The Embry Study: What it actually said.

Dorothy,

And the other thing I'd like to add is the age and developmental level
of the child. I've had parents write about toddlers and young
preschoolers entering the street. Parent should do everything possible
to prevent street entry, but with these tiny children, keeping them safe
is their parents' or caregivers' responsibility. The best way to keep a
toddler and a young preschooler from entering the street alone is to not
allow the action to occur. And this doesn't mean spanking, nagging,
reprimanding, or reasoning. This means practicing prevention.

LaVonne

toto wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:39:22 -0800, Doan wrote:


"While some may find it strange that reprimands might increase the chances
of a child going into the street, the literature on the experimental
analysis of behavior is replete with examples of how "attention to
inappropriate behavior" increases the chances of more inappropriate
behavior. Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely to have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."


Of course that is true. However, you fail to note that spanking also
increases the rate of children going into the street according to
Embry. A little honesty would be nice Doan. Note that most of those
who advocate for non-spanking do not advocate scolding, reprimanding,
or nagging either. I would say that there are much better ways of
keeping children from going into the street (depending on the age of
the child involved, different methods will be used). The most
important part of parenting is catching them being good and giving
them attention when their behavior is appropriate. Stating your rules
in positive terms is also good. "Hold hands near the street:" "Walk
on the sidewalk." "Cross streets at the corner after looking both
ways." All of these are reasonable ways of defining the rules for
children. Then praise them when they do the right thing. It works
much better than punishment *after* the fact anyway. Prevention is
much better than punishment of any kind.

http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html

"Spanking... increases the rate of street entries by children", wrote
Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children Magazine.

Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
cause of death to young children in the United States.)

Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
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.

Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the
children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Showing you STUPIDITY again, ignoranus kane0? ;-)

The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Sure you can, but it takes time, effort and MONEY!

How would this stop you from having offer both "Alina" and becca, and
Dorothy, this document in electronic format?

This is the kind of stupidity you have shown from the beginning, Doan.

Just like your phony debates with LaVonne, with Chris, with Gowtch, others.

You keep coming up with these impossible claims based on the most
assinine pieces of convoluted bull****, and you think no one can see it?

If it was DONE in 81, what would stop someone from providing it in
electronic format in 1993?

DAMN! WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID? You were "never-spanked" so you can't
blame on the way your parents raised you; it must be GENETIC! ;-)

The internet didn't take off until 1994! If they provided it in
electronic format back in 1993, what format would that be?

I transmit documents all the time that do not arrive on my desk
electronically. I simply scan them through OCR. Five minutes clean up in
a word processor, and zip.... out again as an attachment. Hell I do it
damn near every day in my profession. And so to millions of other people
these days.

Just how ****in' dumb ARE you.

You should ask you mom that! ;-)

electronic format".

AVEZ-VOUS UN PROBLEME AVEC L'ANGLAIS? ;-)

AVEZ-VOUS UN PROBLEME AVEC TU L'BRAIN?

VOUS ETES UN IDIOT !

Doan

How the hell do you get your shoes on the right feet?

I ask you mom! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, toto wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:

The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.

Kane is just having problem with his English. ;-) This study is available
through my library and it is classified as Level 1, which it said:

"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

He misunderstood it to mean that my library has been providing this study
in electronic format SINCE 1993. What it actually mean is only materials
from 1993 on are available in electronic format. Maybe you can translate
it into SIMPLE ENGLISH for him. ;-)

Doan

LaVonne,
Nice to see you jumped in. Maybe you can pick this study up from
your library and give us some insight. And also a chance for you
to prove what a liar I am and what Kane has been saying is THE TRUTH? ;-)

What I found interesting is this:
"Figure 7 shows the probability of observed children receiving a reprimand
from parents six intervals preceding or following an entry into the
street. ... Thus, reprimand met the criterion for a reinforcer during
baseline BUT NOT DURING INTERVENTION."

What this tells me is that even the claim by Dr. Embry about "reprimands
increase the chances of a child going into the street" is based on a very
weak foundation.

Wanna debate me?

Doan

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Dorothy,

And the other thing I'd like to add is the age and developmental level
of the child. I've had parents write about toddlers and young
preschoolers entering the street. Parent should do everything possible
to prevent street entry, but with these tiny children, keeping them safe
is their parents' or caregivers' responsibility. The best way to keep a
toddler and a young preschooler from entering the street alone is to not
allow the action to occur. And this doesn't mean spanking, nagging,
reprimanding, or reasoning. This means practicing prevention.

