 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / February 2006Re: The Embry study: What it actually said.
>> The Lie: >> >> "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before >> had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per >> hour." > >Still don't know where I got that, eh? R R R R RR NOT FROM THE EMBRY STUDY! Doan > >> The Lie: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doan Is this another "mistake", Kane? ;-) Doan >>>>The Lie: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is this another "mistake", Kane? ;-) No, does this indicate how stupid you really are? > Doan why would I be restricted to the Embry study for comment on the Embry study? I told you, I'm not debating you on the Embry study. You refused to debate me when you had the chance. I even offered, if you'd tell the truth, to send you a copy. You lied, or you withheld proof you had it. The deadline passed. I'd be less than honorable to go back on my promise to you. Keep ON A'smilin' R R R R R 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 Doan- Is Kane still dribbling about his unbiased research studies and using it to support the punishment of parents who don't goose step to his diatribe? ***** Non-spanker by choice, Chris C. TX > > >> The Lie: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doan Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate himself. Doan > Doan- > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > Doan > Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with > spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. > He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate > himself. Item one. I made no claim it was. Item two. The field observers were given the description of parental behavior that were to be coded as "corporal punishment" and it included spanking. Item three. That would make it have "something" to do with spanking if it occurred, or the observers would not have been instructed to enumerate occurances. Item three point one. It's such jolly fun to see two psychologically disabled children get back together in the school yard and lie to each other again. What lie would I have told, if in fact spanking (CP) was one of the factors considered by the researchers. Item three point two. You have made a claim that turns out now to have been developed into a lie by you and YOU are trying very hard to extricate yourself by continuing to expand on the lie you told by claiming I said something I did not. I never said the study was ABOUT spanking. I didn't even say I was referring to the study specifically. Here is what I said: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." I did not say "these" parents, nor "this study." The finding of this study, that the experiment resulted in only 10% of the number of attempted street entries compared to after the program was taught and applied is remarkable. Then I said: "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour." It could be about this study, or another one, or anecdotal information from any source, even my own observations of children and their parents. You seem very afraid of, and quite willing to unethically attack before establishing the facts. > Doan Seems to be your entire posting history, actually. 0:-> > > Doan- > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > > > Doan > Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with > spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. > He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate > himself. > > Doan From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the seventh) observers. Item 11. Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing, squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again]. I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?" But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP, but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires, and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely. So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries. Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that? Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and pathologies? Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are lying, again. Tsk. Doan. Tsk. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > > Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with > > spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?" Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA! If there is no data (or not enough data) about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9. "9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction between parent and child." And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's Entry into the Street" > But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP, > but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires, > and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely. LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole! The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower the rate of street entries! > So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of > spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the > argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay > out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to > lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries. LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets? > Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that? Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking? > Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and > pathologies? Lying seems to be your compulsion! > Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I > have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are > lying, again. You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-) Doan >>>Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with >>>spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA! It's in front of you. > If there is no data (or not enough data) > about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the > conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9. I never claimed it had to do with spanking. What I claimed in fact is exactly what you say above....it most deliberately choses to be, "NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!" but about the absence of it. This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp. Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine? You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of his in mid, would you? > "9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an > interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to > play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction > between parent and child." Yes, it says that. That does not negate that the study was in fact about alternatives to spanking, does it? > And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands > not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of > Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's > Entry into the Street" Then why did he in fact record two "Punishments" which his observers code as physical punishment? Why would he include instructions to note and record "Physical Punishment?" In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course ) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report) "... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction), and 71% (Parental Praise)" Note: Time out instruction was a routine were the parent did a practice time-out with the child to familiarize the child with the proceedure, and somewhat desensitize the parent to feeling guilty about imposing it...thus...<cackle> removing some of the "punishment" aspect of the "Sit and Watch" routine, as time-out was called and taught. Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero events occuring agreement between them. Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied phase? Let's see, shall we. On page 29, Table 6, the columns are labelled, Behavior, Cases1, Agreements etc. Cases1 refers to number of home visits during which the observers recorded the behavior. They are recorded as occuring in the following number of visits, and so recorded: Child in time out = 1 Parent's use of PUNISHMENT = 2 Parental reprimand = 12 Parental praise = 15 time out instruction = 1 Remember, these indicate VISITS in which the behavior was observed, not the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been more, but of course they cannot be less. These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes observation periods. Hence, we have two incidences of what Doan would like to not admit is classifiable under his 'spanking' claim. It was physical punishment and the observers are taught to distinguish between non-cp and this, which is cp. What is very remarkable, and Doan avoids it carefully and makes claims that are not supportable if one reads ALL the data available, was the dramatic DROP in the number of street entries as the dramatic drop in numbers of reprimands occurred in comparing the baseline and the post workshop events. Page 48. Note the chart records pre, during, and post entries on a 10 second timeline. Very telling evidence that the fewer reprimands the more compliance with instruction to play safe. The risk exposure dropped by a factor of 12.6. Or more simply, for every 24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjuntion of cars and children in the street occurred 16 times during baseline, and ONCE after the workshops and storybooks. >>But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP, >>but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires, >>and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely. > > LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole! Nope. YOu are not seeing the square peg, is all. > The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said > was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower > the rate of street entries! This makes me wonder if you are getting some poor second hand information. Physical punishment was tracked, and recorded. It's quite clear in the "reliability" percentage calculations. On two visits physical punishment was recorded and the observers did not disagree, hence the 100% agreement figure. Not non-cp punishment, because that is covered under Time Outs, as you have so wisely noted, as being coded as non physical "punishment." Physical punishment is what it is. So tell us again, this study was not about "spanking." Go ahead. >>So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of >>spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets? I've no idea. I do know that physical punishment was recorded twice, as occurring. From two home visits. It could have been more, but it could not have been less. You still wish to pursue this? Imagine if you will what those of us that have the study, and have looked at the pages I mention, and the words there I have quoted, think of you at this moment. Mistaken, or lying, Doan. One or the other and no other possibility. This was not a study on spanking, and I agree with you on that point, and have never claimed otherwise. It as also not a study on white collar parents, but it's mentioned they make up the majority of studies families. Hence if I referred to white collar families would you start screaming at me, "This is not a study on white collar families, STUPID!?" It isn't a study on spanking (CP) but it does, just as I've mentioned, attempt to track the use of spanking. >>Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that? >> > Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking? No, and are you stupid enough to try and claim I was saying this was solely a study on spanking? See what I mean about misleading people and lying, Doan? That is what you appear to be doing, unless of course you wish to retract and admit you were wrong on there being no mention of CP in the report. That you simply made a mistake. There's no fault in an oversight error in such an instance. I doubt I'll mention it again, unless you try to say again that there was nothing in this study about spanking. >>Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and >>pathologies? > > Lying seems to be your compulsion! Doan, you claimed, "the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking at all." If there is any mention of spanking (physical punishment) in the study then it of course had something to do with spanking. Hence, I did not lie, and at best you simply made a mistake. You missed the mention of "Punishment" counts in the agreement percentage section on reliability of observations. A quick check of how punishments are described by the instructions to the observers how to code parental actions makes plain, it is physical punishment, unless you wish to argue "hitting," is not physical punishment. Embry does not agree with you. >>Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I >>have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are >>lying, again. >> > You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-) No, I gave her a perfectly good copy of the same one I have. I did not include, and haven't referred to the long cumberson appendix. More is there that substantiates what I've said, but I've stuck strictly with the first 78 pages. > Doan You have made of yourself a peripheral player in this ng, rather than a serious debater arguing for a position, Doan. You now suffer the consequences. You created a facade of neutrality, while posting the refutation of it yourself. You have no posts defending parents who chose not to spank, or methods to use in place of spanking. You are basically stupid and ignorant and compulsively driven to defend an act perpetrated on you as a child. I am fearing that you had a great deal more than you can remember, or that you will admit to happen to you as a young child. This kind of stubborn squirming is so very common to the highly intelligent, but abused child, caught in trying to defend superstition, or their own actions and biases. I've seen the duplicate many times. Did something more than simple light spanking happen to you? I might be able to help. You have my permission to contact me off group on THIS alone, if you'd like some advice and direction with this situation that obviously is growing more acute for you. Or I could contact you through Alina if you'd prefer. 0:-) Get help now. Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>>Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with > >>>spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It's in front of you. Show me! > > If there is no data (or not enough data) > > about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exactly what you say above....it most deliberately choses to be, > "NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!" but about the absence of it. Nonsense! Unless you are saying that "reprimands" are alternatives to spanking. > This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp. Please, don't patronize me with your stupidity again! > Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and > mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine? Parenting magazine is secondary source, not primary source like the study! I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the magazine. I SAW NONE! > You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of > his in mid, would you? You are being STUPID again! Show me where in the study that the data support the claim made in the magazine. > > "9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an > > interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, it says that. That does not negate that the study was in fact about > alternatives to spanking, does it? The conclusion was about "reprimands" and reprimands only! Are you so STUPID as not to see that? > > And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands > > not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > code as physical punishment? Why would he include instructions to note > and record "Physical Punishment?" He recorded and coded many items. What conclusions can be drawn from those items are different matters. In fact, the conclusion about street entries were made specifically about "reprimands" not other items. > In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course > ) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following > percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report) Irrelevant! Do you know the meaning of reliability? > "... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental > Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction), [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it...thus...<cackle> removing some of the "punishment" aspect of the > "Sit and Watch" routine, as time-out was called and taught. It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described by Dr. Embry. There is no disputing that fact! > Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers > even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero > events occuring agreement between them. Irrelevant! > Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline > observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied phase? Irrelevant. SEE ABOVE! > Let's see, shall we. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been > more, but of course they cannot be less. Nevertheless, they are not relevant! Doan > These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not > observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin >>>>>Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with >>>>>spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Show me! I did in my answering post attributed further along in this one. >>>If there is no data (or not enough data) >>>about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Please, don't patronize me with your stupidity again! I don’t believe there is anything stupid about referring to this study as an experiment in using non-CP methods to train children to play away from the street. Do you find something illogical in my reference to that age old claim by spankers that they were spanking their child to teach them to stay out of the street? You don’t see the connect and presume I’m patronizing you? By the way, how does one use “stupidity” to patronize? >>Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and >>mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine? > > Parenting magazine is secondary source, not primary source like the study! Yes? And? > I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the > magazine. I SAW NONE! We have no way of knowing precisely what Dr. Embry was referring to as his source when he made the magazine statement. He did not say. Apparently he is not able to confine himself to only those researches and opinions convenient to your needs for argument by failure to accept YOU have a burden of proof to prove YOUR claims. I am aware that he has access, since he cites as most scholarly writers tend to do, many sources in his report, but would be unlikely to in a casual non-research study letter to a parenting magazine. Did he in fact refer to this study in his letter? Did he refer to any, other than generally speaking, and non-specific? >>You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of >>his in mid, would you? > > You are being STUPID again! Show me where in the study that the data > support the claim made in the magazine. He apparently tracked the effect of his experimental program on a number of things that did not include spanking, other than to note it. His objective was not to study spanking, but to study an alternative. I certainly noticed the lack of many instances of it. I would presume, and I think with ample reason, he assumed the families did in fact use spanking as part of their parenting strategy. Otherwise why would he have assigned a tracking code to “Physical Punishment” which is described in part as “hitting?” As I read the report it appears his intent was to track street entries, and parent interventions, including their presence in the play area outside. He showed a strong correlation between having been exposed to training, the workbook, and the details of the program and a sharp reduction in street entries, and a sharp increase in parental supervision (desirable for children under 4), and a reduction in reprimands. Apparently there wasn’t enough physical punishment to be able to record any changes in it, though a minimum of two instances had to have happened for their to be confidence percentages found for accurate recording of it. >>>"9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an >>>interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The conclusion was about "reprimands" and reprimands only! Are you so > STUPID as not to see that? No, I am not stupid, and I do not agree with you. This study was about reduction in reprimands, correlation to that reduction by a reduction in street entries, and the more frequent presence and intervention of the parent. Embry did not offer a “conclusion.” He did present some speculative information supported by findings. They had to do with considerably more than “only reprimands.” Possibly I am not finding what you are referring to. Could you provide me with a page where Embry concludes something and it’s based on “‘reprimands’ and reprimands only!“ I covered this in my prior response. He offered the formula for calculating factor of street entries while a car was present, from baseline to after the storybooks and workshop. It came out 16 to one. I do not believe this was caused by the judicious use of parental reprimands, since he tracked a considerable reduction of them over the tracking time period. Possibly I misunderstand your meaning when you say, “The conclusion was about ‘reprimands’ and reprimands only! Then it’s possible I could be stupid. Please clarify what you mean. By the way, do you know how many TOs were actually observed? Do you understand how LITTLE punishment of any kind was actually used? Would you like to argue that the reprimands, and TOs were the more powerful factors to correlate with reduction in rates of street entry? Or could it be possible there is a connection between the increase in parental presence, the increase in rewards, the increase in praise, and the Say-Do system taught to the parents were more more important? How do you like begin drug kicking and screaming INTO THE DEBATE, Doan? Are you getting a faint glimmer of the level of my patience and the ability to project possible "moves" as in chess? I think you need to stop playing tennis, and get serious about learning chess. >>>And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands >>>not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He recorded and coded many items. What conclusions can be drawn from > those items are different matters. No, they are not "different matters." One is most closely tied to the other. The recording of items is what researchers and experimenters do to make presumptions and claims about their theory. What do you think his theory was? What had he induced, then deduced to begin this experiment? d > In fact, the conclusion about > street entries were made specifically about "reprimands" not other > items. Yes, and other things. I do hope you aren't trying to claim this is the only thing significant that he tracked. Are you? That he concluded that "reprimands" and rates of street entry were the only two factors being consider? Really? You'd think that? Then why would he refer to, on page 49 in the section titled “DISCUSSION,” “reprimand” rate reduction and say even before a reference to “reprimand,” “The package also increased parents’ use of praise and reward for safe play and children’s correct identification of photographs depicting safe play?” Why would he track the Parent Presence from baseline to and across Workshop and Storybooks and remark on the increase in Parent Presence with the program in place? Please point out where he linked street entries only to the number of reprimands and no other factors to street entries. And try to remember that even in that instance where he does make that comparison the rate of reprimands went down along with the rate of street entries. And the presence of the parents went up. And the rewards and praise went up. And the Say-Do program worked. A lot more than "reprimands" was going on here. Why would his tracking charts include Praise and reinforcement by Parents against number of street entries by child if this study was tracking only street entries against reprimands? You must be tired. The data is apparently right in front of you and you cannot understand, or even see it. Not even the plain language of what exactly is being tracked. Up too late partying, or is this taxing your ability to creatively weasel out of what this discussion of Embry started as? >>In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course >>) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following >>percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report) >> > Irrelevant! Do you know the meaning of reliability? Sure. You've asked me that before and I gave you a short course in it. It doesn’t refer to anything NOT present in the study or experiment. I has to be ABOUT SOMETHING. And in this case, the use of physical punishment was one of the things being rated for ‘reliability estimates.’ Or do you disagree? Why would it be in the list of those things rated if it's not IN the study? >>"... