Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

"0:-" wrote in message
news:3O6dnayrN80glSjYnZ2dnUVZ_vipnZ2d@scnresearch. 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.

And where you go wrong.

Prove your claim that it isn't.

Let's start here with a wordy explanation.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...n-metaphysics/


It isn't correlation because the statement stands for OUTCOME!!! "X leads
to Y!" OUTCOME is causantion NOT correlation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...ogical_fallacy)
Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in statistics to
indicate that correlation between two variables does not imply there is a
cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Its negation correlation
implies causation is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur
together are prematurely claimed to a cause-and-effect relationship. It is
also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore
because of this") and false cause.


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.

No your cites did NOT support you as Doan and others have shown.

The statement that "Spanking leads to aggressing in children" is a
statement of OUTCOME! PERIOD.

"Greegor" wrote in message
ps.com...
krp wrote
Now Kane you and Ron like to PLAY newsgroup BULLIES, you "WARN"
people
of this that and the other when they don't knuckle under to you. You
can't
handle anyone who stands up to your PUNK behavior.

I love it when they use the ominous warning....
It's so ...megalomanic...


Yeah I love that "IF YOU DON'T SUBMIT TO US - WARNING!!!!"

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

I'm a reader, aint I?

Bull**** you are patting each other on the back.

Nope. He warned you. You ignored him, and started a campaign of lies and
error proliferation encouraged and supported by the most notorious of
blatant liars on alt.parenting.spanking, and by a little thug using you to
cover up his own malfeasance and torturous and venomous attacks on parents
coming to ascps.

You continue to underestimate me, and vastly over estimate ourself.

Live with it. It would be true regardless of what Ron may post.

You have been confronted with your nonsense repeatedly.

Mine is supported by citation from research publications I've linked to
for you to read.

And by logical argument that in fact is unassailable.

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings around.
The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having to answer
direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by others in
support of their claims, and generally to cause as much confusion as he can
to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do so honestly.

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to BE
honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious, mislead,
misdirect, and outright lie.

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore. His
lies are constant, unstopping. Proven over and over again, and no matter
how often or how clearly its done he still wont admit his errors and lies.
And like that little kid I spoke of in another thread, he compounds his
lie's with more lies. So many that he has trouble keeping track of them
all, which is why he keeps getting caught posting from the wrong smurf
account.

Ron


The statement in SCIENCE" X leads to Y" is a statement of CAUSATION! It
is NOT a statement of correlation as you claim.

I have agreed that the former is true...and many times now, Ken. To
continue to point to it and insinuate that I don't agree, pokes huge holes
in your argument and your credibility.

Your second statement has been met, and refuted with evidence from others,
not just my logical claim.

Thus, we can conclude that T x e-l = L(times you have lied and refuse to
acknowledge the evidence, error leads to lying shows the result, "you are
Liar, Ken)

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,

Whoa! Time for ME to call a foul, Ken.

Where did THAT come from?

I've not tried to prove they are the same thing. But that the X leads to Y
logical formula that you claim is only used for causal studies, applies
also to correlation.

or that a causative statement can also be a correlational statement.
NONSENSE!

I've not said that when one applies to the formula the other must apply as
well.

It is possible though. If one is considering the third constant, or
possibly variable, "z".

In fact that was, as I recall mentioned in the research on business
practices.

If you change Z it's possible the result can be only correlation's when
prior to change it was causal.

Good researchers are careful to point that out.

Social science ones especially. Say in "spanking leads to aggression."

Should we include culture as the Z variable, it may be that in one culture
the change in aggression is related to the culture's acceptance of CP in
parenting.

In fact that seems to be what the survey was about...determining both how
each culture's view differed in this matter of CP use.

X being spanking and Y being child aggression, it appears that even when Z
changed (culture), children who were spanked exhibited more aggression
than those that were not.

So, the premise that spanking across cultures showed that children had
more aggression IF they were spanked.

That's called a correlation.

They may be wrong.

As I've mentioned a number of times about a number of issues, I don't feel
the need to take a defensive stance about it.

I am open to argument that is presented with facts, or counter information
that is at least as well cited as I did the article. ... quote, and link
to source.

I have a personal opinion. Of course. I would call it even a bias.

