obfuscate these issues. And never have. Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 This is the last in the series of my own posts that I examine to see if in fact beccafromlalaland by asking me the following is accurate: "I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more questions...and did not answer any of my questions. Dodging? -- beccafromlalaland " [[ Sadly it's so chopped with removal of some commentary by becca that indeed in parts it does appear as though I had asked questions...but she cut her OWN portions at times...leaving my question dangling as though it was out of thin air rather than relevant and congruent with the progression of the discussion. ]] >>0:-> Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>In my area no one talks about parenting classes until it's too late. [[ I certainly don't have an answer for that...since I don't know why that condition exists in her area, and much less so in mine. ]] > Who is responsible for that? [[ Hence my question above. ]] >>They are not encouraged, they are only available at certain times that >>make it inconveniant for working parents, no child care is available. > > Sorry about your area. Have you researched more? [[ What could I possible answer but concern and a question of my own..to see if in fact becca had done a thorough search. There are certainly more options available than "no child are is available." Mother's coops, for instance are all over the place these days. ]] >>Most low income families that I know do not have a computer, nor do >>they know how to use the internet, nor do they have time to go to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Check again with your county health department for available child > rearing classes. [[ I answer the question and ask one as well, highly relevant to the issue.. .I find a great many parents that are on limited incomes do a lot of couch sitting watching TV, or spending time and money on their own entertainment, but NOT on improving child rearing skills. Their choice, of course. I am answering and asking questions....hardly what could be called "dodging." Unless one speaks Doanese of course. ]] > By the way, I know many low income families and very few lack a > computer. They are just so cheap these days. Used are going for $50 to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Non consentual spanking is assault if performed on an adult. How can it > logically not be just because it's performed on a child. [[ I just went on at great lenght to respond directly to becca's comments and questions. "Dodging?" Where? ]] > Kane > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >>See above. [[ Here I asked a perfectly understandable question to a statement that has been chopped from the thread...why I cannot say, I certainly didn't remove anything in this thread at any point. becca claimed they families were not encouraged. I want to know more so I can answer more. ]] >>kane Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >>parent, they have to clean the house, they don't have the help needed >>to take a break. [[ The above is a series of odd juxtapositions of my prior comments, and becca's responses WITHOUT MY REPONSE..as I made NONE, until just today, because I had not seen this post. And the out of context cut and pasting reminds me of someone. ]] Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 Again replying to my own post to address beccafromlalaland's accusation that I only asked questions, and avoided her questions and didn't answer 'any' of them. As in: "I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more questions...and did not answer any of my questions. Dodging? -- beccafromlalaland " > > Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available to > > parents after the fact. > > There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can > find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental > health departments, some schools, private instructors are all available. [[ While you forgot the question mark and I could have passed over this I presumed a question from the grammar and answered. Is this one of the 'any' I'm supposed to not have answered? I elaborated in fact. ]] > In fact, you can even find on-line classes. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were > compelled to? [[ Again your comment, and my response, that is in fact an answer within a question. You are asking me to get them to classes they don't wan tot go to by posing the obvious. YOu compell them by law. People assigned to traffic school can be as angry as they want, but they stand to pay a hefty fine and even lose their driving priveleges if they do not attend. ]] > The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who grew > > up in abusive households) [[ I find it odd that you chopped the above comment by you from later posts .. then shortly thereafter asked me if I was "dodging." ]] > How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not > publicized enough? [[ When you quoted by attribution later, these clarifying questions of mine were left lonely and dangling without your previous comment for the obvious understanding that I wanted to know something relevant to your statement. ]] > > I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need to > > address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parenting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Two problems, I think. [[ Again, how am I dodging if you pose a solution and I discuss the issues and difficulties from the real world, as I do below? ]] > One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS > intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > can do, sans constitutional violations, at this point. Now it's time to > move forward with a law. [[ You accused me of dodging. Where? This elaborate and informational commentary of mine was 'dodging?' Please explain. ]] > > -- > > beccafromlalaland [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had > children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~ [[ In fact, becca, I gave some information above that you pointedly ignored. As you said you would. I could accuse you of dodging, but I have not, only offerred the information and encouraged your commenting or discussion. Who's dodging here? ]] Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > Kane > PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had > children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~ Kane, Are you claiming that the above statements are TRUE 100%? And that it is not something you made up as you go along. Here is your chance to rectify your "mistake", if any. ;-) I am just setting the stage in case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see this study for what it is and not Embry according Kane. Go ahead, Kane! Make my day! ;-) Doan So, Kane, are you going to answer my question? Doan > > Kane > > PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Doan > So, Kane, are you going to answer my question? When I find out what it is, exactly. > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Kane, > > Are you claiming that the above statements are TRUE 100%? Are you going to claim that your statements are always 100% true? Why, if not, would you hold me to 100%, other than to have some pissyassed argument with me over the meaning of a single word that isn't relevant to the entire statement or article, as you did with "effect" when I made clear the Canadian study was "correlationa?" Rather than accept my explanation you simple could not longer argue the content and tried to play weasel with one word. You are a cowardly unethical immoral lying pissant, actually. And you've been posting this same way for years. And that it > > is not something you made up as you go along. Here is your chance to > > rectify your "mistake", if any. ;-) There is nothing to rectify unless I made a mistake in the nature of a typo or misunstanding. YOu, when you debate, instead of seeking clarification and better information, simply want to take a mistake or something you disagree with and call the other person a liar, liar. > I am just setting the stage in > > case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see > > this study for what it is and not Embry according Kane. I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have said exists in the study. But you, little lying child who does NOT have they study, or you would have known that 13 was NOT the size of the sample and participants, will continue to try and fake it. When the study comes up you will be exposed for the liar you are. Now all you have to do is convince becca that there is not reason to get the study. > > Go ahead, Kane! > > Make my day! ;-) What a child. I'm sitting here with the study at my left hand. It's been in my files for years. I've watched you try to weasel about it. Other's on this ng have a copy of my copy and know you are lying and weaseling and you still go on pretending. The fact you would NOT prove you had the report I did by correctly answering just a few identifying features of the report makes plain what a thoroughgoing liar and cheat you are. Shame on you. And shame has come to your family because of this lying practice of yours. You are lower than a dog. > > Doan I hope they never have to find out what you have done to their good name. Kane 0:-> Wrote: > > > I am working from a particular study report. If she gets the same one > she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I hav > said > exists in the study. Kane, Tell me how would you explain yourself if I use interlibrary loan an get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you hav implied may happen with your above statement. What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front o you -- beccafromlalaland > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland You want to see all the stories that Kane had been telling about the Embry study? Here is the one posted by Kane back in April 1, 2004. He accused Alina from Mexico as being my sock puppet. Sound familiar? ;-) Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services From: pohakuyakok...@subdimension.com (Kane) - Find messages by this author Date: 1 Apr 2004 15:38:01 -0800 Local: Thurs, Apr 1 2004 3:38 pm Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse ....something that makes one go.....hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....<thanks Arsenio> Now why would "Alina" ask ME instead of you? R R R R R R. And since my addy is a dead end and yours is NOT, why did "Alina" not just send you an email back channel like the two people that asked me for the study....since they have my addy. Really really odd, isn't it? R R R R R R R R R R R R R......<oh dear.....me oh my> - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >On 30 Mar 2004, Kane wrote: >> On 30 Mar 2004 15:50:07 -0800, Gree...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) >> wrote: >> >Commander McBrag provide the Embry study? >> >Unlikely. And if he does, he will fill it with >> >his usual raving commentary. >> At 80 some pages that would be quite an accomplishment. >> Can Doan provide us with even ONE page number correctly related to a >> question from it? Not so far. >I can provide a copy of the Embry Study to anyone who wanted it. I have >made this offer before and I am still offering it. So far, Gerald and >Aline have asked you for it, Opps! Wait. What could this be? A little typo, or a little slip of honesty from the unconscious that some folks don't even believe in....R R R R R "Aline?" What an interesting name. It rings a bell with me, but for the life of me I just can't remember where. Something connected to my old school ties, or maybe when I was really really little and attended training for a religious rite with the other little kiddies. Hmmmm.....maybe it'll come back to me if I give it.....mmmmpphhhhhh......time. R > why can't you provide it? Goodness me oh my. Droany seemed to have snipped that portion of my post where I answered that question. And I have provided it, twice now. If and when the recipients care to tell you so they will. Until then, sweat little Droaner. They KNOW I told the truth...you they may have a bit of doubt about. The next time you create a sock story do a better job. You might want to check in with the couch croucher buddy of yours. He knows a number of puppet masters...not much better than you though. "Alina" made her or its case for working with a child. Nothing in the study is useful for that. If you were honest you would have TOLD "Alina" 'Aline' that. Anyone with the real 25 year old study would have NOT offered it to someone trying to make parenting decisions...it's useful for that....the web page for Paxis is the place to send a "mommy" who's child is conveniently to young to discuss actual discipline problems. Everying going on in this thread is becoming more charmingly convoluted. I do so love puzzles. I've actually made a bit of an income with solving one particular puzzle game over the years. Wanna guess which one? Very popular. Now I happily pointed Alina to the site where the outcomes and tools used are offered. If Alina wants more support to decide on whether or not to use the training materials THAT would be the place to ask for them. The study is very old, over 25 years, and is a tool for debate at this time, not for parenting children. You screwed up yet again. In fact you screwed up so bad I can hardly stop laughing. Here's why: There is an "Aline" associated with USC. Which of course YOU know, and if that particular Aline were not in the habit....R R R or should I say, Habit, and a tad younger she MIGHT have noticed your addy and just trotted over to see you...R R R R R http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/summer99/alumninews/AP_g... So when you have a moment ring her up if she's still living, Class of `42, R R R R R, tell her you used her name for a scam.....and it didn't work. Aline Marie Gerber, who is pictured on her Alumni Profile page in Habit as a nun. Gosh, why didn't you give your puppet a last name, like maybe, R R R R, "Doheny?" Your spanish isn't bad, but I suspect, like all your other drivel, you had someone translate for you. What a sap. Good one, Droaner, when you lie you go bigtime don't you. I wonder how she'd like knowing you used HER name for this sickness of yours. And....mmmmpphhhhh....R R R R, if you hadn't slipped and used the real name you cobbled the sock puppet name, "Alina" from, I might never have caught you....but don't count on it. My research skills are formidable, as some twits here have found out the hard way. >Doan So, shall we wait to see what happens? Why of course we will, because when Aline, opps, "Alina" says the study has arrived I'll have the same questions for "Alina" that I had for you. We'll see if you have the study I have. I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the internet. That's a lot of graphics to send. And please, do try to lie your way out with a "coincidence" argument. It fits right in there with all the other times you've been caught lying. BINGO.......R R R R......BANGO......R R R R R R R R........B!O!N!G!O!!!!! Now go stand in front of the mirror and tell youself in a confident, yelling voice, "I STILL HAVE FACE." Kane 18. Doan Apr 1 2004, 9:16 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services From: Doan <d...@usc.edu> - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:16:11 -0800 Local: Thurs, Apr 1 2004 9:16 pm Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse This gotta be the best April's Fool joke! ;-) Doan > > Kane, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Embry study? Here is the one posted by Kane back in April 1, 2004. > He accused Alina from Mexico as being my sock puppet. Sound familiar? ;-) Posting history for "Alina" from "Mexico" when I asked "her" why she hadn't gotten "the study" you claimed you provide, said, "I can't afford the postage and he wants me to send him a stamped evelope." Come on Doan. No one is that poor. Not even in Mexico. Hell, Doan, it even sound like "becca." 4/6/2004 6:59 PM "I don't want to be rude, but I am not interested in your ongoing online argument with Doan, or to scam either of you two. I have, however, asked him for that study. It is ME that is taking long now, because he has asked that I send an envelope so he can snail mail it back. Baby is still a little sick so I have not gone out or done much. If it helps you in any way, yes, I will let you know when I have it." 4/15/2004 5:06 AM "Um... no, I have done nothing about it yet :-/ I *will* let you know as soon as anything happens. Best regards, Alina." In checking "Alina's" posting history I find, even with repeats on her only about fifty post, and only 26 originals. ONE only to a group that should have been somewhere, given the health issues, she would have very likely posted many times. Her ONE and only post there appeared to pick up the thread, as though she was engaged previously in the thread. Nonsense. She posted ONE post in Spanish. One. And never showed up in that group again. Her last post anywhere was after a great long gap and right about the time I started pointing out to you AGAIN that you were "Alina." Interesting coincidence, eh? " Alina Dec 6 2005, 6:30 pm hide options From: "Alina" <a...@et.com.mx> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:30:28 -0800 Local: Tues, Dec 6 2005 6:30 pm Subject: Would you test your child? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse If your child reaches say, age 2 without showing any signs yet, would you perfor a genetical test just to make sure ? " No further commentary from Alina. Just that single post in the thread "she" created. Yer a phony Doan. You always have been and always will be. > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services > From: pohakuyakok...@subdimension.com (Kane) - Find messages by this [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > Doan That you lied and attempted to defraud everyone in the ng and I caught you at it? Sure, funny as hell. Write Alina and have her pop into the group. Have her put me straight on this. And see if she can fingure out why you would call her "Aline" when there's not the slightest chance of a typo. "A" is too far from "E" for a slip up and to the right. Yer just bluffin' yet again. All you ever have done. Isn't it cute that right after that last response to me about getting the Embry study from you, nothing further happened? Why didn't you send it to her. She told me you had not. Why, I even communicated personally with her by e-mail. 0:-> R R R R R Here's more fun with kane: 47. Kane Apr 4 2004, 5:57 am show options Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services From: pohakuyakokane@subdimension.com (Kane) - Find messages by this author Date: 4 Apr 2004 06:57:01 -0700 Local: Sun, Apr 4 2004 5:57 am Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote: >> >pohakuyakokane@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message <news:7ed8d1be.0403311622.742f4986@posting.google.com>... >> >> If you aren't interested in debare, as you seem not to be, but >> >> interested in the concepts of teaching your child, as you DO seem >> to >> >> be, I'd suggest you check out the following website...it is by Dr. >> >> Embry's group. >> >> http://www.paxtalk.com/ Lots of talk about the concepts. >> >> You won't run in to Doan there though. Well, maybe not...R R R R >> >> For an overview of the program: >> >> http://www.paxis.org/ >> >> Best of luck. >> >> There's nothing in the study but dry data and discription of the >> >> methodology. I don't think your 4mo old would respond. >> >> Kane >> >Thanks. >> Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study though, >> why not ask Doan. He's much closer to you. >> USC is not that far from the US-Mexican border. You could, if you >> leave closeby it, get together with him and that nice nun with the >> name so like yours, "Aline," over a cup of coffee on campus. She's in >> a nice facility. Beautifil old mansion now a library. >> What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what you >> were looking for there? Many other websites have good information on >> child rearing without punishment. >> How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know, were >> is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive >> spanking and abuse? >> I'd be interested in another non-spanker's opinion. >> Kane >LOL! So Alina turned out not to be me afterall. Really? I don't recall any evidence of that. > I am disappointed! :-( Guess you'll have to be. >Doan You will find yourself even moreso as time passes. I don't debate with people that answer simple questions like The Question by evasions and with no support - outside of more of the same - and nonsense evasions. I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. But any discussion of Embry between you and I is no longer possible. You are just left with a few more months of keeping up your record of evasive weaseling and claiming wins you haven't had. Enjoy your public masterbation spectacle. Kane 48. Doan Apr 4 2004, 10:08 am show options Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services From: Doan <doan@usc.edu> - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:08:51 -0700 Local: Sun, Apr 4 2004 10:08 am Subject: Re: Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse On 4 Apr 2004, Kane wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote: > >> >pohakuyakokane@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message <news:7ed8d1be.0403311622.742f4986@posting.google.com>... > >> >> If you aren't interested in debare, as you seem not to be, but > >> >> interested in the concepts of teaching your child, as you DO [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dr. > >> >> Embry's group. > >> >> http://www.paxtalk.com/ Lots of talk about the concepts. > >> >> You won't run in to Doan there though. Well, maybe not...R R R R > >> >> For an overview of the program: > >> >> http://www.paxis.org/ > >> >> Best of luck. > >> >> There's nothing in the study but dry data and discription of the > >> >> methodology. I don't think your 4mo old would respond. > >> >> Kane > >> >Thanks. > >> Think nothing of it. If you are determined to have the study > though, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in > >> a nice facility. Beautifil old mansion now a library. > >> What did you think of the Paxis site? Were you able to find what > you > >> were looking for there? Many other websites have good information > on > >> child rearing without punishment. > >> How would you answer the question the spankers claim they know, > were > >> is and how does one determine, the exact line between non abusive > >> spanking and abuse? > >> I'd be interested in another non-spanker's opinion. > >> Kane > >LOL! So Alina turned out not to be me afterall. > Really? YUP! > I don't recall any evidence of that. And you have evidence that I am? ;-) > > I am disappointed! :-( > Guess you'll have to be. I am! :-0 > >Doan > You will find yourself even moreso as time passes. > I don't debate with people that answer simple questions like The > Question by evasions and with no support - outside of more of the same > - and nonsense evasions. Weasel! > I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. ALREADY HAVE, STUPID! > But any discussion of Embry between you and I is no longer possible. > You are just left with a few more months of keeping up your record of > evasive weaseling and claiming wins you haven't had. Run like a dog, Kane2! ;-) > Enjoy your public masterbation spectacle. