The Embry Study: What it actually said.

Doan wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

LOL! So I am right about this study. Come on, Kane! This is a public
forum. STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF! ;-)

Doan

You made a fool of yourself when you continually lied, Doan. And
refused to debate but claimed you had the study. All you had to do was
prove and you would't.


So now you accused of being a liar, WITHOUT PROOF! ;-) Here is your
chance to prove it to the public, Kane. Prove it to everyone that what
I claimed about this study is FALSE! Can you do it? You said you have
the study in fron of you. Show me the data as it pertains to spanking
and street entries. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT AIN'T THERE! ;-) Thus, I
CAN AND DID PUBLICLY ACCUSED YOU AS A LIAR WHEN YOU SAID:
"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

Now since this is a public forum, you can chose to defend yourself by
submitting data from the study to backup such claim and PROVE to everyone
that I am liar. You can also chose to keep quiet and hope that no one
noticed. You can also start throwing adhom at me and make a fool of
yourself again. THE CHOICE IS YOURS! ;-)

It always has been. I chose before this to let you make a fool of
yourself. You obliged. It was over before this, Doan. Your "offer" is
just more of your bull****. I don't need to defend myself.

I am simply being consistent with a promise I made you some months ago.


What do you suppose that looks like to any reader?


That I chose to ignore you! ;-)
....snip...

Ah, I see you get it now. Good. ..

Doan

As anyone can prove for themselves by reading our exhanges on the Embry
Study from as far back as last year can tell...

.... you are nothing but a petulant little child stomping your foot
because you weren't allowed to get away with your petty tricks. How sad.

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 Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

LOL! So I am right about this study. Come on, Kane! This is a public
forum. STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF! ;-)

Doan

You made a fool of yourself when you continually lied, Doan. And
refused to debate but claimed you had the study. All you had to do was
prove and you would't.


So now you accused of being a liar, WITHOUT PROOF! ;-) Here is your
chance to prove it to the public, Kane. Prove it to everyone that what
I claimed about this study is FALSE! Can you do it? You said you have
the study in fron of you. Show me the data as it pertains to spanking
and street entries. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT AIN'T THERE! ;-) Thus, I
CAN AND DID PUBLICLY ACCUSED YOU AS A LIAR WHEN YOU SAID:
"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

Now since this is a public forum, you can chose to defend yourself by
submitting data from the study to backup such claim and PROVE to everyone
that I am liar. You can also chose to keep quiet and hope that no one
noticed. You can also start throwing adhom at me and make a fool of
yourself again. THE CHOICE IS YOURS! ;-)

It always has been. I chose before this to let you make a fool of
yourself. You obliged. It was over before this, Doan. Your "offer" is
just more of your bull****. I don't need to defend myself.

LOL! You can't defend yourself because what I said is the TRUTH.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)

I am simply being consistent with a promise I made you some months ago.

Nope! You have chosen to dodge!

Doan


What do you suppose that looks like to any reader?


That I chose to ignore you! ;-)
...snip...

Ah, I see you get it now. Good. ..

Doan

As anyone can prove for themselves by reading our exhanges on the Embry
Study from as far back as last year can tell...

... you are nothing but a petulant little child stomping your foot
because you weren't allowed to get away with your petty tricks. How sad.

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

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

...snip...


I am simply being consistent with a promise I made you some months ago.

Nope! You have chosen to dodge!

I told you some time ago there was a deadline. You let it pass.

You dodged.

I'm keeping my promise.

Stop lying.

Doan

Cheers.

Kane

On 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

..snip...

Can't handle the TRUTH? ;-)

Doan


I am simply being consistent with a promise I made you some months ago.

Nope! You have chosen to dodge!

I told you some time ago there was a deadline. You let it pass.

You dodged.

I'm keeping my promise.

Stop lying.

Doan

Cheers.

Kane

Doan wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

..snip...


Can't handle the TRUTH? ;-)

Sure I can. The truth is this:

I mentioned in a post last year, the Embry article in a parenting mag
quoting him. You popped up and challenged me to a debate on Embry.

I knew that you THOUGHT you knew that the study wasn't obtainable.

But I had it, so I accepted your challenge on the condition you prove
you had a copy of it. I knew you wanted to do your usual play.

It was very simple. All you had to do was prove, by answering MY
questions, not making up your own, what was on this page or that.

I did not want to debate you when we might have different reports or
information.

You declined for months to prove you had the study, thus avoiding
debating it.

I, tiring, and laughing at you, gave you a nice generous deadline.

You declined again.

In the meantime we met the new poster, Aline/Alina. 0:- who tried to
cadge a copy out of me, and strangely couldn't get one from you without
"postage." Pretty funny, Doan.

You missed the deadline.

My promise, and the truth, was that I would no longer leave the door
open for debate with YOU, if you missed the deadline.

Case closed.

YOU can't handle the truth, not day to day, not now, not ever.

That's because you are an habitual liar. Anyone reading your posting
history can verify if they care to. You call me a liar for word meaning
definition agreements.

I call you one for creating socks and getting caught at it. For twisting
the meaning words of others and pretending they mean what they do not.