It comes from a lot of years experience both as a parent, working with
parents...a lot of them, about 3,000 in all as best as I can recall the
numbers

I saw with my own eyes, and recorded some, behaviors that followed the use
of spanking and non-spanking parenting. Just college assignments mostly,
but then also professional work in the field.

That's why these studies so fascinate me. They tend to show what I believe
I saw.

I worked across cultures as well, but no Internationally to any great
degree.

How you coming in that claim that there is evidence that children who are
not spanked thereby have a risk of developing behaviors that are
"sociopathy?"

Find enough time to work on that yet?

Kane

"Greegor" wrote in message
ps.com...
krp wrote
Now Kane you and Ron like to PLAY newsgroup BULLIES, you "WARN"
people
of this that and the other when they don't knuckle under to you. You
can't
handle anyone who stands up to your PUNK behavior.

I love it when they use the ominous warning....
It's so ...megalomanic...

Handling kenny pangborn is not really a problem gregg. I'll tell you the
secret.

Tell the truth.

Thats all. Tell the truth and kenny walks the same line he has walked since
he first encountered mr moore.

Ron

"krp" wrote in message
news:IEdth.3384$QE6.3036@trnddc02...

"0:-" wrote in message
...

I can't help but wonder what the context of these were, if they are
what you claim. What were you talking about that he posted those.
Kane - I rest my case. Look at his page on my bankruptcy.

Ah, then he didn't post your "banking records" sans any other context.

You abuse rationalization.

How does one do that?

He has repeatedly posted it to Usenet BEGGING people to access it.

Citations for proof please. That's a given here unless you are lying and
admit to it by dodging the request to produce.

**** the posts have appeared here and in ADRU.

I've not seen them kenny. Got a google groups link? I'm sure we would ALL
love to see your "proof".

I wont hold my breath.

Ron

freedom wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, "0:-" wrote:
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newsoGdncQahORv7C7YnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/Attachment(1).jpg
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/kensmailorderbride.pdf
I can't help but wonder what the context of these were, if they are what
you claim. What were you talking about that he posted those.
Kane - I rest my case. Look at his page on my bankruptcy. Maybe you'll
find my speeding ticket there too. The SAD part is this all tells you
NOTHING and all you can do is RATIONALIZE IT! And ENDORSE IT!
I must be losing my memory.

I can't remember endorsing it.

I can remember, though, having said I am considering and examining. I
have, by the way, sent mail to Moore asking him to explain what I think
are lacks of proof on the site.

I have to wait for his answer, or after a reasonable time, presume you
have some argument against him.

I did receive your e-mail. You mentioned dead links. I am looking... So
far I have found:

On the page titled "Pangborn's various personas and mouthpieces", a dead
link regarding proof that he made a post forgetting which ID he was posting
under. Restored.

On the same page, a dead link to a page consisting of proof that Ken used
" as a sockpuppet to support himself. The link was
looking for a page called " rather than
"/kaiserdrvr.html". This was corrected.

Page "censorship.html" regarding Ken's favored censorship tactics was
missing. Re-uploaded.

On the same page, a link to an example of misattribution forgery was dead.
Restored.

On the page regarding my personal experience being stalked by Ken, restored
a dead link to a post proving that Ken had admitted to committing fraud by
accessing my consumer credit report.

On the same page, restored a dead link to a post where Ken had threatened
my wife and children.

On the chronology timeline page, restored a dead link to a 2000 post where
Ken vowed to obtain proof of his claims about me in "7 to 10 days".

On the same page, restored a link to a second post referencing the above "7
to 10 days" claim.

On the "Index" page, restored a dead link to a page documenting Ken's
admission that he posted a rape threat, which he later denied.

On the same page, restored a dead link to a page documenting Ken's e-mailed
threat to forge racist comments to incite people to come to my home, and to
post a picture of my wife.

If you've spotted anything else which requires clarification, please let me
know! Thanks for helping to make http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com an
accurate and truthful resource.

