David Moore, step DOWN ...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Could you tell me what SAC dolls are, Ron?

Thanks,

Doan


Sure, love to.

http://www.amamantafamily.com/Amaman...ls_history.htm

http://www.amamantafamily.com/anatom..._doll_uses.htm

There is as usual some controversy concerning the use of SAC dolls, but
its rarely about the dolls themselves but the training and conclusions of
the professional using them. I find them distasteful myself, but can see
the validity of their use in many areas. I don't buy all that the links
above try and sell you on, but then again I am a Traditionalist where
child rearing is concerned.

Some controversy? There is no problem with the DOLLS themselves. They
are neutral. It is only when you put them in the hands of an IDIOT who
believes that they can tell them whether or not a child has been molested
that they become a problem Ron!

Again the question that SHOULD (but sadly won't) tell you that there is
in inherent problem with the dolls is' "What does a child use a doll FOR,
Ron?"

"Ron" wrote in message
...

http://www.amamantafamily.com/anatom..._doll_uses.htm


Here is what the MANUFACTURER SAYS:

.. Educate children on the life cycle

.. Help the child adjust to the arrival of a new sibling

.. Instill your own core family values and good behavior through play at an
early age

.. Explain the roles of present or absent family members--father, mother,
grandpa, siblings

.. Learn about your child's emotional needs and concerns through playful
self-expression

.. Explain pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and the care required for a
newborn.

.. Good old fashion playtime with true-to-life dolls

================================================== ====

Now I could TRY to further WASTE my time by attempting to point out to you
that even YOUR OWN SOURCE does NOT support yourt claims of the use of the
dolls to "DIAGNOSE" child sexual abuse!

As you two CLOWNS flop on the beach of reality,I am greatly amused that
you two matching book-end morons TRY to make my comment on a statistical
study that showed how UNRELIABLE the PROTOCOL is in the DIAGNOSIS of abuse
using the dolls.

sigh Why do I WASTE my time?

"0:-" wrote in message
newsbadne6YrtxBISvYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

post hoc ergo proctor hoc, as to my being right. Silly science used a
proof is poor science indeed.

Proof ONLY, Make, that the use of the dolls is IINVALID and UNRELIABLE
NOT standing for anything but that.

I deliberately created silly science out of silly science, as one cannot
do otherwise.

Sure one can take the dsta on its face that the use of the dolls is
unreliable Kane.

There is a slight chance Ken understood and described the test and outcome
and the correlation claimed, but I doubt it, given his record so far.

If he was right, I am right. If he is not one or more of the elements
would be wrong thus the entire premise would be wrong.

NO Kane you are NOT right. I did NOT say the research stood for anything
but that the protocols were unreliable.

And even the MANUFACTURER doesn't support your claims of their reliability
for the purpose of the diagnosis of sexual abuse:

.. Educate children on the life cycle

.. Help the child adjust to the arrival of a new sibling

.. Instill your own core family values and good behavior through play at an
early age

.. Explain the roles of present or absent family members--father, mother,
grandpa, siblings

.. Learn about your child's emotional needs and concerns through playful
self-expression

.. Explain pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and the care required for a
newborn.

.. Good old fashion playtime with true-to-life dolls

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to
have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned
was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.

I find this SOOOO exciting!

I bet NOT!

You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?

You simply ASTOUND me Kane! You REALLY do! It just few over your head
at warp factor 23.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

IF you are a FUKKKKKKKKKKING IDIOT yes!

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.

IF you are a drolling FOOL, I'd suppose somebody as totally SIMPLE
minded as you might do just that!

And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.

Only for a MORON.

Do you have a link to this information as prime source?
Or even a scientific or professional periodical (I'm not even insisting
on the peer reviewed research itself)?

Yes But I am NOT sharing it with you! I alread have with others.

This, Ken, is your big chance.

What? To waste more time?

Don't muff it.

I'm sending this to a listserve for researchers that is hosted by
Cornell U. that includes people such as Straus and David Finkelhor,
Professor at University of New Hampshire.

