Ken Pangborn reneges on word

Well, I was obviously wrong about you. You aren't a liar....you are
INSANE.

Hihihi! You are losing your grip, Kane! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
You exposed it by claiming that using dummies in car crash studies make
it correlation! HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!

Don't invite me to judge you.

Hihihi! The STUPID Kane now want to judge!

Just explain how damage to a dummy is causally related to damage to a
human under similar circumstances.

And how is it correlational?

0:-]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:17 -0800, Doan wrote:

Well, I was obviously wrong about you. You aren't a liar....you are
INSANE.

Hihihi! You are losing your grip, Kane! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
You exposed it by claiming that using dummies in car crash studies make
it correlation! HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!

Don't invite me to judge you.

Hihihi! The STUPID Kane now want to judge!

I just told you I don't want to.

Just explain how damage to a dummy is causally related to damage to a
human under similar circumstances.

And how is it correlational?

Damage to the dummies correlates to POSSIBLE damage to humans. Until
you use HUMANS you do not have a causal study. (Humans do things
dummies don't.)

You can kill a million lab mice in cancer studies and you have still
not proven the conditions fit humans and will have the same or similar
results. Ask a scientist, dummy.

And how is the use of dummies 'causal' again, stupid?

0:]

0:-]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:17 -0800, Doan wrote:

Well, I was obviously wrong about you. You aren't a liar....you are
INSANE.

Hihihi! You are losing your grip, Kane! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
You exposed it by claiming that using dummies in car crash studies make
it correlation! HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!

Don't invite me to judge you.

Hihihi! The STUPID Kane now want to judge!

I just told you I don't want to.

Good, because YOU ARE SO STUPID!

Just explain how damage to a dummy is causally related to damage to a
human under similar circumstances.

And how is it correlational?

Damage to the dummies correlates to POSSIBLE damage to humans. Until
you use HUMANS you do not have a causal study. (Humans do things
dummies don't.)

Hihihi! So what CAUSES the damage to humans, Kane?

You can kill a million lab mice in cancer studies and you have still
not proven the conditions fit humans and will have the same or similar
results. Ask a scientist, dummy.

And how is the use of dummies 'causal' again, stupid?

Simple! Crashes CAUSE damages to dummies, which are proxy for humans!
Boy, how STUPID can you be!

0:]

0:-]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:49:23 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:17 -0800, Doan wrote:

Well, I was obviously wrong about you. You aren't a liar....you are
INSANE.

Hihihi! You are losing your grip, Kane! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
You exposed it by claiming that using dummies in car crash studies make
it correlation! HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!

Don't invite me to judge you.

Hihihi! The STUPID Kane now want to judge!

I just told you I don't want to.

Good, because YOU ARE SO STUPID!

Then why did you lie and say I want to judge?

Just explain how damage to a dummy is causally related to damage to a
human under similar circumstances.

And how is it correlational?

Damage to the dummies correlates to POSSIBLE damage to humans. Until
you use HUMANS you do not have a causal study. (Humans do things
dummies don't.)

Hihihi! So what CAUSES the damage to humans, Kane?

Non sequitur, Doan.

I answer this in the comment on cancer and mice v cancer and humans.

The damage to humans and the damage to dummies is a correlation of
effect, not causal proof that the same conditions will produce the
same results from dummies to humans.

It's a good guess.

You can kill a million lab mice in cancer studies and you have still
not proven the conditions fit humans and will have the same or similar
results. Ask a scientist, dummy.

And how is the use of dummies 'causal' again, stupid?

Simple! Crashes CAUSE damages to dummies, which are proxy for humans!

R R R R ..... BUT THEY ARE NOT HUMANS. No more than mice are in cancer
research.

Boy, how STUPID can you be!

I can't answer for you. You'll have to decide how stupid you want to
be.

No argument was made for or against a crash causing damage, Doan. Only
for it being extrapolated for humans from dummies.

