Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

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

"0:-" wrote in message
news:qM6dncJGdfc94S_YnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane you
stupid HUMP!

Hahaha! Kane EXPOSED his STUPIDITY again. Yet, he had the nerver to
claim that he is a "published researcher".



Kane and Ronnie are proclaiming themselves to be the VICTORS...

No, Ron seems to think I am. I leave it up to the reader, but I will say
that I don't count as a "victory" exposing liars and cheats, Ken.

It's a sad task actually. I'd much prefer to debate issues on the facts.

But if the opponent insists on lying they run the risk of being exposed,
as I have done with you, and to you.

You even begin this post with a lie by ad hom reposting of Doan's lie.
Any objective reader is quite aware I'm not stupid.

And I am published, and I have done research, and presume I'll have
other contracts to do so. It's commercial research.

Fact finding.

I publish. But I do not publish academic type research.

Does that help you see more clearly what a liar you have found to team with?

I've explained this to him many times, and more recently as well. Yet he
continues to post as though I have claimed to be scientific researcher
publishing to peer review. He knows I'm not, because I've told him I'm
not. He's a simple liar, and thus stupid, just as are, both.

Doan -
there is a great deal of published "BULL****."

Yes, Doan has been the major purveyor of bull**** to some newsgroups for
many years now.

Kane is cute when he INSISTS so angrily that "X leads to Y" is a statement
of correlation and NOT causality! He is, of course, absolutely full of ****.

I made no such statement, which makes the **** source you, Ken.

Show where I made the statement exactly as you claim.

I said clearly and provided authoritative science based proof that it
applies to both, not to one. While YOU claimed that it applied only to
"cause" based research.

So, here I am debating on YOUR terms and you still can't come up with
the truth to support your claims. And even with prime-liar-one to aps
helping you. (I've dispensed with the others over the years...0:-] and
you are next)

Tsk.

Kane

"0:-" wrote in message
...

PHYSICIAN: http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/kensmailorderbride.pdf

You and Kane are now IRRETRIEVABLY LINKED TO DAVID MOORE! You are now
official ASSOCIATES of his and you sink or swim on the Internet
because of your CLOSE association with him. So you had better think
up good rationalizations for EVERYTHING he does!

I wouldn't suggest that you get so buddy buddy with mr pangborn, he
is a low life scum bag with absolutely no credibility here or in any
news group he posts to. But hey, maybe you don't care if some of
his slime rubs off.
I have more, now, Ron than YOU DO!

You apparently have a long history of accusing others of being Moore's
associates and or accomplices. All without proof, I might add.

Quite often they are mere fignments of Moore. But he does have 3 or
4 associates.

Some of them appear to me to have exactly the spelling and typo
malfunction we find in your writings. Quite the coincidence, eh?

Are you THAT stupid Kane? Sorry - that was a rhetorical question, we
already know the answer.

It's stupid to point out, when I have come under attack coincidental to my
exposing you as a liar, and ignorant where you claim expertise, that some
of the writings of posts that Moore claims came from you under forged nym
are coincidentally like your known typos and spelling errors?

I guess I don't agree.

It would be impossible for someone to garner as much support as you
claim Moore has.
BULL**** you nutbar! NUTS travel together on the Almond Joy
railroad! JUST LIKE YOU DUMBASS!

Even the ones your forged posts from?

Is that your excuse for forging? That they are nuts while you are sane?

You are a stupid ****. Your HERO is the one useing the rermailer the
forgeries are FROM you JACKASS! You can't even get it. I post ONLY from a
legitimate ISP. HE posts from the SAME anonymous remailer the forgeries
come from and YOU don't get it!

You were caught doing exactly as he claimed and provided proof for.

It's very possible, because anything is, that you are telling the truth
about Moore. It is equally possible you are lying about him, and you are
lying about yourself and your actions.

Man I have seen smarter cockroaches than you!

"0:-" wrote in message
news:Ic6dnT70i_56dCnYnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane
you
stupid HUMP!

Hahaha! Kane EXPOSED his STUPIDITY again. Yet, he had the nerver to
claim that he is a "published researcher".



Kane and Ronnie are proclaiming themselves to be the VICTORS...

No, Ron seems to think I am. I leave it up to the reader, but I will say
that I don't count as a "victory" exposing liars and cheats, Ken.

Bull**** you are patting each other on the back. You have been
confronted with your nonsense repeatedly.

The statement in SCIENCE" X leads to Y" is a statement of CAUSATION! It is
NOT a statement of correlation as you claim.
As you TRY so desperately to support by citing correlational studies that
use CAUSATIVE statements within them to PROVE
that causation and correlation are the same thing, or that a causative
statement can also be a correlational statement. NONSENSE!