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! You mom must be proud! Doan > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are available, the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's world. ;-) Doan > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland > Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are > available, You mean you aren't willing to give her yours? 0:-> Seems like no on can get it from you. Or if they have, they are very reluctant to answer a question or two to determine if they have the same on I do. Isn't that just terrible for you? 0;-> the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's > world. ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -- > > beccafromlalaland > > Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 0;-> You aren't willing to give her a copy of yours neither. I've offered to send her a copy but she would rather get her own. I thought you said it is ONLY available from Dr. Embry. Were you LYING or just another "MISTAKE"? Doan > the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's > > world. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > -- > > > beccafromlalaland > Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Doan Isn't it strange you didn't point out these sources to "Aline/Alina," though. 0:-> Kane got caught with more LIES! ;-) > > Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 0:-> I didn't point out your LIES??? Doan > Kane got caught with more LIES! ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I didn't point out your LIES??? With Aline/Alina? You didn't point her to the studies you claimed you had a copy of, Doan. Why now, but not then. What, R R R R, could possibly be different now? Were they not available through the same sources then? hehehehe. > Doan A problem you long term liars have is that you grow increasingly unable to sort out your lies, and lose track of them. Additionally you become more sure of yourself and presume that others won't notice. You count on new posters to just buy your bullshit without looking. Sometimes you are right....R R R R ...and sometimes you are wrong. And sometimes I'll point it out again. So, why was it you told "Aline/Alina" she would have to send you a stamped addressed envelope when she could have gotten it ONLINE, as the post you included with the abstract said? Hmmmmmmmm? Faker. I write Aline from time to time. Funny, she never responds. Now why is that I wonder. 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > Kane got caught with more LIES! ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Doan Do you really want me to start posting the evidence from what I refer to below? Happy to, if you don't start coming clean and start admitting the obvious; that you lied about being in favor of parents making up their own minds. That's like Hitler saying he was just sending the Jews to lovely rest camps. He sent them. The destination just wasn't as described. Yours isn't either, Doan. You are lying. Probably even to yourself. No surprize, for the spanked. Duck little monkeyboy, here it comes again: How many years now .... ... of posting that he wants "parents to make up their own mind?" How many years of attacking any information, opinion, or personal story in support of non-spanking? How many years of defending everything from the pro spanking side? How many years of letting slide posters like Fern that supported parents beating their children bloody publicly? How many years of siding with people that, like Fern, advocated for parents to have the last word on whether or not to beat children until they bleed? How many years of riding every bogus hobby horse of the pro spanking noodniks like Lazerlere, and Dobson...the dog "trainer?" The one that thinks raising children is a matter of going to war with them? Doan, the first day I viewed this ng I spotted you for a phony. A quick google search on your posting confirmed it. And nothing I've seen since changes that. You have no intention of allowing parents to make up their own mind, or you would, like any truly objective fence sitter, treat each side of the question equally or you'd hold your views. You are a little child, stuck back where you were first betrayed by your parents with those blows to your body and your mind. It's apparently made you even lie to yourself, if you believe this sh.t you've posted all these years about your neutrality on this subject. A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > get the study, and the information doesn't match up. As you have > implied may happen with your above statement. Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing, according to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the same report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY information in the report I have. > What do you mean that you are working from a "particular study report" > Does that mean that you yourself don't even have the study in front of > you. The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. are not published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing, notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional publication on this. Is he? Do you have the one he is pointing you to? What would the name of it be? And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange, Doan and I, on the Embry report? Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 0:-> Wrote: > Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing > according > to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had th > same > report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it. If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference i research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doa and I have found. It's suspicious. kane Wrote: > He failed to produce even the simplest proof based on MY informatio > in > the report I have. Arrogant? kane Wrote: > The "report" is the study result. All the paperwork, forms, etc. ar > not > published as far as I know. If you have access to the entire thing, > notes and all, excellent..but the report is what is usually read and > considered. Unless he's published in a journal or other professional > publication on this. Is he? From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in an scholarly journals. Probably because the sample size is too small t be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results. The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basi outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research note and all. So you only have the "report" kane Wrote: > Do you have the one he is pointing you to? > > What would the name of it be? > > And I thought you had turned down any involvement with our exchange, > Doan and I, on the Embry report? I have not obtained a copy of the Paper, The name/title has bee discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you woul request that I name it, when we all already know it's title. When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how on learns about another. Your statements made no sense in the context o what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It' not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to soun similar. You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mea you are one and the same? Kan -- beccafromlalaland > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan > and I have found. It's suspicious. Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data in the study support this claim from Kane: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." Doan >>0:-> Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before > had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." You forfeited any right to a response from me some time ago on the Embry study, Doan. So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it. You are now reduced again to simply what you have always been: a dancing screeching hysterical monkeyboy flapping your arms and dancing around the sidelines. Sidelining is all you have ever done. Enjoy. 0:-> > Doan SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > >>0:-> Wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it. Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL! In other words, Doan caught me LYING again so I will avoid answering him at all cost! Damn, first he caught me with my "mistake" on the Hutterites, then my bs on the MacMillan study and now, my LIES on the Embry study. Doan > > >>0:-> Wrote: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL! In other words, Doan caught me LYING again How would you know one way or the other? Do you get the feeling that I might have been just a step ahead of you? R R R R Doan, like I said. YOU challenged ME. I agreed to debate Embry with you WHEN you proved you had the same report I did. You refused to participate at that point, despite many offers to, if you would admit you lied, send you the report myself. You did't follow through. You continued to fabricate. Your posting of an abstract shows damn well you did not have, and still do not have the study. You haven't sent her a copy. You didn't send "Aline/Alina" a copy, but cause that was you sock, little boy. And, just so you can continue to dance, and play with others over the Embry study, I'll tell you were to get it. UC Sacramento, at Davis of course, WERE I WENT to School for a time, says they have a listing. A copy? I do not know. And, you can get it for 10 cents a page, (140 pages) from AAA. Look it up. The report I have with appendixes is only about 70+ pages, but I presume AAA includes the workbook and or other materials. But your time with me is up. Dance monkeyboy. > so I will > avoid answering him at all cost! Damn, first he caught me with my > "mistake" on the Hutterites, You didn't "catch me." I posted the correction myself. That's hardly "catching." Yer just a common liar, Doan. You used to have a least a little talent when trying it, but you long ago reverted to monkeyboy behavior. > then my bs on the MacMillan study and now, There was no BS on the Canadian study. Just exchanges and clarifications. > my LIES on the Embry study. What "LIES?" You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the Embry study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self, Doan. You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie. How do YOU know where I got that statement about spanking and increased running into the street? You don't. So you do not know if it's true or not. > Doan Dance little monkeyboy. Aline wants a waltz. R R R R R R > What "LIES?" Where shall I begin? ;-) LIE #1: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." LIE #2: No punishment and reward. (p.19) "Parents received a handout on using sticker charts and Sit and Watch (a punishment procedure also known at Time Out)." You want more? Just ask! ;-) > You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've > done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie. > > How do YOU know where I got that statement about spanking and increased > running into the street? You don't. So you do not know if it's true or > not. LOL! I know for SURE that it is not in this study. That is why I asked and that is why you have done everthing to evade. Doan >>What "LIES?" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come > directly from Dr. Embry." At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie. YOU are lying. > LIE #2: > No punishment and reward. Where did I say that? I sure didn't say there was no "reward." I said I disagreed with Embry's characterization of the Time out procedure as "punishment." I could hardly call it punishment if I did not think it to BE punishment. And that's because in the report the description in more detail of the Sit and Watch procedure was anything but a punishment. In fact, it was "rehearsed" with the child so it would not be seen as such by the child. > (p.19) "Parents received a handout on using sticker charts and Sit and > Watch (a punishment procedure also known at Time Out)." > > You want more? Just ask! ;-) I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?" >>You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've >>done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doan You've lied again, twice. Provide a citation for were I said there was no "punishment and reward." And you are concealing, by focusing on these irrelevant to the findings, bits and pieces, the meat of the experiment. By the way, when did a 13 sample size (actually comprising almost twice that many participants...if you count ALL, the children AND their parents) get to be irrelevant in an experiment? This wasn't a representative sample. It was an experimental sample. And it's been replicated. 0:-> Successfully. You don't want to reveal what they found do you? Not until you have gotten a chance to influence, like any good little propagandist, everyone's understanding. Your phony bullshit is piling up around you, Doan. Dance monkeyboy. 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 Very well spoken Becca. If someone is determined to prove a point, it is possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of view. Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below link is actually just one of several: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a lot of nonsense. Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia and 50% National Enquirer. Don't believe everything you read. > 0:-> Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Kane > Very well spoken Becca. Jeremy, you are here solely to excite yourself sexually. You are a spanking fetishist. That presumes that good parenting takes a much removed position compared to getting and w.nking a woodie. Go away. If someone is determined to prove a point, it is > possible to find "research" or "studies" to support nearly any point of > view. Circular reasoning. There are lots of ways to use the Web. > Case in point, there is a group that calls themselves the Flat Earth > Society that still believe that the Earth is a flat object and not > spherical. They even provide "evidence" to support their theory. The below > link is actually just one of several: > > http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm It's a put-on, dummyboy. And you are trying to use it to engage someone in your pet fetish. Conning them into talking about spanking with no idea you are w.nking to their posts. Give it up. From the page above: "The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut." > The internet is a good place to find a lot of good information, and also a > lot of nonsense. Or satire, irony, and just plain silly fun. > Or as a co-worker says, the internet is 50% Encyclopedia > and 50% National Enquirer. Oh, I'd give the National Enquirer a lot high percentage. I suspect there are a lot more of you than us. > Don't believe everything you read. That, of course, is patronizing becca like she's an ignorant child. She is not. You are just trolling for those that will discuss "spanking" with you. Give it up, "spanking personals boy." Kane >>0:-> Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> >>Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in > research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size. Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting skills they might apply to this study. In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. > But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a > difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan > and I have found. It's suspicious. What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line from the report: "METHOD Subjects Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the program but where not observed." (The non-"observed" where NOT excluded from the study.They are as thoroughly described as part of the sample as the 13 are. In fact the 20 and 13 are described in Table 1 under "Subjects" as: Observed and Non-Observed Participating Children by Sex, Age, and Special Characteristics. And their parents, described in Table 2 as "Occupational Status of Participating Parents" numbered from S1 through S33....that is why I have consistently used the number 33....but the author of the abstract did NOT read the entire report and understand that the two groups WERE in fact participants in the study. The 13 are used for the active portion of the study, that is their street entry and multivariate information is used. What I find significant is that Doan never KNEW there were 33 children in all. ) > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Arrogant? Yes, he is that. You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program package." The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show, demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods statement SAYS it was meant to examined. He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be. > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > From what I have been able to gather this is not publishing in any > scholarly journals. Not only did I never claim it was, I expressly pointed out to Doan a very long time ago that it was not and that that was why one had to get it from Embry. At that time I was unaware that AAA still would provide it (they ended printing some years back -- which I already knew) on a "copy on demand" for 10 cents a page. Things change. When they do, Doan will claim you lied. Funny little monkeyboy. > Probably because the sample size is too small to > be considered anywhere near to accurate/average results. It was NOT a survey study to determine "average" results against a representative larger population. It was an experimental study to determine the outcomes of applying a packaged parenting program. Nothing else. Stop Doananating. A research sample is a research sample. This study was not presented as anything but what it was. 13 observed children and families. It means what it means, and sample size is NOT critical because it is NOT being presented as a "representative sample" study. No larger population is being considered. AND, what Doan doesn't know, until now, of course, is that this study has been replicated and is in good standing with peers. Closed multivarate studies (which is what is meant by "experiments") are NOT about projecting the results on a larger population, but simply experimenting. 13 is a MORE than adequate number to TEST A THEORY. They would like there to be more study, and application against larger populations, and they even did some math projections, if their results could be duplicated in the larger population, that calculated the projected better outcome for injury and death of children in street traffic accidents. In fact, you can test a theory with ONE as a sample, and present it, and let others in the field go from there. They can chose to ignore your work, or run their own replication and see what they get. Doan is doing everything possible to confuse and divert because he knows damn well what Embry showed. And similar work has been done in applied psychology for years, some of which Embry drew upon to cite in his own work -- as research experiment study reports are must do to for professional credibility. I have a habit of citing rather a lot myself, or hadn't you noticed. > The "report" from my understanding of research would be the basic > outline of the "study" which would be the entire paper research notes > and all. So you only have the "report" That is what is submitted. If you wish "the study" which would be all notes, charts, field records of observers, etc. then you would have to go to, if it were a thesis or dissertation, the dissertation and thesis stores and buy a copy. Xerox owns them. This is neither. It was a study done for AAA and is available, according to them, for .10 cents per page, 140 pages total. Some years back I could not get it from that source as they simply listed it as "out of print." Things change. Doan will continue to criticize this "study" for something it was not intended to be. His usual bullshit "debate," and you are falling for it. This was not a survey. It was an experiment. They are very different in makeup and criteria. What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even though the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was STILL, over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to the workshop). That's a lot of lives to be saved, and injuries not happening if the results will extrapolate. In the report Embry gives some of the criteria needed in delivery to increase the likelihood of it working in the larger community. One consistent thing I found was a direct correlation between reduction in the rate of street entries to the reduction in parental reprimands. Less repremands equated with LESS street entries. And most remarkable, from the DISCUSSION portion of the report, the following: "A parent workshop and special storybooks for their children were effective in reducing children's entries into the street to a rate approximately 10% of that observed during baseline." ... and: "The package (of materials and training) also increased parents' use of praise and reward for safe play and children's correct identification of photographs depicting safe play. The program reduced the rate at which parents reprimanded their chidren for unsafe play. ... In summary, the package succeeded in altering all the various taget behaviors of participating children and their parents." > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > discussed several times on this forum. I find it odd that you would > request that I name it, when we all already know it's title. No, that would not be odd at all if you found yourself with a prior study with a different name. There was a prior study. It was reported by "Report #1. It was not the same as this study. One might think of this one as the second phase. I don't know Embry's thinking, but if he had not planned to go on after the first study, what he found apparently influenced him to go on and learn more. But as I said, I don't know that. It's simpy speculation and logical. It's how I would, and have proceeded. I tend, when I found something that either confounds my beliefs, or suggests much more to the story than I currently know, to explore more. > When I see things that don't add up I ask questions that is how one > learns about another. Yep. But I have to ask, "another" what? > Your statements made no sense in the context of > what you had previously claimed, so I inquired further. I am sorry if I was unclear. That's just part of sorting through things by use of the written word. I've not claimed you shouldn't or questioned you for doing so, only remarked that you said you were no longer interested, but apparently still are. I admire that. > As to your claim in a prior post that I sound like "Alina/Aline" It's > not uncommon for women near the same age and same intelligence to sound > similar. I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I said that something you said sounded like "Alina/Aline." I was not pointing out that you sound the same, but that a comment very specifically did. That has little to do with age and intelligence. How do you know you and "Alina/Aline" are the same intelligence? > You and Jeremy James sound very similar to me...does that mean > you are one and the same? What is it you find similar? He's a fetishist trying to get you to engage for the sake of his sexual arrousal. I prefer engaging you for my intellectual stimulation. 