Until you use humans in exactly the same tests (they do use cadavers,
by the way, but still they do not react precisely as living humans
do)you do not have a causal relationship as to a crash causing a
certain kind of injury or death.

You cannot kill a dummy. And if you could, it still would only give a
correlation.

A human is a human is a human. Not a dummy. Not a goat. Not a cadaver.
But a living human.

They will NOT behave the same from test to test. You must have innert
subjects to come as close as possible to duplicating from test to test
the conditions and the results...for finding CAUSE.



0:]

0:-]

You defended Ken Pangborn, and said I conceded, yet you are unable to
defend his premise and claims, at my express invitation, Doan.

He won't...as he's a coward and ran.

So, is that why you haven't defended his claims, Doan?

Because you are a coward, or know he was wrong, or both?

0:]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

You defended Ken Pangborn, and said I conceded, yet you are unable to
defend his premise and claims, at my express invitation, Doan.

I don;t know Ken Pangborn. He doesn't need me to defend him since he
WHUPPED YOUR ASS so bad, you CONCEDED.

He won't...as he's a coward and ran.

So, is that why you haven't defended his claims, Doan?

Hihihi! I just watched him WHUPPED YOUR ASS, Kane!

Because you are a coward, or know he was wrong, or both?

Because YOU ARE STUPID, Kane!

0:]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:49:23 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:17 -0800, Doan wrote:

Well, I was obviously wrong about you. You aren't a liar....you are
INSANE.

Hihihi! You are losing your grip, Kane! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
You exposed it by claiming that using dummies in car crash studies make
it correlation! HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!

Don't invite me to judge you.

Hihihi! The STUPID Kane now want to judge!

I just told you I don't want to.

Good, because YOU ARE SO STUPID!

Then why did you lie and say I want to judge?

The proven liar is YOU, Kane. You said "Don't invite me to judge you",
STUPID!

Just explain how damage to a dummy is causally related to damage to a
human under similar circumstances.

And how is it correlational?

Damage to the dummies correlates to POSSIBLE damage to humans. Until
you use HUMANS you do not have a causal study. (Humans do things
dummies don't.)

Hihihi! So what CAUSES the damage to humans, Kane?

Non sequitur, Doan.

Hihihi! Cop out, Kane.

I answer this in the comment on cancer and mice v cancer and humans.

The damage to humans and the damage to dummies is a correlation of
effect, not causal proof that the same conditions will produce the
same results from dummies to humans.

Damn! YOU ARE STUPID! So what CAUSE the damage to humans, Kane?

It's a good guess.

Hihihi! Are you saying that there is a possibility that crashes don't
CAUSE damage to humans???

You can kill a million lab mice in cancer studies and you have still
not proven the conditions fit humans and will have the same or similar
results. Ask a scientist, dummy.

And how is the use of dummies 'causal' again, stupid?

Simple! Crashes CAUSE damages to dummies, which are proxy for humans!

R R R R ..... BUT THEY ARE NOT HUMANS. No more than mice are in cancer
research.

Hihihi! They are proxies, STUPID. That doesn't change the fact that
the crashes CAUSE the damage, STUPID. Let me educate you, STUPID KANE!
If it can answer the question whether "X leads to Y" then it is a CAUSE
and EFFECT, not just simple correlation! Got IT?

Boy, how STUPID can you be!

I can't answer for you. You'll have to decide how stupid you want to
be.

Hihihi! You proved how STUPID you are by claiming that car crash studies
are correlation STUDIES, not CAUSAL!

No argument was made for or against a crash causing damage, Doan. Only
for it being extrapolated for humans from dummies.

Do you understand the different between correlation and cause?

Until you use humans in exactly the same tests (they do use cadavers,
by the way, but still they do not react precisely as living humans
do)you do not have a causal relationship as to a crash causing a
certain kind of injury or death.