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:A_mdnen148XNQy7YnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?
Yah know, Ken, Ron, who happens to oppose my views on corporal punish to a
degree spoke up in your behalf and you ignored him.

He gave you a very large hint that you were in deep **** to argue with me
on an issue.

Oooo there's the BADASS thing again.

A kindness is seen as a threat?

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane you
stupid HUMP!

"Stupid HUMP?"

YEP!

Given that I've proven conclusively that X 'leads to' Y is not exclusive
to cause, and is used in correlation studies, you will have to wear the
hump, my boy.

Is that how you refer to the people that publicly kick your ass all over
a few newsgroups?

Like I told you, it's possible for "leads to" to refer to cause, but
there'd be supporting commentary. While "leads to" more often refers to
correlations.

Kane I have NO idea where you went to school.

Of course.

I suggest however that
your parents SUE them for incompetence. I will say this again.

Do so and make a further fool of yourself.


A STATEMENT in science that "X leads to Y" is a statement in CAUSALITY!

Yes. I have said so myself in my argument with you on this diversion you
use to keep OUT of the survey and any real discussion of its content.

It
is NOT - repeat NOT a statement of correlation!

Not according to the community of researchers in various disciplines I
just cited with links, for you in another post.

They make reference to and even give prime examples of correlation
research in both materials and non-materials social research, x and y
correlations.

They use the word, and they describe one event following another, as
analysis of their practices, in business in one instance, as a guide to
how to satisfy customers.

Interesting that across the board, from hard to soft research this x to
y model is used, for cause and for correlation.

It is NEVER (except in the hands of the illiterate)

You've read or heard the illiterate make the same claim that I have
proven? If so that proves that illiteracy is not an accurate measurement
for claiming low intelligence.

a statement of
correlation! NEVER!

I would not be surprised to learn the illiterate have never claimed it
one way or the other. You are pontification with stupid ranting.

I suggest you call the University of Oklahoma to stop teaching it in
their instructions on how to write papers then. I've cited it for you in
another post.

I've also cited other research discussion where correlation is most
explicitly used with events "lead to" event models.

You are in error, and apparently willing to lie...presuming you've seen
my evidence and are ignoring it.

If you read it and still persist then sir, you will most surely have to
admit to yourself that you are indeed lying.

I doubt anyone that has read what I posted in support of my claim that
"X leads to Y," is also used in correlation buys your nonsense.

By the way, 'bully' doesn't work with me.

You can stop yelling your lies. They are no more effective than if you
whispered.

0:-

krp wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane
you
stupid HUMP!
"Stupid HUMP?"

Is that how you refer to the people that publicly kick your ass all over
a few newsgroups?

Like I told you, it's possible for "leads to" to refer to cause, but
there'd be supporting commentary. While "leads to" more often refers to
correlations.

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

Read'm and weep stupid, then post your scientific evidence concerning
the risk to non spanked children of developing sociopathy. R R R R R R

A google seaceh proves nothing, Kane!

Here they are, a comin' right atcha. And I'll do it again and again.
Check my posting history.

The search is on your words in your claim, exactly:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,510,000

Are you so STUPID? None support you claim. Or are you suggesting that
people read through all 3 and a halft millions hits ????

YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Haven't you seen Kane's method of debate? When he is backed into a corner
he will find a dozen cites where the word he wants is used and drop them as
his PROOF.

Nope. I provide the argument and the link to the citation for anyone to
also see if my quote is contextually compatible.

Like the Ohio v. Boston case. He was pounding the table that it
PROVED that the SAC Dolls were THE scientific assessment tool ACCEPTED by
courts all over.


I didn't make the claim.

Too bad it did NOT say that!

Too bad I didn't make the claim.

Too bad his other sources
were the manufacturer of the SAC dolls and even THAT did not make the claims
he was.

The citations were not to prove, but to simply provide you more
information. I didn't originally post them, as I recall.


KANE'S RULES OF DEBATE: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance -
baffle them with bull****!"

You misspelled PANGBORN.


Just toss in 20 LINKS and hope NOBODY can see they don't support your claim.


No, I urge anyone interested to actually look at the source material.

I notice as yet no source material from you with link provided on a
number of items we've discussed.

How you coming on that "There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children," claim you haven't so far
responded to?

Any results you'd care to cite, link to, and defend?

Would that be "scientific" evidence then?

Kane

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:WqKdnaTwOZX6kinYnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"

You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.

Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-

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

On the question "X leads to Y," being limited to causal based research and
not being used for correlation studies, since I was called a liar
and "stupid," for claiming it is used for both types of research:

WHOA ASSHOLE! FOUL!

Let me know when your skid ends. Clean up the streak you left, then lets
discuss it.

I said that "X leads to Y" is a STATEMENT in CAUSATION. It is!

I have agreed with you every time you've made that statement.

