The Claim studies have not been posted here....pure bunk.

NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited. Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

Is Kane0 really this stupid??? ;-) I'll let the readers read through
this propaganda site and see if they can find a study that compared
spanking to non-cp alternatives.

Doan


On 29 Dec 2005 wrote:

NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited. Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

The principal strategy of no-spanks was to put the focus on spanking
and ignore that they had nothing of comparable ease and effectiveness
to offer in its place. Use of most of the no-spank alternatives
requires investment in time and money merely to use. Absent is any
common sense integration of strategies.

No-spank is one of those things that looks good on paper but has
limited application in real life situations. The proof exists in the
carefully constructed language of those no-spanks who boast about never
spanking their kid while avoiding the question of whether their child
has ever been spanked. On paper, the outcomes more easily reflect the
desires of the author than do real life children.

Doan wrote:
Is Kane0 really this stupid??? ;-) I'll let the readers read through
this propaganda site and see if they can find a study that compared
spanking to non-cp alternatives.

Doan


On 29 Dec 2005 wrote:

NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited. Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

Opinions wrote:
The principal strategy of no-spanks was to put the focus on spanking
and ignore that they had nothing of comparable ease and effectiveness
to offer in its place.

The very first comment a lie, observer?

Use of most of the no-spank alternatives
requires investment in time and money merely to use.

Really? I have to pay someone to talk with my child?

If I need information the library will charge me to read books?

Absent is any
common sense integration of strategies.

I managed to use sense, common or otherwise, raising my children, just
as others have, without resorting to hitting.

No-spank is one of those things that looks good on paper but has
limited application in real life situations.

So, you admit that you have no workable methods other than spanking.
Thought so.

The proof exists in the
carefully constructed language of those no-spanks who boast about never
spanking their kid while avoiding the question of whether their child
has ever been spanked.

What utter silliness. We don't mention if they chewed gum either.

Are you suggesting we hired someone to spank them so we woudn't have to
? R R R R R

On paper, the outcomes more easily reflect the
desires of the author than do real life children.

So then, what we have here is an opening lie. I notice, by the way, that
YOU and your silly putty friends haven't provided any "spanking"
handbooks, but they are out there. WE have to bring their goofiness into
the newgroup to refute.

Then we have a claim that it's expensive in time and money to use
nonspanking alternatives.

What we note is that overall not only in our personal experience of
raising our children without hitting is two things. One, it actually
becomes quite cheap very quickly, in both time and money, and more than
worth any extra time it might take if it does.

Or don't you think children are worth the extra "expense?"

You are a pitiful wretch with nothing going for you but protecting the
right of parents to assault their children?

Tsk.

0:-





Doan wrote:
Is Kane0 really this stupid??? ;-) I'll let the readers read through
this propaganda site and see if they can find a study that compared
spanking to non-cp alternatives.

Doan


On 29 Dec 2005 wrote:

NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the
argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited.
Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been
cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical
monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve
life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed
before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been
argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way
out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

Keep up with the LIES, Kane0! ;-)

Doan


On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Pohaku Kane wrote:


Opinions wrote:
The principal strategy of no-spanks was to put the focus on spanking
and ignore that they had nothing of comparable ease and effectiveness
to offer in its place.

The very first comment a lie, observer?

Use of most of the no-spank alternatives
requires investment in time and money merely to use.

Really? I have to pay someone to talk with my child?

If I need information the library will charge me to read books?

Absent is any
common sense integration of strategies.

I managed to use sense, common or otherwise, raising my children, just
as others have, without resorting to hitting.

No-spank is one of those things that looks good on paper but has
limited application in real life situations.

So, you admit that you have no workable methods other than spanking.
Thought so.

The proof exists in the
carefully constructed language of those no-spanks who boast about never
spanking their kid while avoiding the question of whether their child
has ever been spanked.

What utter silliness. We don't mention if they chewed gum either.

Are you suggesting we hired someone to spank them so we woudn't have to
? R R R R R

On paper, the outcomes more easily reflect the
desires of the author than do real life children.

So then, what we have here is an opening lie. I notice, by the way, that
YOU and your silly putty friends haven't provided any "spanking"
handbooks, but they are out there. WE have to bring their goofiness into
the newgroup to refute.

Then we have a claim that it's expensive in time and money to use
nonspanking alternatives.

What we note is that overall not only in our personal experience of
raising our children without hitting is two things. One, it actually
becomes quite cheap very quickly, in both time and money, and more than
worth any extra time it might take if it does.

Or don't you think children are worth the extra "expense?"

You are a pitiful wretch with nothing going for you but protecting the
right of parents to assault their children?

Tsk.

0:-





Doan wrote:
Is Kane0 really this stupid??? ;-) I'll let the readers read through
this propaganda site and see if they can find a study that compared
spanking to non-cp alternatives.

Doan


On 29 Dec 2005 wrote:

NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the
argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited.
Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been
cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical
monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve
life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed
before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been
argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way
out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

That is why they have to resort to LIES!

Doan


On 2 Jan 2006, Opinions wrote:

The principal strategy of no-spanks was to put the focus on spanking
and ignore that they had nothing of comparable ease and effectiveness
to offer in its place. Use of most of the no-spank alternatives
requires investment in time and money merely to use. Absent is any
common sense integration of strategies.

No-spank is one of those things that looks good on paper but has
limited application in real life situations. The proof exists in the
carefully constructed language of those no-spanks who boast about never
spanking their kid while avoiding the question of whether their child
has ever been spanked. On paper, the outcomes more easily reflect the
desires of the author than do real life children.

Doan wrote:
Is Kane0 really this stupid??? ;-) I'll let the readers read through
this propaganda site and see if they can find a study that compared
spanking to non-cp alternatives.