This could be Big Ken, really big.

I am sure they are aware of it Kane. Since it isn't exactly a new study.
It's is also the platform by wich almost EVERY state has rejected the SAC
dolls as evidence. Do you have a CLUE as to the "White" protocol?

You draw truly IDIOTIC conclusions from evidence placed in front of you.
In this case all that was really established is that the things you get from
SAC dolls are unreliable data. YOU want to draw granite level conclusions.
YOUI rather NEED a black and white world. But then, that's because you
function in life as an absolutist.

Go tell your butt buddy Doan I was wrong.


Do you know WHO runs the Cornel LIST?????? A DIM clue?


Got me there. Never heard of the "Cornel LIST?????"

It, if you meant Cornell University, seems to attract very high level
university researchers putting out requests for research and offering
opportunities for others to contribute to theirs.

And don't just tease me with my ignorance, enlighten me as I have so
righteously enlightened you, you poor impotent little puppy.

Why, by the way, would you presume I'd subscribe to a listserv that I
did not know the folks that 'runs' it?

Obviously there is some dark and sinister connection to some Star
Chamber situation you will withhold information from me about.

I can't stand the suspense. I am your anxious intellectual slave now,
all atwitter in anticipation of your revelation.

Ken, just how stupid are you?

Are you so badly mentally disabled that you cannot let yourself believe
that others can read and comprehend you have been lying your ass off
since you have been here...in every single post?

Or are you, as I suspect, able to convince yourself your factual lies,
your errors, and your bull**** is all true?

Either you are a moral cretin or a stupid one.

0:-

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.
Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida,
stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to
have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned
was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual
molested
kids gave the lowest.
Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?
This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!
Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.
Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!
Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all.
I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish
what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of
The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put
to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd
known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids
gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that
high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and
nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to
LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number
of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name
of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test
showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

It AIN'T unresolved issue Kane. The law REJECTS their use in courts!


To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

Kan you are truly an ILL man.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC
doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT
likely to have been molested.


The "KANE" test. It is 100% in YOUR mind Kane.

Apparently your sense of humor fails you when you are the object of the
comedic content.

Too bad. You let a great chance slip by.

By the way, the logic of my answer is elegantly true.

It is, however, based on "silly" science, so fails, of course, to be
cogent or useful, except as satire.

Geez having to explain the joke is a come down, but then that's what
happens when one attempts to entertain the dumb.

Others, got it just fine, Ken. Even Doan, your partner in lying.

You are wasting your time, kid.

Too many adults here for you to fool.

Only the children who brought you here pretend to believe you for their
own purposes.

Do you LIKE being someone's sucker?

0;-]

krp wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane

Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on
on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity
of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ls&btnG=Search

As you can see, I have 23,000 thousands proof that Kane is right?

Read them and weep you "****-sucking", "assholes" and "scumbags".

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 23,000 for validity SAC dolls. (0.37
seconds)
Anatomically Correct Dolls in False Allegation Cases - 2:49pm
Although the sexually anatomical dolls, SAC Dolls, are widely used in the
... of the dolls with children have failed to produce evidence for any
validity or ...

Okay, dummy.

I was going to leave you alone and let you retreat quietly in peace.

But you just present all to big a target with your fat dumb arrogant ass.

You just beg to have it kicked.

I am enjoying Kane whipping the **** out of his straw dog.

If I believed in my silly science postulate, you poor flabby brained
git, you would be right.

That you pretend it was serious to try and discredit me shows how very
disabled your funny bone is.

However, I'll play along for awhile. Possibly we haven't, as I had
presumed, milked all the humor potential out of Greg, then Doan
introducing you to us.

(Did you notice that the SLTAIC thread was solely confined to aps, until
just before you joined it? Doan popped the ascps addy in to lure you,
stupid. He knew you'd bite. You did.

He's a trickster, stupid.

He'll play every side to entertain himself in his playpen.