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental >>Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction), [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described by Dr. Embry. There is no > disputing that fact! I don’t recall my disputing their existence, but I do note YOU DID, as in "the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking at all." And he lists "Punishment" for purposes of coding, thus tracking, as "physical punishment." See Page 23, item eleven. "Parental Use of Punishment, If the parent used force (pulling, pushing, squeezing hard, or hitting) as a consequence for a child's play in the street during an (observation) interval, the observers coded this force as punishment." They did not clump it together with non-cp punishment, as in TO. You like to use the word, "spanking," but we know that hitting is spanking, and that all are CP, as in physical punishment. Split hairs if you like. It's about all you have left now. And, please try to keep up. You are starting to bore me. Just the same old hysterically screeching dancing monkeyboy. >>Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers >>even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero >>events occuring agreement between them. > > Irrelevant! No, not to your claim that this study had “nothing” to do with “spanking.” Unless you wish to argue that hitting isn’t spanking. By the way, your comment that “ It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described by Dr. Embry.” is what is “Irrelevant!” to your claim that it didn’t exist in this study. Were you mistaken? Are you trying to divert us from that mistake? Isn’t that misleading? Isn’t misleading, deliberately, lying? >>Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline >>observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied phase? > Irrelevant. SEE ABOVE! Not to our difference of opinion about whether or not this study had something to do with spanking. There is nothing to “SEE ABOVE” but that you are once again caught in a mistake and are trying desperately to change the focus. You claimed this study was not about spanking, at all. Yet there it is, and with YOU pointing out there was in fact PUNISHMENT. In this instance physical punishment. So you are, after claiming not about spanking, you now identify the spanking code as PUNISHMENT. So? You were wrong, Doan. And you are not going to admit it. You are simply going to keep up your crazed monkey dance. You are digging your hole very deep, Doan, possibly even deeper than ever before. You haven't much room left now but to do something unethical and dispicable. Want to bet I don't have all of your possibilities covered in that area too? Let's see how dispicable you can be, shall we? 0:-> >>Let's see, shall we. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Nevertheless, they are not relevant! Really? They seemed to be to the researchers. They recorded them to determine a reliability or "confidence" as we call it these days, percentage. > Doan WHAT? All done Doan? Okay, if you say so. But I'm going on. >>These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not >>observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>the observers are taught to distinguish between non-cp and this, which >>is cp. We were not, by the way, arguing if they were relevant, Doan. We were arguing if there was ANYthing in the study about spanking. There is, you were wrong. Here is what you said, “the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking at all.” That is consistent with other claims you’ve made, to me, as well as to your Texas Turkey. That would be like saying that the study had nothing to do with white collar families, though Embry makes a point of it in his remarks about the sample characteristics. It’s not “about” them but they are the subjects. So of course they are a factor. If spanking were NOT a factor, Doan, it would not be mentioned at all. It was. It IS irrelevant to the study conclusions, except for one thing. And that is the subject of this newsgroup, and of Embry’s other remarks, and of any exploration of alternatives to spanking. The subject is spanking. Nothing else. Not space exploration, or reduction of albumin in bird’s eggs, or watermelon cropping in the Nile Delta. It is about spanking, as in the deliberate absence of spanking. I go on to explore this more below, but you ignore it, in your usual unethical and logically fallacious way, Doan. I’ll leave it for you and others that might be interested, to contemplate. To claim this study is not about spanking shows clearly the dishonest and illogical base you and those like you work from. This study is an exploration of alternatives to CP in teaching very young children to stay away from the dangers of the street. YOU, and others that have posted to this ng and countless thousands of parents who spank for street entries provide the counterpoint. Do YOU have a study on the effectiveness of spanking that correlates increases in frequency, force, rates of intervals between strokes, etc. that shows one way or the other that spanking works? Please provide if you do. This study is about NOT spanking, but doing something else. Or we would not be having this discussion. You do recall challenging me to debate this report, do you not? Did you do so in a newsgroup with the title alt.parenting.spanking? This is not the motorcycle newsgroup. It’s the spanking newsgroup. And I mentioned this experiment in opposition to the use of spanking. I doubt anyone else would see it otherwise. Can you understand this, or are you trying again to mislead yourself and others? You are up rather late. Studying? Let me suggest you go to Embry's own abstract page (iii) and read it before you claim again that this study is only about one thing and not others. 0:-> >>What is very remarkable, and Doan avoids it carefully and makes claims >>that are not supportable if one reads ALL the data available, was the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>>>but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires, >>>>and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely. >>>LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole! >> [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] >>to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb >>contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > spankers that they were spanking their child to teach them to stay out > of the street? It's if you based it on the Embry study! In fact, the quotes I provided clearly stated that it was about "reprimands", not spanking! > You don’t see the connect and presume I’m patronizing you? > > By the way, how does one use “stupidity” to patronize? By being STUPID like you! ;-) > > > >>Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes? And? It's not what the study said! > > I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the > > magazine. I SAW NONE! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and opinions convenient to your needs for argument by failure to accept > YOU have a burden of proof to prove YOUR claims. So why did you bring up the Embry Study? Why wasted all these years? > I am aware that he has access, since he cites as most scholarly writers > tend to do, many sources in his report, but would be unlikely to in a > casual non-research study letter to a parenting magazine. > > Did he in fact refer to this study in his letter? Did he refer to any, > other than generally speaking, and non-specific? You tell me! ;-) > >>You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of > >>his in mid, would you? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of things that did not include spanking, other than to note it. His > objective was not to study spanking, but to study an alternative. LOL! Doan > I certainly noticed the lack of many instances of it. I would presume, > and I think with ample reason, he assumed the families did in fact use [quoted text clipped - 504 lines] > > > > ..........snip old unrelated material............. >>I don�t believe there is anything stupid about referring to this study >>as an experiment in using non-CP methods to train children to play away [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's if you based it on the Embry study! In fact, the quotes I provided > clearly stated that it was about "reprimands", not spanking! I never claimed it was "about" spanking. Only responded to your claim it wasn't about spanking 'at all.' CP is tracked. Hence you cannot use the qualifier 'all.' >>You don�t see the connect and presume I�m patronizing you? >> >>By the way, how does one use �stupidity� to patronize? > > By being STUPID like you! ;-) No connection to the debate.....last warning. All such will be excised in the future, as I promised. Last warning. And you did not answer my question. How is it you are not a liar by this tactic, but if I refuse to answer yours I am then a liar? >> >>Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and >> >>mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's not what the study said! One cannot so isolate a report of an experiment and comment upon it with an assessment of it. All kinds of things can be brought to the argument. You are fond of doing so yourself in many other arguments, say on Straus. If I wish to use another statement of Embry's to compare to his findings in this study it is perfectly valid for argument. Feel free, of course, to cite others, or Embry himself to make YOUR argument. There is NOT such protocol as you'd like to force here, for debate or review of someone's experimental work. And of course I won't adhere to your rules. >> > I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the >> > magazine. I SAW NONE! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So why did you bring up the Embry Study? Why wasted all these years? I didn't. I brought up the magazine article, as others have done. YOU brought up the study and challenged me to debate you on it. I obliged as long as you provided proof you had the study. Until recently your proof consisted of a two year long evasion. Nothing more. I don't consider the time wasted. I'm a weasel hunter. We are very patient. I once took five years to catch one professionally. That one is permanently out of any job related to public service. For life. I'm very very patient. >>I am aware that he has access, since he cites as most scholarly writers >>tend to do, many sources in his report, but would be unlikely to in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You tell me! ;-) No. Show where his comments do NOT reflect his findings in this study. >> >>You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of >> >>his in mid, would you? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL! No. You aren't going to get away with that, liar. Either defend your argument are submit that you cannot. > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>Otherwise why would he have assigned a tracking code to �Physical >>Punishment� which is described in part as �hitting?� You make no comment. From here on failure to comment, or use a diversion rather than comment will be taken as your submission to my argument as true and yours as false. I see that you have failed entirely to respond to dozens of comments and points made, and questions to you in the remainder of this post, by me. This then is presumed concession on your part, on each and very one that has to do with the study. (Your silliness diversions are ignored.) You lose by default. Unless of course you'd care to discuss the fine points of the report? 0:-> ...........snip......see post prior to this for review if you are so inclined......... Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > Child in time out = 1 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been > more, but of course they cannot be less. Note that "Parent's use of punishment" (assuming that this means spanking) is ONLY 2 times. And this is EXACTLY the number of OCCURANCES they observed. Imagine that, children in this study are at the ages where spanking is the most prevalent and about 90%+ of the population are spanked, yet the observers can only see two occurances. In fact, the study noted that "Table 6 offers reliability estimates for the remaining observed behaviors, all of which occurred INFREQUENTLY." They didn't even computed the "mean reliabilities" "because the behavior occured infrequently." Did you miss that part, Kane? Doan >>Child in time out = 1 >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Note that "Parent's use of punishment" (assuming that this means spanking) > is ONLY 2 times. Then you cannot claim is not about spanking from two perspectives now. > And this is EXACTLY the number of OCCURANCES they > observed. Imagine that, children in this study are at the ages where > spanking is the most prevalent and about 90%+ of the population are > spanked, yet the observers can only see two occurances. The do not watch 24/7. You are stupid. > In fact, the > study noted that "Table 6 offers reliability estimates for the remaining > observed behaviors, all of which occurred INFREQUENTLY." Yep. > They didn't > even computed the "mean reliabilities" "because the behavior occured > infrequently." Did you miss that part, Kane? Nope. They found what they found. If you wish them to find more then YOU run a study or find a study that indeed did find more. Your comments are stupid. You make a claim, yet you do not qualify that claim. What is the significance of them finding behavior occuring infrequently. Make an argument, or you are simply commenting on content to no point, and then making and innuendo I was supposed to. That's not debate, it's just harrassment, stupid. > Doan Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Spoken like an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-) AFfromDreamLand > >>Child in time out = 1 > >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-) > > No, I gave her a perfectly good copy of the same one I have. I did not > include, and haven't referred to the long cumberson appendix. More is > there that substantiates what I've said, but I've stuck strictly with > the first 78 pages. So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed. Are you saying now that you were WRONG? I think you OWED not only ME but Alina also, A BIG APOLOGY! Doan Hi Alina, I you are still out there, please respond to this message. Kane is now claiming that he has sent you a copy of the Embry study. He also claimed that YOU TOLD HIM that you sent me an envelope and postage so that I can send you a copy of the Embry but I kept the envolope and postage and never send the study to you. THIS IS A SERIOUS ATTACK ON MY INTEGRITY. That is why I have to use this public forum since I don't know where you are. Please response when you have a chance. Doan PS. My apology to other participants of this newsgroup since this is not relevant to any of you. > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > > You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doan > Hi Alina, > I you are still out there, please respond to this message. Kane is now > claiming that he has sent you a copy of the Embry study. He also claimed > that YOU TOLD HIM that you sent me an envelope and postage so that I can > send you a copy of the Embry but I kept the envolope and postage and > never send the study to you. YOu are lying. And I have no control over whether or not she got my copy, only control over sending it. THIS IS A SERIOUS ATTACK ON MY INTEGRITY. INTEGRITY? R R R R R R Doan it bit you on the a.s years ago and you ran. You are liar, and a fraud. You claim things you cannot back up by your posting in this ng. > That is why I have to use this public forum since I don't know where you > are. Please response when you have a chance. YOu know exactly where "she" is. 0:-> YOu are just lying more. And you know exactly how to trace her down via her e-mail. > Doan > > PS. My apology to other participants of this newsgroup > since this is not relevant to any of you. The hell it isn't, you little scummy liar. And you better apologize. You owe people a great deal of apology for your vicious deliberately disruptive behavior and your determined effort to destroy any real debate on the issue under consideration, spanking. 0:-> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>Doan Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed. Only you and I know the real answer to that. Why don't you round her up and have her come here and comment. I can't seem to find her. Surely you can. 0:-> > Are you > saying now that you were WRONG? Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid. > I think you OWED not only ME but Alina > also, A BIG APOLOGY! Nope, you owe this entire newsgroup an apology, a great big apology, but then you have been a perennial fake and fraud. We don't expect you to get honest now. You've been a constant liar and group thug since your first posts here. > Doan Doan't Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and have her come here and comment. I can't seem to find her. Surely you > can. 0:-> LOL! You can't find her but you CAN sent her the Embry study? Wow! You are amazing! > > Are you > > saying now that you were WRONG? > > Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid. LOL! I think everybody know that you are STUPID! > > I think you OWED not only ME but Alina > > also, A BIG APOLOGY! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You've been a constant liar and group thug since your first posts here. Hahaha! > > Doan > > Doan't ignoranus kane0! > > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > LOL! You can't find her but you CAN sent her the Embry study? Wow! > You are amazing! I sent it long ago. I can't find her now. That was the point. Wow! You are an amazing liar. > > > Are you > > > saying now that you were WRONG? > > > > Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid. > > > LOL! I think everybody know that you are STUPID! Anyone that would use all inclusives to describe something where it's impossible can't be too bright. "Everybody" Doan? > > > I think you OWED not only ME but Alina > > > also, A BIG APOLOGY! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Hahaha! What happened to "LOL!?" > > > Doan > > > > Doan't > > > ignoranus kane0! Doan't you wish. 0:-> Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) AFfromDreamLand > > > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > 0:-> > Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) No, not "we," you. What, no "LOL!?" Allow me. LOL! 0:-> > AFfromDreamLand > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > > 0:-> Hahaha! Another stupid response from ignoranus kane0! AFfromDreamLand > > Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > > > > > 0:-> > Hahaha! Another stupid response from ignoranus kane0! Nope, just one you don't like and can't respond to with any credible commentary. We know that when you label it and the author as 'STUPID.' And you are a coward. 0:-> > AFfromDreamLand > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >>>> >>>>0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > > Hahaha! Another stupid response from ignoranus kane0! > > Nope, just one you don't like and can't respond to with any credible > commentary. We know that when you label it and the author as 'STUPID.' I am not a LIAR like you! > And you are a coward. And you are STUPID! ;-) AFfromDreamLand ..snip.. In past posts doan't has presented Dr. James Dobson as the "expert," over Straus and others. Not only has Dobson never created a word of reasearch, but he's not even a social science academic. A 'child development' degree and a hatred of children barely disquised by his occasional cautionary butt covering for his real agenda for and beliefs about children. So, doan't, you still want to defend this man and present him as the "expert?" http://www.nospank.net/welsh11.htm PREACHER OR BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST: DR. DOBSON NEEDS TO MAKE UP HIS MIND By Ralph S. Welsh, Ph.D., ABPP SOURCE: Connecticut Psychologist, Newsletter of the Connecticut Psychological Association, Winter, 2006, Vol. 59, Number 4, page 6. In my opinion, psychologist and presidential advisor, the Rev. Dr. James Dobson is a very dangerous man. I have been following his career for many years, from the time in the late 60s while I was teaching at Fairfield University and doing research on the relationship between physical discipline and delinquency. His odd little book, Dare to Discipline caught my eye, and I was astounded to later find that it eventually became a runaway best seller. Unfortunately, it launched his career as a darling of the far right.... ...more at: http://www.nospank.net/welsh11.htm 0:-> Oops, more LIES from ignoranus kane0! I have consistenly argue that the only "expert" regard their own children are the parents themselveS. But if you gonna believe somebody just because they have a Ph.D. after their name, them you have to believe Dr. Dobson. Right, Kane? ;-) AFfromDreamLand > ..snip.. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > 0:-> > Oops, more LIES from ignoranus kane0! I have consistenly argue that > the only "expert" regard their own children are the parents themselveS. Even the abusive ones? > But if you gonna believe somebody just because they have a Ph.D. after > their name, them you have to believe Dr. Dobson. Right, Kane? ;-) I don't believe someone because of their degrees or lack. Do you? I suppose YOU could believe Dobson, as you obviously did when you presented him as the expert. Having done no research though and writing a book with vicious child abusing suggestions and advice in it qualifies him in your mind as "expert," and doing to his children what he did because he's the expert. How about those parents that had their kids hung up in church naked and whipped by the congregation. Experts? Still don't want to debate the Embry study, eh? 0:-> > AFfromDreamLand > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >>0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > > Oops, more LIES from ignoranus kane0! I have consistenly argue that > > the only "expert" regard their own children are the parents themselveS. > > Even the abusive ones? We already have child-abuse laws to deal with them. > > But if you gonna believe somebody just because they have a Ph.D. after > > their name, them you have to believe Dr. Dobson. Right, Kane? ;-) > > I don't believe someone because of their degrees or lack. Do you? I have already said only the parents are the "expert", STUPID! AFfromdreamland Hey! Kane told the truth for a change! ;-) AFfromDreamLand What was that, Kane? No more lies about the Embry study? No more claiming that this study can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself? No more claiming that this study doesn't involve punishment? No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry rates? ;-) AFfromDreamLand Doan refuses to debate the content. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Another LIE from Kane! AFfromDreamLand > Doan refuses to debate the content. > > -- > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >rates? ;-) While that may not be what the study was about, Dr. Embry did write this in a letter to Children Magazine (summer 1987 issue): "Actual observation of parents and children shows that SPANKING (emphasis added), scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention." -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits >>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >>rates? ;-) No, I will continue to makes such claims. I have not said what the source was. You are lying again. > While that may not be what the study was about, Dr. Embry did write > this in a letter to Children Magazine (summer 1987 issue): [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street > as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention." One has to ask during what "observation" this finding was noted. His study and it's citations show that indeed they do. And that the parent has the choice about how to use the child's desire for parental involvement, to teach or to batter. To support and train the small child, or to in fact up the odds of a fatal traffic encounter by using methods proven to increase the street entry rates. > -- > Dorothy Kane > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > > The Outer Limits Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > >>rates? ;-) > > No, I will continue to makes such claims. I have not said what the > source was. You are lying again. You are the LIAR here! It's not in the Embry Study! Doan > > >>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > > >>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > You are the LIAR here! It's not in the Embry Study! And that is YOUR LIE because I have not said the source was the Embry study. Not the one we are discussing, or any other source. You are still avoiding what IS in the study. And that it IS an alternative discipline to spanking, the very thing you demanded of us to support our claims. Yet, when it arrives, you refuse to actually debate it. Instead diddling with WHAT it is, by lying and misleading, instead of what's in it. Scared little cowardly trembling monkeyboy in the cold wind of reality. R R R R R R > Doan And right now, instead of dealing with what toto posted, you once again try to move away from it...because you cannot refute it. "STUPID!" is the term you use, is it not? Well, stupid, live with us all seeing how dishonorable you are. You can't defend spanking by argument so all you have left is chaos and disruption..that when I've pointed it out, all you have replied is "LOL!" You take advantage of people's naive, but decent, assumption you couldn't be here to do harm or deliberately behave dishonorably. But you and I know the truth, and so too do some others. And more all the time. Keep posting this drivel and avoiding real debate. It helps any that might have given you any credibility to rethink their generousity. 0:-> > > > >>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > > > >>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And that is YOUR LIE because I have not said the source was the Embry > study. Not the one we are discussing, or any other source. Since we are discussing the Embry study, if it's not in the Embry study it is A LIE! > You are still avoiding what IS in the study. And that it IS an > alternative discipline to spanking, the very thing you demanded of us > to support our claims. Actualy, the conclusion was about reprimands, STUPID! > Yet, when it arrives, you refuse to actually debate it. > > Instead diddling with WHAT it is, by lying and misleading, instead of > what's in it. Hahaha! Since the conclusion of this study has little to do with spanking, the LIAR IS YOU! > Scared little cowardly trembling monkeyboy in the cold wind of reality. Oops! Resorting to adhoms again. How sad! AFfromdreadmland. >>>>>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >>>>>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Since we are discussing the Embry study, if it's not in the Embry study > it is A LIE! No it isn't. I can discuss other things. You certainly change the subject often enough during a "debate." ... 