0:-> I was not suggesting you and Aline/Alina are the same person, but rather that you have the same influences. One a primary influence, the other secondary. 0:-> > Kane > > -- > beccafromlalaland As for why I asked about the title, and why I've known that Doan did not have this particular study, I quote from the same section of this one: "The present study reveals the possibility of making durable, positive changes in children's pedestrian-accident related behavior near their home---better effects than obtained previously in a modeling-only condition (Embry & Malfetti, 1980)." So you see, THIS study followed closely on the heels of a prior study, referred to above, and in fact elsewhere in this study report. This study report was first published by AAA in 1981. And as for the two populations, "observed" and "unobserved," and their participation: "Why was their a differential rate of correct responses to generalization probes among observed and nonobserved children, favoring nonobserved children?" (this goes to clarify BASELINE observed and nonobserved, not unobsered in the active portion of the experiment) The answer in the study had to do with age. The baseline "unobserved" children were older. Cognition was different. In other words, the "unobserved" were not ignored. Just not observed in some portions. Do get a copy of the study if you can. I can tell you that UC Sacramento lists a copy in their library, but unless you have privs you cannot get it. Doan could, but he is no more interested in getting this study and honestly dealing with it than having a broken leg. It shoots huge holes in one of the darling arguments of the pro spanking nonsense minded folks posted here for years. None of them would ever try to find this study. AAA has had the report for a very long time....1981. It's been superceded by more research since, but NONE of that negated Embry and Malfetti's findings. Nothing. In fact, one day the truth will come out. That parents that reprimand, and those that in fact use Corporal Punishment show up in the family profile of child victims of vehicle accidents more. In other words, they are teaching their child to run into the street. It's just not popular to say so as yet. Embry in discussing this issue says in regard to the one family that had a child that did NOT improve, "Since the family profile resembled that of children who had been involved in accidents (Backett & Johnsont, 1959), lack of success with the family is a matter of some concern." My own take, exactly, having worked with families since the mid-70's. Spankers and punishers have a higher incidence of "problem" children. Of course they say it's a "chicken or the egg" question of having to be harsher with the more 'difficult child.' Having turned such families around many times I've disproven that to my own satisfaction repeatedly. Once again. This was not a survey of the incidence of some phenomena in a sample population. This was an experiment conducted along the standard guidelines for such human experiments, apparently conducted with considerable attention to ethics (as Embry's remarks show) and with an outcome that it is said was prompted by a turnaround in Embry's own beliefs prior to his FIRST experimental study....that spanking worked. Embry apparently thought it did. He learned, as serious scientists so often do, that the conventional wisdom was anything but wise. In this study, by the way, observers were trained to track "Punishment" which right from the page, is define as "grabbing, squeezing hard, and spanking." Doan has built a wondeful castle of lies, out of bits and pieces of information, a bit of deduction, and his own imagination. He misses the details, which I can read at my leisure from the actual report -- of the most RECENT of the Embry studies on street entries. And the abstract that comes with this study report #2? Mine, the one accompanying the report opens with the line: "Children enjoy playing outdoors, but playing around traffic leads to pedestrian accidents." ... The Doan abstract opens with: "A traffic safety program consisting of a workshop for parents and the use of special storybooks with their children was effective in reducing 13 preschool children's entries into the street to a rate approximately 10% of that previously observed. " ... Now of the two, I actually prefer the one Doan copied and pasted. It is much more descriptive overall, and makes very clear he has come into that dead end he's tried so carefully to avoid....evidence that spanking and CP does NOT work. He thinks he's a happy boy because he sees all kinds of ways to continue to obfuscate, but he's wrong. He's simply taken himself out of the picture. An EXPERIMENTAL sample of 13 is NOT an insignificant number, nor does it call into question his reported outcomes. And there were 20 others that were assessed...and showed also that there was an increased understanding and response from children concerning safe play around street traffic. Altogether, a nightmare for the liars, and or fools that have populated this ng in favor of and support of (Doan) spanking as a reasonable choice for parents. Just as other ways humans have done things for "thousands of years" and "it worked" this barbaric and outmoded method of child control will come to an end. And often America is in the forefront of such changes. The law is coming. Thanks for your input. Kane So are you going to answer my question, Kane? Where in this study did it say anything about spanking? Doan > > 0:-> Wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 376 lines] > > Kane > What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the > study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > children and their parents participated in the program but where not > observed." LOL! I am more than aware of it. In fact, the study said: "Participating families were divided into observed and non-observed subjects on the basis of one of two factors: (a) the family had participated in the Practical Parenting Class offered at the University, or (b) initial baseline observations revealed a zero or near-zero rate of entry into the street." "Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a result of participation." Doan > > What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the > > study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a > result of participation." "You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the Embry study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self, Doan." You ran out of time, Doan. Long ago. Dance Monkeyboy. > Doan Maybe next time you'll deal honestly with me, but I doubt it. Game, set, bingo. 0:-> > > > What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the > > > study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > You ran out of time, Doan. Long ago. LOL! So you will only debate the Embry study with someone who haven't read it yet, like beccafromlalaland? BTW, can you send her a copy of this precious study so she can sneak it to me? ;-) Doan >>>>What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the >>>>study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > LOL! So you will only debate the Embry study with someone who haven't > read it yet, like beccafromlalaland? From what do you draw that conclusion? > BTW, can you send her a copy of this precious study so she can sneak it > to me? ;-) Nope. You finally have access to a copy, apparently. Up until now you've lied. Nothing new. And you are still lying by misleading...trying desperately to lead people AWAY from any interest in this remarkable study that shots a huge hole through the "spanking them to save their lives" bullshit you have defended in this ng. 0:-> > Doan Born liar? Darned if I can be sure, but you sure do work at it. Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > > 0:-> Wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE > OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. Why are you shouting? ;-) Do you always made things up as you go along, Kane? Actually, the "prior" study they talked about is the 1980 study titled: "Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School, Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, Field Testing Version". James L. Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia University. With your "formidable research skills", you should have known that, Kane! ;-) And you should have known that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORAL PUNISHMENT! Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane? ;-) Doan > > Arrogant? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program > package." LOL! Actually, there were THREE, Kane. 1980: Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School, Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, Field Testing Version. James L. Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia University. 1981: Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parenting Training & Symbolic Modeling for Children; An Experimental Analysis in the Natural Environment. Dennis Embry, University of Kansas, James L. Malfetti, Columbia University. 1982: Safe Playing-Final Report on Field Test. Dennis Embry, James L. Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia University Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane? > The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's > famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not > there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show, > demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods > statement SAYS it was meant to examined. Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-) > He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be. Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane. Why the adhom when I have so NICE to you? Is it your mom again? ;-) Doan You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts you'll respond to. Or did you miss this one from me: ............................................ >> What "LIES?" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come > directly from Dr. Embry." At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie. YOU are lying. > LIE #2: > No punishment and reward. Where did I say that? I sure didn't say there was no "reward." I said I disagreed with Embry's characterization of the Time out procedure as "punishment." I could hardly call it punishment if I did not think it to BE punishment. And that's because in the report the description in more detail of the Sit and Watch procedure was anything but a punishment. In fact, it was "rehearsed" with the child so it would not be seen as such by the child. > (p.19) "Parents received a handout on using sticker charts and Sit and > Watch (a punishment procedure also known at Time Out)." > > You want more? Just ask! ;-) I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?" >> You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've >> done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doan You've lied again, twice. Provide a citation for were I said there was no "punishment and reward." And you are concealing, by focusing on these irrelevant to the findings, bits and pieces, the meat of the experiment. By the way, when did a 13 sample size (actually comprising almost twice that many participants...if you count ALL, the children AND their parents) get to be irrelevant in an experiment? This wasn't a representative sample. It was an experimental sample. And it's been replicated. 0:-> Successfully. You don't want to reveal what they found do you? Not until you have gotten a chance to influence, like any good little propagandist, everyone's understanding. Your phony bullshit is piling up around you, Doan. Dance monkeyboy. 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you > challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?" Really? Here is the actual quotes: Doan: He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving stickers for safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play. Kane: "Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain actually works and the power of learning through modeling. This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. " Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-) Doan > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-) Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post all our argument on this issue. Why is that? Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms, which of course you are avoiding. 0:-> No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue. Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the larger discussion. In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself, as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying. > Doan 0:-> > > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry > > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post > all our argument on this issue. Why is that? Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he did no such thing." don't you understand? > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms, > which of course you are avoiding. Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"! You are a proven LIAR! ;-) > 0:-> > > No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting > out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue. In which context is "he did no such thing."? > Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the > larger discussion. > > In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself, > as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying. LOL! Doan > > > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry > > > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he > did no such thing." don't you understand? Which part do you not understand in the context of what I said next? Is that how to win an argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and clarification? It's cleary how you dodge the issues. You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play." I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I said "Actually he did no such thing." In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play. That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was NOT punishment in my book. Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive lying. How delusional are you? > > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of > > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Because Embry said so! I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again. > And you said "he did no such thing"! > You are a proven LIAR! ;-) No, I did NOT say he said no such thing. I said that he 'did' no such thing. "Sit and Watch," as I explained later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind 'punishment.' In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.' If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is NOT coded as "punishment." That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment. How much longer are you going to lie about this? > > 0:-> > > > > No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting > > out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue. > > > In which context is "he did no such thing."? The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged it. I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did. I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly state, and obviously so, by my standards. If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him? The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:-> And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely. Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely. By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards. I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases. Then when you've given becca a copy, <smirk> try to convince here. I don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I gave away. Did you? > > Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the > > larger discussion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > LOL! Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense lies? Why do you think I call you "monkeyboy?" You jibber and screech, but you don't actually say much. > Doan Kane > > > > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry > > > > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that how to win an argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and > clarification? Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) > It's cleary how you dodge the issues. > > You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, > for unsafe play." And you said: "he did no such thing." > I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of > who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the > same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I > said "Actually he did no such thing." So you disagree with him so you claimed "he did no such thing."??? You are speaking for Dr. Embry? > In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit > and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play. And Dr. Embry called that procedure PUNISHMENT! > That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was > NOT punishment in my book. So you said "he did no such thing"??? What is this "thing" that he did not do? > Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive > lying. > How delusional are you? Actually that perfectly would describe you! ;-) > > > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of > > > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again. Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) > > And you said "he did no such thing"! > > You are a proven LIAR! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind > 'punishment.' So what is it in Dr. Embry's mind? He did or he did not? > In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable > lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he > has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.' But he called it PUNISHMENT did he not? > If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is > defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is > NOT coded as "punishment." So how many children were "grab, squeeze hard, and spanked"? > That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and > Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment. So "he did no such thing"??? ;-) > How much longer are you going to lie about this? You should ask yourself that! > > > 0:-> > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged > it. So what is this "thing" that he did not do? > I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider > Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months > ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did. > > I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly > state, and obviously so, by my standards. He didn't do what? > If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as > thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him? Because you said he didn't DO it. He did, just like I said: "prescribed punishment, using time-out for unsafe play." Did he not do that? > The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:-> The reason is it YOU that wish not to debate because you LIED! > And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before > actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to > it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely. And he called it PUNISHMENT! > Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely. > > By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that > might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards. What did Dr. Embry call it? > I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study > the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases. You are not the one conducting the study, Dr. Embry was. The study said PUNISHMENT did it not? > Then when you've given becca a copy, <smirk> try to convince here. I > don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I > gave away. Did you? How could I, I have to get one from my sock puppet first. ;-) How about Annafromdreamland? ;-0 Doan > > > Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the > > > larger discussion. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Kane > > > > I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry > > > > on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he > did no such thing." don't you understand? Which part to you not understandin the context of what I said next? Is that how to win and argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and clarification? It's cleary how you dodge the issues. You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for unsafe play." I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I said "Actually he did no such thing." That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was NOT punishment in my book. Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive lying. > > Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of > > Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"! > You are a proven LIAR! ;-) No, I did NOT say he said no such thing. I said that he 'did' no such thing. Sit and Watch, as I explained later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind 'punishment.' IN the study methods describe by HIM he in fact goes to considerable lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.' If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." How much longer are you going to lie about this? > > 0:-> > > > > No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting > > out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue. > > > In which context is "he did no such thing."? The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged it. I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it we have established months ago I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did. I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. Obviously by my standards. And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before using to reduce the likelihood of "punishment" reaction. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely. By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that might appear as punishment, but not to mine. I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases. > > Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the > > larger discussion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > LOL! Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense? > Doan Kane > You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts > you'll respond to. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie. > YOU are lying. LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan? I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-) Doan > > You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts > > you'll respond to. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > LOL! What it wasn't even available through inter-library loan? > I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN! ;-) You never have before, and you haven't now. What inter library loan? One avaiable to the general public? Please clarify. By the way, have you any research available on the efficacy of CP/Spanking as an effective long term teaching strategy for parents? We've been waiting years, and nothing? And yes, there is plenty of material, one of which you have now, finally (liar), about none CP methods being more effective. And no, we won't provide it in some format you insist it much be in. When YOU provide real research on spanking's effectiveness your demands will be easily met. Because, Doan, there is no such thing, nor will there ever be. All use of pain and humiliation has been proven to be ineffective with other variables being MORE important overall to the responses of the subjects studied. Even Singapore is a case in point. What "works" there does not in other places. Spanking has been thoroughly discredited scientificially. You know it, I know it, and the majority of those that have posted in this ng in the past, knows it as well. That's why, you sad, silly, anachronistic holdout, they are gone and you have nothing left but harrassment. Rather childish harassment at that. All YOU can do now is harass people that come here wishing to rationally discuss current research. You've tried it again twice with current posts attempting to do just that. Do you know where the saying, "the bitter end" comes from? You, child, are at the end of your rope. The bitter end. Sorry 'bout that. 0;-> > Doan Kane > > > You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts > > > you'll respond to. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > One avaiable to the general public? Yes. Just go to any public library and ask. Are you saying that you were so stupid as to not know that? ;-) BTW, when was the AAA Foundation list these copies as "out of print"? I just checked with them and they said it has always been available. Can it be that you were "mistaken"? ;-) Doan . Heh! Kane spoke the truth for a change. ;-) Doan > . >> > Arrogant? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL! Actually, there were THREE, Kane. Irrelevant. > 1980: > Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane? So, during the time you didn't post that there were three, you were lying? >>The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's >>famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-) Nope. I did not list any other study than the one I was interested in, Doan. That's hardly making things up. >>He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be. > > Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane. You? Gee I hope not. You are so good at that yourself. > Why the adhom when I have so > NICE to you? Your claim lacks any proofs. > Is it your mom again? ;-) Couldn't be. > Doan And the ad hom was accurate: Doan is an "arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be." 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 >> LOL! Actually, there were THREE, Kane. > > >Irrelevant. So the TRUTH is irrelevant to you? ;-) >> Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane? > >So, during the time you didn't post that there were three, you were lying? Only if I said there were two. I didn't, you did; thus you are the LIAR! ;-) >>>The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's >>>famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Nope. I did not list any other study than the one I was interested in, >Doan. That's hardly making things up. So saying TWO when there were THREE is not making things up??? >>>He's just an arrogant bullshitter. Always has been, always will be. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Your claim lacks any proofs. LOL! >> Is it your mom again? ;-) > >Couldn't be. So your mom didn't approve? ;-) Doan Don't you think it's time to get back to work? You sure spend a lot of time on your employer's computer, just lying. 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 >Don't you think it's time to get back to work? > >You sure spend a lot of time on your employer's computer, just lying. LOL! But who will then point out your "MISTAKES"? Doan Kane, Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying tha in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. In cas you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of makin her own decisions. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. I a building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, an what I am reading on my own. I have one question for you...well maybe two. You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or somethin to that effect. In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants fo an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain a accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subject still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that i putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, feel he "got lucky" with the outcome. 0:-> Wrote: > What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that eve > though [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the > workshop). Now for my second question :-) If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the cours of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that thi experiment proved anything? Young Children mature and learn a LOT i 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing an gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'l probably end up road kill. The fact that they parents were no consistent also says to me that the results are probably not a accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size) For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group, Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonn see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic -- beccafromlalaland > Kane, > > Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that > in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. Some of your responses have influenced my opinion. > In case > you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making > her own decisions. Yes. > I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly, > just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division? > I am > building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and > what I am reading on my own. Okay. It did not appear as though you were before. > I have one question for you...well maybe two. > > You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something > to that effect. That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things? No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful example and a valid experiment. http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-1.htm The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad' (guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty small sample, even by Embry's standards. Yet it stands as a benchmark for how corruptable we humans can be in situations were we weild such extraordinary power. I in fact, used to use it in parenting classes to point out how very easy it is abuse children and presume it's perfectly right to do so. We simply have so very much power. So, 13 mights seem small to you, but it's not in reality. > In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for > an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an > accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects > still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is > putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I > feel he "got lucky" with the outcome. Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many years. I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to with terms such as "true." Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either side. > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this > experiment proved anything? By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed to be consistent in their actions. The best that can be done is to gather a generalized group wish similar characteristics that matter. Age of child subjects in this case. > Young Children mature and learn a LOT in > 6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and > gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll > probably end up road kill. Yes, that is true. And, the sample would all age at the same rate. And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product against other children how did not and the outcomes would be significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy? What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly apply the program. > The fact that they parents were not > consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as > accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size) Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects. That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him? I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments (and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational survey). The problem of course, besides the unethical demand for one kind of research to be conducted by the rules of another that did not and cannot apply to both kinds, was that the good doctor insisted that it be a 'destructive' experiment. In other words, saying we cannot learn if children turn out badly from spanking must require that children be taken at birth, raised in exact replicated invironments, and spanked or not on certain determined schedules and methods. I presume at the end point they'd have to be autopsied to measure brain weight, and characteristics. Totally bogus demands on social science survey and experimental studies. In fact, that's what blew out the Standford Prisoner experiment. It was destructive of the subjects. Embry did a remarkable job. And he didn't have 13 subject. He had 13 FAMILIES, about twice the number of actual participants. Both child and parents outcomes were considered. Not just the number of street entries, but how parents handled children in parenting matters. > For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group, > Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna > see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic. Oh brother. You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic? Yes, there WAS such a control group. It's called the number of fatalities of toddler's in street entry accidents. They did in fact come back in 6 months, after "we're gonna do this" and they did count the number of attempted or actual street entries. Were do you think the currently 10% of the prior to the program number of street entries came from? I think you need the study. Are you having trouble finding it? It's fairly cheep from AAA if you want it, or you can use the inter-library system at your local library. We'll assume they have access to college and university library materials. If you have trouble getting it let me know. Or better, Doan. He seems to think it's now easy to get. 0:-> Or do you wish to discuss it with only information coming from me? I might make a mistake, after all, or according to Doan, lie. You wouldn't want that, now would you? Kane The question you have been avoiding, Kane, is where in the study can you find data to back up your claim: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." IS THIS ANOTHER "MISTAKE"? In fact the actual study said NOTHING about spanking but reprimand. Here is the quotes: "While some may find it strange that reprimands might increase the chances of a child going into the street, the literature on the experimental analysis of behavior is replete with examples of how "attention to inappropriate behavior" increases the chances of more inappropriate behavior. Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with their children about dashing into the street will likely to have the opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward it." Here is another chance for you to rectify your "mistake", Kane. Do the honorable thing and apologize! ;-) Doan > > Kane, > > [quoted text clipped - 191 lines] > > Kane 0:-> Wrote: > Some of your responses have influenced my opinion. even so, I would appreciate you treating me as an individual. 0:-> Wrote: > Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division? Simple pie division of course (can you see the sarcasm dripping?) 0:-> Wrote: > That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments > have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but > significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in > a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that > power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things? I have not heard or read about this experiment. 0:-> Wrote: > No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and > ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty > small sample, even by Embry's standards. and I would question it's validity, of couse "some" people i positions of power without checks and balances would abuse the powe given them...but certainly not all. I'll read the webpage you supplie and comment further at a later time. 0:-> Wrote: > Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many > years. > I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trial > for > validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to > with terms such as "true." I come from a background of perhaps more scientific research. Give m anything on Human communication, or Radio and Television broadcasting. Even Adversiting and Public Relations. and I know what you're talkin about and what is expected in research. I don't think I said that 5 or more is required (although I may be mistaken, can't remember what wrote) but having 50 or more trials or subjects makes the outcome o the work more....plausable (that may not be the word I want to use, have a baby on my lap so I'm not fully engaged at the moment) An you're right the word True isn't an appropriate word. I think the wor is PROVE in order to Prove the hypothesis you must have a base fro which to build your research. A broad base (more subjects, or mor trials) builds a strong foundation to build from there. 0:-> Wrote: > Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more > trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted > studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either > side. I do not have a reference for that. Unless you want to talk to one o my college Proffs :-) 0:-> Wrote: > By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in > anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not > totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible > criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled o > guaranteed > to be consistent in their actions. and that is precisly why a larger pool of participants is needed. Because you can't count on Human's being consitant. With a large group of participants you can weed out those who followed the protoco exactly, somewhat, mostly, or not at all. It gives a better Idea o what works what doesn't. And makes the research results stronger. Having a larger participation base would help support the evidenc found in this study. 0:-> Wrote: > Yes, that is true. > > And, the sample would all age at the same rate. they would all age at the same or near the same rate but they would no mature at the same rate nor have the same level of awareness. And think you're forgetting a very important peice of the puzzle. Not al of the protocal would work for each family, there has to be room fo error. There is little room for that in a small sample size. That i why MORE participants is needed 0:-> Wrote: > And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product > against other children how did not and the outcomes would be > significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?[ sorry I did not follow this portion [QUOTE=0:-> What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly apply the program. well that's good at least. But again not everything in the protocal would work for all children or families. A larger sample size would be imperitive to "truly" see accurate numbers. For this group...Yippe, but that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results. If you are going to use this study as a jumping off point to "no spanking" you have to fill in the blanks...unfortunatly I don't feel this does a good job of giving a peek at the "big picture" 0:-> Wrote: Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects. Of course that's not possible in such a small sample size. But in a LARGER base group the % of error could be reduced greatly. 0:-> Wrote: That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him? I'm sorry you don't like answering my honest questions. 0:-> Wrote: I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments (and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational survey). perhaps it was a mistake, you seem to make quite a few of them. 0:-> Wrote: Oh brother. You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic? If you could see the big eye roll that i did when I read that...NO I dont' mean allowing toddler to go into traffic. I mean a group that was observed without using the protocal. A Control group is a group just allowed to continue on their merry way. In this such experiment that would allow the researcher to see if the number of street entries reduced acourding to the age of the subject. As I suggested earlier We don't know if the protocal really worked or if the kids became more aware of the possibility of being flattened like a pancake. I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my Alma Mater. > 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a > copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! And have you sneak a copy of this precious study to me? ;-) Doan > I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my > Alma Mater. > > -- > beccafromlalaland > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Simple pie division of course (can you see the sarcasm dripping?) If you snip away the context, as you just did, it requires either a photographic memory, or a return to and rereading prior posts. Please leave the context in which you remark upon. Thanks. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have not heard or read about this experiment. Didn't I cite and linke to it? Where's my reference? > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > given them...but certainly not all. I'll read the webpage you supplied > and comment further at a later time. No, what that, and many other such experiments show, like the famous shock the victim experiment, is that the vast majority of us will both abuse power and follow unethical orders. A few people in the latter experiment even hit the shock button when the dial was set to "lethal." That even shook the experimenters, seasoned though they were. Of course the recipient "victims" were just actors, but good ones. What makes the big difference between will or won't abuse power in the parent child dyad is the bonding that takes place between mother and child at birth, and the attachment that grows over time. And it's a two way street. The child learns from the model of the parent not to abuse power. We all have it, even babies, as any mother can tell you. 0:-> It's foundation is our innate capacity for the empathy response, but it has to be supported and not disrupted, just alike other human traits. Spanking disrupts that learning. And the ability to self control our use of power over others. Thus we need laws to control us. Sad, isn't it? > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > which to build your research. A broad base (more subjects, or more > trials) builds a strong foundation to build from there. Of course. The question is though, where is the cutoff point, upward for practicality, and downward for determining the results are no longer valid. The upward limit is usually budget related, and the downward, by the nature of the experiment. This one was calculated to determine if it effected 2-4 year olds. Logically you are correct about the aging and greater understanding, but the "proof" would be in the larger population. Does in fact the rate of street entry accident drop more, less, or the same, in the general population as this group of children whose parents and they participated. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I do not have a reference for that. Unless you want to talk to one of > my college Proffs :-) I trust that college instructors are careful to urge the sample size number upward from a conservative point of view. I agree. I also know that both budget and the nature of the experiement move that dial up or down without damage to the experiment. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > group of participants you can weed out those who followed the protocol > exactly, somewhat, mostly, or not at all. Actually weeding out AFTER the start of the experiment would invalidate. No peer review would let that pass. > It gives a better Idea of > what works what doesn't. And makes the research results stronger. > Having a larger participation base would help support the evidence > found in this study. The objective of science is not and never should be, to prove something right, or wrong, correct or incorrect, but to examine it without preconceieved outcomes. Yes, a larger base always adds more credibility but it's like putting more soap in the wash than is needed. You can only get the clothes so clean. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > error. There is little room for that in a small sample size. That is > why MORE participants is needed That is why replication is urged. It took place. When we've beaten Embry up enough to satisfy you, I'll introduce some of the other research. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > imperitive to "truly" see accurate numbers. For this group...Yippe, but > that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results. Nope, everyone didn't. That is the purpose of statistical analysis in science. All children, for instance, did not have a 10% reduction in street entries. That's the group percentage. > If you are going to use this study as a jumping off point to "no > spanking" you have to fill in the blanks...unfortunatly I don't feel > this does a good job of giving a peek at the "big picture" We never see single scientific experiments of any kind provide finite answers. Nature, and human nature, simply don't work that way. I would never, for instance, tell someone that this is the only experimental work to consider in making a decision not to spank, or to spank. And I'm not doing so in this instance. This is but a foundation for work that followed, and like any reputable scientist, Embry built on the work of others, whom he cites for various elements of consideration in his report. > 0:-> Wrote: > > Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers > did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain > consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects. The ultimate of course would be to be invisible. In this instance he did not allow the observers to be any of the program trainers. And there was time that the parents were not even present outdoors with the child. And the child did in fact do street entries. That hardly equates with the observers having an influence suppressing street entries and pressure on parents to be present. > Of course that's not possible in such a small sample size. But in a > LARGER base group the % of error could be reduced greatly. Yes. Your criticizm is duly noted. It also not required to have a massive size based on the outcomes he recorded and analyzed. He was careful to NOTE himself the limitations inherent. The study is not a study that says you must stop spanking your child at all costs. It is a study that says simply, "this is what we found." > 0:-> Wrote: > > That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from > Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him? > > I'm sorry you don't like answering my honest questions. I'm sorry you can't make them more honest. Again you have snipped information critical to understanding your remarks. That in itself is questionable as a debating practice. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > perhaps it was a mistake, you seem to make quite a few of them. No, the doctor was very clear on his criticism. And the submission to the newsgroup was no mistake. And no one could mistake Straus' study and the report to be about anything but a survey. No experiment was set up. No learning, nothing but questioning the subject sample as to their practices. > 0:-> Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dont' mean allowing toddler to go into traffic. I mean a group that was > observed without using the protocal. The control group already existed. It is the public. Embry was examining the public records of street entry injury and deaths by age. That's a fairly large control group sample, when you consider he was using national data. He could be fairly certain virtually none of those families had his program and been taught it. > A Control group is a group just > allowed to continue on their merry way. Yes. The entire nation of children 2-4 years old data was already available. He was looking for changes to a small representative group by way of exposure to his program. He again noted the limitations, as his tended to be whitecollar, and suggested further study with blue color and other groups. > In this such experiment that > would allow the researcher to see if the number of street entries reduced > acourding to the age of the subject. Already available information. One would simply be repeating what is in the public record. > As I suggested earlier We don't know > if the protocal really worked or if the kids became more aware of the > possibility of being flattened like a pancake. Yes we do to the extent it could be tested. The question should be, did the public data support that children in the 6 month span of time of the same age have a reduction to 10% of injuries and deaths from street entry that corresponded to NO SUCH program, just a change in age. It didn't. The difference between 2 and 2.5 years, or 3 and 3.5 years, and 4 and 4.5 years is unlikely to tell you much of anything, no matter how fast children are learning at that age. They still fall far short of any real capacity to judge the speed of oncoming automobiles. Some of your questions are covered in the study. > I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a > copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! I'd like to hold on to my copy so that if we debate I have it to refer to. You should get a copy for yourself. And if you respond, please do not snip either your comment or mine from the above. Thank you. > I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my > Alma Mater. Then why would you ask me for my copy other than to play at being Doan? Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me? 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 kane Wrote: > I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a > copy...why don't you send me yours LOL![/color] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being > playfully friendly with me? A little bit of advice....read the post fully and THEN respond. You'l avoid sounding like an idiot when you have to go back and ask question about things you have already responded to. I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for you copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to da that's your problem not mine. Having Lengthy bits of conversatio floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant an unnecessary....at least for me. Perhaps you should do some memor excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlie post. Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this nex portion just so we are clear. NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE M CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YO HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOU MY FAMILY. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, AND YET YOU FEE IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YO ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT -- beccafromlalaland LOL! Sound like ignoranus kane0 lives up to his name. Doan > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland How many years now .... ... of posting that he wants "parents to make up their own mind?" How many years of attacking any information, opinion, or personal story in support of non-spanking? How many years of defending everything from the pro spanking side? How many years of letting slide posters like Fern that supported parents beating their children bloody publicly? How many years of siding with people that, like Fern, advocated for parents to have the last word on whether or not to beat children until they bleed? How many years of riding every bogus hobby horse of the pro spanking noodniks like Lazerlere, and Dobson...the dog "trainer?" The one that thinks raising children is a matter of going to war with them? Doan, the first day I viewed this ng I spotted you for a phony. A quick google search on your posting confirmed it. And nothing I've seen since changes that. You have no intention of allowing parents to make up their own mind, or you would, like any truly objective fence sitter, treat each side of the question equally or you'd hold your views. You are a little child, stuck back where you were first betrayed by your parents with those blows to your body and your mind. It's apparently made you even lie to yourself, if you believe this sh.t you've posted all these years about your neutrality on this subject. A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT reply to my personal e-mail. The third time will most definately "be the charm," young Padawan. I'll complain to your system admin. Get my drift here? You sent this: " More LIES from Kane! How sad. Doan >> How many years now .... ... of posting that he wants "parents to make >> up their own mind?" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. > How many years now .... ... of posting that he wants "parents to make > up their own mind?" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. Sorry! I hit the wrong key. Doan > Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT reply to my personal e-mail. > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > > > A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. > Sorry! I hit the wrong key. If I were you, 0:->, this would be the moment I'd call you a "liar." > Doan But not being you, thank goodness, it's possible you just hit the wrong key. Why not try another newsreader without such easily mistaken "keys?" By the way, which "key" on your keyboard, would be the "wrong key?" You have to hit enter, or click on a button, do you not? You've taken mistakes of mine, that I admitted to by the way, and insisted repeatedly and endlessly that you just proved I was a "liar." You know what it means every time you do that, don't you? 0:-> >>Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT reply to my personal e-mail. >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>> >>>A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > > Sorry! I hit the wrong key. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > 0:-> I APOLOGIZED for my mistake, even to an ignoranus like you! ;-) Now, how about you? When will you apologize to me about your "MISTAKES" on the Hutterites, the MacMillan study and the Embry study? I am not holding my breath! ;-) Doan > > > Sorry! I hit the wrong key. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > I APOLOGIZED for my mistake, You covered your a.s, you mean. even to an ignoranus like you! ;-) So thanks. I didn't require an apology of you. Now did I? > Now, how about you? How about me? Apologize? For what? It's not an "apology" if it's forced from someone, Doan. That goes to your poor upbringing and the assault on your poor helpless young body. Notice I, the "neverspankedboy" R R R R, did NOT try to force an apology from you? > When will you apologize to me about your "MISTAKES" > on the Hutterites, No. An honest mistake does not require an apology. I'll make one if I feel like it. I don't. But being more honest than you I, when I found the mistake, made a public announcement of it. And after that YOU continued to badger me about it, and did so without at the same time acknowledging I had already admitted my mistake publicly and fully. Who has the face now? I do, dummy. > the MacMillan study I don't accept your interpretation of the data. Hence I am not offering either a retraction or an apology. Even if I did the former, you have not right to ask for the latter. > and the Embry study? You lost your right to have any reply from me on that. I told you I would not debate you until you had the study and proved it. You refused to prove it. And remember, YOURS was the first challenge. I had NO obligation to respond, and you have EVERY obligation to show honestly that you had it, and you refused. You planning on apologizing to me, or just wallowing in your little childish, "game, set, match?" You are so immoral, Doan. > I am not holding my breath! ;-) Please do. I'm fond of the color purple. > Doan Tell you what. I'll agree I was wrong on some portions of the Mitchell study if you'll answer my challenge on your claims of neutrality and your belief in "let the parent make up his own mind," or admit you are not neutral, and you wish to influence parents to spank more than you wish parents to not spank. Deal? I'd also like an explanation for all those years of letting people like Fern and Neal slip by without comment, and sometimes support by badging people that challenged them. Care to go over the related posts? How about you admitting there is no possible way for a parent to know precisely WHERE the line is between abuse and safe "spanking?" You see, Doan, you are unethical. You are a liar. You are a shame to your family. YOU may think you are clever, but you are just common, and dishonest. Mostly to yourself, I fear. Now rather than actually answer my challenges, whip around and bring up some other subject....your constant escape from having to face what you really are. Let's see you actually engage me on what I brought up and defend yourself. Hell, I have NO trouble at all with you correcting YOUR mistakes either, and I'll not demand an apology from you (that's tacky, Doan, just like your little vicious out of bounds threat here...if you ever see me do such a thing to you...bring up other people, uninvolved outsiders in your life...you let me know.) You are cowardly, uncivil, pathetic piece of monkeyshit, Doan. And you've gotten on here for years doing it, driving everyone away so that this debate could NOT proceed at all. Clever? sh.t, just vicious. Selfish. Mean. Small minded, and pathetic. A whipped child. Sad. 0:-> Just like I though! ;-) Doan > > > > Sorry! I hit the wrong key. > > > [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > > 0:-> > Just like I though! ;-) In other words, you are exactly as I depicted. You won't answer when you are caught at you lies. You make demands of others you have no moral right to make. You harass, as you did with the issue over the Hutterites after I repeatedly set you straight on it, pointing out my OWN error publically. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/c0926fc598d75351 You are f.cked, Doan. A nothing. "You are cowardly, uncivil, pathetic piece of monkeyshit, Doan. And you've gotten on here for years doing it, driving everyone away so that this debate could NOT proceed at all. Clever? sh.t, just vicious. Selfish. Mean. Small minded, and pathetic. A whipped child. Sad." Just as I said. And no, you are not "tough," just a liar. They are common as and similar to dogshit. So, just as I thought, you won't answer the challenges to your lies. Figgers. 0:-> > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] >> >>0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 What a hypocrit! Doan > > Just like I though! ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very > alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > What a hypocrit! What precisely would a ploy by you of Tu Quoque have to do with it, true or not, with you not answering the challenge? Even if I was a hypocrite, YOU have not answered the charge of being a liar, and dishonorable, and misleading posters here. You going to answer, or just dodge with Ad Hominem? That, child, is hypocritical. Like I said, and you still haven't responded to: >>>>Tell you what. I'll agree I was wrong on some portions of the Mitchell >>>>study if you'll answer my challenge on your claims of neutrality and [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>> >>>>Clever? sh.t, just vicious. Selfish. Mean. Small minded, and pathetic. You have a problem with honesty? Sure looks like it! 0:-> SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > A little bit of advice....read the post fully and THEN respond. A little bit of advice to you. Don't assume one hasn't. > You'll > avoid sounding like an idiot when you have to go back and ask questions > about things you have already responded to. Why would I ask a question about something I've already responded to if you are bring it up again? Because you ASKED IT AGAIN. > I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your > copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of smilies. Such as :-) > If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day > that's your problem not mine. No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. > Having Lengthy bits of conversation > floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and > unnecessary....at least for me. Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude. > Perhaps you should do some memory > excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a > reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier > post. You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being harassing and rude. > Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next > portion just so we are clear. Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. > NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY > CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. > THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU > HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT > MY FAMILY. So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not? > YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not understand the interogatory sentence? A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have been speaking rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not assume, as you just did. Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go ahead. > AND YET YOU FEEL > IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. A question is not an assumption. What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually comments from the flow: "> > Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being > > playfully friendly with me?" Do you see the question mark? Twice? How could you miss it and presume I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and accused me. How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, without asking me? I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. See the difference? > IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children as you appear to be behaving toward me? IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU > ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are being toward me. Are you doing the same with your children? And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you DO know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me. Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are being so abusive toward your children. > -- > beccafromlalaland Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your children or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan, though he's more clever and weasel like. Chill, lady. If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter what meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs you. A three dollar bill. Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to spanking. Or, blow up and prove what an out of control twit you really are. Doan got to you. Obviously. He's a liar, and you buy into his bs with nary a word of protest. He lies about being neutral and "let the parent decide for themselves," and any objective person, and especially one opposed to spanking as you claim to be, would see through it in a split second. He has spent year after year, pretending to be not supporting either side, but in fact has never once spoke in opposition to spanking arguments or babblings up to and including horrible thrashing of childre. Let a single post pop up that opposes spanking and he's all over with his phony debate. My dear, you are as phony as him, regardless of what you declare yourself to be. A crock of bullshit is what you actually are. Or you could grow up, learn to be discriminating and recognize his bias and vicious attacks on non spankers and endless support for spanking. "let parents make up their own minds," Indeed. Stop your pretending. 0:-> > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > A little bit of advice....read the post fully and THEN respond. A little bit of advice to you. Don't assume one hasn't. > You'll > avoid sounding like an idiot when you have to go back and ask questions > about things you have already responded to. Why would I ask a question about something I've already responded to if you are bring it up again? Because you ASKED IT AGAIN. > I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your > copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of smilies. Such as :-) > If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day > that's your problem not mine. No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. > Having Lengthy bits of conversation > floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and > unnecessary....at least for me. Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude. > Perhaps you should do some memory > excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a > reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier > post. You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being harassing and rude. > Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next > portion just so we are clear. Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. > NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY > CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. > THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU > HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT > MY FAMILY. So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not? > YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not understand the interogatory sentence? A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have been speaking rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not assume, as you just did. Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go ahead. > AND YET YOU FEEL > IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. A question is not an assumption. What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually comments from the flow: "> > Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being > > playfully friendly with me?" Do you see the question mark? Twice? How could you miss it and presume I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and accused me. How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, without asking me? I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. See the difference? > IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children as you appear to be behaving toward me? IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU > ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are being toward me. Are you doing the same with your children? And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you DO know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me. Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are being so abusive toward your children. > -- > beccafromlalaland Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your children or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan, though he's more clever and weasel like. Chill, lady. If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter what meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs you. A three dollar bill. Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to spanking. Or, blow up and prove what an out of control twit you really are. Doan got to you. Obviously. He's a liar, and you buy into his bs with nary a word of protest. He lies about being neutral and "let the parent decide for themselves," and any objective person, and especially one opposed to spanking as you claim to be, would see through it in a split second. He has spent year after year, pretending to be not supporting either side, but in fact has never once spoke in opposition to spanking arguments or babblings up to and including horrible thrashing of childre. Let a single post pop up that opposes spanking and he's all over with his phony debate. My dear, you are as phony as him, regardless of what you declare yourself to be. A crock of bullshit is what you actually are. Or you could grow up, learn to be discriminating and recognize his bias and vicious attacks on non spankers and endless support for spanking. "let parents make up their own minds," Indeed. You are just a sloppy carbon copy of him. Stop your pretending. 0:-> I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post onl allows 10,000 characters in a single post. kane Wrote: > I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your > copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking > Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of > smilies. Such as :-) LOL means Laugh Out Loud which is also an acceptable communication of joking or playful attitude. Sometimes one must read between the line to catch the meaning. kane Wrote: > If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day > that's your problem not mine. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember > from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. I don't have a problem remembering who's who and what's what from da to day week to week, but I do have a very good memory which aids i that. I may be at an unfair advantage given that talent. I ca remember the plot and characters of nearly every book I've read i recent years, as well as the lines from plays from highschool. One o those weird things that comes in handy for me but can annoy others. kane Wrote: > Having Lengthy bits of conversation > floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and > unnecessary....at least for me > Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping > the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude. I don't use "Usenet" and 90% of my postings are on forums in which on can easily scroll up to refresh their memory. kane Wrote: > Perhaps you should do some memory > excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a > reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier > post. > You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being > harassing and rude. Actually, that was a serious bit of friendly advice. Doing Memor excercises not only improves your short term memory but there is som evidence that it will improve your recall ability in your waning years And accourding to a researcher friend of mine may even help lessen th severity of memory loss in Dementia patients. kane Wrote: > Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next > portion just so we are clear. > Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. You've poked Momma bear one too many times, I'm not rude...I' defensive. kane Wrote: > NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY > CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. > Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. Now who's being rude? I do not question your parenting ethics...nor d I even mention your children in posts. I would never DREAM of doin something that rude, not even with provocation. kane Wrote: > THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU > HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUM > ABOUT > MY FAMILY. > So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not? Yes I have said rude things to you, but NEVER in a million years woul I poke you about the way you raise your children. kane Wrote: > YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, > That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I > asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not > understand the interogatory sentence? What kind of question is that? You are an adult, not a child. I trea adults in the way adults should be treated, and I treat children in ag appropriate fashion. Do you and realize that you confirmed my feelin that your original question was in fact meant as an insult...or are yo going to choose to ignore it? kane Wrote: > A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have bee > speaking > rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not > assume, as you just did. One can ask a question in an accusatory fashion. That is what you did That question asked in the context it was in was inflamatory. kane Wrote: > Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go > ahead. I don't need to you already answered it. Kane said: I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. That statment answers that question...YES In my opinion you meant to be nasty about my child rearing methods. kane Wrote: > AND YET YOU FEEL > IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY > CHILDREN. > A question is not an assumption. the context in which you chose to ask that question, turned it from a question to an assumption. if you had not assumed that I treat my children poorly you would not have asked that question. kane Wrote: > What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually > comments from the flow: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and > accused me. Of course I saw the question marks. Again the context in which you asked the question lead me to the assumption that you were presuming that I treat my children poorly. kane Wrote: > How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, > without asking me? How do you feel about asking questions that force someone to assume that you assumed something? And further more what gave you the idea that it was OK to ask a question that inflammatory? Unless invited one should never speak of anothers children...and from what I can recall I never gave you any inkling of permission to make comment or question after my children. It would be like me asking after your sex life. One's family life is intensly personal, and unless asked to make comment or question or given express permission to do so it's best to leave well enough alone. kane Wrote: > I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. > See the difference? You asked a question that forced me to become defensive. kane Wrote: > IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. > To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children > as > you appear to be behaving toward me? To assume that I would treat my children as I treat an adult, yes. To bring my children and my family life into a conflict between you and I? YES. kane Wrote: > IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU[color=blue] > ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. > How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an > assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? I have answered this already. The context that you asked that question was such that it forced me to assume you were being insulting. kane Wrote: > I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a > question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are > being > toward me. Are you doing the same with your children? This has been sufficiently addressed. NO, I am not rude attacking or accusatory with my children. kane Wrote: > And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you > DO > know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me. > Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are > being so abusive toward your children. I was/am bieng rude to you...as you have been rude to me. Perhaps we both need to go back to primary school and relearn the "golden rule" And any parent being asked if they are abusive toward their children would take offense, and defend themselves. kane Wrote: > Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your > children > or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan, > though he's more clever and weasel like. That is your solution to everything isn't it. That someone who doesn't agree with you on every point must be a fake, a puppet. I am a recovering "spank-a-holic" I try very hard on a daily basis to use Grace based discipline, and Gentle Parenting. And you're right, I need to be in control...it sucks, I hate that about myself. I was not allowed control over anything not even my own body for 17yrs. Everything was in turmoil constantly so forgive me if I crave control. If I were anything less than honest here you would not be comparing me to doan...I would get my own category, but because you can not make heads or tails of me because I don't fit your mold of what a Non-spanker thinks and feels then I must be a puppet. kane Wrote: > Chill, lady. > If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter > what > meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. Find a better context to ask questions. kane Wrote: > I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs > you. > A three dollar bill. > Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to > spanking. My other online name is coopnwhitsmommy http://tinyurl.com/db977 I Googled coopnwhitsmommy+spank* for you. There is a specific post at gentlechristianmothers.com entitled How to become a gentle mother that you may find interesting. It was the one that started me down the path to Non-spanking. And Why I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they are misguided in their parenting...it wasn't long ago I was one of them. I believe it is in the public domain. If you can access the board without logging in you can see my post count is well over 600 and I would gladly let you read any of my other posts if you so wish,just to prove that I am not a fake > I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post only > allows 10,000 characters in a single post. The attributions, so we may who is saying what, are badly mangled. I find the free mail program, Thunderbird, does an excellent job of controlling attributions display properly. It will handle, if your IP provides the service, an excellent newsreader as well. I’ll try to sort through your post as best I can, as to who said what when. Bear with me and correct where you see I might have erred. > kane Wrote: beccafromlalaland: > I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your > copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking This below is my response. > > Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of > > smilies. Such as :-) > LOL means Laugh Out Loud which is also an acceptable communication of a > joking or playful attitude. Sometimes one must read between the lines > to catch the meaning. kane Wrote: No, it is more often used derisively. If one is kidding playfully useually a winker smilie is the preferred symbol. 0;-> And the problem with written communication, unless people are long time associates and preferably know each other personally, is that no, one should not have to read between the lines. Doing so creates the kind of errors of assumption you made when I asked you if you used the same tactics with your children, as a question. Or, if you insist that we must “understand each other” and you understood me to be asking a question in a accusatory manner, then my comment about stands. You were using LOL derisively. See how badly it works to force the other to read between the lines? > If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day > that's your problem not mine. In a two way conversation if one asks the other to clarify such a reply is extraordinarily rude. I make NO apology for not being able to follow some specific thought of yours if you do not attribute it when you remark later about it. If for nothing else then for accuracy it needs to be seen adjacent to the later commentary about it. > > No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please > > don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What > > is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember > > from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. > > > I don't have a problem remembering who's who and what's what from day > to day week to week, but I do have a very good memory which aids in > that. Neither do I, beyond the ordinary. I also have a good memory. That does not mean I remember everything, and especially not fine details that I might NOT have given the weight to the other did. Propertly attribute your remarks please. That is NOT and unreasonable request, while yours that I remember whatever detail out of all your postings contents you chose to refer to blindly, is more certainly an unreasonable request. > I may be at an unfair advantage given that talent. It would not do you the least good if I remarked on some past comment of mine with poor reference to the content of my prior remark. You do NOT refer to a prior remark clearly enough for me, or anyone, to know what you are referring to. > I can > remember the plot and characters of nearly every book I've read in > recent years, as well as the lines from plays from highschool. One of > those weird things that comes in handy for me but can annoy others. Then you are willing to annoy others deliberately? Refusing to accomodate them in such a simple thing is in fact rude. > kane Wrote: > Having Lengthy bits of conversation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't use "Usenet" and 90% of my postings are on forums in which one > can easily scroll up to refresh their memory. You are posting to a Usenet newsgroup (Now delivered by Google...or any other newsreader you wish..but still Usenet) and I do NOT have your forums, nor should I be forced to join them to read your prior posts in the thread. Kindly quote the material you are commenting about. Your newsreader, whatever it is, badly screws up the attributions, so that I had to go through and hand correct the various incorrect “>” marks. > kane Wrote: In fact, below was yet another one. YOUR comments were in double “>>” when they should have been singles. I have to hand correct them now for any reader to be able to follow. This is not a personal correspondence. We are in a public forum and it’s inconsiderate of the other readers and posters to post incomprehensible material that loses which author is saying what. > Perhaps you should do some memory > excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a > reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier > post. > > You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being > > harassing and rude. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And accourding to a researcher friend of mine may even help lessen the > severity of memory loss in Dementia patients. You are being deliberately ageist. My memory in fact is far better than most people my age. My request is not out of line, and it is unreasonable for you to ask this of me above to follow YOUR sloppy posting habits. > kane Wrote: > > (again having to snip double attribution marks to singles) > Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next > portion just so we are clear. > > Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. > > > You've poked Momma bear one too many times, I'm not rude...I'm > defensive. Defensive? I have your family here and threaten them? How? My remarks are to YOU, not your children. In fact I’m the one being DEFENSIVE of your children. You are simply defending yourself against what you took as an insult, and may or may not have been. You cannot know unless you ask. > kane Wrote: > > (again you say I am making a statement, but this yelling is YOUR statement. This time I’ll leave the double attributions so you can see it and do something about it, hopefully) > > NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY > > CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. NOW Kane responds: > > Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. > > > Now who's being rude? I am not being rude. This is a newsgroup titled “alt.parenting.spanking.” There is nothing rude about discussing children, since they are impossible to remove from such a subject. They are the object of the “spanking” in the title. This is about parenting. One parents children. > I do not question your parenting ethics...nor do > I even mention your children in posts. I would never DREAM of doing > something that rude, not even with provocation. You have been repeatedly rude, almost from the start of this ng. You have accused me, for instance, of not answering your questions, only to find that after I had to jostle you famous “memory” that I had indeed answered them ALL, as asked. Even correctly attributing them in my post. kane Wrote: NO I DIDN’T. The forum you post to and through does NOT translate it’s attributions to other formats, such as google, or various newsreaders. The rest of us are standardized...it’s YOUR forum that is not. And I should NOT have to join your forum to discuss these issues with you. This is USENET, not your forum. This is YOU, incorrectly attributed by YOUR forum service. Get it fixed, or use a proper newsreader. Plenty of free ones to not make this jumbled mess. This is YOU: > > THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU > > HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes I have said rude things to you, but NEVER in a million years would > I poke you about the way you raise your children. You can’t even keep straight whether or not I’ve answered you. You insult my memory, when your own, that you claim is so special failed you miserably over the claim I hadn’t replied to your questions. You were rude then, you are being so NOW. That hardly equates with any justification to lecture me as you are now doing. You can’t even apply the newsgroup title properly. Children are in the subject field of this ng by default. I WILL ask questions about and discuss children here, yours, mine, or anyone’s I choose. Your “orders” are refused. Again. Here’s some of you polite discourse directed at me from prior posts, after you totally screwed up by NOT properly attributing and thus losing YOUR own way and falsely accusing me of failure to respond: “,,,I didn't quote Kane in my prior post because it would have been more confusing trying to filter through the bs...” “ ... I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am responding to...but I've been wrong before. ...