No, STUPID! Until they used YOU, they cannot be certain that you react
in the same WAY! That has nothing to do with whether the study is CAUSAL
or just CORRELATIONAL! SEE IT NOW, STUPID?

You cannot kill a dummy. And if you could, it still would only give a
correlation.

Correlation between what and what, STUPID?

A human is a human is a human. Not a dummy. Not a goat. Not a cadaver.
But a living human.

Hey! Kane said something that is correct, for a change! ;-)

They will NOT behave the same from test to test. You must have innert
subjects to come as close as possible to duplicating from test to test
the conditions and the results...for finding CAUSE.

So are you saying that car crashes don't CAUSE damage to humans???



0:]

0:-]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:49:07 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

You defended Ken Pangborn, and said I conceded, yet you are unable to
defend his premise and claims, at my express invitation, Doan.

I don;t know Ken Pangborn. He doesn't need me to defend him since he
WHUPPED YOUR ASS so bad, you CONCEDED.

I have challenged you to show precisely what I conceded. You and I
both know I conceded that I didn't make the argument he claimed I
made.

You are lying again.

He won't...as he's a coward and ran.

So, is that why you haven't defended his claims, Doan?

Hihihi! I just watched him WHUPPED YOUR ASS, Kane!

Well, if running away is "WHUPPED," you've mistaken me for both of
you.

Because you are a coward, and know he was wrong.

Instead of admitting it you simply lie.

Because YOU ARE STUPID, Doan, if you think anyone misses your
unethical debating and lying.


Because YOU ARE STUPID, Kane!

0:]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:06:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:49:23 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:17 -0800, Doan wrote:

Well, I was obviously wrong about you. You aren't a liar....you are
INSANE.

Hihihi! You are losing your grip, Kane! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
You exposed it by claiming that using dummies in car crash studies make
it correlation! HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!

Don't invite me to judge you.

Hihihi! The STUPID Kane now want to judge!

I just told you I don't want to.

Good, because YOU ARE SO STUPID!

Then why did you lie and say I want to judge?

The proven liar is YOU, Kane. You said "Don't invite me to judge you",
STUPID!

No, you just proved how stupid you are.

Just explain how damage to a dummy is causally related to damage to a
human under similar circumstances.

And how is it correlational?

Damage to the dummies correlates to POSSIBLE damage to humans. Until
you use HUMANS you do not have a causal study. (Humans do things
dummies don't.)

Hihihi! So what CAUSES the damage to humans, Kane?

Non sequitur, Doan.

Hihihi! Cop out, Kane.

Nope. The issue is not humans, but dummies being damaged in crash
tests.

We know what damages humans, just as we know that so far no one has
volunteered to be a crash dummy under the same conditions the dummies
are destroyed.

I answer this in the comment on cancer and mice v cancer and humans.

The damage to humans and the damage to dummies is a correlation of
effect, not causal proof that the same conditions will produce the
same results from dummies to humans.

Damn! YOU ARE STUPID! So what CAUSE the damage to humans, Kane?

Auto crashes.

Show me where they have been used in live experiments with the level
of destruction that is used on dummies.

It's a good guess.

Hihihi! Are you saying that there is a possibility that crashes don't
CAUSE damage to humans???

Ordinarily one would answer, "no," but on the other hand you have not
made the connection to the conditions dummies are damaged and
destroyed...so I have to say yes, they do escape without damage
occasionally. I have myself.

Low speed impact. Good safety device deployment and good crash safety
engineering. Ever owned a Volvo?

You can kill a million lab mice in cancer studies and you have still
not proven the conditions fit humans and will have the same or similar
results. Ask a scientist, dummy.

And how is the use of dummies 'causal' again, stupid?

Simple! Crashes CAUSE damages to dummies, which are proxy for humans!

R R R R ..... BUT THEY ARE NOT HUMANS. No more than mice are in cancer
research.

Hihihi! They are proxies, STUPID.

Which of course proves correlation. Thanks.