0:-> So then is every aside you try a lie? Get back to us on that. >>You are still avoiding what IS in the study. And that it IS an >>alternative discipline to spanking, the very thing you demanded of us >>to support our claims. > > Actualy, the conclusion was about reprimands, STUPID! No, it's about the contents of the Safe Play program. Reprimands were reduced by virtue of exposure to it. One of the changes being sought by the intent of it, along with reduction in street entries. I do hope you aren't so stupid as to try and claim the Embry experiment was a program to reduce "reprimands." If so, please prove it. >>Yet, when it arrives, you refuse to actually debate it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hahaha! Since the conclusion of this study has little to do with > spanking, the LIAR IS YOU! It is the product you demanded. An alternative to spanking. You are just harassing now, as a way to avoid the inevitable. That Embry showed a profoundly successful way to teach children to not enter the street as often that did NOT include spanking. Feel free to produce that spanking street entry reduction study, any time. >>Scared little cowardly trembling monkeyboy in the cold wind of reality. > > Oops! Resorting to adhoms again. How sad! Always with the invitation to actually debate. You were demanding I provide debate on something that showed alternatives to spanking. Is the Embry study not an alternative in street entry reduction methods to the more common tool your compulsive spanking friends insist on using? How many times do you wish to have this repeated? As many as it takes to avoid actually having to admit the truth, and avoid people seeing how ignorant you are about experimental research in social science? > AFfromdreadmland. Coward. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > > No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > >rates? ;-) > > While that may not be what the study was about, Dr. Embry did write > this in a letter to Children Magazine (summer 1987 issue): Dr. Embry is entitled to his opinion! But, please, don't try to pass off opinion as FACT! Doan >>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dr. Embry is entitled to his opinion! But, please, don't try to pass > off opinion as FACT! You snipped the quote of Embry. Why? Could it be because of the words "Actual observation of parents and children shows." That's not an opinion, doan't. That's the comment of a seasoned and respected researcher related to his and other's findings by observation. Of course he could be giving his opinion of his observeation, but then that's what ALL researchers are doing when they comment. You cannot refute what he said. His study that we are (well, those of us OTHER THAN YOU that are) looking at shows us that these methods that did NOT include spanking showed remarkable improvements in the rate children avoided the street. Only 10% of the baseline entries after the Safe Play program was introduced and put into effect. You can't handle that. There's nothing to say to it. His methods and statistical products are solid. I myself can only find a few minor questions of clarity I'd like to ask him, but the findings look good. And on my desk is replication of his experiment, that I may share one day. 0:->, but he has stated it's been replicated, and I can think of NO reason to accuse him of lying. You have accused him of lying by insinuation and inuendo though. Care to make it official? > Doan We will not debate the actual report after he ran head on into his own ignorance of the meaning of the data. Too bad, doan't. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > >>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's not an opinion, doan't. That's the comment of a seasoned and > respected researcher related to his and other's findings by observation. That's not what in the study! > Of course he could be giving his opinion of his observeation, but then > that's what ALL researchers are doing when they comment. > > You cannot refute what he said. You don't need to refute an OPINION, STUPID! ;-) Doan >>>>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >>>>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's not what in the study! No one claimed it was. It was however the commentary of the person responsible for the study. >>Of course he could be giving his opinion of his observeation, but then >>that's what ALL researchers are doing when they comment. >> >>You cannot refute what he said. >> > You don't need to refute an OPINION, STUPID! ;-) I didn't say you had to. I merely comment on what is there. And that you cannot refute it. Nor can you argue against it...apparently. Though I'd be pleased if you tried. Did the researcher that produced the experiment not give his opinion on a date after the study was done? Do you presume he'd not be thinking of his study, and the observations of himself and others? > Doan You still aren't debating the actual content, and it's value as an alternative to spanking. The way you'd prove it isn't as good as spanking would be if you could produce the report from a similar experiment using spanking in place of Safe Play routines. Or disprove Embry's conclusions which resulted in a reduction to 10% of street entries prior to the Safe Play program use. Should be easy, right? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>>>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > >>>>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No one claimed it was. It was however the commentary of the person > responsible for the study. So what? Dr. Embry, according to you, also told you that his study can only be gotten from him, nowhere else! Were you lying then? ;-) > >>Of course he could be giving his opinion of his observeation, but then > >>that's what ALL researchers are doing when they comment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And that you cannot refute it. Actually, I've already refuted it; by showing that the data in the Embry study was related to reprimands, not spanking! > Nor can you argue against it...apparently. Already have, stupid! ;-) > Though I'd be pleased if you tried. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you presume he'd not be thinking of his study, and the observations > of himself and others? Are you presuming that he was right? Even when he told you things, by your own admission, that turned out to be wrong! ARE YOU SO STUPID? ;-) Doan >>>>>>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >>>>>>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > So what? Dr. Embry, according to you, also told you that his study can > only be gotten from him, nowhere else! Were you lying then? ;-) Your question has been repeatedly answered. There is no reason to ask it again except to harass and divert. And no reason to answer it again but to participate in your game. I won't. >>>>Of course he could be giving his opinion of his observeation, but then >>>>that's what ALL researchers are doing when they comment. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Actually, I've already refuted it; by showing that the data in the Embry > study was related to reprimands, not spanking! You have shown no such thing. Reprimands are but a single component of this study, and I have said so repeatedly. I have quoted many such pieces of the study. If you ignore those, then you sir, are lying yet again. >>Nor can you argue against it...apparently. > > Already have, stupid! ;-) No, you haven't. You have avoided other components in the study, except one where you were exposed as social science research ignorant. You immediately, when exposed, turned to another direction instead of answering, and tried to divert to "this is not a study about spanking," something no one claimed. >>Though I'd be pleased if you tried. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Are you presuming that he was right? Yes. > Even when he told you things, by > your own admission, that turned out to be wrong! It would be pretty silly to think that if at one point someone told me something that changed. I could have even misinterpreted what he told me. Neither of us would be at fault, as mistakes are not deliberate misleading, such as you do in just about every post. > ARE YOU SO STUPID? ;-) You wish I was. > Doan You are though. If you think you cannot be seen through easily. Even if components of his experiment turned out to be "wrong" which I do not believe they are, it does not make him wrong in all other things. If that is the rule you go by, then you are not to be trusted, because you have been wrong considerably more than once. I suspect on rare occasions you even post something that is right, as in correct. Not often though. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>>>>>>No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry > >>>>>>>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > again except to harass and divert. And no reason to answer it again but > to participate in your game. I won't. Hahaha! Check and mate! > >>>>Of course he could be giving his opinion of his observeation, but then > >>>>that's what ALL researchers are doing when they comment. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this study, and I have said so repeatedly. I have quoted many such > pieces of the study. And you have been shown to be a LIAR! > If you ignore those, then you sir, are lying yet again. Hahaha! Hypocrit! > >>Nor can you argue against it...apparently. > > > > Already have, stupid! ;-) > > No, you haven't. You have avoided other components in the study, except > one where you were exposed as social science research ignorant. Hahaha! Showing your stupidity again. > You immediately, when exposed, turned to another direction instead of > answering, and tried to divert to "this is not a study about spanking," > something no one claimed. Hahaha! What a liar! > >>Though I'd be pleased if you tried. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes. That is because you are, by your nature, STUPID! ;-) > > Even when he told you things, by > > your own admission, that turned out to be wrong! > > It would be pretty silly to think that if at one point someone told me > something that changed. So it's not WRONG! ;-) > I could have even misinterpreted what he told me. Neither of us would be > at fault, as mistakes are not deliberate misleading, such as you do in > just about every post. So you are either STUPID, a LIAR or BOTH? > > ARE YOU SO STUPID? ;-) > > You wish I was. Your wish is my command! ;-) Doan AFfromdreamland. In other words you still have nothing to say about the study. I thought so. 0:-> > In other words you still have nothing to say about the study. > > I thought so. > > 0:-> IOW, your LIES about this study have been exposed! Doan .. Yet more dodging instead of debating. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > .. > > Yet more dodging instead of debating. > > 0:-> Hypocrit! Doan >>.. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Doan I offered to debate. One mistake on your part and you are running. Show us how the study's conclusion (which is not a term even USED) is solely about "reprimands," or isn't that your claim? The place you look for a discussion of the outcome of the experiment is in "Results" dummy. And in fact, when discussing results on pages 35 and 36, "reprimands" are NEVER even mentioned. What is discussed is the rates of street entries, the use of praise, time outs for unsafe play (do you even know how few TOs were observed?) and the reduction of entries from baseline to 10% of that number following interventions. No reprimands discussed in this section on results, nor in the charts on results. In table 7 were reprimands are tracked, all 13 of the baseline observed children showed parents reducing reprimands. We can presume, or not, as we are inclined 0:->, that there are two possible reasons and possibly both. They had a replacement strategy from the Safe Play training program they were becoming accustomed to using instead, and they were having fewer street entries to respond to with anything, let alone reprimands. Average reprimands per observation, for the child receiving most at baseline dropped from 10.3 to 2.5. Children in the next highest at baseline, 2.8 average reprimands per observation dropped to 0.0. Two with baseline 0.0 actually had a slight increase, one to 1.2 and another to 0.3, and one to 0.8. Overall average for all children was baseline 1.6 dropped to 0.5. Which one could conclude, if they felt out critical components, resulted in less reprimands less entries. This is that area of the report on the experiment where I'd ask Embry questions for clarification. Chicken or the egg questions. But without his input we can only speculate. So tell us AGAIN this study was only about 'reprimands.' It's got to be obvious you simply make things up to divert. Sadly for you, it allows me to post portions of the study that refute the claims of spankers; that they are teaching their child to stay out of the street. What I was most pleased to find, given the preschool age of these children, was the increase in supervision..that is "presence of the parent" from baseline to after the workshops and storybooks. The greater majority were present much more after the workshop. Some tremendously so. Something clicked for them apparently. Subject 1 (S1) throughout the study seemed to have a very attentive mother. Even in this, baseline was 100% of the time she was outdoors with the child, and after workshop a non significant 99% of the time. Likely fetching cookies for the kids. 0:-> You have totally avoided discussing this report unless you could find some bit and isolate it and claim it meant something it didn't, just like this claim there was a "conclusion" citing "reprimands" that was what the study was about. How utterly stupid, unless of course your intent is to confuse the issues, harass posters that want to debate, and run like the little coward you are when confronted with the facts. That you call others liars, when they are not, is or should be an embarrassment for YOU, idiot child. But keep it up. It proves my point, message by message. Coward. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin >>.. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Hypocrit! [sic] Check the mirror for the prime example of hypocrite. You are just a cornered weasel looking for a way out. > Doan 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>.. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Check the mirror for the prime example of hypocrite. > You are just a cornered weasel looking for a way out. LOL! And you are just a stupid liar who got caught! Doan >>>>.. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > LOL! And you are just a stupid liar who got caught! That lie would be? > Doan I sure hope you aren't referring to Alina. R R RR.. So tell us, where is "she" these days? Yer a phony with nothing for you but disruption of a ng in a medium that, by its nature allow such sick little boys like you to indulge yourself. Your betters are embarassed for you but they don't mistake you for any serious threat to the massive and proven arguments against the use of spanking to parent. You are decadent. Old. Outmoded. Mindless. Self stimulating. A fool. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin LOL! AFfromDreamLand > >>>>.. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin ...I'm the class clown.... Yes we know, doan't. That much is more than obvious. Let us know when you grow up. We'll be able to tell when you stop harassing and start debating. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin ignoranus kane, the liar, is at work again! ;-) AFfromDreamLand > ...I'm the class clown.... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin >> No more claiming that the spanked kids have the highest street entry >>rates? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street > as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention." I knew a kid like this once. He was 3 yo. He would wait until the last second and then dash across the street in front of a car. It happened on multiple occasions. His mom would always spank him, but I think he liked the thrill and attention. Almost got him killed a number of times. > Doan- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ***** > Non-spanker by choice, Non parent by choice. And one that posts others webpage information in ways that twist the meaning of the author to mean the opposite of the author's intent. A liar. Welcome back Chris with no children. By the way, you are lying about me above. But hey, at least you are consistent. Would you care to discuss and repost all the posts of yours and others concerning how you misquoted someone's intellectual property to make it appear it appeared to not be anti spanking, when in full it clearly was? Let's chat, shall we? 0:-> > Chris C. > TX > Doan- > > Is Kane still dribbling about his unbiased research studies and using > it to support the punishment of parents who don't goose step to his > diatribe? You seem terribly free with your lies, still. I thought you had learned your lesson. Do you recall this post to you? "I was just informed today of this post. The man who identifies himself here as "Chris C." has very blatently plagarised my copyrighted material "50 Principles and Alternatives to Punishment" from my website ChildAdvocate.org and has posted it as if it is his own. In addition, he removed two of the 50 principles. My website strongly speaks out against legalized assaults on children. Chris C. is actually using my material intended to be against corporal punishment in order to support his pro-corporal punishment stance! You can view the page and the article from which he plagarised at: http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm Chris, I will take legal action if your post is not removed and unless you publically post a full appology with an explanation of what you did. -Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed., LMHC" I still have the original posts by you, wherein you do exactly as charged above. I think you are the one "dribbling" my fried. Or you wouldn't label the studies so accurately. "Unbiased." In fact, Embry is said to have had a belief in the use of spanking to teach children street entry boundaries....UNTIL....he observed for himself, the counter information. That they did not reduce entries, but in fact, increased entry attempts. So what you have you accused me of? Of being correct? As for punishment for parents? Why yes. Do you not believe in punishment for parents that injure children? Or do you, like Doan, want to rant here, but insist that your beliefs are YOUR business and no one elses? I notice that in your sigline...about chosing to not spank, but never admitting you have no children to practice upon. Very funny lad. All in all. > ***** > Non-spanker by choice, It's not a choice when you have no children, Chris. This is the logic you and Doan (who yet questions other's logic) seem to use a lot. It's like saying you are a hero because you choose not to rob banks. It earns you a big, "You don't spank? You don't have kids? SO WHAT?" > Chris C. > TX 0:-> >>>>>The Lie: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>Doan Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > On 21 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > >Does your not knowing make you stupid? Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-) > > >> > you insisted that there is. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> Only to stupid people like you! STUPID people like you don't understand >> "intelligent comments". > Your proof? By your posts! ;-) >>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the >> Hutterites. > >Nope. Only that someone was successful in misinforming me. That doesn't >make me stupid, just misinformed. Misinformed people are not by default >stupid. Not by default but by their action. You were claiming that you have done your "research", that you have read more than me! In fact, you were wrong and thus, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) >>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the MacMillan >> study. > >Not so. Exactly so! >>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study! > >I'm not wrong on the Embry study. I haven't debated it with you. LOL! You haven't "debated" it with me? What do you think all the posts of this thread is about, STUPID! >You, in >fact, lacked certain key pieces of information. I did not call you >stupid, only not informed. You did not know about the 33 total, observed >and unobserved until well after I had posted it, mentioning only the total. I have all 3 studies. I told you so. In fact, I was only waiting for you to spread your lies... AND YOU DID! ;-) >> Enough for you? ;-) >Enough proof you don't know what you are talking about and make things >up as you go along, including rules of logic and grammar that are in >fact in error. Just as you have always done in your 'argument' in this >newsgroup. LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten from Dr. Embry? Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component in the Embry study? Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-) > > >>>>>>Stupid a.shole. > > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Why would you assume that? Could he not have honestly believed what he >told me? How would that be a lie? He is not that STUPID! He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it. > > What is low about that? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >information I think is more relevant or recent. But that does not make >him stupid or a liar at the time he said what he did. Do you always take the word of authority without question? You are an adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research to see if what the authority say is right? You see, that is the difference between you and me. You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people "smelly-c.nt", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-) > > Isn't what you are doing, "low?" > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >correct and mine is not because yours came from the study -- so I must >be lying. I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study. In fact, I am very sure that you made it up. That makes you a LIAR! >In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve >it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of >information. > >When you know where I drew that information from, then you can argue it. >Until then you are simply being, well, stupid. I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it. Until you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR! And a stupid liar if you think anyone would believe your lies! > > >>I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time > > >>I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Not knowing is stupid? It would be stupid to insist it was not available >AFTER I found out it was. Did I do that? That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying? Do you know that? ;-) >Nope. >Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone? > >Why didn't you tell Alina way back that it was available there? Could it >known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell >her about it. According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember? She was suppose to con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember? Are you saying now that you were WRONG? ;-) > > Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to > > say. I can only report what I was told. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I am stupid because I believe the person in charge of the access? How >would I have found out otherwise? Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library? > > It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible > > discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >lie to mislead deliberately by omission or commission. YOU, of course >are guilty of both, and I just proved that. LOL! It's you! >You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at >the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA. And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-) >Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not? > >It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF. I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even keep your story straight, can't you? ;-) >But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim >you did. Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL! >In other words, you lied. Are you so STUPID? > > >>I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you > > >>claimed you did. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >one a couple of months ago to display some official documents concerning >me for another newsgroup debate. I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the study. You know that! >Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to. > >It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know >MY source you have not argument. It's not in the study! ;-) >It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know >MY source you have not argument. LOL! >> ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT??? > >You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim >anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-> So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane? Is that what you were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM! >And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With >Alina it's four, at last count. LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet. Are you admitting that you were WRONG??? If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-) >My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I >have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise >to keep. Lol! That you won't debate with me? >That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to. LOL! You know how STUPID you sound? >But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I >will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the >study as the source. But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's a LIE! ;-) > > > You have the study, you know > > > it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >How do we know that? Who has the study but you, and my recipients? LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why didn't they speak up on your behalf? > > >From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your > > speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >In other words you don't want to play by the rules you set. What rules? >Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's >not stupid, that's just dishonest. That's you! ;-) > > I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the > > experiment not listed in the report. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I haven't offered proof. I simply made a statement, and I've already >told you that you should feel perfectly free to discount it if you wish. You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-) >Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he >did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive >of what I said. So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-) >Do with it whatever you want. LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-) > > >>Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide > > >>by the same one. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Then you lied? Or you do not have to follow the same rule? I don't lie, you lied! > > If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not > > identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report. > > >> LOL! Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I see. > >Yes, pretty good, isn't it? You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) >If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying? You are the one that's lying! > > >>>>>Doan > > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I did not say it was in the study, and I didn't say if it wasn't. LOL! It's either is or it isn't. I PROVED IT! ;-) >We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows. You don't konw??? >But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have >to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves. You not going to tell them? ;-) >And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that >it's not there. THAt YOU LIED! >I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source. > >How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that >statement? You are rambling! ;-) > > > Thus, it's a FALSE statement > > > no matter where it came from. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No. You prove you have the study. Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that? [snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane] Doan >>On 21 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: Doan continues with his dodges. >>Does your not knowing make you stupid? > > Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-) No it doesn't. Were you stupid when you were three and didn't know about safety concepts? Is it stupid of me not to know the rate of asteroid impacts upon every square foot of the planet so that I can calculate my chances of being hit? And if I do not know something that I should have known but continue to seek that knowledge, what about this is stupid? ..........Doan continues with his obvious evasions..... >>Your proof? > > By your posts! ;-) Which of course isn't an answer to my question. >>>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the >>>Hutterites. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not by default but by their action. You were claiming that you have done > your "research", that you have read more than me! I speculated it was possible I had read more than you. > In fact, you were wrong and > thus, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) Stupid to speculate? If so, why do you do so much of it? >>>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the MacMillan >>>study. >> >>Not so. > > Exactly so! Sorry. You are wrong. >>>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study! >> >>I'm not wrong on the Embry study. I haven't debated it with you. > > LOL! You haven't "debated" it with me? What do you think all the posts > of this thread is about, STUPID! Up until today, and even then, this was a discussion of what was IN the study, not a debate about the accuracy of the study and the points upon which that accuracy is based. You have a wonderful way of defining terms to your bias, instead of to reality. And it took a long time to get you here, but here you are.....debating. 0:-> >>You, in >>fact, lacked certain key pieces of information. I did not call you >>stupid, only not informed. You did not know about the 33 total, observed >>and unobserved until well after I had posted it, mentioning only the total. > > I have all 3 studies. That's nice. > I told you so. So? > In fact, I was only waiting for > you to spread your lies... AND YOU DID! ;-) What lies? You waiting would lead any observer to believe that you did not know about the total of 33 families. Thus you force others into conclusions only YOU have the answer to, but bait them into speculating about. You think it clever, but it simply proves you are a liar, and a cheat. To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead, Doan. >>>Enough for you? ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten > from Dr. Embry? Dr. Embry himself. > Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component > in the Embry study? No one. I claimed that I disagreed with the interpretation by Dr. Embry that Sit and Watch had to constitute "punishment." You seem to be freely interpreting your own biases into the study, like claiming it's only about "reprimands," so therefore disagreeing with Dr. Embry and the report. > Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked > kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-) No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries as children that were trained not to enter the street. I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel. Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study shows....." YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'. That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment. >>>>>>>>>Stupid a.shole. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > He is not that STUPID! To tell me what he believed? No, I don't presume he's either stupid, or lies. He states what he believes he knows at the moment. At the moment he apparently didn't think it was any longer available through AAA. Though he never mentioned that to me. In fact at the time I asked I of course did not have a copy...or why would I ask...and I could not therefore know about how funded the experiment, thus I could not know to ask him about AAA. I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were available through the library. > He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA > Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it. Or he might have believed they no longer offered it. It's a very old study. Would you care to write or call him and entertain your speculation that he lied, or was stupid? You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of required performance? An impossible one, by the way. >>>What is low about that? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do you always take the word of authority without question? No. I was not questioning the study. I was asking for a copy. When he told me what he did I had no reason to question his answer. Would you? What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?" Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication? > You are an > adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research > to see if what the authority say is right? On finding the study? I asked him where I could get it. He said he thought nowhere but from him, apparently. He provided me with considerably more than I asked for. >You see, that is the difference > between you and me. Oh yes, I see the difference alrighty. You would harass someone that answered you to the best of the ability at the moment, calling them a liar, and stupid. I would not. Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do. > You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take > the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people > "smelly-c.nt", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-) You don't know if I was "never-spanked." I made the remark in reference to my parents. How would you know, stupid, unless you asked or I volunteered it, that someone else had or had not spanked me? I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their parent's church a "smelly c.nt." What would you call her? I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I planned for you to do....actually debate Embry when I KNEW with reasonable certainty you had the study report in question. Thanks for your cooperation, even if I had to be so patient. 0:-> >>>Isn't what you are doing, "low?" >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study. That's nice. I didn't claim it was. If so, please quote me and cite the post I said so in. > In fact, I am > very sure that you made it up. Now who's being stupid. You can't read my mind. You don't know what I read or who I talk to or what I learn outside this ng. Unless I share it and the source. I shared it, I'm not sharing the source. You may freely discount, as I've told you, stupid, a number of times, my comment. But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure." > That makes you a LIAR! Nope. It makes you a speculator that isn't intelligent enough to say, "I believe you are a liar," or "I think you are a liar," or "I looks to me like you are a liar." Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up." You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement. >>In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve >>it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it. No, you cannot argue it. You could if I said they were from the Embry study. Did I? > Until > you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR! You are a liar to claim such when you know perfectly well I never said it came from the study we are discussing. > And a stupid > liar if you think anyone would believe your lies! I made clear long ago on this subject that since I'm not offering the source any reader, including you, may simply discount it. You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR a.s NOW. >>>>>I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time >>>>>I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying? That is not a question. > Do > you know that? ;-) Yes, I know that. If after knowing I continued to insist it was out of print, that would be a lie. I made no such claim. I simply explored it further by asking you for source. Show where I "knew" and continued to claim it was out of print. >>Nope. >>Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember? You are not answering my question. > She was suppose to > con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember? You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question. YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability? > Are you saying now that > you were WRONG? ;-) No. I am saying that at the time I offered her a copy free. Postage paid. I did not need to do to her what she claimed in this ng you did to her, cause her to have to pay for the copy. Why didn't you tell her about AAA if you had a copy and knew about that source? In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you claim to have had then? 0:-> >>>Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to >>>say. I can only report what I was told. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library? I didn't ask who they were. I presume a staffer at AAA. You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from. They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy. >>>It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible >>>discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL! It's you! No, it's you child. It has been you all along. You claim to have had the correct information but withheld it from everyone. Until recently. I have to assume one of the following. You did not have the study report until recently. Or, you had it and withheld information about how to acquire it. Or you just now got it, and are pretending you had it all along, but oddly, only NOW mentioning AAA as a source. In fact you never mentioned the library system until recently. >>You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at >>the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA. >> > And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-) That has nothing to do with you. I did not mention it at the time. Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew then, did you not? >>Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not? >> >>It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF. > > I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even > keep your story straight, can't you? ;-) Yes, that is what they told me. Did they tell you that too? If not, then why did you withhold the information it could be obtained through them? My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind. >>But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim >>you did. >> > Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL! If you make it difficult to get, as Alina reported. If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first claimed to have the report...the same invitation you recently extended to me, and to becca I believe... the library system? How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or so. 0:-> >>In other words, you lied. > Are you so STUPID? One doesn't have to be a genius to catch you in a lie. You rarely post without at least one attempt to mislead people. Usually a number of such attempts, just like this post. >>>>>I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you >>>>>claimed you did. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the > study. You know that! The only way you could prove that what I said was not in the study would be to quote the whole study. And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other. "I refuse to tell you were I got that information." You are just afraid to go into the content of that report. Aren't you little droanner? This is your monkeyboy dance. >>Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to. >> >>It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know >>MY source you have not argument. > It's not in the study! ;-) I haven't claim it was....or wasn't. >>It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know >>MY source you have not argument. > > LOL! Yes, that's all you can do at this point, isn't it, hapless one? >>> ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT??? >> >>You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim >>anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-> > > So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane? I could. What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well under that accusation/question. Is that not true? > Is that what you > were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM! I wasn't counting on anything. Yes, unfortunately for you, people are not that stupid. And you are right, you cannot fool them for long. A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can, those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging as fast as your little monkey feet will dance. They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with "spanking" by the study. It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment. >>And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With >>Alina it's four, at last count. > > LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet. Yes, I said that. 0:-> Kind of explains some things, doesn't it? > Are you admitting > that you were WRONG??? Oh? > If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-) Ah, then I don't. Thank you for pointing that out. We both know the truth. You ready to discuss that with the newsgroup are you? >>My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I >>have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise >>to keep. > > Lol! That you won't debate with me? LOL! You don't know when you are check, do you boy? >>That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to. > > LOL! You know how STUPID you sound? No, I know how stupid I wanted you to think I sounded. Keeping you thinking you are the smart one is just another chess move. Not a hard one, but a necessary one. You get stupider the smarter you think you are. >>But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I >>will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the >>study as the source. > > But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's > a LIE! ;-) So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior management that is not in the study is a lie? How does that work? For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was not thinking of this study and how it showed a powerful alternative to spanking)? You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan. That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference. >>>>You have the study, you know >>>>it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why > didn't they speak up on your behalf? Why should they become involved? I didn't ask them to. I've certainly not tried to keep them out or bring them in. They are invited to do, just like your claim, what they want to do; Choose for themselves. I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in honesty, they are staying out to avoid providing you with more boltholes by attacking them and their words. I know I watched you enough with others and didn't interrupt while they tore you a new one. >>>>From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your >>>speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What rules? You have none? You don't have a standard to judge another's comments? You give yourself permission to say anything, make any claim? How about, for a rule: "Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)" Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known? >>Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's >>not stupid, that's just dishonest. > > That's you! ;-) I am perfectly comfortable if you find my metaphors useful for your arguments. Feel free. >>>I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the >>>experiment not listed in the report. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-) You don't know if I can't or not. I simply won't, just as I stated. Someday I might. But on my time and my terms, not yours. You have my permission to discount the statement. >>Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he >>did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive >>of what I said. > > So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-) "Over?" Why only two choices, your two? Why not, "along with?" Why not, "as adjunct to?" Or, "Dr. Embry's other thoughts and discoveries?" I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you. Do you believe there is no connection between what Dr. Embry might say in a non-academic non-research setting more casually, and what he does say in a report on his research experiment? >>Do with it whatever you want. > > LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like > Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-) I think I'd rather believe them than you, and no one has said they don't. Why would they, since I've not tried to establish it as coming from the study, or mentioned any source whatsoever. It could be an opinion. It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy. I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I? >>>>>Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide >>>>>by the same one. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't lie, you lied! If you insist I have to tell you something you ask about, and you do not, Doan, that makes you dishonest, and a liar. It IS an attempt to mislead people into assuming YOU have some authority over me that you do not. And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a liar, then constitutes a lie on your part. >>>If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not >>>identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) So you have rules for you that are different for others. Is that it? >>If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying? > > You are the one that's lying! There is something you keep missing. I never deliberately attempt to mislead anyone. You do, constantly. If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make up a normal sounding name and use it as a nym, for instance. And I do reserve the right, when I've been obviously lied to, to lay a trap for he liar by pretending to agree with him, or her. >>>>>>>>Doan >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > LOL! It's either is or it isn't. Yes. That is correct. But I haven't said it was or wasn't. I've refused to say. > I PROVED IT! ;-) Proved what to who? Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor was I claiming it wasn't. So what is this you have "PROVED?" >>We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows. >> > You don't konw??? Sure, I know. But I'm not discussing it with you as proof, one way or the other. I'm telling you, stupid little boy, that I won't say. >>But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have >>to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves. >> > You not going to tell them? ;-) Nope. How many times must I repeat it? I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada. >>And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that >>it's not there. > > THAt YOU LIED! But I didn't say it was there, nor that it wasn't. I am speculating on your claim, not mine. So you understand the modifier, "If?" It's the second word in the sentence right after "and." >>I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source. >> >>How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that >>statement? > > You are rambling! ;-) No, I am posting in long response to your long rambling attempt to make me out a liar on no evidence at all. I have not said what the source is, nor have I said what it isn't. You are free to speculate and even claim all you want, and I'll not verify or deny it. Why should I? >>>>Thus, it's a FALSE statement >>>>no matter where it came from. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that? Of course. Didn't you know that's what I wanted to hear? There is a rough critical mass of information that provides sufficient correlation for an intelligent person to make significant presumptions and thus take various related actions. All I can say to you at this point is, Thank you sincerely from the bottom of my heart. > [snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane] Things that show you are a liar. That you are unethical. And that you are cheat. And propose questions about your mental stability. > Doan I see you are well back into your little monkeyboy cave where you won't have to debate Embry, Doan. If I can see it, so can others. Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of "spanking" as part of the study, right? Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>On 21 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > > Doan continues with his dodges. Kane continues with his LIES! ;-) > >>Does your not knowing make you stupid? > > > > Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-) > > No it doesn't. Were you stupid when you were three and didn't know about > safety concepts? It's when you are an old and still have the mental capacity of a three year old! ;-) > Is it stupid of me not to know the rate of asteroid impacts upon every > square foot of the planet so that I can calculate my chances of being hit? Yes, if you were stupid enough to claim that you know anything about them and later proven to be false! > And if I do not know something that I should have known but continue to > seek that knowledge, what about this is stupid? Only when you mouthed off as you do with the Embry study! ;-) > ..........Doan continues with his obvious evasions..... Kanes continues with his LIES! ;-) > >>Your proof? > > > > By your posts! ;-) > > Which of course isn't an answer to my question. But proved that YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) > >>>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the > >>>Hutterites. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I speculated it was possible I had read more than you. And you were WRONG because you are STUPID! > > In fact, you were wrong and > > thus, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) > > Stupid to speculate? Stupid to be WRONG! > If so, why do you do so much of it? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sorry. You are wrong. I am right! ;-) > >>>You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study! > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You have a wonderful way of defining terms to your bias, instead of to > reality. LOL! You meant like "effects" without cause? > And it took a long time to get you here, but here you are.....debating. 0:-> LOL! > >>You, in > >>fact, lacked certain key pieces of information. I did not call you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So? YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) > > In fact, I was only waiting for > > you to spread your lies... AND YOU DID! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You think it clever, but it simply proves you are a liar, and a cheat. No. It proved that you are a LIAR and STUPID! ;-) > To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something > different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to > mislead, Doan. 13 children, Kane! > >>>Enough for you? ;-) > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dr. Embry himself. And you believed him? > > Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component > > in the Embry study? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > claiming it's only about "reprimands," so therefore disagreeing with Dr. > Embry and the report. I only interprete what available in the study. I don't rely on second-hand reported, which has proven to be false! ;-) > > Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked > > kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-) > > No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply > that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries as > children that were trained not to enter the street. That is false! > I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a > researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel. Opinion is like an a.shole, everybody has one! ;-) > Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study > shows....." LOL! > YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are > driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'. Nope! Because YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) > That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get > out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment. LOL! > >>>>>>>>>Stupid a.shole. > >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > therefore know about how funded the experiment, thus I could not know to > ask him about AAA. I thought you first said you had the study "long time ago", in your garage! ;-) > I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were > available through the library. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Would you care to write or call him and entertain your speculation that > he lied, or was stupid? I don't need to. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! > You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or > stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of > required performance? An impossible one, by the way. In you case, you have a habit of making "mistakes"! ;-) > >>>What is low about that? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No. I was not questioning the study. I was asking for a copy. When he > told me what he did I had no reason to question his answer. Would you? What, the study said clear PUNISHMENT. Are you sure you not questiong the study? Keep you story straight, boy! ;-) > What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist > somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?" You could tell him that "researcher" like you kept it in a garage! ;-) > Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication? Or you could do a google search and find it in less than a minute. Dorothy did and she found it! Why can't you? You said you worked with computer all the back to 1967! ;-) > > You are an > > adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thought nowhere but from him, apparently. He provided me with > considerably more than I asked for. LOL! How nice of him to give you the wrong information. ;-) > >You see, that is the difference > > between you and me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You would harass someone that answered you to the best of the ability at > the moment, calling them a liar, and stupid. I would not. LOL! I called you for what you are - STUPID a.shole! ;-) > Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was > claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do. But you already said you had the study "long ago". Shall I look back in the "archives"? ;-) > > You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take > > the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to my parents. How would you know, stupid, unless you asked or I > volunteered it, that someone else had or had not spanked me? You volunteered it! I didn't ask. > I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of > public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their > parent's church a "smelly c.nt." What would you call her? I wouldn't call your mom that! ;-) > I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that > will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I > planned for you to do....actually debate Embry when I KNEW with > reasonable certainty you had the study report in question. > > Thanks for your cooperation, even if I had to be so patient. 0:-> LOL! > >>>Isn't what you are doing, "low?" > >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's nice. I didn't claim it was. If so, please quote me and cite the > post I said so in. LOL! It's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are LIAR! ;-) > > In fact, I am > > very sure that you made it up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and the source. I shared it, I'm not sharing the source. You may freely > discount, as I've told you, stupid, a number of times, my comment. LOL! See! YOU ARE STUPID! > But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure." I already have proof. It's the study, STUPID! ;-) > > That makes you a LIAR! > > Nope. It makes you a speculator that isn't intelligent enough to say, "I > believe you are a liar," or "I think you are a liar," or "I looks to me > like you are a liar." I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR! Prove to me otherwise! You can't! > Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a > mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up." I AM VERY SURE! > You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you > cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement. I AM SURE YOU ARE STUPID and A LIAR! ;-) > >>In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve > >>it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, you cannot argue it. You could if I said they were from the Embry > study. Did I? One more time, if it's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are a liar! > > Until > > you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR! > > You are a liar to claim such when you know perfectly well I never said > it came from the study we are discussing. It's not from study. That is why I said YOU ARE A LIAR! > > And a stupid > > liar if you think anyone would believe your lies! > > I made clear long ago on this subject that since I'm not offering the > source any reader, including you, may simply discount it. I do! ;-) > You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still > do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR a.s NOW. LOL! Yes you do have my a.s - with your mouth! ;-) > >>>>>I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time > >>>>>I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That is not a question. It's a statement of fact! > > Do > > you know that? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Show where I "knew" and continued to claim it was out of print. It is out of print - STUPID! > >>Nope. > >>Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are not answering my question. You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet? > > She was suppose to > > con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember? > > You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question. You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet? > YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or > not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim > YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability? You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet? > > Are you saying now that > > you were WRONG? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > her, cause her to have to pay for the copy. Why didn't you tell her > about AAA if you had a copy and knew about that source? Because, according to you, SHE WAS MY SOCK PUPPET trying to con a copy out of you! Were you wrong? > In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you > claim to have had then? 0:-> I offered every who wanted a copy! Is that to conceal???? > >>>Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to > >>>say. I can only report what I was told. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I didn't ask who they were. I presume a staffer at AAA. LOL! Did you email to Fairley Washington? > You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had > no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see > if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from. You first said you had a copy in your garage! Can't keep your story straight? ;-) > They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was > willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > That has nothing to do with you. I did not mention it at the time. She was my sock puppet and it has nothing to do with me??? > Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew > then, did you not? Because I already had a copy at hand! Why should I bother to point them elsewhere when I can just give them mine, STUPID? > >>Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not? > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, that is what they told me. Did they tell you that too? If not, then > why did you withhold the information it could be obtained through them? Because I can provide anyone that asked a copy! > My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind. LOL! > >>But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim > >>you did. > >> > > Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL! > > If you make it difficult to get, as Alina reported. LOL! I offered her a copy and YOU DIDN'T, claiming she was my sock puppet. Tell me, who made it difficult for her? BTW, did you apologize to her? > If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were > available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first > claimed to have the report...the same invitation you recently extended > to me, and to becca I believe... the library system? I first offer her copy of mine. She, like Dorothy, didn't want to give me her address. That is when I point her to other sources. I came through for her and she RESPECTED ME for it. You, on the other hand, INSULTED her by claiming that she is my sock puppet! YOU OWED HER AND Alina an apology! BE A MAN and APOLOGIZE! > How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or > so. 0:-> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > without at least one attempt to mislead people. Usually a number of such > attempts, just like this post. LOL! And you think you can fool others! > >>>>>I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you > >>>>>claimed you did. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The only way you could prove that what I said was not in the study would > be to quote the whole study. NO! The burden of proof is on you! > And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the > study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other. Because YOU ARE A LIAR! > "I refuse to tell you were I got that information." > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I could. And you did but nobody is buying! Even people on your side don't believe you! > What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well > under that accusation/question. Is that not true? That you are a LIAR! ;-) > > Is that what you > > were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM! > > I wasn't counting on anything. Yes, unfortunately for you, people are > not that stupid. And you are right, you cannot fool them for long. And I, unlike you, don't try to fool other people. I know they are intelligent and will see through a lie! > A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can, > those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging > as fast as your little monkey feet will dance. Funny, Kane. THEY KEPT QUIET! ;-) > They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along > with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with > "spanking" by the study. LOL! AND "THEY" has been QUIET! Why is that, Kane? > It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment. LOL! And the conclusion was on "reprimands"! ARE YOU SO STUPID? > >>And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With > >>Alina it's four, at last count. > > > > LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet. > > Yes, I said that. 0:-> Were you WRONG? ;-) > Kind of explains some things, doesn't it? Explains what? > > Are you admitting > > that you were WRONG??? > > Oh? Don't have the guts to admit you wrong, Kane? YOU ARE ALSO A COWARD! > > If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-) > > Ah, then I don't. Thank you for pointing that out. > > We both know the truth. You ready to discuss that with the newsgroup are > you? LOL! And you sent a copy of the study? ;-) > >>My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I > >>have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > thinking you are the smart one is just another chess move. Not a hard > one, but a necessary one. You get stupider the smarter you think you are. LOL! > >>But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I > >>will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior > management that is not in the study is a lie? Yes! If it is contrary to the fact in the study! > How does that work? Contrary to the fact is a lie! Simple, Kane! ;-) > For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be > a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was > not thinking of this study and how it showed a powerful alternative to > spanking)? You could check the fact with what's in the study. It's that simple, Kane! > You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your > projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan. When I have the fact, I called you a LIAR, with proof of course! ;-) > That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference. Oops! More adhoms! ;-) > >>>>You have the study, you know > >>>>it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not tried to keep them out or bring them in. They are invited to do, > just like your claim, what they want to do; Choose for themselves. LOL! And they have chosen to ignore you? > I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any > ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know I watched you enough with others and didn't interrupt while they > tore you a new one. LOL! > >>>>From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your > >>>speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How about, for a rule: > "Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)" Yup! That described YOU! > Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known? Yes! What have I claimed to be false, Kane? > >>Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's > >>not stupid, that's just dishonest. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am perfectly comfortable if you find my metaphors useful for your > arguments. Feel free. I did, STUPID! ;-) > >>>I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the > >>>experiment not listed in the report. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You have my permission to discount the statement. I don't need your permission! ;-) > >>Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he > >>did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why not, "along with?" Why not, "as adjunct to?" Or, "Dr. Embry's other > thoughts and discoveries?" Because the study is the STANDARD, STUPID! > I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important > than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you. > > Do you believe there is no connection between what Dr. Embry might say > in a non-academic non-research setting more casually, and what he does > say in a report on his research experiment? He can say he believe in UFOs too, if he cares. But if he said that it is base on his studies and the studies didn't say so, then there is no connection. It's simple, Kane! ;-) > >>Do with it whatever you want. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It could be an opinion. And everyone has an opionion. Opinions are not FACTS! > It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy. Or just LIES! ;-) > I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I? LOL! > >>>>>Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide > >>>>>by the same one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > mislead people into assuming YOU have some authority over me that you do > not. LOL! > And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a > liar, then constitutes a lie on your part. YOU ARE A LIAR! > >>>If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not > >>>identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There is something you keep missing. I never deliberately attempt to > mislead anyone. You do, constantly. You lied and I have proven so! Yet, you continued to LIE! > If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety > and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Yes. That is correct. But I haven't said it was or wasn't. I've refused > to say. Because YOU ARE A LIAR! > > I PROVED IT! ;-) > > Proved what to who? THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! TO EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP! > Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And > they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor > was I claiming it wasn't. And they kept QUIET? > So what is this you have "PROVED?" THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! > >>We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows. > >> > > You don't konw??? > > Sure, I know. But I'm not discussing it with you as proof, one way or > the other. I'm telling you, stupid little boy, that I won't say. BECAUSE YOU ARE LIAR! > >>But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have > >>to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves. > >> > > You not going to tell them? ;-) > > Nope. How many times must I repeat it? UNTIL YOU STOP LYING! > I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where > it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada. I know! YOU CAN'T! ;-) > >>And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that > >>it's not there. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You are free to speculate and even claim all you want, and I'll not > verify or deny it. Why should I? Because YOU ARE A LIAR! > >>>>Thus, it's a FALSE statement > >>>>no matter where it came from. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Things that show you are a liar. That you are unethical. And that you > are cheat. And propose questions about your mental stability. Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-) > > Doan > > I see you are well back into your little monkeyboy cave where you won't > have to debate Embry, Doan. If I can see it, so can others. Oops! More adhoms! ;-) > Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of > "spanking" as part of the study, right? Showing your STUPIDITY again? ;-) > Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you. I have a long live ahead of me. ;-) Doan >>>>On 21 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: >> >>Doan continues with his dodges. > > Kane continues with his LIES! ;-) Doan dares me to debate, then avoids opportunities. Constanctly screeching, in monkeboy talk, "STUPID!" and "LIAR." He got nailed on his poor understanding of the report, and even missed some of the content. tsk. >>>>Does your not knowing make you stupid? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's when you are an old and still have the mental capacity of a three > year old! ;-) Unwilling to debate the Report are you? I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU. YOU ARE AFRAID TO DEBATE ME. I snipping any evasiveness from this point on. Not just today, but forever. ............... >>To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something >>different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to >>mislead, Doan. > > 13 children, Kane! 26 people, not counting fathers, Doan. 33 families participated, Doan. Something you seemed quite ignorant of. ,,,,,,,,,,,, >>>LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten >>>from Dr. Embry? >> >>Dr. Embry himself. > > And you believed him? Some reason I shouldn't? I believe I pointed out to him that I did not have a university account so could not look there. But then, memory could be wrong. In any case, he provided it. Why should I question him further? >>>Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component >>>in the Embry study? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I only interprete what available in the study. I don't rely on > second-hand reported, which has proven to be false! ;-) You interpreted wrongly. What is in the study is considerably more than "reprimands," as I have shown by quotation and page citations. Those can't be "false" because they are there where you could read them and understand them if your strangeness was not getting in your way. Which of the things I listed as also being part of the study would you say aren't there or are proven false? >> > Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > That is false! That is what I stated. If you think it's false, prove it. I have said I'm not providing a source. Enjoy yourself. As you evade real debate. >>I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a >>researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel. > > Opinion is like an a.shole, everybody has one! ;-) You seem to have more than your share. >>Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study >>shows....." > > LOL! Can't, I see. So all you can do is LOL, and that is exactly what's going on each time you do write, "LOL!" >>YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are >>driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'. > > Nope! Because YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) I'm stupid because YOU jumped to a conclusion? You mean you were too stupid to notice you were mistaken and withdraw your claim. >>That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get >>out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment. One sign of this serious problem is the tendency to exclaim, "LOL!" a lot. > LOL! See? >>>>>>>>>>>Stupid a.shole. >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I thought you first said you had the study "long time ago", in your > garage! ;-) I did. There is no time line mentioned. >>I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were >>available through the library. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't need to. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! I don't care. I notice this is a long way from debating the merits of his study though. Coward. >>You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or >>stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of >>required performance? An impossible one, by the way. > > In you case, you have a habit of making "mistakes"! ;-) Nope. Actually a bit less than most people, though doubtless more than some. I don't keep score. You seem to though. For what purpose? Nothing else going for you? >>>>>What is low about that? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What, the study said clear PUNISHMENT. Are you sure you not questiong > the study? Keep you story straight, boy! ;-) We were discussing access to the study, not punishment. Notice I said, "I was asking for a copy?" What has that to do with punishment, other than you make it a habit to quickly change the subject when you have lost the point. As for that issue, yes, I am questioning both Embry and his study on that point...though it's not that big an issue. He used "punishment" as part of describing the Sit and Watch Time Out part of the package. I believe and I've repeatedly told you so, that this can be done without it being punitive. I do not disagree he said it, but that it's 100% applicable. >>What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist >>somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?" > > You could tell him that "researcher" like you kept it in a garage! ;-) IN other words you are still cowardly dodging the content and relevance of his study, but want to play your little games. >>Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication? > > Or you could do a google search and find it in less than a minute. > Dorothy did and she found it! Why can't you? You said you worked with > computer all the back to 1967! ;-) Nope. About 1959. When one went into the computer, since it filled a room. This has nothing to do with the content. You lied back when you first claimed you had it, and it took you many months to get it yourself. Alina told me so. 0:-> >>>You are an >>>adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LOL! How nice of him to give you the wrong information. ;-) He didn't as far as I know. Nor did he intend to do any such thing. And who knows, my memory of the conversation, so very years ago could be wrong. The point is we have it now and you wish to continue discussing access rather than content. Why is that I wonder? >> >You see, that is the difference >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > LOL! I called you for what you are - STUPID a.shole! ;-) Getting that desperate? >>Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was >>claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do. > > But you already said you had the study "long ago". Shall I look back > in the "archives"? ;-) That aside, what has that to do with why I would call someone a stupid liar? Yes, look in the archives. >>>You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take >>>the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You volunteered it! I didn't ask. Yep. And I didn't say what you claim. >>I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of >>public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their >>parent's church a "smelly c.nt." What would you call her? > > I wouldn't call your mom that! ;-) Good, as she would never countenance such behavior from parents that Fern celebrated and supported. As for you, she'd just laugh at you. >>I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that >>will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > LOL! Still showing what a coward you are? Not willing to follow up on your dare to me? >>>>>Isn't what you are doing, "low?" >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > LOL! It's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are LIAR! ;-) I haven't said one way or the other where it is from. I never claimed it was from the report. Thus you cannot claim it's false and that I am a liar thereby. You are for continuing this evasive charade. >>>In fact, I am >>>very sure that you made it up. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LOL! Still got that compulsive laugh I see. > See! Sure, you still have the compulsive laugh when you are stumped. > YOU ARE STUPID! There is nothing stupid in not sharing the source. Any more than it would be to not share my social security number, or what size shoes I wear. Just a decision on my part. My shoes are size 11, by the way, but you'll never believe me and you'll call me a liar because it has nothing to do with the study, right? 0:-> >>But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure." > > I already have proof. It's the study, STUPID! ;-) I did not say the source was or wasn't the study, stupid. So you can't use the study as proof, stupid. What a silly monkeyboy. >> > That makes you a LIAR! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR! Prove to me otherwise! You can't! I can't prove a negative. I can prove that you are lying when you claim I'm a liar though. All I have to do is ask you to show proof. And taking this for an great example, I never said what the source of my claim was. You keep stupidly insisting it's not in the Report so that it is a lie. Knowing now, most assuredly after many repetitions, that I have not claimed it was in the study, how can you use the study as proof I'm lying? You are simply dodging the study because you know how damning it is to the argument for spanking to teach children to stay out of the street. We know, for instance, that about 90% or more of parents spank their small children. They have declared that one of the things they often do is spank for running into the street, yet Embry points out that street entry is the second leading cause of child deaths. Would that equate for you with "spanking" being effective for children under 5 in reducing street entries? Or don't you wish to debate hte actual study, as in, "The Embry study: What it actually said?" >>Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a >>mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up." > > I AM VERY SURE! Since you don't know the source for my comment you are now showing how monumentally you let your emotions driven biases run away with your reason. It's sad to have such intelligence and misuse it so. Your parents must be disappointed. So I am very sure that you are deluding yourself, or lying. It's hard to tell which with you any more. Just when I think it's the one you suddenly convince me it's the other. How confusing. 