“ You WERE wrong. And yet YOU are accusing me, where I was trying to direct your attention to correcting your error by the use of direct quotes of my posts, with an insulting comment that I was just trying to “cover” my butt. “Until then get off your hobby horse, and learn to play with the grown ups who actually discuss CURRENT research, CURRENT parenting challenges, and CURRENT solutions to their parenting challenges. b~ “ I did not start the insulting in this exchange with you in this thread. You have pushed the boundary of civility constantly. You began with me by calling my response that exposed Doan for the harassing vicious little provacatuer he obviously is, “childish.” You haven’t let up since. I don’t pretend to be nice, or demand it of others, you phony. Before you correct ME, clean your own house. Or we can continue on our merry way insulting each other – and not going indignant about it, phony. > kane Wrote: > > > > YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, Nonsense. Where’s that famous memory of yours. You wrote that you have two high needs children. > > That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I > > asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not > > understand the interogatory sentence? > > > What kind of question is that? An ordinary question. >You are an adult, not a child. That’s correct. > I treat > adults in the way adults should be treated, and I treat children in age > appropriate fashion. How would I know that unless I asked you? > Do you and realize that you confirmed my feeling > that your original question was in fact meant as an insult...or are you > going to choose to ignore it? Ignore what? Your “feeling?” No, why should I. Given that I had a “feeling” your comment about getting my copy of the Embry study from me ended in “LOL.” Get it? > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One can ask a question in an accusatory fashion. That is what you did. > That question asked in the context it was in was inflamatory. Sure one can. And no, you do not KNOW that it was meant to be “inflamatory”[sic]. And stop pretending YOU have not been deliberately insulting since first posting here and continuously ever since. There are just too many examples. “And you are still arguing about it...one word comes to mine It starts with a C ends with a Y and has RAZ in the middle. “ > kane Wrote: > > > > Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go > > ahead. > I don't need to you already answered it. No I didn’t. > Kane said: I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. > That statment answers that question...YES In my opinion you meant to be > nasty about my child rearing methods. You cannot logically draw from my question that I meant to be nasty. You can infer it, but nothing logically proves it. It’s your feeling, not a fact. That statement, with the “IF” in it does NOT prove that I meant to be nasty. > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > question to an assumption. if you had not assumed that I treat my > children poorly you would not have asked that question. No such logical inference can be made. I could have asked you that question for a number of reasons, none of which was “nasty.” You made a rude accusatory comment toward me. You have a record of doing so throughout this thread and this ng when you posted to it in response to me, and on an occasion toward me when responding to Doan. I want to know if you treat your children the same way. Is my question provoking the very response that I suspected it might, but hoped it wouldn’t? > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > asked the question lead me to the assumption that you were presuming > that I treat my children poorly. Nope. That was YOUR reaction. I was concerned you MIGHT BE. And even IF I made such an assumption rather than ACCUSE you, I asked for clarification from you. kane Wrote: > > How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, > > without asking me? > How do you feel about asking questions that force someone to assume > that you assumed something? No one forces you to assume anything. YOU assume it. You did not even come back with a question to find out IF I meant to be nasty. You simply accused me of it. > And further more what gave you the idea > that it was OK to ask a question that inflammatory? What is NOT “OK” about asking that question? > Unless invited one > should never speak of anothers children...and from what I can recall I > never gave you any inkling of permission to make comment or question > after my children. You joined a newsgroup called, “alt.parenting.spanking.” We aren’t discussing fetish spanking here. We are discussing parents, spanking, and by obvious inference, the children that would or would not be spanked. > It would be like me asking after your sex life. No it wouldn’t. > One's family life is intensly personal, and unless asked to make > comment or question or given express permission to do so it's best to > leave well enough alone. No it is not “intensely personal.” I do not preform sexually in public, but I do and have parented in public. I don’t discuss my sex life publically, but I do my parenting. As for “unless asked; Not if you join a newsgroup that is expressly about the subject of children. This one is. That means you have given permission to discuss family life in the context of child rearing. > kane Wrote: > > > > I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. > > See the difference? > You asked a question that forced me to become defensive. kane Wrote: “Forced” you? You are FORCED to answer my question? To become “defensive?” You have no other choice, or choices? How about you simply ask me my meaning, first? Then you don’t have to become defensive until you are sure I am trying to be “nasty.” > > IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. > > To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children > > as > > you appear to be behaving toward me? > To assume that I would treat my children as I treat an adult, yes. Full circle, and I will remind you of that with the same response as before: A question is not an assumption or an accusation. It’s a question. Because it is YOU get to answer it as you see fit. You chose to come back and accuse me of being nasty. Which of us is being presumptuous? > To > bring my children and my family life into a conflict between you and I? > YES. beccafromlalaland, the name of this newsgroup is “alt.parenting.spanking.” It’s google (Usenet) description is “Discussion about punishment methods for children.” You wish to only discuss this issue by proxie, and other people and their children? > kane Wrote: > > > > IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU[color=blue] > > ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. Yelling makes it true, does it? How about you ASK me if I meant to be nasty and insulting? > > How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an > > assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? > I have answered this already. The context that you asked that question > was such that it forced me to assume you were being insulting. The context is this newsgroup, which subject is “children” “parenting” and “Discussion about punishment methods for children.” It is NOT automatically an insult to ask, if someone has been posting a long string of insults if they treat their children the same way, but I certainly can see, given your long string of insults why you might take it as one. > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This has been sufficiently addressed. NO, I am not rude attacking or > accusatory with my children. I am relieved to hear that. I had both intent to be nasty and insult you, and some concern that you might carry this attitude into parenting situations. See how easy that was when you stop presuming and answered the question? You then didn’t even have to ask me, I told you freely, as I would, had you ASKED. Yes, and you deserved my implication, beccafromlalaland. And you’ll get more if you keep up the stupid insults. Trust me. > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > being so abusive toward your children. > I was/am bieng rude to you...as you have been rude to me. But I must stop, while you continue? Interesting take on debate. > Perhaps we > both need to go back to primary school and relearn the "golden rule" > And any parent being asked if they are abusive toward their children > would take offense, and defend themselves. Yup, but they also have choices not to, to consider the poster might have more than one reason for asking, and intended no harm to your children. Do you think I intended to harm your children? If not (and it’s obvious I did not) what’s all your ranting about? It’s about knowing, I believe, that you got caught up with on your constant stream of insults and your accusations. Your deliberate presumptions that I’m lying, and Doan is telling the truth, when in fact any objective reading of his past posts on this subject from it’s beginning, that I supplied you by link would have shown you he only recently found the abstract. Have you actually tried to get it and found it if it is actually still available, as he posted from a screen readout? I’ve seen inaccuracies in those before. AAA, for instance, according to him, told him that they have always had it available. They told me differently, but he insists I’m lying. You swallow what he says, and question what I say. Why is that, beccafromlalaland? Because you are a sucker? Or his style of slimy innuendo and clever lies appeals more? Or are you easily patronized? > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > though he's more clever and weasel like. > That is your solution to everything isn't it. Hyperbole. No, it is not my “solution to everything.” I have many solutions to many things, and this one in particular does not follow if you bothered to look at posts of mine to other “nonspankers.” My disagreement with them, and you aren’t the only one, indicates I do not blindly accept them just because they are “non-spankers.” Doan, on the other hand has accepted and agreed with and defended PEOPLE THAT COME HERE DEFENDING BEATING OF CHILDREN, not just spanking. > That someone who doesn't > agree with you on every point must be a fake, a puppet. Nonsense. I don’t even agree with LaVonne on ‘every point.” I hold a different view than her’s on “punishment,” I believe, and I’ve said so publically. She hasn’t though done anything that would suggest she a fake or a puppet. YOU have. So have others, that claimed to be non-spankers, one going so far as to claim I “drove” them back to spanking I was so rude. I fear for the children of someone that shallow and weak...except of course I know damn well it was a ringer that had no intention of becoming a “non-spanker” but was here to harass. > I am a > recovering "spank-a-holic" I try very hard on a daily basis to use > Grace based discipline, and Gentle Parenting. And you're right, I need > to be in control...it sucks, I hate that about myself. I was not > allowed control over anything not even my own body for 17yrs. > Everything was in turmoil constantly so forgive me if I crave control. I worked with teens in mental health for many years. The first thing I told them after the three day observation period to determine baseline behaviors was this: “Yes, it’s not your fault you were beaten, raped, neglected, abused – or whatever – but it IS your fault if you impose your reactions to it on ANYONE BUT THE PERP.” In other words, no excuses. Nor will I accept them. You yelled at my once in this newsgroup, “grow up.” And I had perfectly good reason to be debating a question of honesty with Doan, so your admonition was totally uncalled for. I think my saying to you now, “Grow up” is right on target. I’m much more invested in you being a non-spanker than winning any argument with you. So when you pull this power trip bullshit on me naturally I’m concerned and ASK if you do this to your kids. > If I were anything less than honest here you would not be comparing me > to doan...I would get my own category, but because you can not make > heads or tails of me because I don't fit your mold of what a > Non-spanker thinks and feels then I must be a puppet. Your honesty is what you think I compare you to Doan about? R R R R...no, b~ , it’s not your honesty. It’s your tendency to NOT be honest that did that. The accusations you made that turned out upon examination to be false (thanks for the apology, by the way, I may have missed it or forgotten to acknowledge earlier, but reviewed it today) were what inspired my comparison. Along with the kinds of attacks on the Embry Experiment report. You weren’t simply questioning. You even made up things along the way. And your refusal to get it, but continue to attack it based on partial knowledge from my comments were typical of his bs. He spent a year without it, faking it all the while, picking up bits and pieces from citations likely, and pretending he had it, even miss quoting. And if he had it he’d have known about this, which he did not....he was relying on the partial information in an ABSTRACT which of course is partial by nature: There were charts of all 33 of the participants in the study. I knew perfectly well the status of them, but he didn’t know that the 20 existed. Until I spoke of it recently. IF he had known he’d have said. 13 observed, and 20 non-observed. He constantly walks into these little places I leave for him to go. And they prove he’s a liar. But you can’t, or won’t let yourself see it. You’d rather fuss over some exchange between us and blow that up to become indignant over. I have to ask you why you’d prefer to be patronized by him, than challenged by me? > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. > Find a better context to ask questions. That’s absurd. That simply reserves to you the right to pick what next to get indignant about. I might ask you about you husband, or ask if you used objects to spank, or if you don’t like carnations. I have NO WAY of knowing ahead of time what you already are sensitive about, or just might pick out of thin are to use to duck a tough challenge of mine. You want polite? Go to a moderated group. These correspondences are a feed to and from Usenet and they are NOT in a moderated group here. > kane Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you may find interesting. It was the one that started me down the path > to Non-spanking. I take it you are referring to this one: “ How to become a Gentle Mother « on: June 29, 2005, 09:54:07 PM » I am a Spanker...I HATE IT. I was raised in a spanking household. I was spanked for every little infraction and I promised I wouldn't do that to my children...but here I am [[icon reference removed-“bang head”]] I think my big problem is I have no tools to deal with misbehavior. HELP ME “ June of last year. You’re new. How you doing with learning alternatives? Now I’m even more surprised at your response to my offerings about the Embry study. You’ve got just 6 months since you started, July last year, through January of this one. Yet you aren’t interested in a program that describes precisely how to teach a child to reduce unwanted behavior? Or have you learned others in that time? > And Why I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they > are misguided in their parenting...it wasn't long ago I was one of > them. I believe it is in the public domain. If you can access the > board without logging in you can see my post count is well over 600 and > I would gladly let you read any of my other posts if you so wish,just to > prove that I am not a fake. Well, it’s easy enough to find. You apparently aren’t faking about your desire not to spank. Nevertheless I find your style here, and your defense of a proven slimy little liar incongruent to that end. Allowing him to divert you from such important work as Embry’s isn’t suggestive of a real interest in learning the methods of non-spanking parenting, in my mind. You mistake my sometimes harsh approach....I think of it as demanding you THINK FOR YOURSELF... for something other than it is. Just a demand. And yes, I DO know how those that have taken up non-spanking generally respond. If you search the archives you can find them here. Rare as they are in this ng. You have NOT been responding like any non-spankers I’ve run into before. They are usually eager to explore. They don’t consider a few minutes reading to be an imposition in something so vital as learning new ways of parenting that you ask for in your post to the above cited forum. I am doing what Doan LIES about doing. Asking you to think for yourself. And I don’t lie about being “neutral,” as he does. I’m honestly and plainly against spanking and other deliberate attempts to hurt and humiliate children to teach them. I disagree, by the way with your definition about abuse and spanking, and the intent of parents. “I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they are misguided in their parenting..” That reads, if you go on, as an excuse for yourself. You don’t want, apparently, to think of yourself as having abused your children by spanking them. If you hit them to cause them pain, which you did if you were a “spanker,” then you abused them. It’s not complicated, and it does not allow for excuses. You did it. Admit. Decide not to do it. And move on. That is the courageous admission you need to make if you truly do not want to revert to spanking and humiliation. Actually DO think for yourself, instead of look for the Doan’s of the world to “excuse you.” He’s a slimy lying creep that has haunted this ng from early on. Snide, nasty, lying and conniving, as he was taught to be. He can’t read a sentence that he can’t twist and misconstrue. Go ahead, read his history of posts. And when you say, “it’s not about you” (Doan and Kane) you are very much mistaken. It is most certaily about the debate between the Doans and the Kanes. The spanking advocates and apologists, and those of us that disagree with pain and humiliation being moral or useful as a way to raise responsible citizens. Wallow in Doan's slime, or answer hard challenges. It's up to you. > -- > beccafromlalaland Kane Les chiens peuvent aboyer mais la caravane passe. ;-) Doan > > I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post only > > allows 10,000 characters in a single post. [quoted text clipped - 698 lines] > > Kane > Les chiens peuvent aboyer mais la caravane passe. ;-) Well, I'm sure you wish I'd leave, but no, not going to happen soon. By the way, I don't know much french, but I recognize various old sayings and such in many languages. I'm kind of into things foreign. Take Zodiacs. Don't believe in them but they do provide a laugh once in awhile. "Success goes to your head and you become arrogant and mean to those around you. No-one would hesitate slipping a banana peel under your feet - a pirouette and you're gone! " "monkey Personality Of all the animals of the Vietnamese zodiac, your are the most intelligent. Your pranks, finesse and craftiness get you out of the most delicate situations without a scratch. Particularly at ease in public and at parties with beautiful people, you are charming, surprising and entertaining with the faces you make, and your irresistible, funny stories. You can also laugh at yourself with astonishing lucidity. Your character is that of a "happy pessimist" and you adapt easily to any context - and not without a certain amount of cunning. Confronted by a muscle-bound adversary, you use servility and flattery to lead him by the nose. Your skillfulness in the art of manipulation has no equal and you easily play the actor to soothe those around you. Crocodile tears and shameless lies are part of your daily bread. If you are caught, you have the good grace to recognize the error of your ways and can make others forgive you. You jump from branch to branch, from problem to problem, with an incredible degree of fickleness which borders on childishness. It is difficult to keep you in one place; at the least sign of boredom, you swing to another tree. Your fault : You want to be first at any price... Work Ambitious, inventive and gifted, you work on all fronts with incredible speed. You constantly need new projects to undertake and daring challenges. You are resourceful in business, skillful in negotiations and insatiable in all that you do. Your good humor easily motivates the troops. While success comes to you easily, it quickly becomes difficult for you to manage. Success goes to your head and you become arrogant and mean to those around you. No-one would hesitate slipping a banana peel under your feet - a pirouette and you're gone! Money You love money because it is an exterior sign of your value. A Monkey never works "for nothing" - all the more since you spend your money to create a comfortable, luxurious life for your family. You love to make them happy by giving them sumptuous gifts and often buy expensive, impractical presents on the spur of the moment. You don't hoard money and claim that you will never be lacking in anything. You are lucid and lucky. Love Passion exalts your imagination so you dislike the routine of everyday life. You idealize your partner but can't bear that they are only human with faults and manias like everyone else. But you can't live alone. You are an eternal adolescent, in love with the stars and with a taste for seduction. You are gifted in seducing and ravaging hearts with no sense of guilt. Being funny, imaginative and mischievous are your favorite arms. To seduce you, a person must tell you that you are the best, surprise you every day, laugh at your jokes and never yawn with boredom. " Me, I was was born under the sign of the Pig. (And that has nothing to do with western views of a quite noble animal in Asian belief systems). Quite a nice definition of me actally. And that above is not mine. Wonder why I gave you the name, Monkeyboy? Except for a few points, this is just about right for me: "PIG Personality Honest and upright, you advance in life like a tranquil bulldozer. You hate lies, hypocrites and artifice. If you do something bad you feel terrible and guilty about it for a long time after the fact. For your family and friends you are generous and helpful. Sometimes you are even a little bit too generous because you don't know how to say no: people don't hesitate taking advantage of your good nature. Underneath your exterior hides a ferocious determination for your inner codes to be respected. Nobody can impose their will on you unless you decide to let them. You make your decisions and take responsibility for your failures in private. You don't blame others for your mistakes. When there is a conflict, you take cover until the storm has passed. You may be criticized by others for preferring to run rather than fight but raised voices, fights and power games revile you. If your back is against the wall with no escape possible you become a daunting and violent adversary. Behind your apparent good nature you hide your hypersensitivity and soul of a gambler. You love to experience all the pleasures that life has to offer to a maximum. Your sensuality and your taste for pleasure make you an expert in love - especially physical love. Your only risk is falling into lustful ways! Work You love to work and want to succeed in your professional life but not at any price. You refuse to compete, to be opportunistic and to make deals under the table. You want to be recognized for your talent and competence, and won't resort to political intrigue. So you are not always a diplomat and prefer leaving a business meeting by slamming the door rather than approve an unsound project. You will gladly spend more time on your personal rather than professional life, unless you are your own boss. In this case, you won't count the hours and will see your projects through to the end. Money The Pig symbolizes material wealth in Vietnam so you rarely lack money. Your love of pleasure contributes to turning you into a big spender but you are above all, very generous. You love to have friends for dinner, give your friends presents and take your family on sumptuous trips. A cultivated aesthete, you love to invest in beautiful objects and dream of having a library as wonderful as the one of ancient Alexandria. Sometimes you just can't pass up a work of art or rare book. Still, money doesn't seem to matter to you. Even if you were a billionaire, you would probably continue to drive a beetle! Love You are in love with love in all its forms : tender caresses, romantic gestures and sensuous meals. Although you are faithful in love, you are very possessive and jealous. To be happy, you need a curious cocktail of solitary moments coupled with moments of tenderness and wild passion. You