LaVonne

toto wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:39:22 -0800, Doan wrote:


"While some may find it strange that reprimands might increase the chances
of a child going into the street, the literature on the experimental
analysis of behavior is replete with examples of how "attention to
inappropriate behavior" increases the chances of more inappropriate
behavior. Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely to have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."


Of course that is true. However, you fail to note that spanking also
increases the rate of children going into the street according to
Embry. A little honesty would be nice Doan. Note that most of those
who advocate for non-spanking do not advocate scolding, reprimanding,
or nagging either. I would say that there are much better ways of
keeping children from going into the street (depending on the age of
the child involved, different methods will be used). The most
important part of parenting is catching them being good and giving
them attention when their behavior is appropriate. Stating your rules
in positive terms is also good. "Hold hands near the street:" "Walk
on the sidewalk." "Cross streets at the corner after looking both
ways." All of these are reasonable ways of defining the rules for
children. Then praise them when they do the right thing. It works
much better than punishment *after* the fact anyway. Prevention is
much better than punishment of any kind.

http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html

"Spanking... increases the rate of street entries by children", wrote
Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children Magazine.

Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
cause of death to young children in the United States.)

Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
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.

Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the
children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


toto wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:

The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.

No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993.

Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH?

"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic
format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Showing you STUPIDITY again, ignoranus kane0? ;-)

The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?


Sure you can, but it takes time, effort and MONEY!

To download it from a source that offers it in electronic format?

Can't you read your own posts?

How would this stop you from having offer both "Alina" and becca, and
Dorothy, this document in electronic format?

This is the kind of stupidity you have shown from the beginning, Doan.

Just like your phony debates with LaVonne, with Chris, with Gowtch, others.

You keep coming up with these impossible claims based on the most
assinine pieces of convoluted bull****, and you think no one can see it?

If it was DONE in 81, what would stop someone from providing it in
electronic format in 1993?


DAMN! WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID? You were "never-spanked" so you can't
blame on the way your parents raised you; it must be GENETIC! ;-)

Now say something even more stupid for us.

The internet didn't take off until 1994! If they provided it in
electronic format back in 1993, what format would that be?


See I knew you could.

Dumbell. From that date ON what format would it be in 94, and afterward?

Did the Internet not make it possible to up and download ELECTRONIC
FORMAT documents?

I transmit documents all the time that do not arrive on my desk
electronically. I simply scan them through OCR. Five minutes clean up in
a word processor, and zip.... out again as an attachment. Hell I do it
damn near every day in my profession. And so to millions of other people
these days.

Just how ****in' dumb ARE you.


You should ask you mom that! ;-)

electronic format".

AVEZ-VOUS UN PROBLEME AVEC L'ANGLAIS? ;-)

AVEZ-VOUS UN PROBLEME AVEC TU L'BRAIN?


VOUS ETES UN IDIOT !

I'm not the one that thinks an electronically available document can't
be available AFTER 1993, dimwit.


Doan

How the hell do you get your shoes on the right feet?


I ask you mom! ;-)

She didn't know you.

Doan

Now, please explain to the nice readers that if it was available in
electronic format prior in 93, how it would be avialable via the
Internet from 94 one, in electronic format.

You are either stupid as a stump or simply harassing.

Don't you remember me telling you or others in this group that I had
worked IN my first computer in 1957?

I was around when it all developed. I KNEW Tim Berners-Lee work when it
first was introduced.

"WWW FAQs: Who invented the World Wide Web?

2003-06-30: the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989,
with the first working system deployed in 1990, while he was working at
CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research). He went on to
found the World Wide Web Consortium, which seeks to standardize and
improve World Wide Web-related things such as the HTML markup language
in which web pages are written."

"The internet didn't take off until 1994!"

"Take off in 1994?" "The INTERNET." You idiot boy.

R R R R ...maybe where you were, still in the cradle.

I was raggin' on the stupid asses of people like your good buddy Neal
via Fidonet in 1984. And no, that's not an error and you know it.

Nineteen EIGHTY FOUR. Not 1994.

So, idiotboy, just what format WOULD that have been, electronically, in
1993?

