 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / March 2006RE: LaVonne? Was: Gregor
According to Straus, "I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several reporters after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that her study is EXCELLENT, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions:" (emphasis is mine) So either Dr. Straus don't know anything about research methodology or you, like a common anti-spanking zealotS, are just spewing sh*t! ;-) SOURCE: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm AFfromDreamLand > According to Straus, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't know anything about research methodology or you, like a common > anti-spanking zealotS, are just spewing sh*t! ;-) Odd that you'd use a Straus quote, isn't it? I mean haven't you completely destroyed his credibility as a researcher? Or was that someone else? 0:-> I think Baumrind's study was excellent as well. Except for one thing. And I wonder if Straus was not thinking of that: the sample stripping for more severe spanking. That would be one of the "clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions," don't you think? Why don't you ask Straus instead of posting incomplete information that is simply opinion with, obviously politely left out reasons for rejecting her conclusions? My take would be that Straus, if he wanted to respond in a peer review and or rebuttal that he would do it quite carefully and tender it directly to Dr. Baumrind, as any decent person and responsible academic would do and not release it to the public until she had a chance to respond. Or chose not to. You really are ignorant about academic protocol, and I find that amazing given from where you post. Don't you even absorb things, if you can't learn them? Straus has repeatedly demonstrated his professionalism and honesty. You take his words and twist the meanings. Just like your intent to use his now for innuendo, rather than making a clear statement or claim. This is why I call you a coward, Doan. You think it's clever, and in fact in the circles Straus, and Baumrind move it you'd be shunned, immediately with your childishness and harassment. > > SOURCE: > http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm > > AFfromDreamLand So what have you proven? Nothing. Honesty would take you so much further, even in the lost debate of spanking. It's over, Doan and has been for some time. The schools have done their job. More and more countries their's. We just don't know how long it will take, but a legal ban on spanking is coming to this country. It may be state by state, my preference, or federal (and they always seem to screw these things up) and that's not my preference, but I'd take even that rather than to see barbarity continue and see it called the euphemism, "spanking." I really do feel sorry for you, but unlike LaVonne, I can't find much to admire you for. You certainly lack courage. 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 > > According to Straus, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Odd that you'd use a Straus quote, isn't it? I mean haven't you > completely destroyed his credibility as a researcher? Who, me? Straus is god-like among anti-spanking zealotS. I am just using their weapon against themselves! ;-) > Or was that someone else? Got Straus? ;-) > 0:-> > > I think Baumrind's study was excellent as well. Except for one thing. > And I wonder if Straus was not thinking of that: the sample stripping > for more severe spanking. That's contradictory! How could Dr. Baumrind be EXCELLENT if she is what you and LaVonne accused her of? > That would be one of the "clear reasons for not accepting her > conclusions," don't you think? That would be the anti-spanking zealotS's excuse! ;-) > Why don't you ask Straus instead of posting incomplete information that > is simply opinion with, obviously politely left out reasons for > rejecting her conclusions? You are being STUPID again. I cited the source did I not? Or do you expected me to list the whole article, ignoranus kane0? ;-) <snipping the rest of your STUPID rants> AFfromDreamLand. >>> According to Straus, >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Who, me? Straus is god-like among anti-spanking zealotS. I am just using > their weapon against themselves! ;-) That's not how it appears. And I don't recall anyone every referring to him as god-like except you, now. >> Or was that someone else? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's contradictory! How could Dr. Baumrind be EXCELLENT if she is > what you and LaVonne accused her of? It's not contradictory because that's not what happened. You screwed up again. It's her work, not her. I never accused HER of being anything in particular. It's tempting though. 0:-> You seem to be language comprehension afflicted again. You missed the word, "study" as in 'Baumrind's study." People are not their work. As far as I know Dr. Baumrind is an excellent human being. I would prefer to think that either she came to some logical, for her, change in beliefs, or had some life difficulties that resulted in that one glitch in her work. After all, she did wonderful and excellent work before, and I've no reason to doubt Straus statement for that matter. What I've read of her Berkeley presentation shows me that she still had the methods down, but missed on the ethics. sh.t happens. Who knows why. >> That would be one of the "clear reasons for not accepting her >> conclusions," don't you think? >> > That would be the anti-spanking zealotS's excuse! ;-) I don't see your meaning here. Excuse for what? >> Why don't you ask Straus instead of posting incomplete information that >> is simply opinion with, obviously politely left out reasons for >> rejecting her conclusions? >> > You are being STUPID again. I've looked at my question above. I have to disagree with your evaluation. > I cited the source did I not? That's not relevant to my question at all. If there is some reason you cannot come up with supporting information about what he was referring to explicitly then the citation hasn't a lot of value, for you. > Or do you > expected me to list the whole article, ignoranus kane0? ;-) I don't expect much of you and never have. That's been uproariously funny in our exchanges. > <snipping the rest of your STUPID rants> Mmm..I should go look. Must have really really touched a nerve, eh? > AFfromDreamLand. Childish twaddle, from start to finish. I hope you have something good happen in your life that helps you cast off the pall of your childhood. Your parents must have wanted more of you than this: being stupid while calling others stupid, when it's so obviously projection. Neither LaVonne, nor myself, nor the other anti spanking posters you have called stupid are, or were. It's you, Doan. Just you. And your greatest burden. When you get caught, that's what comes up in your mind first....YOU know you are right, so anyone else must be stupid. But you don't provide the facts to back up your claim, just like your quote of Straus. An out of the blue interview of him were he simply responded honestly but non confrontationally and you want it to be some big hoohah that proves something not provable. The same as all your wonderous proclamations, like police batons and spanking children, and guesses and grabs at answering The Question you were foolish enough to bite on, and never defending non-spanking and always defending spanking. You have nothing honest to hold on to. You've built years of lies into a pile of nothing. Not even sh.t that could fertilize a garden. Just emptiness. It's almost too sad to watch. 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 Hahaha! AFfromDreamLand >> According to Straus, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Odd that you'd use a Straus quote, isn't it? I mean haven't you > completely destroyed his credibility as a researcher? Just as odd, as just as revealing is his grammar -- "So either Dr. Straus 'don't know anything' about research and methodology...." Dr Strause "don't know anything?" This poster can even use correct grammar, yet he presents himself as a research critic with his use of incorrect grammar and use of profanity. He's a hoot! And he's representative of so many individuals who defend their mistaken right to hit and hurt their children in the name of discipline. We should thank him for making a case against ever spanking a child. LaVonne > >> According to Straus, > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > LaVonne Hahaha! Resorting to ad-hom, LaVonne? "Dr Strause"??? Why is it so easy for you to see a dust in my eyes and yet can't see the anti-spanking STONE in yours? ;-) Doan |
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.