It is NOT
a correlational statement.

Here is where I disagree.

Prove your claim that it isn't.

Cite some evidence not arising from your mind that is agreed on by the
research community.

I cited some that shows conclusively it is not limited to cause based
research, but is commonly used in correlational research as well.

I would hope (FUTILE) that you'd understand that in an article on
correlations that authors can and DO sometimes make causal statements.

Non sequitur to your argument. You claimed the study was flawed by the
title pretending to be something the article was not...is that not correct?

Yet we find that indeed, the model you use to argue, X leads to Y, is
indeed used in correlation studies, and of course, a survey, questions
and answers, it would have to be a correlation not a causal study.

Did you not claim that they were attempting a pretense of being a causal
study? Is that not what your claim consists of?

NAW
you aren't smart enough to know that!

Of course I am. I am also smart enough to know that it's irrelevant to
your claim.

But of course they may do so. That does not make your argument that this
article is ONLY about correlation and misrepresented in the title as
causal will fly based on the claim, bogus, that X leads to Y can ONLY
be causal.

Tell you what. Try yelling "DIE! DIE! DIE!" a few times. It might
convince those that are desperate for your disruptions in these
newsgroups so some there won't have to face being questioned and
challenged on their nonsense while I'm busy with you.

It might even make you feel better.

Did screaming "WHOA ASSHOLE! FOUL!" help at all?

0:-]

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

LOL!

"Establishing a causal relationship is a more difficult task, because it
requires showing that x leads to y, not vice versa and not from some third
variable."

Please provide context. This standing alone does not prove x leads to y
is not used in correlation as well.


Kane isn't educated enough to know that an article that is generally
dealing with certain correlations can also use a statement of CAUSAILITY
within them.

I have not made any claim otherwise. In fact you posted that so recently
you have not had a chance to read my answer to see if I actually
understood it.

Thus you are lying.

That is WAY beyond WAY WAY WAY beyond his intellectual
ability.

Have you any idea how stupid that makes you appear, and how humorous it
makes you in the eyes of any readers, but your wife, Doan?

So that leads me to ask you, what is the relevance of your claim above,
to your claim that X leads to Y can only be used in causal research?

And mine that states, and I've proven, that X leads to Y is also used in
correlation studies.

And finally, how long are you going to use this as a cover for your
inability to provide the evidence you claim to have the spanking does
not lead to aggression, and that "There is considerable evidence that a
lack of spanking can produce sociopathy in children," claim you haven't
so far responded to?

0:-]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:A_mdnen148XNQy7YnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?
Yah know, Ken, Ron, who happens to oppose my views on corporal punish to a
degree spoke up in your behalf and you ignored him.

He gave you a very large hint that you were in deep **** to argue with me
on an issue.

Oooo there's the BADASS thing again.

A kindness is seen as a threat?

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane you
stupid HUMP!

"Stupid HUMP?"

YEP!

Given that I've proven conclusively that X 'leads to' Y is not exclusive
to cause, and is used in correlation studies, you will have to wear the
hump, my boy.

Is that how you refer to the people that publicly kick your ass all over
a few newsgroups?

Like I told you, it's possible for "leads to" to refer to cause, but
there'd be supporting commentary. While "leads to" more often refers to
correlations.

Kane I have NO idea where you went to school.

Of course.

I suggest however that
your parents SUE them for incompetence. I will say this again.

Do so and make a further fool of yourself.


A STATEMENT in science that "X leads to Y" is a statement in CAUSALITY!

Yes. I have said so myself in my argument with you on this diversion you
use to keep OUT of the survey and any real discussion of its content.

It
is NOT - repeat NOT a statement of correlation!

Not according to the community of researchers in various disciplines I
just cited with links, for you in another post.

They make reference to and even give prime examples of correlation
research in both materials and non-materials social research, x and y
correlations.

They use the word, and they describe one event following another, as
analysis of their practices, in business in one instance, as a guide to
how to satisfy customers.

Interesting that across the board, from hard to soft research this x to
y model is used, for cause and for correlation.


One more time, Kane. A google search proves NOTHING. Here is from one
of those hits, when you digged deeper into them:

"But correlation, per se, does not answer the question of which variable
causes which, or even whether they are both joint outcomes of some third,
determining variable. Establishing a causal relationship is a more
difficult task, because it requires showing that x leads to y, not vice
versa and not from some third variable."

It is clear, Kane, "x leads to y" is a causal relationship. Show me
a case where "x leads to y" means correlation and not causal, Kane.
Come on! I DARE YOU! I DOUDBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

Doan

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:WqKdnaTwOZX6kinYnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"

You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.

Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-

No, Kane. I have followed this discussion and know that you, Kane, are
lying! Show me a link where they said "x leads to y" means correlation
and not causal!

Doan