love it when your partner shows their continuing passion and infinite love for you in public. To seduce you, your partner must say yes to everything, especially to the pleasures in life which they will be able to fully partake of in your company! " What's your sign, Drony? R R R R .... now actually have a conversation in french, why don'tcha. Should be easy for you. > Doan Kane >> > I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post only >> > allows 10,000 characters in a single post. [quoted text clipped - 697 lines] >> >>Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 a partial reply 0:-> Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > allow for excuses. You did it. Admit. Decide not to do it. And mov > on. You are absolutly correct. I don't want to think that I abused my son I did the only thing I knew how to do at the time....that was to spank. Maya Angelou Said, "You did then what you knew how to do and when yo knew better... you did better!" There is no sense in beating myself up over what I did, calling mysel an abuser would only bring me more pain and guilt than I already feel. Instead I choose to Know better, and Do better. The Ladies at GCM hav been immensly helpful to me in stopping the hitting, they are m lifeline right now. There are days when I can barely cope with th stress of it all, perhaps that is why I lash out here, I'm feelin stressed angry vulnerable, and You are an easy target because I kno you will return comment with as much venom as I sent it, therefor giving me excuse to be rude and mean again. Not the healthiest way t deal with my emotions...but effective until you come back wit something like what you said above and hit the nail on the head reducing me to a pile of snot and tears...thanks ;- -- beccafromlalaland > a partial reply > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You are absolutly correct. I don't want to think that I abused my son, > I did the only thing I knew how to do at the time....that was to spank. Yep. But you are now facing what you know is the truth. That's hard, and courageous. Nothing like Doan's decade long hiding from it. > Maya Angelou Said, "You did then what you knew how to do and when you > knew better... you did better!" There isn't a word in it that suggests you have to make excuses for yourself. Ms Angelou gave a day-long seminar at my college many years back. Or I should say, we gave a daylong seminar for her. Most interesting women. You know of course how abused she was, and the tragedy that struck her dumb for part of her childhood, right? We talked with her in seminar about it before she wrote about it as I recall. > There is no sense in beating myself up over what I did, calling myself > an abuser would only bring me more pain and guilt than I already feel. Really? Why not do it, have the pain, and be done with it, instead of try to dodge it? You abused. It's not the end of the world. Everyone has mistakes they make in life. What comes next is equally or sometimes more important. You appear to not be indulging youself in doing to your children what was done to you. What more can you ask of yourself than that? Don't you understand the importance of that simple fact? You have gone someplace your abusers could not go. And not even our little friend Doan here can go. Or at least so far. > Instead I choose to Know better, and Do better. Seems like that to me. Of course this is a very limited medium so I have to guess a lot from just your few words, in comparison to the life you experience outside this place. > The Ladies at GCM have > been immensly helpful to me in stopping the hitting, they are my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you will return comment with as much venom as I sent it, therefore > giving me excuse to be rude and mean again. Happy to be of service. And I'm not being facitious. I mean it. > Not the healthiest way to > deal with my emotions... Who says? Might it not be exactly where you want to be at this moment? You are moving forward. Doan is where he was a decade ago. Still hiding. > but effective until you come back with > something like what you said above and hit the nail on the head, > reducing me to a pile of snot and tears...thanks ;-\ You have to be kidding me. You expected to come here to be comforted? You were abused. It was not and is not your fault you were. What you do now is yours and yours alone, to do about that abuse. You can perpetuate it on others, or you can end it with you. So, if this is not the "healthiest way to deal with" your "emotions" then why do it? I have to ask you: what are you doing here? "Hitting the nail on the head," as you say, may be what you are looking for. Possibly you are here seeking something a support group usually cannot give. They usually offer "shelter," but rarely the hard and uncompromising truth that seems to be part of healing and overcoming a problem. They have their place in your schema. And why would you feel guilt and pain if you are doing what you best know how to do? One of the most powerful and effective means of moving through a challenge in one's life is not to hide from any unpleasantness connected to it. Abusers aren't evil horrible weak people, unless they refuse to face up to it and work to change. You appear to be doing the "work." Using me as our scapegoat for YOUR guilty feelings is non-productive. It keeps you from facing what you did, and moving on. And I have no trouble with you being rude and mean to me. As you've said in an earlier post, I'm an adult. I disagree with your assessment about this not being "the healthiest way to deal with" your "emotions," though. Why not consider this part of the process. Right along with your support group? If you aren't ready for this yet, then so be it. But ... and I say this with regard for your feelings ... Stop whining. You know you were abusive. It's not new or unusual and it IS a product of your own life experience. That's the toughest part for folks sometimes. If you admit you have been abusive, then you have to face that you were abused. Doan can't do it. He's weak. I sometimes think it's far more insidious for those that were less abused. YOU can see you were, and know sooner that it was real and you didn't deserve it. He, and those like him that were "spanked with love," are trapped. And he has the added handicap of being so intelligent. None can better construct excuses and rationales so well as the more intelligent. You've already moved decades past him in getting a handle on this problem. He probably looks strong to you, but in fact he's in denial and practicing it by being here all these many years, running the same self deluding numbers, over and over again. It's darned hard word to maintain such a high and thick facade. I pity him. He doesn't question himself like you are doing. He doesn't allow himself to face the pain. This is his "support group" for his maintainence of his self delusion that he's alright and his parents were alright. Neither is true. By battling me and others he props up his beliefs that protect him from ever facing that childhood pain. He denies there was any. YOU are alright. Because you are fighting. He's given up. And was made a coward by his parents. Bright, intelligent, and using it all to maintain his protective facade. You may have to leave, as a step in your work, but you'll be back here, or somewhere similar, as you take further steps to grow where he cannot. He can't heal, because he'd have to admit to the abuse he suffered at his parent's hands. YOU can, because of a sad, but important advantage. My guess from a few things you've said is that you were seriously abused. One thing victims of more extreme abuse have that those with the more subtle and less accessible and identifiable abuses of "safe spanking," is that YOU have little to NO doubts about what happened to you. In a way I feel far more sadness and pity, if that's the right word, for him than for you. You have the advantage. And apparently more strength. He was tricked into believing his abuse was "right." You know better. You are using your capacities and strengths to face it. He's using his to avoid it and seal himself off from it. "It" being the betrayal of the pain causing parent. If that were not so what would he be doing here for all these years? And still no change? Becca, I can't predict which way you'll go as far as this ng is concerned, but obviously you are moving in the direction best for you and your children. Feel free to contact me privately any time you like. Don't let yourself be taken in by those you are leaving behind. For all his slick smarminess and patronizing stroking of you my guess is your instincts won't let you down. Not if you suffered abuse as a child. Such folks have a built in sh.t detector that kicks in....just like yours did when you 'got mad' at me for hitting the nail on the head. You just identified what you were looking for, I believe and can smell the stink of the patronizers. You know perfectly well that's what you were looking for. Someone not committed to providing "safety" like a support group. Looks like you found what you wanted. And your kids are that much safer for your courage in coming to this much tougher place to be. Best wishes. Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > > a partial reply > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yep. But you are now facing what you know is the truth. That's hard, and > courageous. Nothing like Doan's decade long hiding from it. So you admit that you ABUSED your kid when hit him/her, Kane? Or are you hiding from it! What a hypocrit! ;-) Doan >>>a partial reply >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > So you admit that you ABUSED your kid when hit him/her, Kane? Or are you > hiding from it! What a hypocrit! ;-) Tell you what, drony, why don't you POST the content, fully, of my comments on that. Then and only then will people start to figure out you been taking Anti-Truth Meds for years. 0:-> > Doan SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > >>>a partial reply > >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > comments on that. Then and only then will people start to figure out you > been taking Anti-Truth Meds for years. Now you really don't want me to do that, ignoranus kane0! Otherwise, you will have to start saying it's a "mistake" not a lie again. ;-) Doan > > >>>a partial reply > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Now you really don't want me to do that, ignoranus kane0! Otherwise, you > will have to start saying it's a "mistake" not a lie again. ;-) What's a "mistake?" > Doan Kane > > > >>>a partial reply > > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > What's a "mistake?" If you have to ask, you CAN't afford it! ;-) Doan What? You are not my sock puppet? How else can I get my hand on this precious study, the one that can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself? ;-) Doan > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > -- > beccafromlalaland > In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for > an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an > accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects > still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is > putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I > feel he "got lucky" with the outcome. What I found telling was this: "Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a result of participation." It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for running into the street! Doan > > In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for > > an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for > running into the street! The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy. Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those children were, many of them, products of families that had done a previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone else. Learn to read. Learn to think. However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge. Good for you. There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children were picked. Start your f.cking harassing again, and you get .. It's called, diddly squat. > Doan Kane > > > In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for > > > an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy. LOL! Are you sure? > Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those > children were, many of them, products of families that had done a > previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing > the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone > else. Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show you: Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and 1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10% (13/130). Are you with me so far? Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3 after. The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced to 14%! > Learn to read. Learn to think. I hope you take your own advice! ;-) > However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you > managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge. And instead of lying, you show your stupidity again! ;-) > Good for you. Not good for your mom! ;-) > There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children > were picked. > > Start your f.cking harassing again, and you get .. Oops! Resorting to adhom again, ignoranus kane0? Tell me that it makes your mom proud. ;-) > It's called, diddly squat. Just like the size of your brain? ;-) Doan > > > > In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for > > > > an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3 after. Opps! There went your example purity. Why those particular figures? What an idiot. > The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after > avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced > to 14%! So, you stand prepared to support the idea of contaminated samples. You are so easy to bait it brings tears to my eyes. You seemed completely in love with contamination by removal when a certain female researcher stripped away the more severe spankers in her "study." Baumrind was a laughing stock among attendees at that conference, Doan, just as you are here. Imagine. One is doing a study on how children react, antisocially, to being spanked and REMOVE the group that would in fact show that it's true they react more antisocially. But YOU want this particular sample contaminated in YOUR favor. You are without honor. But then we knew that all along. The object dummy, was to run and experiment on people that had NO prior knowledge of the methods in the training package. And NO skills of that particular kind. It wasn't a survey to see how many HAD certain skills or not, but to test if those skills could be taught and applied. You've got rotten tofu for brains. > > Learn to read. Learn to think. > > > I hope you take your own advice! ;-) Mmmmhhhmmmm...yep. I read your posts and watch you stupidly fall into traps of your own making. YOU JUST SUPPORTED CONTAMINATED SAMPLES. And I even TOLD YOU why they could not use those children. But away you go with your bogus manipulated formula. Same old sh.t. > > However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you > > managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge. > > > And instead of lying, you show your stupidity again! ;-) R R R R....oh sure Doan. R R R ..goodun' > > Good for you. > > > Not good for your mom! ;-) > > There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children > > were picked. > > > > Start your f.cking harassing again, and you get .. > > > Oops! Resorting to adhom again, ignoranus kane0? tit for tat. My mom taught me to give as good or better than I got. Like the echo effect? > Tell me that it makes > your mom proud. ;-) Can't. Have no idea. If you lose either of your parents ask me, and I'll avoid mentioning them to harass you. Deal? > > It's called, diddly squat. > > > Just like the size of your brain? ;-) Yeah, like you caught on in time to cut off your support of contaminated samples. > Doan Doan the Brilliant. 0:-> Doan Wrote: > Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show > you: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reduced > to 14%! Hey look at that...Doan proved something. :-) Good for you :-) Now Kane...I know not all of us are number people (I can barely balanc my checkbook) but surely you could have figured this one out -- beccafromlalaland > Doan Wrote: > > Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Now Kane...I know not all of us are number people (I can barely balance > my checkbook) but surely you could have figured this one out. He is not only STUPID but also an ASS-HOLE! Thus, the term ignoranus kane0 fit him PERFECTLY! ;-) Doan > > So, Kane, are you going to answer my question? > > When I find out what it is, exactly. "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." Are you the Embry study said that? > > Doan > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > information, simply want to take a mistake or something you disagree > with and call the other person a liar, liar. That sounds like you. ;-) > > I am just setting the stage in > > > case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > she will see what I see. And know that every detail of what I have said > exists in the study. That there still that were spanked for entering the streets? > But you, little lying child who does NOT have they study, or you would > have known that 13 was NOT the size of the sample and participants, > will continue to try and fake it. LOL! > When the study comes up you will be exposed for the liar you are. Now > all you have to do is convince becca that there is not reason to get > the study. LOL! > > > Go ahead, Kane! > > > Make my day! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have a copy of my copy and know you are lying and weaseling and you > still go on pretending. LOL! Is it in PDF format? Are you imaginary friends still alive? I am still waiting for beccafromlalaland to sneak it to me. ;-) Can you send her a copy, please? Otherwise, I have to come up with another sock, like AFfromdreamland! ;-) > The fact you would NOT prove you had the report I did by correctly > answering just a few identifying features of the report makes plain > what a thoroughgoing liar and cheat you are. Funny how I was able to point beccafromlalaland to where to go to get this study. You, however, said it can only be gotten from Dr. Embry! ;-) > S hame on you. And shame has come to your family because of this lying > practice of yours. > You are lower than a dog. You meant like Kane9, Kane8....all the way down to Kane0? ;-) > > > Doan > > I hope they never have to find out what you have done to their good > name. LOL! At least I am not hiding my name like you? Too ashame of your real name? Doan Still no answer, Kane? Doan > > > So, Kane, are you going to answer my question? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you sure the Embry study said that? I am still wating. ;-) Doan This reply to my own message is in the form it is to answer beccafromlalalands comment and question in a recent post to me: "I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more questions...and did not answer any of my questions. Dodging? -- beccafromlalaland " I shall attempt either to answer any unanswered questions or admit that I do not have an answer. My comments [[ will be in square brackets ]]. >>We should discuss socioeconomic status as a mitigating factor in the use >>of CP. And how to address that issue. > > Who is "we?" [[ I was not asked a question ]] >>Or is that too current and real for you? > > Are you addressing me, or the group? [[ becca did not use my name and I'm not the only person here. But I'll attempt to directly answer assuming, since we went on after this post, she does mean me in this instance. No it is not to current nor too real, and I've responded to it by stating so further in the post. It is just not relevant to what I wish to discuss. ]] >>-- >>beccafromlalaland > > I've no problem addressing that issue. The answers are probably far out > of reach for most in this group though. Alan Greenspan does not post > here. [[ While my answer was whimsical it's obvious that I do not consider it possible to solve economic problems before addressing the spanking issue. If we waited for economic answers for the solution to problems we'd have the cart before the horse. ]] > The more immediate and more accessible issues would have the most > immediate impact <pun intended> on the spanking issue. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > change socioeconomic status and hope that that has an effect on > spanking. [[ I continue to address your question, becca. I am not dodging. I am not an economist, thus can't answer such questions authoritatively. And they are a diversion from the real issue here. Related by not pivotal. ]] > I don't think there's an appreciable drop in spanking rates until you > reach very high levels of income. > > Now if you wanted to deal with abusive discipline, that could be > factored in with CPS data from the USDHS and you could find > socioeconomic influences. [[ I continue to answer your original question, the best I can...no dodgin' here, or do you consider that I am not whatever kind of professional that would be involved for any question you ask as my "dodging?" ]] > I think it's time we welcomed discussion on what a law should look like > that bans spanking. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in the use > of CP. And how to address that issue." [[ While I cannot, nor do I wish to spend time on an issue that others could better address, socioeconomic status, I am inviting you to if you have something to say. What's "dodging" about that? ]] > If I'm interested I'll be happy to contribute in whatever way I can. [[ And I'm still open to more questions on YOUR issue if you wish to ask them. You did NOT take that invitation. I could call you a "dodger" for that, but will not since in the normal course of a conversational exchange, debate or otherwise, people move on from subject to subject, issue to issue, item to item, as a matter of course. In this group presently posting only Doan would stoop to such low tactics and ploys. I can't imagine that you would, purposefully. Why accuse me of dodging "and did not answer any of my questions," as you put it? That's simply not true. ]] > Kane Thank you for reading. On to the next post in this series to see if I failed to answer any questions, let alone "did not answer any." Kane SignatureIsn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.