Moving right along then:

If I had
intended

Who gives a **** besides you, Kenny the Dim, what YOU intended?

It's how you feel on your ass that is of interest. YOUR intend is self
serving gluttony and avarice.

Ours, including Greg and Doan, is to use you, just like we have.

that one draw the IDIOTIC conclusion Kane draws

Mmmm..oh Kenny? OH KENNY? KNOCK KNOCK. Are you in there? Wake up.

The best irony is to pretend to the seriousness of the situation to the
level of the ridiculous "Johnny Cochran on" didn't clue you in? What
does it take, more two by fours to the head you seemed to have suffered
from in the past?

from my reference
to a study that showed the UNRELIABILITY of the responses in using the Dolls
I would have included such a claim in my post.

Guess what. While that may be TRUE, you did not present it as UNRELIABLE.

You presented it as proof, CAUSAL R R R R R R, that the UNRELIABLE
FACTOR WAS CONSTANT.

That indeed the molested children showed less interest, and the
unmolested more, to a statistical significance that proved the outcomes
constant enough to be RELIABLE.

Or, your argument would fall flat on it's ass.

YOU claimed that the outcomes were statistically significant exactly as
I've said here, and in my "reply" with my formulating an X leads to Y
that was in fact TRUE, but false on the use of the source
material...YOUR STUPID SILLY SCIENCE interpretation of the test.

I didn't!

Of course not, you take yourself all TOO seriously, Ken the Dupe.

Kane makes his
insane argument and now foams at the mouth trying to defeat his own stupid
argument.

RR...R.R.R.R...

No, KEN. YOU, Ken Pangborn "defeated" my argument.

You did so by making statements about the outcome of the test that is
"silly science" at it's best.

If you want to claim UNRELIABILITY don't claim that testing had a high
statistical outcome that proved the reliability supporting your claim.

You should have said that the tests showed statistically that whether or
not the children had been molested there was a wide and statistical
outcome of RANDOMNESS.

Ken, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for MYSELF, beating your poor
ignorant and intellectually inferior ass so soundly.

ALL you can do is LIE, man.

Don't try to argue me logically into seeing something that isn't there.

JUST LIE, KEN.

It's not much but, kid, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE GOT.

My point was that the researchers concludes only that the SAC
dolls were "UNRELIABLE"

Really? How did they do that by showing that there was a statistically
valid repetition of molested child to low number of reaction to the dolls?

If a RELIABILITY outcome, and powerfully causal, according to YOUR
description.

Go back. Look at it again ... the actual test (you might share with us
if you haven't been lying that you actually know the result) and if it
IS an UNRELIABILITY OF THE SAC DOLLS TESTING outcome, it's going to show
that there was NO support for a NON RANDOM outcome.

That the children, regardless of prior molestation or non-molestation
had the same pattern, statistically speaking, to the dolls.

and not the absolutely INSANE place Kane has
traveled to.

Ask Doan. The guy that has lied for you to use your stupidity in his
play pen, dummy.

He knows my ironic portrayal includes correct logic to support
RELIABLITY OF THE TEST AS TO MOLESTED AND UNMOLESTED CHILDREN PRODUCING
the statistical relevance (we call this correlation) for RELIABILITY.

As I said, if you weren't so stupid as to post a silly science analysis
of the test, and it was TRUE what you claimed, we would have a trend
analysis data collection tool of considerable power.

We don't, of course...at least not to my knowledge of the application of
testing children using SAC dolls.

I TOLD you, stupid, that the issue is unresolved. The use of them has
been poor to criminally incorrect.

They might work if their use was confined to proper boundaries for
proper purposes.

They were MEANT to be used to help a child demonstrate HOW they were
molested, not IF they were.

And I mean that I, personally, understand them to meant for that, and I
am not commenting on the creators at all. Damned if I can figure out
what was intended in the beginning it's so screwed up now.

Let's Rename him JAMES TIBERIUS KANE! Of the Starship
Absurdity!