"Screen Shot of Tim Berners-Lee's Browser Editor as Developed in 1991-92
This was a true browser editor for the first version of HTML and ran on
a NeXt workstation. Implemented in Objective-C, it, made it easy to
create, view and edit web documents."

How do you hold down that job being so amazingly ignorant of the history.

"create, view and edit," monkey screecher.

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS.

And why don't you send toto and becca to get the ones you dared me to get?

Didn't you say it was available electronically, or did you withhold that
bit of information to harass?

Stop and think for a moment how all this fits in with the last year of
your lying bull**** that you had the Embry report.

What a scumbag you are.

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

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, toto wrote:


On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:


The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.


Kane is just having problem with his English. ;-) This study is available
through my library and it is classified as Level 1, which it said:

No, my English is just fine. It's your presumptions of meaning, that has
been your down fall and the exposure of your lying ways for so long,
that is your problem with this statement.

"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

He misunderstood it to mean that my library has been providing this study
in electronic format SINCE 1993. What it actually mean is only materials
from 1993 on are available in electronic format. Maybe you can translate
it into SIMPLE ENGLISH for him. ;-)

Doan

No Doan, normal english would see the statement, "... Reproducible in
paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in electronic format; materials
issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are now available at no cost
through this Web site," as either possibility. Just barely.

But mostly, that all documents were available electronically from after
1993.

It does not say clearly that those documents produced prior to 93 aren't
available in electronic format.

In fact, it really doesn't say it all.

You may know that's true, but a reader could not.

If your claim were true it would be worded: "documents produced prior to
1993."

It doesn't.

Are you sure that no Level 1 library documents created prior to 1993 are
available now in electronic format?

It would say, "and, documents created since 1993, in electronic format;"

Please explain why you invited me to access the document in electronic
form by clicking a link (but of course supplied no link)?

Doan, having information that others are not privy to doesn't prove your
brilliance, but your crowing over it and using it to harass proves
something.

Now that we have cleared that up, did you have a point?

Are you going to deliver copies to those you keep offering them to?

And why can't they, like you invited me to do, simply access that link
you are withholding, and let them download it?

And why is it you have only a paper copy?

And why did you insist that poor "Alina" cover the postage? And you
never just sent it to her anyway? Free? Like I did? After you drug your
heels?

And why, if you've had it have you been sending people to other sources,
some expensive rather than offering it yourself, before this?

I see you finally got around to it. But obviously your compulsion to
harass extends even to those you say you wish to help.

Or you didn't have it. And were running a bluff. Could that be it? 0:-

Why withhold, Doan. A little anal retentive, maybe?

Could it be your parents are still beating your butt?

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

Doan wrote:

On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


toto wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:


The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.

No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993.


Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH?

Sure.


"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic
format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE!

So, why did you invite me to find the link and download a copy?

Stupid asshole.

Doan


Kane




--
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

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:52:21 -0600, Carlson LaVonne
wrote:

Dorothy,

And the other thing I'd like to add is the age and developmental level
of the child. I've had parents write about toddlers and young
preschoolers entering the street. Parent should do everything possible
to prevent street entry, but with these tiny children, keeping them safe
is their parents' or caregivers' responsibility. The best way to keep a
toddler and a young preschooler from entering the street alone is to not
allow the action to occur. And this doesn't mean spanking, nagging,
reprimanding, or reasoning. This means practicing prevention.

LaVonne

Of course it does, LaVonne. As far as I know no one who advocates
not spanking has advocated scolding, nagging or reprimanding as a
method of discipline for anything at all though these things do occur
when parents are stressed or when they don't know what other options
to use instead of spanking.

As for young children, supervision and redirection are the two things
I recommend to prevent unsafe activities. It's a bit silly to react
after the fact in situations where your child could be killed or badly
injured with a punishment that does not work to keep him from doing
the same action again if you are not there to supervise. Many
punishments work in the short term when parents are around, but
they don't work to keep the children safe when the parents are not
around.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Showing you STUPIDITY again, ignoranus kane0? ;-)

The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?


Sure you can, but it takes time, effort and MONEY!

To download it from a source that offers it in electronic format?

Sure! Are you saying that it DOESN'T take time, effort and MONEY,
ignoranus kane0? BTW, what I was saying, in responding to your question
of "put something in electronic format", is that it takes time, effort
and money. Do you have a problem with English, ignoranus kane0?

Can't you read your own posts?

