If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Kane exposing his STUPIDITY again Stupidity
Doan wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Is it stupid to, in defense of unpublished research, to claim out of context that another researcher praised the work in some way?. Well, let's think about that. Who do we know that posted simply the Straus Praised Baumrinds methods...and then refused to acknowledge the following information, Eh? Here, early in the thread, was the statement of Doan. Later I posted a reply of sorts to it in response to LaVonne's views. Notice that, if you visit the thread, after my post NO response from Doan the Brilliiant was forthcoming. Speaking of a non peer reviewed unpublished report by Baumrind on her study of spanking results vis a vis aggression in children: " This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne. Doan Doan's claim founders on the fact that Straus admitted no such thing, but he, again, brilliantly would NOT respond to this or other challenges of mine that quoted Straus saying something very different about the Baurinds work in this very case. Which part of "excellent" don't you understand, Kane? The part in this case where it's not the only thing he said, and in fact was followed by clarification that makes the use of the word a negative comparison. Excellent "research" can result in poor outcome by way of the researchers interpretation...Baumrind both came to conclusions that were not warranted, and in fact the "excellent" research, as Straus pointed out had some less than excellent holes in it. You refuse to read the whole statement, and to post it and comment on it even when I have posted it. Sad. Thus you are lying, because this isn't an oversight error on your part but deliberate intention to preserve a state of "out of context" argument of your own. Deal with all the facts, Doan, or be seen as the liar you are. Notice that my challenge to Lavonne went unanswered? LaVonne is not as skilled as I, or as concerned with the effort to expose liars. She'd rather debate the facts. I respect that. I am so stupid that I debate you on your turf....you hiding from and hiding the facts, and drawing conclusions entirely without merit and in error from what we do look at in research. LaVonne has the weakness of not being able to debate a liar. I have a similar but opposite weakness of loving to expose a liar thus prolonging the exchange. Thus LaVonne doesn't engage you. You are a liar. Why should she? Seems Doan took his comments so badly out of context that he split of his claim right out of a complete sentence. Straus: " I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions:" Stupid? "her study is excellent" Do you understand English, Kane? You just exposed your STUPIDITY again! ;-) Do you understand English, Doan? You just exposed your stupidity again! What about "... but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions:" do you fail to understand. We aren't debating "excellence," and opinion about it's presence or lack, but about the conclusions. Or should be. I am, apparently you are not. This is a ploy of yours for years. Cut away from the facts, and debate the conditions. It's quite laughable and beginner students of debate learn it very quickly. And spot it just as quickly. And I'm not a beginner. Do you wish to debate Baumrind's conclusions and Straus' comment on those conclusions? Well if it's brilliant to post misinformation about respected researchers, then no. If it's not, then yes, I think it's stupid to do this and be so easily caught at it then run away. Mmmm...you decide. Come on, people. Who here agree with Kane? ;-) Come on, people. Who here disagree with Kane? Doubtless you can find other liars to disagree with me. I welcome them, as my hobby is exposing you and them. So, where are they? This is an old post of yours, and I don't recall any takers. Either way. Some just refuse to respond to you, since you lie so freely. Some are laughing as they watch me take you apart and put you back together with even more of your lying exposed. Doan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A School Paddling Correlation Study | [email protected] | Spanking | 5 | November 9th 05 02:51 PM |
A School Paddling Correlation Study | [email protected] | General | 2 | November 9th 05 02:48 PM |
A School Paddling Correlation Study | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 2 | November 9th 05 02:48 PM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 08:46 PM |
Length of gestation: correlation between pregnancies? | Tiina Kartovaara | Pregnancy | 11 | August 22nd 03 11:56 AM |