"All right, Mr. Sulu, set in a course for Kendaria, and take us out... "

R R R R R R R R RR R R R R R R ....oh dear, can I hold out long
enough to say, "WARP SPEED"?

krp wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.
Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from
Florida, stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known
to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was
learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual
molested
kids gave the lowest.
Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no
abuse,
right?
This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!
Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have
sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in
one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers
statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE
molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.
Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!
Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at
all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to
establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words
of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was
put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested,
2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7
times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved
that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll
and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated
to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of
number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the
name of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White
test showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say.

"Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN
conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for
when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for
Molestation.



If XC leads to y then C is m

If XC leads to Y then C is n

Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls.

And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested.







To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive
replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool.

I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman
of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to
know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the
SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is
NOT likely to have been molested.

LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!"

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to
have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.
Kane wrote
I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that
crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down
off
that cross he had you nailed so securely to.
Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research?
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire
deprived. My apologies.

Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed
together?
The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the
master debater, from the central region.

And and answers thusly:

Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you
are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo.

I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme
Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children
LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones!
All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's
blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that
the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was
molested, and vice versa.

While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what
his claim IS.

Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you.

He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that
the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption.

High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest.

Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so.

ROFL!
I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences
and have this moment of jollity and comic relief.

I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me.

Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will.

R R R R R R R R R

Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this
Homage to his great analytical skills.

Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud:

Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers
sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents.

You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind
of dumb puds they are.

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane

Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on
on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity
of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results:

Doan admitted that Kane is right on something?

Uhhhhh, Uhhhhh, Uhhhhh, does not compute.


Sarcasm sails over you head does it RONNIE? Are you the "SCIENCE OFFICER"
on Captain James T. Kane's Star Ship Absurdity? Live long and prosper that
Spook!

Ken, do you have full coverage?

I swear, if you make me laugh any harder and I bust something I'm going
to sue you for Uproariousness.

Everyone is laughing the asses off at YOU, dummy.

MY POST WAS IRONY, AT YOUR EXPENSE AND YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

Doan was perfectly serious in the statement he made as to my being RIGHT.

But he planted that right in the middle of a comeback to keep the ball
rolling, if he could.

I was right, Ken. In the formulation based on your description of the
test outcomes.

Of course I WAS DELIBERATELY WRONG to, if I really wished to be taken
seriously, base my formula on YOUR sIlLy SCienCe.

Which, you know I did do.

Is this getting too complex for you?

Ken, stick to lying. It's funny enough.

Trying to seriously debate with me (Hell you aren't even up to a debate
with our resident group idiot, Greg) should be a nightclub comedy act.

You'd have them rolling in the aisles the more you attempt to be serious.

You'd make a million, easy.

Ken, are you really one up on me and stretching satire to it's extreme
boundaries?

Boy, if you are, you are GOOD.

Maybe the world of comedy is ready for another buddy act, say on the
model of Abbot and Costello, eh?

R R R R R R R RR R

krp wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
Could you tell me what SAC dolls are, Ron?

Thanks,

Doan

Sure, love to.

http://www.amamantafamily.com/Amaman...ls_history.htm

http://www.amamantafamily.com/anatom..._doll_uses.htm

There is as usual some controversy concerning the use of SAC dolls, but
its rarely about the dolls themselves but the training and conclusions of
the professional using them. I find them distasteful myself, but can see
the validity of their use in many areas. I don't buy all that the links
above try and sell you on, but then again I am a Traditionalist where
child rearing is concerned.

Some controversy? There is no problem with the DOLLS themselves. They
are neutral. It is only when you put them in the hands of an IDIOT who
believes that they can tell them whether or not a child has been molested
that they become a problem Ron!

Yep, you are without a doubt my superior in satire, Ken.

I would have never thought of taking what Ron and I have been telling
you in prior posts, and lecturing us with it as the apparent originator.

Good one, Ken. Really really good one. 0;-]


Again the question that SHOULD (but sadly won't) tell you that there is
in inherent problem with the dolls is' "What does a child use a doll FOR,
Ron?"