Can you read yours, STUPID! ;-)

How would this stop you from having offer both "Alina" and becca, and
Dorothy, this document in electronic format?

This is the kind of stupidity you have shown from the beginning, Doan.

Just like your phony debates with LaVonne, with Chris, with Gowtch, others.

You keep coming up with these impossible claims based on the most
assinine pieces of convoluted bull****, and you think no one can see it?

If it was DONE in 81, what would stop someone from providing it in
electronic format in 1993?


DAMN! WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID? You were "never-spanked" so you can't
blame on the way your parents raised you; it must be GENETIC! ;-)

Now say something even more stupid for us.

YOU! ;-)


The internet didn't take off until 1994! If they provided it in
electronic format back in 1993, what format would that be?


See I knew you could.

Answer my question then. What format would that be?

Dumbell. From that date ON what format would it be in 94, and afterward?

PDF seems to be the standard now! Or you meant mp3, jpeg, tiff....etc?

Did the Internet not make it possible to up and download ELECTRONIC
FORMAT documents?

Sure. But at what price? Remember that it wasn't that long ago that
56K modem was godsend? How long would you think it takes to download
a 140 page report? And how do you think a library would store such
a report? On a floppy disk? ;-)

I transmit documents all the time that do not arrive on my desk
electronically. I simply scan them through OCR. Five minutes clean up in
a word processor, and zip.... out again as an attachment. Hell I do it
damn near every day in my profession. And so to millions of other people
these days.

Just how ****in' dumb ARE you.


You should ask you mom that! ;-)

electronic format".

AVEZ-VOUS UN PROBLEME AVEC L'ANGLAIS? ;-)

AVEZ-VOUS UN PROBLEME AVEC TU L'BRAIN?


VOUS ETES UN IDIOT !

I'm not the one that thinks an electronically available document can't
be available AFTER 1993, dimwit.

What are you saying? They are available NOW (after 1993)! ;-)
Votre anglais is tres mal, idiot! ;-)


Doan

How the hell do you get your shoes on the right feet?


I ask you mom! ;-)

She didn't know you.

But she know you! ;-)

Doan

Now, please explain to the nice readers that if it was available in
electronic format prior in 93, how it would be avialable via the
Internet from 94 one, in electronic format.

But there is the problem, IT WASN'T available prior to 93, STUPID!

You are either stupid as a stump or simply harassing.

And you are ignoranus kane0?

Don't you remember me telling you or others in this group that I had
worked IN my first computer in 1957?

LOL! Stop the PUFFERING! It only makes you sound more ridiculous!

I was around when it all developed. I KNEW Tim Berners-Lee work when it
first was introduced.

"WWW FAQs: Who invented the World Wide Web?

IT'S ALGORE, STUPID! ;-)

2003-06-30: the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989,
with the first working system deployed in 1990, while he was working at
CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research). He went on to
found the World Wide Web Consortium, which seeks to standardize and
improve World Wide Web-related things such as the HTML markup language
in which web pages are written."

"The internet didn't take off until 1994!"

"Take off in 1994?" "The INTERNET." You idiot boy.

R R R R ...maybe where you were, still in the cradle.

I was raggin' on the stupid asses of people like your good buddy Neal
via Fidonet in 1984. And no, that's not an error and you know it.

Nineteen EIGHTY FOUR. Not 1994.

Read the RFC's, STUPID! You know what an RFC is, right? ;-)

So, idiotboy, just what format WOULD that have been, electronically, in
1993?

"Screen Shot of Tim Berners-Lee's Browser Editor as Developed in 1991-92
This was a true browser editor for the first version of HTML and ran on
a NeXt workstation. Implemented in Objective-C, it, made it easy to
create, view and edit web documents."

How do you hold down that job being so amazingly ignorant of the history.

"create, view and edit," monkey screecher.

and what format is that? HTML?

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS.

And why don't you send toto and becca to get the ones you dared me to get?

I thought it's only available through Dr. Embry? ;-)

Didn't you say it was available electronically, or did you withhold that
bit of information to harass?

NO. Where did I say that? You are either stupid, lying or BOTH!

Stop and think for a moment how all this fits in with the last year of
your lying bull**** that you had the Embry report.

I thought you said it's only available through Dr. Embry? Shall I repost
your own words? ;-)

What a scumbag you are.

And what and IGNORANUS you are! ;-)

Doan