Doan


On 29 Dec 2005 wrote:

NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited. Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

Opinions wrote:
The principal strategy of no-spanks was to put the focus on spanking
and ignore that they had nothing of comparable ease and effectiveness
to offer in its place.

If you check the archives and read the parenting books that have been
suggested, you will find that this statement is false.

Use of most of the no-spank alternatives
requires investment in time and money merely to use.

Of course no-spank alternatives involve an investment of time. I don't
know about you, but I can't think of any better time investment than
parenting children. If one resents the time involved to parent
appropriately, one obviously should not be raising children.

As far as investment in money required to not spank a child, this is
absolutely a hoot. What is costly about not spanking a child?

Absent is any
common sense integration of strategies.

Absent perhaps is the understanding of the strategies that have been
presented.

No-spank is one of those things that looks good on paper but has
limited application in real life situations. The proof exists in the
carefully constructed language of those no-spanks who boast about never
spanking their kid while avoiding the question of whether their child
has ever been spanked. On paper, the outcomes more easily reflect the
desires of the author than do real life children.

Studies are done on real life children, Opinions (Observer). If you
were able to read and understand the studies, the parenting books, and
the strategies that have been presented, you would realize the falacy of
your above paragraph. And what does this mean, "no-spanks who boast
about never spanking their child while avoiding the question opf whether
their child has ever been spanked?" If the parents aren't spanking, who
do you think is spanking the child? Many non-spanking parents live in
states where spanking is illegal by anyone but a child's parents. Who
is doing all this spanking?

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

Is Kane0 really this stupid??? ;-) I'll let the readers read through
this propaganda site and see if they can find a study that compared
spanking to non-cp alternatives.

Doan


On 29 Dec 2005 wrote:


NO one has posted full studies here, from either side of the argument.

The fact is various quotes have been pulled and sources cited. Here are
a collection of many by those oppposed to spanking that have been cited
here.

http://www.nospank.net/resrch.htm

The only thing left now is to watch the screeching hysterical monkeyboy
try once again to get some attention (funny about how some of the
spanked folks react, isn't it.....some get over it and improve life for
others and some insist on becoming part of the problem).

All the issues brought up by these studies have been addressed before.
And the BS of the compulsives repeatedly and thoroughly rebutted.

Archives of this ng are available and if readers see claims they have
not, before presuming the lying compulsives are telling the truth, a
quick search in the archives will show the truth. They have been argued
into the corner again and again, only to ignore and lie their way out.

Mostly by waiting days, weeks, or months, and bringing up their same
old arguments as though they had not been addressed previously, and
rebutted.

0:-

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Opinions wrote:
The principal strategy of no-spanks was to put the focus on spanking
and ignore that they had nothing of comparable ease and effectiveness
to offer in its place.

If you check the archives and read the parenting books that have been
suggested, you will find that this statement is false.


"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive
effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be
routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However,
it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

Go ahead, LaVonne. Can Gershoff be so wrong? ;-)

Doan

http://www.nospank.net/sgndrf7.htm

Spankers' reference to Proverbs is a ruse
Letter to the San Bernardino County Sun
By The Rev. Thomas E. Sagendorf , December 19, 2005

December 19, 2005
Letters to the Editor
San Bernardino County Sun

Dear Editor:

The sentence of Craig Luke for the brutal belt beating of his son
should draw a prison term of at least two years. Perhaps more.
Likewise, the phony James Dobson and his toadie, Den Trumbull, should
serve equal time. Focus on the Family is the primary purveyor of child
abuse in the United States.

The oft-quoted reference to Proverbs is a ruse. These people take a
secular tradition (in this case, hitting children) and thumb through
the Bible to find a proof text to support their position. These same
folks would be loath to use the Bible to support polygamy, slavery,
incest, or the execution of those who eat pork.

Pastor Oliver Lambert is dead wrong when he states that sparing the rod
we will spoil the child. My wife and I raised two children to
responsible, Christian adulthood without ever hitting, spanking,
whipping, paddling, pinching, or shaking them. We now have the joy of
watching our daughters raise their children in the same nonviolent and
dignified manner.

The truth, of course, the so-called Christian Right has always enjoyed
the sport of hitting kids. It makes them feel important, authoritative,
and in complete control. Many of these same folks are, by nature,
violent, abusive, and emotionally ill. Since children have no rights in
this great land, they feel that they have license to subject kids to
their cowardly violence.

Anyone who takes seriously what Jesus said in the Gospels (particularly
about children) would never participate in this kind of abuse.

It's clear that Craig Luke has failed as a parent. One wonders if he's
had more success as a clergyman. My hope is that his son, having
survived an abusive father, will choose a style of parenting that is
more consistent with what Jesus taught.

Respectfully submitted,

The Rev. Thomas E. Sagendorf
United Methodist Clergy
Hamilton, Indiana

He's referring to this story:

http://www.nospank.net/n-p40r.htm

SAN BERNARDINO - A local minister and high school psychologist will be
in court today, presumably to begin his 120-day sentence for whipping
his teenage son with a leather belt for five minutes. Craig Luke was
convicted in December 2004 of injuring his 17-year-old son, Robert.
With his appeals exhausted, Luke was in San Bernardino Superior Court
on Monday and Thursday to request serving his time under house arrest
and on weekends....

http://www.nospank.net/n-p40r.htm for the full story.

The anti-spanking zealotS claimed that they have provided the studies I
asked "numerous times". All you have to do is to look in "the archives".

Have anyone found them yet? Please let me know so I can forward it to
researcher like Dr. Gershoff. ;-)

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive
effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be
routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However,
it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

Doan