Mmmm........I'm going to make a wild guess that you are serious and answer.

Play, of course.

Imaginary play.

And of course, to represent, most often, the real world they are
learning about. The natural developmental motive for play.

Children don't play for distraction. That a definition, usually, of
adult play. Children are hard at WORK when they play. It's called
learning. Honest.

They are "playing" to recreate, replicate (through repetition), and
interpret the real world. To bring it within their power to manipulate
as adults do. If you think (please do) carefully you will see that this
is what is up with children at "play."

You are fooled by the notion that 'work' must be serious and painful,
and unsatisfying for the most part (poor adult), and you watch children
at "work" doing so joyfully with deep satisfaction.

This trait is the basis for the presumptions behind the dolls and their
use.

Thus, in this, the dolls aren't being USED by the child, the dolls are
being used by the investigators as an interpretive tool.

Ken, I put in about five hours video time watching (out of thousands of
hours on many subjects using live real populations) the application of
various methods of interview on this particular subject, sex abuse
examination. (I've taught interview methods to various professions, LE,
judicial, mental health, child.)

I KNOW what the dolls are actually used for in the field, and best used
for(not often), and all the weaknesses inherent.

And I have said, right here in this newsgroup, TO YOU, I still don't
have enough information to make the kind of stupid science
interpretation you did, to be able to say the issue IS resolved one way
or the other. We need more real science, and it's probably not
economically feasible to fund.

Did you really assume that when I said the issue is unresolved as to SAC
doll use I spoke out of ignorance of the subject?

For all the various motives people subscribe to this group, ascps, and
aps, my own is clear to me. This IS MY AREA OF INTEREST. Professionally
as well as personally.

Ken, when you lie, you are a card. Elaborate, convoluted, and likely
believed by you, lying is very funny because it's so transparent.

Tragedy is the root of comedy.

When you take yourself seriously and attempt to discuss (I don't think
I'm going to sully the term 'debate' by pretending you do it any more)
issues you've obviously just 'researched' inadequately on The Web the
humorous connotations become almost unbearable.

We can laugh so hard so long and then there's an end to it.

If someone came along and believed you? ...... it would cease to be
funny and turn to tragedy.

The ancient Greeks knew this. That's why the masks are paired.

How long are you willing to be the dupe for Greg (even the stupid and
ignorant know when to call for help....even if they don't know what help
is) and Doan and continue this?

Ah well, they did know to call on the stupid to keep us busy and focused
off their bull****. The stupid can't see the truth and when seeing it
will have a bad reaction to it. Are you allergic?

0:-

krp wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

http://www.amamantafamily.com/anatom..._doll_uses.htm


Here is what the MANUFACTURER SAYS:

.. Educate children on the life cycle

.. Help the child adjust to the arrival of a new sibling

.. Instill your own core family values and good behavior through play at an
early age

.. Explain the roles of present or absent family members--father, mother,
grandpa, siblings

.. Learn about your child's emotional needs and concerns through playful
self-expression

.. Explain pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and the care required for a
newborn.

.. Good old fashion playtime with true-to-life dolls

================================================== ====

Now I could TRY to further WASTE my time by attempting to point out to you
that even YOUR OWN SOURCE does NOT support yourt claims of the use of the
dolls to "DIAGNOSE" child sexual abuse!

No one said they were supporting that.

YOU created that out of your delusions.

In fact I've stated exactly the opposite. That it's an unresolved issue,
and right from the start.

Then you proved, R R R Ken that indeed it COULD BE USED FOR IT, at
least statistically.

As you two CLOWNS flop on the beach of reality,

We told YOU, Ken what you are now claiming as YOUR original thought.

As I said, Ken, you are nearly as funny when you lie as when you attempt
to be serious.

I am greatly amused that
you two matching book-end morons

Simple insult does not really shore up your argument. It just invites
your opponent to laugh and walk away from you. I use it precisely for
that purpose. To see how the opponent reacts.

How they do tells me much more than their response to the claims I offer.

