Doan wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


No, Ken, you see if you think that, according to Doan you are either
lying and or stupid.

It's Canadian by the way, and nothing about it is unusual. They cleaned
out a set of questionaires that had one characterist they need to
remove to isolate another. Spanked and never spanked. That portion of
the original sample could have have those children that might have been
spanked and or slapped but had been either sexually or physically
abused or both.

Doan wants us to believe that age mattered, and that surely older
people in the remaining reduced sample could not have a lower
percentage of "never spanked/slapped" than people in the three younger
samples.

If one reads the entire study it's obvious there are variable
uncontrolled for, that do not need to be since the goal is determine
the correlations between between incidences of childhood
spanking/slapping frequency and adult negative outcomes.

Age had nothing to do with the study except to describe the remaining
sample.

The characteristics of the removed questionnaires would be nice to
know, but it was not included.

I just hope no one, not you, and certainly not I, would presume, as
Doan has to, that the never spanked percentage of older people has to
be smaller for some reason. Why?

Because he thinks older people were spanked more? Well, the were abused
more too and would have been removed for that reason. But then if you
reduce the N size, you increase the percentage point of each remaining
N in the sample.

It's usually not terribly significant in like sample sizes. But it's
obvious the N of the older would be LESS than the N of the younger
because there was indeed more instances of shoving, pushing, grabbing
and attacking children in the past. And it was more accepted 50-60
years ago, and became less so over time. Thus the steps in the age
blocks that gradually increased the N of the younger, and of course
then reduced the percentage of never spanked.

The answer lies, of course, in so many older, as HE claimed, being
spanked or slapped (with which I agree, of course) but also being
weeded out because they were also abused.

That reduces the sample of the older, thus increasing the percentage
value of each individual remaining that was never spanked and or
slapped.


So are you admitting that the above claim by you is a "mistake", Kane? ;-)

So you are admitting you are a child that jumps behind whatever little
piece he can find when he's lost the debate?

Kane

That sound like a dodge!

That read like a phony question to harass rather than debate.

You addressed nothing in my commentary, except an unidentified "claim."

0:-


It is a dodge! ;-)

Yes, it is a dodge to address nothing in my commentary, except an
unidentified "claim."

You are still being a spoiled little child that refuses to debate
honorably.

Your family is shamed. Again.

Doan

0:-



--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006