Simple. The truth. You are a liar of low moral and ethical standards.

Doan

Told you what I'd do. I'm doing it.

Which of us is maintaining credibility. You that lied and said you had
the study but refused to prove it, or myself, who promised you I would
not debate you past the deadline, and won't?

Seems an easy choice to me. How about you?

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

I'll let the readers of this newsgroup decide for themselves. ;-)

Doan

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

..snip...


Can't handle the TRUTH? ;-)

Sure I can. The truth is this:

I mentioned in a post last year, the Embry article in a parenting mag
quoting him. You popped up and challenged me to a debate on Embry.

I knew that you THOUGHT you knew that the study wasn't obtainable.

But I had it, so I accepted your challenge on the condition you prove
you had a copy of it. I knew you wanted to do your usual play.

It was very simple. All you had to do was prove, by answering MY
questions, not making up your own, what was on this page or that.

I did not want to debate you when we might have different reports or
information.

You declined for months to prove you had the study, thus avoiding
debating it.

I, tiring, and laughing at you, gave you a nice generous deadline.

You declined again.

In the meantime we met the new poster, Aline/Alina. 0:- who tried to
cadge a copy out of me, and strangely couldn't get one from you without
"postage." Pretty funny, Doan.

You missed the deadline.

My promise, and the truth, was that I would no longer leave the door
open for debate with YOU, if you missed the deadline.

Case closed.

YOU can't handle the truth, not day to day, not now, not ever.

That's because you are an habitual liar. Anyone reading your posting
history can verify if they care to. You call me a liar for word meaning
definition agreements.

I call you one for creating socks and getting caught at it. For twisting
the meaning words of others and pretending they mean what they do not.

Simple. The truth. You are a liar of low moral and ethical standards.

Doan

Told you what I'd do. I'm doing it.

Which of us is maintaining credibility. You that lied and said you had
the study but refused to prove it, or myself, who promised you I would
not debate you past the deadline, and won't?

Seems an easy choice to me. How about you?

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

Doan wrote:
I'll let the readers of this newsgroup decide for themselves. ;-)

Doan

Excellent.

http://tinyurl.com/avh8l

Kane 0:-

Doan wrote:
"Why was there no correlation between rates of safe play and safe-play
concept? Several answers are possible. a) Young children lack the
cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete circumstances of
their own lives. b) The present experiment measured the wrong concept;
some other safety concept might be linked to the behavior. c) The
contingencies of reinforcement that mediate concept acquisition and safe
behavior are, in fact, different. d) The finding of a significant
correlation during intervention was probable because of restricted
intersubject variability and ceiling effects. Future research might
clarify the answer, although researchers and educators are cautioned not
to assume that safety concept and behavior are always related in young
children."

Doan


Talking to yourself AGAIN?

You remind me of Fern the Plant.

Do you also wear funny hat and have stinky drawers?

R R R R R...
'

What an utterly stupid child you are to think you could ever bait me if
I didn't chose to answer on my own.

Dimwit monkeyboy.

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

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
"Why was there no correlation between rates of safe play and safe-play
concept? Several answers are possible. a) Young children lack the
cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete circumstances of
their own lives. b) The present experiment measured the wrong concept;
some other safety concept might be linked to the behavior. c) The
contingencies of reinforcement that mediate concept acquisition and safe
behavior are, in fact, different. d) The finding of a significant
correlation during intervention was probable because of restricted
intersubject variability and ceiling effects. Future research might
clarify the answer, although researchers and educators are cautioned not
to assume that safety concept and behavior are always related in young
children."

Doan


Talking to yourself AGAIN?

You remind me of Fern the Plant.

Do you also wear funny hat and have stinky drawers?

R R R R R...
'

What an utterly stupid child you are to think you could ever bait me if
I didn't chose to answer on my own.

Dimwit monkeyboy.

The PROVEN LIAR can't handle the TRUTH. How sad! Anybody got the Embry
study? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

..................


The PROVEN LIAR can't handle the TRUTH. How sad! Anybody got the Embry
study? ;-)

Doan


How many years now .... ... of posting that he wants "parents to make
up their own mind?"

How many years of attacking any information, opinion, or personal story
in support of non-spanking?

How many years of defending everything from the pro spanking side?

How many years of letting slide posters like Fern that supported
parents
beating their children bloody publically?

How many years of siding with people that, like Fern, advocated for
parents to have the last word on whether or not to beat children until
they bleed?

How many years of riding every bogus hobby horse of the pro spanking
noodniks like Lazerlere, and Dobson...the dog "trainer?" The one that
thinks raising children is a matter of going to war with them?

Doan, the first day I viewed this ng I spotted you for a phony. A quick
google search on your posting confirmed it. And nothing I've seen since
changes that.

You have not intention of allowing parents to make up their own mind,
or
you would, like any truly objective fence sitter, treat each side of
the
question equally or you'd hold your views.

You are a little child, stuck back where you were first betrayed by
your
parents with those blows to your body and your mind.

It's apparently made you even lie to yourself, if you believe this ****
you've posted all these years about your neutrality on this subject.

A phony. How very childishly sad you appear.