View Single Post
  #3  
Old September 11th 03, 09:35 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Fern wrote:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child

deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane responds:

What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?


Hi, Kane!

Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful" in
her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
diminished. Neither has the occurance.

Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?


No need to say, "seems." It is a fact.

Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
should be "rate"?


The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

These rates mark an increase over previous years.

Child abuse rates overall have increased to 12.4 per 1,000, up from 12.2 per
1,000 children in 2000.

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


The occurance has raised, as has the population. The rate has increased.

Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


1) No, the rate went up in 2001.
2) Do you have a source for your unattributed claim that the economy
increases
child abuse?

In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
child deaths.


No, rate of child fatalities has gone up.