Most, the liars of course, use it to duck out of the debate, indicating
they think they cannot win.

You are so stupid that you think you can.

TRY to make my comment on a statistical
study that showed how UNRELIABLE the PROTOCOL is in the DIAGNOSIS of abuse
using the dolls.

I would be most interested, in fact, as Mr. Spock says, fascinated, to
see you prove, sticking to YOUR description of the protocol being
tested, how you find support for an "UNRELIABLE" outcome.

The opposite was claimed by YOU, Ken.

That there was a statistical probability sufficient to show that one
population and the other, each had consistent reaction to the doll,
exclusive to that group and not to the other.

You do understand what a "reliability" factor really is in research
don't you?

It has to do with the reliability of THE INTERVIEWERS PERFORMANCE, not
the outcome.

You are too ignorant to be trusted to breath on your own.

What you mean to say, putting your ignorance aside, is that the tests
showed a strong CORREPUCKINLATION of molested to low numbers, and
unmolested to high numbers.

This means, in your 'causal' formula claim, that X leads to Y
sufficiently to believe that one would get the same results with any two
such groups of children.

X being the use of the dolls, and Y being the number and kind of
responses of the child.

Thus, Ken, being able to predict that Y will be replicatable most likely.

WHEN such tests are replicated, Ken, we have a model of a tool that will
be useful in prediction.

The manufacturers advertise the doll as they do presuming enough
families will get the same result as they list to make the dolls salable
and pleasing to the parents.

Thus more sales.

That has nothing, not a thing, to do with other uses they are put to. It
neither adds nor detracts. Null, Ken.

I can use a hammer on a stuck crankshaft I'm trying to pull, or on a
spike to hang up a pork roast to smoke.

Same hammer.

The question, as yet unresolved, as you LIE about my not have said so,
and pretend I support it as a diagnostic tool, is what is the best use
under the best conditions.

My contention, and I've posted it twice, liar, is that it would work
best to be used to investigate HOW the child was molested (vital to
courtroom presented testimony mostly for comparisons to forensic
evidence..physical forensics) not IF the child was.

I don't want to have to repeat this again, but I would take bets you'll
lie again pretending I did not say it.

Or you have the memory of an elephant...a dead one, stinking up the
place.

sigh Why do I WASTE my time?

For you, self aggrandizement you do not and have not earned.

For us, humor.

0:-]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane

Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on
on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity
of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ls&btnG=Search

As you can see, I have 23,000 thousands proof that Kane is right?

Read them and weep you "****-sucking", "assholes" and "scumbags".

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 23,000 for validity SAC dolls. (0.37
seconds)
Anatomically Correct Dolls in False Allegation Cases - 2:49pm
Although the sexually anatomical dolls, SAC Dolls, are widely used in the
... of the dolls with children have failed to produce evidence for any
validity or ...

Okay, dummy.

I was going to leave you alone and let you retreat quietly in peace.

But you just present all to big a target with your fat dumb arrogant ass.

You just beg to have it kicked.

I am enjoying Kane whipping the **** out of his straw dog.

If I believed in my silly science postulate, you poor flabby brained
git, you would be right.

That you pretend it was serious to try and discredit me shows how very
disabled your funny bone is.

However, I'll play along for awhile. Possibly we haven't, as I had
presumed, milked all the humor potential out of Greg, then Doan
introducing you to us.

(Did you notice that the SLTAIC thread was solely confined to aps, until
just before you joined it? Doan popped the ascps addy in to lure you,
stupid. He knew you'd bite. You did.

He's a trickster, stupid.

He'll play every side to entertain himself in his playpen.

Moving right along then:

If I had
intended

Who gives a **** besides you, Kenny the Dim, what YOU intended?

It's how you feel on your ass that is of interest. YOUR intend is self
serving gluttony and avarice.

Ours, including Greg and Doan, is to use you, just like we have.

WoW! You don't speak for me, Kane! You have just invalidated your
argument, STUPID!

Doan