0:-> >>You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you >>cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement. > > I AM SURE YOU ARE STUPID and A LIAR! ;-) Do you always base your assuredness on guesses? Or are you prepared to prove that my statement comes from a particular source and my claim is mistaken? Please show your work product. >>>>In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve >>>>it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > One more time, if it's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are a liar! Where did I say it was from the study? I haven't said one way or the other. Hence it is not 'FALSE' nor can you prove it so, since you do not know the source unless you can read my mind. >>>Until >>>you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not from study. That is why I said YOU ARE A LIAR! But I didn't say it was from the study, did I? On the other hand, you could be missing something in the study you haven't figured out. Or you've misread. Or you simply have, in your hysterical need to protect your childhood, continually missed. We just don't know. But I know where the source is, and I'm not saying. Now if I said it was here, or there, or over there, and it wasn't, then I'd be misleading. But I'm simply saying I won't say. That's not misleading or lying. >> > And a stupid >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I do! ;-) And I have no problem at all with what you do, child. For you do not matter, and matter less each day you post these evasions from the study debate. >>You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still >>do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR a.s NOW. > > LOL! Yes you do have my a.s - with your mouth! ;-) Nope. On the end of my boot. >>>>>>>I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time >>>>>>>I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It's a statement of fact! Whatever you think that means. >>>Do >>>you know that? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It is out of print - STUPID! Yes, I know. One can get it however, by paying the copying fee NOW. I got it when it was copied by Embry's staff for me. >>>>Nope. >>>>Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet? Sure. Was I wrong? Gosh, imagine. What if I sent her that copy of the 78 pages or so and she was actually you. By golly, you'd sure have the last laugh on ME..... ........wouldn't you? R R R R R R Will we ever know it Alina was you, or Alina was a real seperate person, or if Alina was a dog on a leash for you? Probably not, but it's interesting to comtemplate, as long as one doesn't use it to evade debating the content of the Report. How about it? You ready to follow up on that dare of yours? When I do bring up things from the study you just go into one of this little monkeyboy fits of yours wanting to argue anything BUT the content. I've only managed to drag you kicking and screaming ONCE to the font. And there you drank the bitter draught of finding out you were WRONG about no mention of spanking in the study. And that your claim of it not being about spanking was full of sh.t, because it's not offered as a spanking study, but and alternative to spanking. In other words, you got caught makinga mistake, AND a stupid evasion claim that logically is not true. The Embry experiment is an alternative to spanking. Care to deny that? >>>She was suppose to >>>con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember? >> >>You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question. > > You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet? Sure did. And no, I'm not dodging at all. IN fact your question just now is YOUR dodge. You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question. But we'll let that go, as just another attempt to involve this ng in this discussion instead of the study you dared me to debate. Why aren't you doing so given that I've openned the door to it? >>YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or >>not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim >>YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability? > > You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet? Did you not claim she wasn't? Then why is it she never said in this ng that you had given her any access other than an offer you NEVER followed up on? >> > Are you saying now that >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because, according to you, SHE WAS MY SOCK PUPPET trying to con a copy out > of you! Were you wrong? We'll never know, will we. Or, I could be wrong and we will. The point being here, Doan, if she wasn't, who did you not give her the full information and tell her she could go to the library for it? You recently told others. Didn't you know that back then? So, if Alina IS a sockpuppet, then of course you wouldn't tell her that publically. Either because you did not KNOW that yourself, or you did not want others to know that. Or, because you failed to do the proper maintenance of your socks. Gosh I love a mystery, don't you? >>In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you >>claim to have had then? 0:-> >> > I offered every who wanted a copy! Is that to conceal???? That's not an answer to the question I just asked. Why did you not offer the freebie of the library? Why not the AAA? Why did you not give Alina a choice? How many copies did you send out, Doan? >>>>>Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to >>>>>say. I can only report what I was told. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > LOL! Did you email to Fairley Washington? No. I called. >>You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had >>no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see >>if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from. > > You first said you had a copy in your garage! Can't keep your story > straight? ;-) My story is straight. I had the copy from Embry. Prior to having it I had no knowledge it was at AAA. >>They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was >>willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > She was my sock puppet and it has nothing to do with me??? Only you know. I can't prove a negative, but I sure can explore one to death. 0:-> >>Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew >>then, did you not? > > Because I already had a copy at hand! Why should I bother to point them > elsewhere when I can just give them mine, STUPID? Oh, maybe for the same reason Dorothy mentioned. And out of courtesy. And to demonstrate to me that you did in fact have a copy and knew where to get them? >>>>Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Because I can provide anyone that asked a copy! Only if they provide a stamped preaddressed envelope? >>My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind. > > LOL! There's a behavioral techique for reducing that compulsive laughter. Operant Conditioning..in fact what Embry was discussing in his report. >>>>But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim >>>>you did. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > LOL! I offered her a copy and YOU DIDN'T, claiming she was my sock > puppet. I didn't? Why of course I did, and I sent her one. I'm very trusting. > Tell me, who made it difficult for her? You. I simply covered all costs myself. > BTW, did you apologize > to her? For what? 0:-> >>If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were >>available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I first offer her copy of mine. She, like Dorothy, didn't want to give > me her address. That's nice. Let's continue discussing Alina. Shall we? I had asked her if she'd mind establishing for me, when she got the study, that it was the same report I had. Here is her reply: "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." I notice something else rather peculiar. Her posts are being, and have for some time been, marked as "Error! newsgroup server responded:no such article in group Perhaps the article has expired" I find it odd, and am sure they aren't expired, as I can retrieve other posts to this newgroups far older. Someone is removing them. Interestingly "she" did say something very pecular in another post though. Here's our exchange: Kane says: ">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. I'll let you know when I really browse through it I created an account and am checking it out only now. " An account to browse? The Praxis site requires no account. Never has. I think "Alina" in "her" haste and confusion in sorting out 'roles' may just have slipped up a bit. > That is when I point her to other sources. We were discussing Alina. You never pointed her to other sources in this ng. Yet you'd have had then what you have now...the document you claimed you had: The Embry Report #2. > I came > through for her and she RESPECTED ME for it. That's nice. > You, on the other hand, > INSULTED her by claiming that she is my sock puppet! It's an insult to be you? Yes, I guess I see your logic alrighty. > YOU OWED HER > AND Alina an apology! BE A MAN and APOLOGIZE! No. I don't owe anyone an apology for claiming they are you. Unless of course there is something wrong with being you. Interesting you should bring up Alina again. It's as though she disappeared off the face of the earth. Hope she's alright. >>How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or >>so. 0:-> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > LOL! And you think you can fool others! About your lying? I don't need to, though I'd not try to. >>>>>>>I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you >>>>>>>claimed you did. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > NO! The burden of proof is on you! I did not claim it was in the study. So no, it's upon you, who claim it's not in the study. All you have to do is print the whole study here. 0:-> If it's not there how can I prove it's not, or that it is? I never said it is. I never said it isn't. It's YOU that wish now to make the claim I said it was...and you've failed repeatedly when challenged...and it's your claim it's NOT there that is now the question. >>And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the >>study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other. > > Because YOU ARE A LIAR! About what? >>"I refuse to tell you were I got that information." >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > And you did but nobody is buying! Even people on your side don't > believe you! They don't? About what? The source of my claim about the spanking v entry rates? But I never gave a source and refused to. What is there not to believe? Please ask those folks to post what they don't believe and why. I'll be happy to answer them, as I have been happy to answer you. Even if it is in service to your evading following through on your dare to me. I can help you only so much to dodge that you are a liar and a piss coward that will NOT debate the Report with me without resorting to this bullshit. >>What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well >>under that accusation/question. Is that not true? > > That you are a LIAR! ;-) I asked, is that not true. Your response is not in compliance with standard english as an aswer to a question. In fact it's not a sentence in that sense. Or are you answering only that portion of the paragraph you feel safest with and avoiding the rest? See if you can control that compulsive laughter, as you dream up you next evasion. >> > Is that what you >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And I, unlike you, don't try to fool other people. I know they are > intelligent and will see through a lie! Really? You don't try to fool other people? R R R R R Sure, Doan. And how have I tried to fool other people? The attacking defense is the oldest of debating ploys. You don't do it very well though. The presumptive declaration doesn't work either, to hide that you are hiding. And the last thing you believe is that others are intelligent..well, as intelligent and clever as you, little boy. If you really do believe that, you know then what trouble you are in. Attempting to call me a liar based on information you cannot know, and insisting on meanings in other people's words that are not there but convenience you, Doan, is the epitome of lying. >>A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can, >>those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging >>as fast as your little monkey feet will dance. > > Funny, Kane. THEY KEPT QUIET! ;-) Why would they want to provide you more opportunities to engage anyone but me, and thus dodge, as you are doing, any chance of actually debating the content of the Embry experiment report? They might even think it rude. Though I'm certainly comfortable with them joining in should they chose to. I don't think you are going to be able to hide from this study much longer. Your one shot at going into it with me was to expose how little you understood about the presence of a spanking component for tracking. >>They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along >>with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with >>"spanking" by the study. > > LOL! AND "THEY" has been QUIET! Why is that, Kane? I am not a mind reader, like you little monkeyboypsychic. I can only guess. I have so far. So my only logical answer would be, I don't really know. Maybe they've moved on months or years ago and don't even know we are having this conversation. Maybe they find you a distasteful little moron with delusions of grandeur based on nothing more than a few shoddy debating tricks. How should I know. I can't read their minds. >>It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment. > > LOL! And the conclusion was on "reprimands"! ARE YOU SO STUPID? No other? Please refer to the pages I posted the numbers of and the quotations I offered that showed they tracked and made conclusions about other items. The study is not just on how many reprimands per street entry. It includes other studies factors. >>>>And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With >>>>Alina it's four, at last count. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Were you WRONG? ;-) Was I? >>Kind of explains some things, doesn't it? > > Explains what? Some things, doesn't it? The question mark at the end invites you to answer the question. Does it not explain some things? >>>Are you admitting >>>that you were WRONG??? >> >>Oh? >> > Don't have the guts to admit you wrong, Kane? YOU ARE ALSO A COWARD! I said "Oh?" Are you a coward when you answer my questions with a question? Was I wrong about Alina? What's to admit? Can you prove you aren't or weren't her? I can't. She's disappeared. Invite her back. I have some questions that I've sent to her, e-mail returned as no such address. >>>If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > LOL! And you sent a copy of the study? ;-) Sure. Didn't she tell you? Why are you asking again. I've answer that before. Could she not have gotten it I wonder? >>>>My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I >>>>have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > LOL! Sorry about that "tic" of yours. I'm not purposefully triggering it. That would be cruel. >>>>But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I >>>>will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Yes! If it is contrary to the fact in the study! You do see the strange and illogical claim you just made, no? Embry can't be examined and questioned and reviewed with anything remotely the truth if it conflicts with what is IN the report? Is my disagreement with the use of the word 'punishment' to describe Sit and Watch, then a lie? When did disagreements get to be lies? Would a replication of his experiment that had some different findings constitute either one then being lies? And the authors liars? You throw this word around like you have not idea of its meaning and limitations. Read a decription or two. In none will you find "mistakes" and "disagreements" or even "errors" listed as being lies. What is true one day can become outdated the next and not true. It makes neither a "lie." Intent to deceive is the hallmark of a lie. Show how there is intent to decieve in " >>So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior >>management that is not in the study is a lie? " >>How does that work? > > Contrary to the fact is a lie! Simple, Kane! ;-) When it's a disagreement? How? If it's red and I say it's blue I'm not lying. I'm color blind to some ranges of red. I am seeing the truth. It IS blue. For YOU it is red. You are telling the truth. For me it is blue. I am telling the truth. If I tell you why that also is the truth. I disagreed with Embry on one item, and I told you why. Neither my disagreement nor my reason are lies. I disagree with more than just Embry's use of "punishment" as a descriptor. That is not a lie. And If Embry should, by some discussion come to agree with me, he would not have been lying in the first place. There are some areas of his study and his explanations that have some minor incongrueties. I don't make a big thing of them as I presume they are simply word choice issues, and he could easily explain what he meant were I to ask. If they were large issues, I'd ask. And both of us would be discussing the facts...even though they might be in opposition with each other. Opposing facts to not equate with either being a lie. >>For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be >>a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You could check the fact with what's in the study. It's that simple, > Kane! You have to prove that his comment to the magazine was in fact referring to the study. No such connection exists except through the man. And he has the right to have varying opinions about many things, related or not. A conflict, even if it existed, means there is a lie going on. And I see no conflict, since he didn't mention the study in the article, nor the article in the study. >>You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your >>projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan. >> > When I have the fact, I called you a LIAR, with proof of course! ;-) What fact? That he didn't mention the study in the article? That I made a comment, without source, about rates of street entry and spanking? What proof? What fact? You keep screeching it, and I keep pointing out the hole in it. Since I cited no source you cannot use the study as the source. Simple, eh? >>That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference. > > Oops! More adhoms! ;-) You've been busy with them constantly. I give what I get, and then a bit. Hear the echo? >>>>>>You have the study, you know >>>>>>it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LOL! And they have chosen to ignore you? Why do you think? Can you read minds? Tell us what they are thinking. Please. Then you and I can go to Aqua Caliente and see if it works on horses. We could get rich. >>I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any >>ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LOL! All you ever came back at them when you ran out of room to run was either "STUPID!" or "LIAR" or, predictably, "LOL!" You have more than one pony, but not a very large herd. >>>>>>From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your >>>>>speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yup! That described YOU! It describes how deficient you are morally. You cannot apply such a standard to people, when you do not to yourself. Not morally. >>Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known? >> > Yes! What have I claimed to be false, Kane? Your question does not fit my comment. You've claimed many things to be false. Problem is you have been mistaken so many times when you have. >>>>Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's >>>>not stupid, that's just dishonest. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I did, STUPID! ;-) Yes you did. That doesn't equate with me being stupid. >>>>>I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the >>>>>experiment not listed in the report. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't need your permission! ;-) I give it freely in any case. I don't need to either. Hence, this issue is hardly of any importance, other than to continue to avoid responding to the my willingness to meet your silly challenge of debating the study. >>>>Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he >>>>did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Because the study is the STANDARD, STUPID! One may not then, when reviewing someone's report of an experiment, bring in any outside information or considerations? They must make all arguments up soley from what is in the study and compare to nothing, cite nothing, quote nothing, speculate on nothing, but what is in the report? If YOUR rule is followed every researcher in the country will never be reviewed again. >>I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important >>than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is base on his studies and the studies didn't say so, then there is no > connection. It's simple, Kane! ;-) Did he in his magazine remarks mention this particular study? Were there other studies? Can he have an opinion that is not based on any particular element in the studies, except his own observations? >>>>Do with it whatever you want. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > And everyone has an opionion. Opinions are not FACTS! Yes. Call me a liar again then prove it is no more than your opinion. I always like that one. The fact is that 90% of the population spanks their children. This is a small sample of people...who I presume would be likely to do the same. Embry must have thought so or he would not have set a track to be recorded for physical punishment. That he also had a less formal opinion about spanking v street entry rate seems congruent to me. Not to you though? Okay. What ever you say, boy. >>It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy. > > Or just LIES! ;-) Could be. It's not. But then neither of us have proof we are willing to share one way or the other. Nevertheless my comment is congruent with Embry's opinion, or observations, whichever it was he was referring to in the magazine article. >>I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I? >> > LOL! Well? Have I? Is THIS how you pursue and argument claiming someone lied? Avoid the principle questions of the accused? Tsk. I made a comment. I made it clear you do not have to believe it. I gave no source. Nor will I unless I decide to. That removes all chance YOU could know or prove one way or the other if it's the truth or a lie. Just as I cannot "prove" Alina was your sock. 0:-> >>>>>>>Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide >>>>>>>by the same one. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > LOL! In other words, you don't wish to debate this, or the study. >>And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a >>liar, then constitutes a lie on your part. >> > YOU ARE A LIAR! Prove it. NOW, not in reference to some other time that you won't cite. >>>>>If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not >>>>>identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You lied and I have proven so! Yet, you continued to LIE! You have not proven a thing. You keep claiming you have, but all we see you doing is your usual dance. Injecting meanings not evident. Insinuating. And blatantly lying yourself. >>If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety >>and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make >>up a normal sounding name and use it as a nym, for instance. >> >>And I do reserve the right, when I've been obviously lied to, to lay a >>trap for he liar by pretending to agree with him, or her. Please, don't let that one get by. I want you to prove I'm a liar by springing the trap. You will you know. Your flabby ego will get you eventually. It has before, and you keep hoping I won't bring up those instances again. >>>>>>>>>>Doan >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Because YOU ARE A LIAR! Nope. Refusing to say proves nothing. You do understand the thinking behind the 5th Amendment, right? My take on you is that whatever I offered you'd then take off in another direction with. Arguing into infinity if I'd let you. You don't really think I will, do you? >> > I PROVED IT! ;-) >> >>Proved what to who? > > THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! TO EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP! No, you have proven no such thing. What you have proven is that you will lie about others being liars. The defense by attack ploy. It's you that constantly mislead...thus lie, about just about anything that comes up. Often it's an evasion lie...just a misleading to get the thread OFF the topic you don't really want to talk about. You conceal your reluctance to discuss an issue by covering it up with shitlies. The kind the obscure the point being argued, and divert the opponent to trying to clean the sh.t off his or her shoes. I play with you when I feel like it, usually to let you indulge yourself to the point of exposure of your nonsense shitlies. >>Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And >>they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor >>was I claiming it wasn't. >> > And they kept QUIET? Their perogative. You are insinuating what? >>So what is this you have "PROVED?" > > THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! You've proven no such thing. >>>>We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > BECAUSE YOU ARE LIAR! Nope. Because I don't wish to say. Someday I might. Stick around. You are a fine diversion. >>>>But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have >>>>to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > UNTIL YOU STOP LYING! Nope. It's going to be over soon. This isn't about anything but your diversionary shitlies. The kind you use to keep people off the topic you don't want to discuss. >>I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where >>it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada. > > I know! YOU CAN'T! ;-) How would you "know?" You a mind reader? That's a mighty big world out there. Lots of information sources. But then get together enough monkeys with enough keyboards......R R R R R R >>>>And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that >>>>it's not there. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Because YOU ARE A LIAR! Nope. You are if you use insufficient data to make such a claim. Show my lie. Go ahead. >>>>>>Thus, it's a FALSE statement >>>>>>no matter where it came from. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Oops! More adhoms! ;-) Opps, more of your ad homs. "> Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-)" >>Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of >>"spanking" as part of the study, right? > > Showing your STUPIDITY again? ;-) It's not stupid to expose your stupidity. You made the claim. You got shown where you were wrong, right from the study you keep shouting about but don't want to discuss. >>Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you. > > I have a long live ahead of me. ;-) Actually that's doubtful. Constant self delusion creates a lot of stress. Stress is a real killer. High blood pressure, and other stress related diseases are rampant. > Doan But then I can wish you a long life. And all that it takes to have one. Like really really lowering your stress levels. 0:-> Any further correspondance not directly addressing the Embry study report will be shitcanned, Doan. Let's talk about the "reprimand" thing, shall we? The reprimand issue was far from the only thing in any conclusions. Plesae provide a page that supports your claim, and I'll explain (I already know the page) what it means and why it does not stand alone with rate of street entries. Hint: it's not how reprimands effected entry rates so much as how the program effected both. Could I hand it to you more beautifully wrapped? Only Embry could explain it more clearly, I'm sure. Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Another STUPID response from ignoranus kane0! ;-) Doan AFfromDreamLand > >>>>On 21 Feb 2006, 0:-> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 1717 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > Another STUPID response from ignoranus kane0! ;-) > > Doan > AFfromDreamLand That afraid are you? That cowardly and sick? By the way, you are covered on that. Go further and get to find out. And: You just conceded every point I made regarding the Embry study. Feel free to take them up again if you wish. Happy to debate you on them. ........snip....... You can be sure, with or without your presence the Embry study will be discussed here. You prefer, I know, being the coward you are, and just proved again, to dance around the edges and make stupid monkeyboy noises, but we'll manage, I'm sure. In fact your presence will lend a more credible air to the proceedings by comparison. Or, would you like to stop your cowardly sick little games and actually debate the study? Prove you claim that you are neutral and want people to make up their own mind? It's up to you. Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin And delusional too! ;-) Doan AFfromDreamLand > > Another STUPID response from ignoranus kane0! ;-) > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin ....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report. There is not delusion about what will happen if you follow up on your implied threat, Doan. None at all. You already triggered my first response some time ago. It put you right in there with the nuts. Keep it up. You too could enjoy their status. Still too cowardly to debate? Proving once again that you lie, you bully, you harass, but you do NOT have a neutral, "let them make up their own mind" reality at all. What a sad little cowardly twit you are. 0:-) Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > ....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report. So we are now "debating"? ;-) What about your "promise"? Such a stupid liar! Doan AFfromDreamLand >>....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report. > > So we are now "debating"? ;-) This is your "debate?" > What about your "promise"? What about it? Are we actually debating? Right now you are not. In most all your postings recently you have not been. When I attempted to you went off in just such directions as this to avoid debating. > Such a stupid liar! See, just like always. My promise was to not debate you if a deadline passed without you proving you had the same report I do. I decided to move the deadline. It's today. And it wasn't a lie, it was a ploy to kick your filthy lying immoral unethical a.s right out in the open. Let's debate, shall we? I'm free to do any damn thing I want in regards to the Embry study because YOU broke the deadline. Or do I need to "dare" you, you chickenshit? You dared me and now are running, posting this kind of crap. How's that for lying? > Doan > AFfromDreamLand Who is AFfromDreamLand, Doan? Other than a childish threat by you? You are such a little coward. Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin OoopS! Looked like ignoranus kane0 is mad! ;-) Doan AFfromDreamLand > >>....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report. > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > OoopS! Looked like ignoranus kane0 is mad! ;-) I don't get mad. > Doan > AFfromDreamLand 0:-> >>>>....anything but debating the Embry Experiment Report. >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb >>contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Doan, I wouldn't worry too much about pseudo-K. He posts from obscurity because he is obscure. He makes false claims about anyone who doesn't agree with his diatribe and punishes those with empty accusations when he has no proof. Keep giving him hell (he's very predictable)---he deserves it for advancing the use of tasers on children and then claiming that is less harsh an intervention than other forms of CP (or reasonable force). Non-spanker by choice, Chris C. TX -Come out from hiding PK! . . . ;-) > Doan, > > I wouldn't worry too much about pseudo-K. He posts from obscurity > because he is obscure. He makes false claims about anyone who doesn't > agree with his diatribe and punishes those with empty accusations when > he has no proof. Who am I punishing and what are my empty accusations? If you don't say so, then guess who is attacking me (to punish?) and is not providing proof of the accusation you are making. So, don't do what you are accusing ME of. Provide the accusations and the punishments meted out by me. > Keep giving him hell (he's very predictable)--- Doan? Give ME hell? R R R R R... a dancing monkeyboy that makes a complete fool of himself every day he posts here? Come now. > he > deserves it for advancing the use of tasers on children I've never done that. I readily admit that if there were better ways they should be used. Arguing a position in a debate does not prove that I recommended it over other means when the other means were less likely to injure. In fact my argument was the opposite. The other means available put both the child and the one(s) intervening at greater risk of injury or death. How many children have died from the use of a taser to subdue them? How many in various holds, or from being shot as they attacked? > and then > claiming that is less harsh an intervention than other forms of CP (or > reasonable force). I made no such claim. The use of tasers was not in any instance I responded to, Corporal Punishment. They were used as they are intended to be use, not to teach, but to immobilize. The issue wasn't to teach the child, but to subdue him or her in situations where either there was NO other choice, like a drunk preteen girl running into traffic, or a child slashing himself with broken glass and trying to cut the school staff and police officers, while sawing away at himself. You are of course demonstrating your usual moral deficiencies by making a lying claim such as that. Prove I recommended the use of Taser for discipline or corporal punishment. > Non-spanker by choice, Still not admitting you have no children I see. > Chris C. > TX > > -Come out from hiding PK! . . . ;-) Why. I have family to protect from other posters here that are only marginally more dangerous than you. I've plainly stated so. Do you wish to threaten my and my family's physcial safety? That could put you in a far more embarassing and risky position than you got yourself into with the cut and paste unethical nonsense. My life has been threatened before. That threat was very severely neutralized, and you could be a part of that if you wish. Do you so wish? Doan seems to want to play with it. How about you? You that cowardly and sick in the head you can't debate me honestly, and live with your mistakes and learn from them? Now you want vengeance, do you? Come dance with me you stupid assed little pissant. I'll show you some steps you'll remember to your grave. Ask some of your old buddies here about visits from LE and instructions from my attorney. Treaten me or my family and watch what it will get you, stupid. Your games, the both of you, are childishly dangerous for YOU. Not for me. I have my protection in place. YOU don't. Didn't your parents slap your hands for trying to play with fire? Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin You got him down to a pat! ;-) The more you known, the less you think of him. Not long ago he used to be a Kane9. I have gotten him down to a Kane0 but still not enough. He is known as ignoranus kane0! ;-) Doan AFfromDreamLand > Doan, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Come out from hiding PK! . . . ;-) > You got him down to a pat! ;-) The more you known, the less > you think of him. Not long ago he used to be a Kane9. I have > gotten him down to a Kane0 but still not enough. He is known > as ignoranus kane0! ;-) Doany has a girrrrl friend....R R R R R... Needing help, are yah? One liar backs another? R R R R Cute. 0:-> > Doan > AFfromDreamLand [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >>-Come out from hiding PK! . . . ;-) Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES! Is the "cause" worth it, Kane? Doan AFfromDreamLand > > You got him down to a pat! ;-) The more you known, the less > > you think of him. Not long ago he used to be a Kane9. I have [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question > the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES! > Is the "cause" worth it, Kane? What "LIES!" Childish Droany? >From the Embry study. Some comments by the researchers: "... Thus, reprimands met the criteria for a reinforcer during baseline but not during intervention." In other words, after the program was in place the parent no longer NEEDED reprimands to influence the child's wanted behaviors, or suppress the unwanted behaviors, safe play and street entries respectively. Regarding a 6 month scheduled observation to determine if the program had in fact served as an effective longer term intervention for street entry reduction and increase of wanted behaviors. "...the effects of the interventions were maintained for 5 to 6 months, depending on the time families attended the workshop. " "... After the workshop, parents were no longer naive: They knew how and why to keep their children out of the street ... " In a discussion to determine if in fact the program did increase child safety by decreasing their entries in to the street, using standard statistical analysis: "... Thus for these children, their risk exposure was reduced by a factor of 12.6. In everyday terms, for about every 24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjunction of cars and children in the street occurred 16 times during baseline (observations), and only one time after the workshop and storybooks. " Most telling, when it comes to the issue of using reprimands: "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with their children about dashing into the street will likely have the opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward it." It's a common and often declared fallacious claim by the spanking crowd that spanking is replaced by non-spanking parents with "reasoning and talking," with the child, or more often lately with the claim we yell at our children instead of spanking them. The truth is more in line with Embry's comments above. We reason when it's appropriate, and talk when it's appropriate, but we do neither with the very young child, when other tactics are far MORE effective and appropriate. (And of course we "talk" to our younger children but we do not have the unreasonable expectation that overcontrolling spankers often have that the child should be able to understand such complex issues -- to their level of understanding -- as "safety concerns.") What is most interesting to me about this particular experiment is that it tests some methods that non-spanking (and we hope even spanking) parents have used before to good effect. We know to get feed back from the child that triggers a response, BEFORE the occurrence of a risk situation. That reminds them of prior circumstances where they DID IT RIGHT. The "catch'em being good" principle. We know to give recognition and validation DURING the performance of wanted behavior. And we know also that it will reinforce that wanted behavior if we give recognition of it after the performance of it. Embry put it all in a box of organized tools that could be more generalized to more of the population. Then he tested it. Which bears repeating: "... Thus for these children, their risk exposure was reduced by a factor of 12.6. In everyday terms, for about every 24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjunction of cars and children in the street occurred 16 times during baseline (observations), and only one time after the workshop and storybooks. " A reduction of unwanted behaviors to 10% of the baseline rate, after instituting the safe play program. More live uninjured children. Or you can spank, as you have been doing, and get the baseline rate. Because that is where that rate comes from. 90% or so of all families spank. It's safe to assume spanking for attempted or successful street entries has been and probably still is common. And the death rate has been fairly constant, except for communities that have worked on traffic management strategies. Traffic management though, doesn't work on that one kid that runs out anyway. Your kid? 0:-) > > Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question > > the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES! > > Is the "cause" worth it, Kane? > > What "LIES!" Childish Droany? Shall I list them? ;-) > >From the Embry study. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > suppress the unwanted behaviors, safe play and street entries > respectively. No, STUPID!. Look at Figure 7! In other words, the CORRELATION between reprimands and street entries existed during baseline but not during intervention. IT IS THAT SIMPLE, STUPID! Doan > > Some comments by the researchers: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doan Hey, Kane! Do you have a problem with understanding simple English? Is that why you showed that you can't understand the MacMillan study? Or even the information from the library instruction regarding the availability of documents since 1993 available in electronic format? IF SO, ASK BEFORE MAKING STUPID COMMENT LIKE THE ABOVE! ;-) Remember the saying about it's better to remain quiet and have people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and REMOVE all doubts? I advise you to take that advice. ;-) Remember Chris Dugan's comment regarding your intelligent? ;-) Peace, AFfromdreamland >>>Some comments by the researchers: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Hey, Kane! Do you have a problem with understanding simple English? .........harrassment removed...... I think you should have waited a bit before posting this. Watch for the reply I just posted a few minutes ago. 0:-> > Peace, > > AFfromdreamland Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin >>>Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question >>>the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES! [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > between reprimands and street entries existed during baseline but > not during intervention. IT IS THAT SIMPLE, STUPID! The same kind of strange claims from back when you used to try and "debate" on Straus. First of all, my comment is quoted from the report. And the authors say "criteria for a reinforcer" not, correlation, or any words to that effect, nor can a correlation presence of lack be extrapolated from those words. Hence........your.......... Argumentation by Camouflage. All that statement meant was that though present, reprimands no longer reinforced, after the intervention. My argument had nothing to do with figure #7. Nor does it have to do with my argument in the least. It is not even a correlation information-available chart. What is needed is simply not there. You attempted to paint my argument in your stinky skunk stripes. Mine is more in the nature of a tiger, thanks. Let's look at the chart though. It's quite interesting. You use it to claim a correlation existing in one instance and not the other? There is no street entry number OR rate referred to in figure 7, on page 48. No connection is possible to even consider. Only "observations," "rate of reprimands," and a time interval scale are on this chart. The dots are time occurrences of an event by a child and parent. There can be no zero entries on this chart. They weren't measured, of course. (Your reference to "Correlation" just feel on it's a.s). 10 seconds, about five before and five afer street entry events is the measure. Problem is, for you, the 'count' isn't street entries, but children being observed being reprimanded. Any number of times, per entry, but not zero. Any number of entiries, but not zero. Possibly even only ONE observed 10 second time interval per entrym, but that would not account for the changes in rates of reprimands, now would it? Obviously they could reprimand more than once in a ten second period, or they could have reprimanded once or more in a serious of entries. The TIME they did so is the measure, not the number of occurrences. That is why RATE is used as a measure. NO COUNT OF ENTRIES IS RECORDED. There could be ONE street entry per observation period (about 30 minutes -- read the rest of the study child by two observers to a team) or there could be a dozen. It doesn't say. It counts the rate of reprimands. Not the number, just the rate. And per ONE observation which can run to 30 minutes..the observers assignment, not per street entry. Unless this chart includes a rate of street entries no calculation or analysis of a correlation between entries and reprimands is possible. It has no such number or rate. Each dot represents WHEN child enter on a time line, not how many TIMES they entered. This measures at what point on a ten second period of time with a street entry at the center (zero on the scale) a reprimand occurred. Rate of reprimands, and when they occurred is not solvable even with advanced algebra in this instance, because dissimilar EVENTS, not dissimilar numbers are being tracked for their association, not their correlation. And the missing X is? Why, the number OR rate of street entries, of course. No rate, no number, no "correlation," for either one to the other. Doan, the chart you refer to is labeled, "The Probability of Parental Reprimands Occurring Before, During or After Children's Entry into the Street." Notice, no mention of "entries?" The word used is a global, "Entry." That's because each was not recorded on this chart, (somewhere they were, of course, but for this chart, only the time occurrance and only the probability of reprimands. In fact, you could have five reprimands per entry, but the chart doesn't show that, but only when they occurred on a 10 second scale, depicted as a line marked with tics from -6 to +6. The key words, "REPRIMAND OCCURRING." You could, if you wished, but it's not the objective of the chart, note a correlation between rate of reprimands before and after the workshop. But that doesn't tell you if the number or rate of ENTRIES went up or down. All street entries that had a reprimand occur outside that ten second interval would NOT HAVE BEEN NOTED. Get it yet? This was a time study. A limited time chart. A ten SECOND time study. Any other greater interval with a street entry in it, no matter what the parent did, reprimand or not, left all the possible correlational material OUTSIDE this chart. So of course it's not designed to include such information. NO rate or number of street entries in relation to the entire study. So none at all. All this chart gives you is the difference in rate of reprimands across a time span comparing pre and post, baseline and workshop, differences. Baseline had a very high, .14+ rate of reprimands, for instance, at the moment of street entry, while Workshop had a much lower at that same time interval of zero...the point in time the child did enter the street....which was .04, about a .11 spread. As rates go, pretty remarkable difference. One has to extrapolate the real world into this to understand it well. Parents observing (they'd have to be present to see and reprimand remember) would see the child approaching the street...hence some parents reprimanded up to 5 second before entry...and there had to be an entry for it to hit this chart. Some as much as five seconds later. Some six seconds or more prior to or after street entry, and they, of course would NOT be represented here at all. They'd have to be here, and the total number of street entries. Which would have to be part of a correlational conclusion based on your "Look at Figure 7" and "the CORRELATION between reprimands and street entries existed during baseline but not during intervention." A totally nonsensical statement by you. At least by the argument you presented. Right out of Doan 2001, 2000, 2002 or any other year you've posted here. Possibly you have another Figure of a chart to provide, or the author's comments that would support your claim? Or is it time for you to retreat to your usual "STUPID!" claim to get out of trying to explain the unexplainable and expose just what a fraud I spotted you for back when you played this same game with Chris and other posters? I've played with you ever since. Feel free to elaborate on your explanation. You might try, "LOL!" I hear there are people that think that means you know the answer but won't tell, or that you are smarter than everyone. Or that you tricked your opponent into being right and you don't want to concede you are wrong. Yes, I know that last sentence is incongruent. But it reflects your method very accurately; Argument by Incongruence. 0:-> > Doan Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin > >>>Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question > >>>the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES! [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The same kind of strange claims from back when you used to try and > "debate" on Straus. And you have shown the same STUPIDITY! > First of all, my comment is quoted from the report. And the authors say > "criteria for a reinforcer" not, correlation, or any words to that > effect, nor can a correlation presence of lack be extrapolated from > those words. Hence........your.......... Then read it again, STUPID! "A coeffiicient of correlation was calculated between meen baseline rates of entries into the street and performance on the generalization probe." "Figure 7. shows the probability of oberserved children receiving a reprimand from parenst 6 intervals preceding or following an entry into the street" "During baseline, the lowest probability (0.02 reprimands per observation)" , "and the highest probability (0.147 reprimands per observation)" "During intervention, the ..." Do you understand correlation and probability??? > Argumentation by Camouflage. And yours is argument by STUPIDITY! ;-) > All that statement meant was that though present, reprimands no longer > reinforced, after the intervention. It's said "baseline" and "during intervention", STUPID! > My argument had nothing to do with figure #7. Nor does it have to do > with my argument in the least. Your argument only shows your STUPIDITY! ;-) > It is not even a correlation information-available chart. What is needed > is simply not there. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > measured, of course. (Your reference to "Correlation" just feel on it's > a.s). The "dots" showed the rates, STUPID! You can't even read a simple graph??? The y-axis is "Rate of Reprimands" and the x-axis is "10 second interval". STOP MAKING A FOOL of yourself! > 10 seconds, about five before and five afer street entry events is the > measure. It's SIX, STUPID! -6 to +6! > Problem is, for you, the 'count' isn't street entries, but children > being observed being reprimanded. Any number of times, per entry, but > not zero. Any number of entiries, but not zero. Possibly even only ONE > observed 10 second time interval per entrym, but that would not account > for the changes in rates of reprimands, now would it? It's the rates, STUPID! Read the notation for the y-axis, "Rate of Parental Reprimands Per Observation"! AFfromdreamland > Obviously they could reprimand more than once in a ten second period, or > they could have reprimanded once or more in a serious of entries. The [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin >>>>>Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question >>>>>the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES! [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > And you have shown the same STUPIDITY! You seem unable to show how. And figure seven doesn't show there was not a correlation. >>First of all, my comment is quoted from the report. And the authors say >>"criteria for a reinforcer" not, correlation, or any words to that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > between meen baseline rates of entries into the street and performance on > the generalization probe." Dimwit, that has to do with the PRECEDING PARAGRAPH on a child's capacity to both behave as desired, (stay way from the street) and his or her capacity to understand safety issues. Can't you READ? At the end of the paragraph you are misquoting, by the way, by leaving out a key component of the sentence, there is CLOSING SUMMATION of the two preceding paragraphs. The paragraph starting with "Figure 7 shows...." Is NOT about the two proceeding paragraphs and their subject. This paragraph is about reinforcers, NOT safety concept generalization probes. Just how unbelievably stupid ARE you? You, you liar, left out the explanation of what a generalization probe IS to mislead the reader. That last line actually reads, with your errors corrected and ALL information in it reads: "A coefficient of correlation was calculated between mean baseline rates of entries into the street and performance on the generalization (SAFETY CONCEPT) probe." A generalization probe is a test, in this experiment, of a child's ability to integrate and or understand the information presented. Or informational content. Observers interact with the child to test their understanding of what they are viewing (in the storybooks...I happen to have one). This refers solely to the the performance of the observed children's behavior verses their understanding of safety concepts (generalization probes.) It was found, of course, as you know because it's on the end of the paragraph you once again snipped out of context from, that there was no correlation. Children can behave without understanding why. And that is ALL that is about...and does not at any point refer to figure 7. It is the closing summation sentence I previously referred to. It does NOT relate to correlations between reprimands and street entries, as you are claiming, because there is NO mention or connection. As the end sentence to the paragraph you creatively altered actually says: "... Thus, in the case of the observed children, behavior and safety concept were not related." (END OF SUMMATION...my comment) In other words, for children of this age, as Embry points out, and cites others as having discovered, children of this young and age cannot relate behaviors of themselves (or others) to the complex idea of safety concepts. He elaborates elsewhere on this issue, making suggestions about holding off on teaching street CROSSING SAFETY for that very reason. Staying in a safe play area is easier to teach...by conditioning...than trying to teach them all the intricacies of street crossing. You are once again shown to be an ignorant fool, or a deliberate misleading liar. Again, Argumentation by Camouflage. You have quoted by babble and disconnect. "Figure 7. shows the probability of oberserved > children receiving a reprimand from parenst 6 intervals preceding or > following an entry into the street" >"During baseline, the lowest > probability (0.02 reprimands per observation)" , "and the highest > probability (0.147 reprimands per observation)" "During intervention, > the ..." Do you understand correlation and probability??? Sure, Very well. Do you understand this did not count anything but those entries where there were reprimands? And only for a ten second period? No reprimands outside of that ten second are counted? That IS what a probability is.....a representation of what the researcher thinks will be constant in the large sample and time frame. However figure 7 does tell us something after you read through the discussion to the closing sentence, which like all good closing sentences in a paragraph, offers a summation. Here is what it says: "Thus, reprimands met the criterion for reinforcer during baseline but not during intervention." In other words, reprimands did NOT lower street entries after the intervention (workshop training), which means, failed to reinforce desired behavior. Obviously, as the other charts show, something else did reinforce desired behavior though in the intervention phase, to the tune of only 10% of street entries compared to baseline. Quite a drop. Now, to get you by the scruff of the neck and help you understand what figure 7 actually IS. Quote, from paragraph three, page 45: "..The figure offers data of theoretical interest:" Oh, "of theoretical interest." No support for a conclusion, dummy boy. You have shown nothing here but that you either do NOT understand what you read. Cannot read enough to understand what you read. Or you do read and understand and deliberately misquote, leaving out key elements for understanding, and deliberately attempt to relate tangential information to that which it is unrelated to. >>Argumentation by Camouflage. > > And yours is argument by STUPIDITY! ;-) Oh? You want to show us how the tail end of one paragraph is connected to the next one on a different subject? Generalization probe and behavior correlation was done with. NO connection to figure 7. Figure 7 is theory -- probability, is game theory...chance, not proof...speculation by the author..acceptable to do by the researcher...as long as it is clear. He was, and that WAS to me, why not to you? >>All that statement meant was that though present, reprimands no longer >>reinforced, after the intervention. > > It's said "baseline" and "during intervention", STUPID! Yes, that is what I said. Worked as a reinforcer at baseline, did not during intervention. Can't you read, or is this simply more harassment? Or are actually signing off on the sentence with your name, "STUPID!?" And "it's said," is meaningless. I know how the two words are said. >>My argument had nothing to do with figure #7. Nor does it have to do >>with my argument in the least. > > Your argument only shows your STUPIDITY! ;-) I'm afraid that is not true. I can take this report apart end to end and put it back together again and have at least a 90% probability of understanding the author's meaning and how the data relates to the supporting descriptive narration. >>It is not even a correlation information-available chart. What is needed >>is simply not there. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The "dots" showed the rates, STUPID! That is what I said. You are stupid to not see that right in front of your nose. That is what follows if you can read a chart, when I say, "The dots are time occurrences of an event by a child and parent." You can't show how that means anything but that the dots showed "rates." Of course they are used to measure the rates of reprimand. They are reprimands in response to street entries by children. My words are, from above, "rate of reprimands." They are also along the x-axis for time intervals. Do you know how to read a chart? > You can't even read a simple > graph??? Sure I can. You are simply pretending to harassing and scream and yell and in fact make a fool of yourself. > The y-axis is "Rate of Reprimands" and the x-axis is "10 second > interval". STOP MAKING A FOOL of yourself! Did you see me claim otherwise? Where please? 0:-> >>10 seconds, about five before and five afer street entry events is the >>measure. > It's SIX, STUPID! -6 to +6! Yes of course, my error. 6 ten second intervals. Of course you seemed to have not noticed that each was ten seconds not a six second scale. How <chuckle> observant of you. And, least you forget....this is a probability chart...hence it is theoretical and to be used for estimates NOT as proof of anything in particular. Go back and read the descriptive paragraph again that YOU though was related to the generalization VS behavior coificient of correlation calculation....R R R R R R R >>Problem is, for you, the 'count' isn't street entries, but children >>being observed being reprimanded. Any number of times, per entry, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's the rates, STUPID! Read the notation for the y-axis, "Rate of > Parental Reprimands Per Observation"! What are the "It's" you refer to? And that does not say per street entry. Hence whatever it is you are claiming you do not understand, or are just badly mistaken, or you are still doing Doan 2000 et al. My paragraph of explanation above stands as written. The children are being observed during 12 10 second time intervals. There can be no zero reprimands, nor zero entries. We do NOT know the number of the former, only the rate. And we only know there were 'some' entries because they triggered 'some' reprimands. Not one, not five, but a rate PER OBSERVATION PERIOD. So what is it again you'd like to claim? "In other words, the CORRELATION between reprimands and street entries existed during baseline but not during intervention. IT IS THAT SIMPLE, STUPID!" Please show us the calculation that would show this correlation that existed during baseline, using only the data from figure 7. Then if you will, provide us with proof, and this will be far more easy, that they did not exist during intervention. (of course it didn't...this chart doesn't measure it for either ONE). You will actually be able to prove a negative claim....and of course prove that you are wrong. I of course had a great deal more here, and you failed to respond to any, so I will by default declare my comments and questions and challenges correct. 0:-> ...snip.... You have mixed data where it does not apply. You do not know what figure 7 is actually about. A probability chart cannot be used to calculate correlations of anything. More especially if it does not have the elements needed for the comparison. And a "criterion" as it says, is not even faintly related to a "correlation." Let me help you out. Go back and read page -45- from the top. The first two paragraphs, where you used facetiously the first sentence from the second of them, are entirely about "Story book and generalization probe data. And looking for any correlation between levels of understanding and actual performance of the child. The calculation showed, for baseline and intervention so little statistical or materially significant difference it showed that the one did not effect the other....as in "behavior and safety concept were not related." This had NOTHING whatsoever to do with figure 7, and in fact reference figure 6. And, you will note, these were from the NON-OBSERVED CHILDREN SAMPLE. Which means, child, that the 'unobserved' children were tested. Then, in paragraph two, without actually saying so, and YOU quoted from, they are referring to the UN - OBSERVED children (observed or unobserved always means in relation to baseline. I suspect that the baseline unobserved who DID PARTICIPATE AS THE REPORT SAYS, are sometime being referred to and not clearly enough. It never means the baseline children were not tracked by observers later in the study...obviously they were and it's charted for us on page 46, figure 6). I hope this is all some help to you. I appreciate you spotting relatively quickly my "error" in the theory chart on probability. It is, of course, 12 ten second intervals. I'll see if I can find any related errors of mine and correct them for you. I was most pleased you went there to try and make an argument. Now, tell us again about how the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 45 relates to figure 7 again, will you? Or just continue to throw in your guesses and frantic scramblings. It's really entertaining. I love puzzles. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin >>>The Lie: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > NOT FROM THE EMBRY STUDY! Didn't say I did. 0:-> Ever think there might be commentary from other sources on the study. Authoritative commentary. By people that know the study in more depth than was printed in the report? I have no obligation to, and in fact a promise not to, respond on Embry when the questions come from you. You lost the right to have me reply. I'm not going to tell you were I got that information. Dumb little shithead. R R R R R R > Doan Tell us again that you believe that "parents should make up their own minds." Go ahead. I have some postings I'd like to make in relation to that. 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 > >>>The Lie: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Didn't say I did. 0:-> I thought so! ;-) Doan ..nothing of consequence.... The "indignant fraud" charge doesn't get by me either silly boy. 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! "never-spanked" boy! Doan > ..nothing of consequence.... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very > alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > ..nothing of consequence.... > > The "indignant fraud" charge doesn't get by me either silly boy. And your LIES don't get by me neither, "never-spanked" boy! ;-) Doan >>>>>The Lie: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > I thought so! ;-) Hypocrit! > Doan 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 > >>>>>The Lie: > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hypocrit! So now that we have determined that it is not from the study, the above quotes are nothing more than hearsay, at best, and at worst, OUTRIGHT FABRICATION! Doan >>>>>>>The Lie: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > quotes are nothing more than hearsay, at best, and at worst, OUTRIGHT > FABRICATION! "We" haven't determined they aren't from the study. And I never claimed their status. And at worst, you don't know. Worst for you. Your speculation means nothing. Except you are frustrated and can't find something to lie about this time. 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 > >>>>>>>The Lie: > >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And I never claimed their status. And I said positively that they aren't from the study. Prove me wrong, if you can! I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-) Doan >>>>>>>>>The Lie: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > And I said positively that they aren't from the study. Say what you wish. I don't mind. Have you forgotten I'm not arguing or debating the study report with you? You challenged. I offered. You declined. Deadline past. > Prove me wrong, if > you can! I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-) I am not proving you anything. And not doing so doesn't make me a liar. Just not willing to play your silly game. But you are proving what a child you are. The same old school yard bully nonsense. How very sad. And you a grown up man too. > Doan 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 A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) Doan > >>>>>>>>>The Lie: > >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very > alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 > A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) No, just a promise keeper. I offered to debate you. You declined. You are the dodger and liar. It's most obvious. Heard from Alina yet. She wrote back finally. Seems she's safe and all. Just busy. Says to say hello and could you hurry up with that copy. She mailed you the envelope a long time ago, she tells me. What's up with THAT? She lying or is it you? 0:-> > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very >>alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 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 dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > She lying or is it you? My bet is you are the LIAR! Tell her is post here publicly that she said the above. If there is no post from her, then YOU ARE A LIAR! Doan >>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My bet is you are the LIAR! Tell her is post here publicly that she said > the above. If there is no post from her, then YOU ARE A LIAR! I can't make her do anything unless she wants to. How could HER choice make ME a liar. I'm not her. She's already shown a very strong aversion to getting mixed up in this and told me that was her main reason for dropping out of this, and the fact you cheated her out of an envelope and stamps AND she gave up her address to you. I'm not sure, but I think that worries her. You should talk with her and calm her fears, and do something about getting the report to her. 0:-> Tell you what, why don't YOU have her post here and tell us she didn't get the envelope from you. Now that would prove the either she or I am lying. And let you off the hook. Well, except for one minor little thing. But I'll leave that as a surprise if you haven't figured it out already. It has to do with your clever Monkey self, just like the Zodiac. Say, do you like to play chess? > Doan 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 > >>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I can't make her do anything unless she wants to. How could HER choice > make ME a liar. I'm not her. You brought her into this. I didn't! > She's already shown a very strong aversion to getting mixed up in this > and told me that was her main reason for dropping out of this, and the > fact you cheated her out of an envelope and stamps AND she gave up her > address to you. I'm not sure, but I think that worries her. You should > talk with her and calm her fears, and do something about getting the > report to her. 0:-> More LIES! > Tell you what, why don't YOU have her post here and tell us she didn't > get the envelope from you. Now that would prove the either she or I am > lying. I made no claim about her. You did! > And let you off the hook. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Say, do you like to play chess? Got Embry study? ;-) Doan >>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You brought her into this. I didn't! That...hehehe...remains to be seen. But last I noticed, "Aline/Alina" "brought" herself into this ng and this question of "whose got the Embry study?" Like I said, and regardless of who brought her in, I can't make her do what she doesn't want to do. I thought maybe you'd have more pull with her when you explained to here that you didn't get her envelope...though I'm completely stumped you two didn't work that out before. >>She's already shown a very strong aversion to getting mixed up in this >>and told me that was her main reason for dropping out of this, and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > More LIES! Why would you presume it's lies? You don't have proof it's lies, ......do you? How could you? >>Tell you what, why don't YOU have her post here and tell us she didn't >>get the envelope from you. Now that would prove the either she or I am >>lying. > > I made no claim about her. You did! And she tells me she isn't going to post here unless you contact her and explain that either you didn't get the envelope or shined her on. She'd like to know why, if it's the latter. Too shy to forward her the report, Doan? Couldn't afford copies, on a campus copy machine, or printed out from your computer after you downloaded it electronically? Couldn't send it electronically, though you recently posted a source that said it was available electronically? What's up with that? You've got her e-mail. She asked you for it. Why not just send it as a good will gesture to make up for not getting it to her before and demanding a stamped addressed envelope. I still can't figure out why you would do that. And surely she wouldn't lie to me about it. It's about time for you to shout, "stupid!" again, idnit? >>And let you off the hook. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Got Embry study? ;-) Sure. But that doesn't matter now. Not to you. Or shouldn't. I keep my promises. Even to smart little monkeyboys. > Doan Still haven't figured it out, have you, monkeyboy? Sometimes yah win, and sometimes....well, you fill in the rest. 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 > >>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "brought" herself into this ng and this question of "whose got the Embry > study?" She was suppose to get a copy from you and sneak it to me, remember? ;-) Doan >>>>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > She was suppose to get a copy from you and sneak it to me, remember? ;-) Is that what happened? How do you know I didn't send her a copy? How would any reader know if I did send her a copy and she did sneak it to you? They have only the posts they see here to judge by. You and I know the complete truth, Doan. You keep forgetting that, little brilliant clever monkeyboy. > Doan Are you going to deliver to her now that she no longer is constrained by the envelope dodge? Why make her wait a second longer? Just send it. Can't hurt a thing. Even if I was lying, 0:-> and she didn't ask for it and I haven't talked to her. You could still send it, and by golly, maybe prove I'm lying. Want to try? By the way, you dared me to use the link to retrieve a copy. You know I don't have the link and you seem to be claiming you do. Going to give it to me? Bluffing? I'm not on a university system so of course I have no account to get that supposed link. Want to provide the URL to everyone that might be interested. Heck, you'd have a huge audience to work on rebutting Embry's study, wouldn't you? What's holding you up. You haven't made a claim you can't back up, have you? Aw shucks, fellah. Who'd a thought it of yah? 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 >>>>>>>> A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > 0:-> It shouldn't take this long to answer, Doan. You having trouble figuring out how to respond? Looking for those chess moves? I told, we both know where we are. One of us is just not admitting it. And it's not the one named Kane. 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 > >>>>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Is that what happened? How do you know I didn't send her a copy? You did send her a copy. She then secretly sent it to me. That's how I got a copy. ;-) Doan >>>>>>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > You did send her a copy. She then secretly sent it to me. That's > how I got a copy. ;-) I can't tell you how disappointed in her I am then. How sad. But that means, of course, 0:->, you were lying and have been lying all this time. Tsk, Doan, tsk. Or you are lying now. Which is it? Unlike you I don't bifurcate. If I show you two options then you can pretty well bet there are only two. Of course you are welcome to introduce others if you think logically they exist now. 0:-> By the way, you shouldn't play tennis when the other person isn't. > Doan Please, call me a hypocrite again. That one makes my ribs ache from laughter. At my age it's a very healthy thing to laugh a lot. Must be why I come here and watch your silly self serving attempts to protect yourself from reality. 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 > >>>>>>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) > >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Tsk, Doan, tsk. Or you are lying now. Which is it? You can ask yourself the same question. Which is it? I ALREADY know the answer - YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-) Doan >>>>>>>>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > You can ask yourself the same question. Which is it? I ALREADY know the > answer - YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-) Even your Anti-Truth meds can't stave off the feelings of panic you are having, and showing. You seem unable to answer the question. And how do you know if I am lying or not? > Doan Just guessing? So tell us, did she sneak you my copy, or did you already have a copy? 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>A dodger and liar, that's what you are! ;-) > >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > And how do you know if I am lying or not? I have already PROVEN so! ;-) Doan > >>>>>The Lie: > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hypocrit! So either the above quotes are from the study (a LIE) or they are not? Which is it? Doan >>>>>>>The Lie: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So either the above quotes are from the study (a LIE) or they are not? > Which is it? No third choice, or fourth, or fifth? Gosh you would be asking me, "when did you stop beating your wife?" now would you? > Doan 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 > > >>>>>The Lie: > > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Doan Come on, ignoranus kane0. It shouldn't take your that long to response. ;-) Doan >>>>>>>>The Lie: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Come on, ignoranus kane0. It shouldn't take your that long to response. > ;-) While you were busy chasing the balls that got past you on the little court you are playing on you missed the return: ">> > So either the above quotes are from the study (a LIE) or they are not? > Which is it? No third choice, or fourth, or fifth? Gosh you would be asking me, "when did you stop beating your wife?" now would you? > Doan 0:-> " About two posts back. Learn to read your news messages in chronological order, Doan. > Doan My answer, obviously, means "neither." Because I don't and have never beaten my wife. And I already told you, a number of times now, blind monkey, that I'm not debating Embry with you. And that's an Embry study report question. You know, if you learned anything and improved your skills over the long long years you've been using this forum as the escape from your parent's abuse of you, I'd admire you a bit. But you are using the same sad little tricks you were using waaaay back when you used to lie to Chris Dugan. I've tried so hard to encourage you to expand and grow, yet there you are using tired old logical fallacies that have long gray beards in this ng. So, go ahead, ask me another. 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 > >>>>>>>>The Lie: > >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > While you were busy chasing the balls that got past you on the little > court you are playing on you missed the return: And you have missed the whole game! ;-) Doan >>>>>>>>>>The Lie: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > And you have missed the whole game! ;-) Whatever gave you the idea that I was playing your game? > Doan You really think other people are too stupid to follow the argument by complexity that you engage in? I asked you if you had a copy of the report given you by Alina, as you claimed. And if so, were you then lying all this time that you had a copy of your own that you were willing to mail Alina, if...<chuckle>...she'd send you a self addressed stamped envelope? You haven't answered either question. You just dodged about. Do you think time will solve this trap you made and fell into yourself? I don't. Your posting history is of course available to all. Any time anyone has a question about your supposed honesty this will be here. That you claimed you had the study. That you offered it to Alina, but then, now, you claim she got mine and slipped you a copy. Kind of flies in the face of reality, doesn't it? And you know the card I hold. Don't you little monkey? MM...mmm it's off to work we go, hi ho hi ho. 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 > >>>>>>>>>>The Lie: > >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Whatever gave you the idea that I was playing your game? You are responding to my post, STUPID! ;-) Doan > > >>>>>>>>>>The Lie: > > >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > You are responding to my post, STUPID! ;-) Yes, that's my game alright. Thanks for noticing. > Doan 0:-> > > > >>>>>>>>>>The Lie: > > > >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Yes, that's my game alright. Thanks for noticing. That you are STUPID? I have already proven that. BTW, you are welcome! ;-) Doan > > >>>>>>>>>>The Lie: > > >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > You are responding to my post, STUPID! ;-) Yes, that's my game alright. Thanks for noticing. ... and responding to my post. > Doan 0:-> |
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.