beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

You're right I did edit some of what you wrote. I took out items that
were irrelevant to what I wished to ask you or comment on. For example
the URL you provided for online parenting classes. It was unnecessary
for me to quote the URL, it would have been redundant as I had not
comment on the URL in question.

Your accusation was that I did not respond to your questions.

When I removed my comments that triggered your
comments/questions/rebuttal leaving your comments "lonely and dangling"
I did so that those reading along didn't have to sift through 300lines
of dialogue to catch up to what we are talking about, and I presumed
that you would know/remember what our conversation was about. Perhaps
I presumed wrongly.

I don't have a problem with someone snipping my remarks. I do if they
refer back to them for information or claiming I did or didn't say
something.

As for you quoting the Embry study again...you cannot accuse me of
dodging because I had already stated I would not be baited into a long
drawn out discussion on a teeny tiny report from 25yrs ago.

It is not a teeny tiny report. It's a longitudinal study of
considerable scientific rigorously applied research methods. It
explored, for the first time in all research before, and possibly
since, a direct observation of applied methods of parenting on one
subject. A near perfect field study to my mind.

Each of the 33 subject families were described in depth, each child
also. The simple method of teaching rather than using CP to try and
create a child response by pain aversion was elegant and refined as no
other study had ever attempted.

And the basics of social science research accepted methodology has not
changed all that much in 25 years. Standards and analysis are still
much the same.

You may do what you wish, but making value comments on a study you have
not seen is unacceptable judgement of that study.

To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack of
available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federal
government. There is no funding.

The Federal government is not allowed to withhold funding to one state
while funding another for the various grants and programs. If your
state doesn't have them someone there is not doing the relatively
simple work to apply for them.

Hence, I have no answer to YOUR problem beyond what I already offered,
and why I asked you questions sometimes rather than answer. I did not
have enough information to give a credible answer to you. I do not
believe I asked evasive questions, hence your rhetorical question that
in fact accused me of dodging was uncalled for.

My comment "see above" in response to your question "How are they not
encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
publicized enough?" was to save myself time typing out the answer
because i had just answered it above. You have a knack for asking the
same questions several ways trying to get different answers so you can
trip people up with their words.

That is untrue. You are projecting Doans most common methods on me.

Just as now, and throughout the thread, when you gave me more
information requested I answered your questions more fully and did NOT
use that information to "trip" you "up with" your "words."

If you think so, point it out. If true have have most abject apologies
I only have come back at your with some harshness when YOU appeared to
be playing the "Doan Game" with me. A harassing false insinutation
like, "Dodging?"

I split up one very long paragraph of yours so I could comment on
individual portions in the hopes that it would be less confusing. But
I see you were confused by it. Perhaps you should carefully read next
time.

Perhaps I should. And that I did when you accused me of "Dodging?" We
both know that was an accusation in a rhetorical form.

Upon reading your prior posts and my responses I found NO instances
where I had failed to answer you as fully as was possible, nor did I
ask any questions that were not calculated to gain more information so
I could give an answer...which I then did IF you tendered the
information asked for.

I did it again in this post, without any attempts to 'trip' you up with
your own words.

You keep saying that you responded to

"The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.

The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law."

I have read and reread your posts...and you did NOT answer these
questions. If you feel you did, perhaps you can do a little copy and
paste yourself in your next messege and point them out to me.

I don't even need to go back. I can tell you from memory, and in a most
recent post to you pointed them out yet again.

To your first question I answered by pointing out that I would put
requirements in the law to provide for services to the accused. I made
that very clear.

To our second question I answered that the charges and penalties should
be taken from state statutes currently used to prosecute child abuse
NOW.

I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of
your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am
responding to...but I've been wrong before.

You are simply using harassing language to accuse me of what I have not
done. Why would answering your questions then or now be "butt
cover.....?"

You came back at me accusing me of dodging. I have pointed out to you
my prior posts responding to the specific questions you said I did not
respond to. Is that "butt cover.....," to point those out to you when
you asked me to?

Or did you wish to make an accusation and I NOT respond in defense of
my post's contents?

Let's see it again, shall we?

Here is yesterday's post to you answering all your questions in full,
using citations and links back to my messages, and quoting the exact
words I used back then. And they WERE answers to your two questions
above.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...338b2ba?hl=en&

Why are you still denying that I answered you when the proof is right
in front of your eyes?

Here is a requote of my original posted comments to your questions from
my message cited above as to link:

"One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
protection statutes. "

That actually answers both your questions.

One cannot get a parent to be trained if they do not want to...so
obviously, along with the list of sources I know are available
elsewhere (I cannot solve YOUR local problem so don't ask me to and
it's NOT a dodge for me to so state), the answer to your question is
that there must be enforcement.

As to how to force that? That's your second question, what penalty or
punishment would the law apply. "The only legal action would be child
protection statutes." is my answer.

And as I said, I'm not going to list all the states statutes. And that
too is NOT dodging.

If you want an exact answer, as you seemed to for your "lack of
resources in my state," response, and since I do NOT know your state of
residence, then who could I be dodging not to have an answer beyond
what I gave?

--
beccafromlalaland

You are looking more and more like you simply wish to pick a fight, and
you are an admirer of Doan and his shoddy sick little tricks.

Why are you stating falsely that I did not answer your questions?

You may not like my answers, but they are answers and fair and as
accurate as they can be under the limitations of your information to me
at each step our our posted exchanges.

When you told me more, I answered more fully.

Kane