That doesn't change the fact that
the crashes CAUSE the damage, STUPID.

No such claim was made by me, stupid.

We were discussing if crash tests using dummies was comparative to
humans as a causal effect. Just as mice or rats, or even our close
cousins, higher primates, what effects them does not always effect us.

Let me educate you, STUPID KANE!

R R R R R ....well, after years of educating you I suppose I can
tolerate a bit of your hubris, Doan. 0:]


If it can answer the question whether "X leads to Y" then it is a CAUSE
and EFFECT, not just simple correlation! Got IT?

Yeap. Crash dummies were destroyed or broken analogous to human
injuries in crash tests of vehicles.

Analogous does not mean "cause," Doan. You have to use human subjects.

Know of any? I actually do. The use of live humans quickly faded out
though.


Boy, how STUPID can you be!

I can't answer for you. You'll have to decide how stupid you want to
be.

Hihihi! You proved how STUPID you are by claiming that car crash studies
are correlation STUDIES, not CAUSAL!

They are causal to dummies. I made NO claim they were not. They are
NOT causal to humans.

No more than if you had tied live chimps into autos and crashed them.
But it would be a bit closer than the use of dummies, possibly.


No argument was made for or against a crash causing damage, Doan. Only
for it being extrapolated for humans from dummies.

Do you understand the different between correlation and cause?

Do you?

Until you use humans in exactly the same tests (they do use cadavers,
by the way, but still they do not react precisely as living humans
do)you do not have a causal relationship as to a crash causing a
certain kind of injury or death.

No, STUPID! Until they used YOU, they cannot be certain that you react
in the same WAY! That has nothing to do with whether the study is CAUSAL
or just CORRELATIONAL! SEE IT NOW, STUPID?

Do you see that I made the claim, and that you are now lying about it,
that the crash test proves cause to injuring of dummies, but not to
humans?


You cannot kill a dummy. And if you could, it still would only give a
correlation.

Correlation between what and what, STUPID?

Between dummies and crashes, and humans and crashes. You do get
CORRELATIONS to consider.

Until you use HUMANs you do not get cause.



A human is a human is a human. Not a dummy. Not a goat. Not a cadaver.
But a living human.

Hey! Kane said something that is correct, for a change! ;-)

I have been correct throughout, Doan, just as I was on the
International CP study and your attempt to claim that children from
certain cultures "improve behaviors" because of cultural acceptance.
The study said quite the opposite. ALL children showed SOME increase
in behavior problems...regardless of culture that were subjected to
CP.

And they were consistent in responding the same way, all 3 groups, in
the other study, for all effects, with and without parental support.

You simply have lied and diverted everytime you have been wrong, Doan.
You are doing so now.

They will NOT behave the same from test to test. You must have innert
subjects to come as close as possible to duplicating from test to test
the conditions and the results...for finding CAUSE.

So are you saying that car crashes don't CAUSE damage to humans???

No, I would say you don't have a causal study until you use humans.

Trying for yet another dodged, Doan?

If not, why would you attempt to put words in my mouth?

Show me those live human subject experiments in high speed car
crashes, dummy.

Then you will be showing me a causal study.

Until then, as long as proxies are used, you have only shown cause to
the damage to the proxies.

One day they may have dummies so humanlike you could get much closer
to a connection from dummy to human, but so far, no luck, sucker.

By the way, you prepared to defend Ken, or admit he was wrong, or
simply dodge by pretending there is such data as he claimed?

0:-]



0:]

0:-]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:14:26 GMT, " KRP"
wrote: ... his continuing dodges....
..snip....

So, Ken, how about it.

You say I "conceded," and you promised to provide ... "dump on you"
was the terminology I believe ... all that research that shows that
children that are unspanked, or non-spanked, are at risk of developing
sociopathy.

I'm waiting.

I can't find that research, so obviously you are better at finding
such things.

Where is it?

0:]