You also had other questions, and hopefully it's not bad netiquette to
paraphrase with answers here...

http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/Attachment(1).jpg is archived on the site
because Ken e-mailed that file to me. I am not certain why. I do concede
that it's very likely not a genuine scan of a written statement by his
ex-wife...rather, it looks as if someone typed this out in Word and then
pasted a graphic of her signature. (The word "Pangborn" is actually
underlined, as Microsoft Word will do when it finds an incorrect spelling.)
My guess is that someone concocted this to pull Ken's chain, and he assumed
(without proof, of course) that I was the author.

The marriage license was posted partially due to lies about a trip to
Cuba...and also to make the point that he spent his wedding day, and the
days following it, spamming to usenet, and therefore doesn't have much of a
life.

Hopefully this clears things up...

Considerably I presume, but as Ken claims I'm your dog I'll take the
time to follow up and examine what you've posted and compare it to Ken's
pompous pronouncements and string of lies here.

The best one can do is to look for likelihood. So far, it's not looking
good for Ken, but I shall see for myself.

I still will not be able to take all of, or maybe any of what you post
about him in my decision making.

What he has done here is the primary source of my thoughts about him.
Thanks for responding, and no, I wouldn't post anything to you that I
would not want viewers to read, including Ken himself.

Kane




http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBRbVGrgu6zDezw650EQIWyQCfQeiPrJ+3huVkcNw/4k82XfxKxkQAoMNG
B1zXY/CrUoRypOxbq3eNtq/5
=F42o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:G_idnScy1JwSfCnYnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@scnresearch. com...


Why would you not mention the bankruptcy but the content of the judgment
as though it didn't exist?

Have you ever heard the term "rationalization?" Have you ever been
told that there is a point where a person can take rationalization to
such an extreme that it is considered pathological? Kane - - - you are
way PAST that point here!

Why would you not mention the bankruptcy but the content of the judgment
as though it didn't exist?

Because - essentially it is irrelevant EXCEPT to your LOVER Moore!

For the duration of our coming debate in another thread, the one on
spanking, I'm personally not going to respond to, or post myself to any
thread where you are involved.

I wouldn't want to unduly influence any viewers.

I consider your evasive question and accusation above pathological
rationalization.

If in fact the issues included providing your bankruptcy information to
prove a point in opposition to something you claimed, then the providing
that proof was a rational act.

Kane you think JUST LIKE DAVID MOORE!

In some quarters that might be a complimentary.

We simply don't know at this point.

Please don't expect me to post to you on this subject until we've
finished our debate on Spanking leads to Aggression.

I will try, and I'd expect and welcome reminders if I slip, to not even
discuss you with anyone else in any of the three newsgroups.

Thanks, Kane

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:xcydnUZZEeG8mSjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@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.

Yoiu mistake your own table pounding for proof. In fact your "proof"
fails totally to support your claims. TOTALLY! Just because there can be a
causal statement within a correlation article does NOT change the FACT of
what the statement IS.. Something you have a unique inability to understand.

This is the subject of our discussion in "Spanking leads to Aggression."

I'm going to move it there. Please join me.

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.

SMOKESCREEN. One can make a causal statement in an article on
correlation.

Yes they can.

What would be your point concerning the study?

I understood that yours was a statement in rebuttal of the title.

How does this do so?

That does NOT (you frigging idiot) change the nature of the
STATEMENT!

I have not claimed a change at all. Only that the statement, "Spanking
leads to Aggression in Children" is, as you yourself claim the article
is about, correlation.

It "could" be a causal statement, but nothing in the article pretends to
be about cause. As surveys do not lend themselves at all to that
research discipline.

You see to be talking about this at the expense of examining the body of
the article.

I'd like to move on to the article now, unless you truly feel the title
is misleading and meant to be so.

It hardly seems likely the Scientific periodical meant to mislead, and
most certainly the researchers did not, so the point is moot.

The research report itself is the issue, not the title.

And I'd like to include the other claim you made along with
consideration of this report on spanking and aggression in children.

It seems so closely linked, for if children truly are at risk of
developing 'sociopathy' behaviors as a result of not being spanked, than
any children participating with their parents in this survey would be
poor subjects and it might nullify the research all together.

So I'm anxious to see your scientific proof, and put the report to the
test.

I guess we could presume that the less children are spanked the MORE
likely they are of developing those unwanted behaviors you spoke of.

I look forward to seeing you in that thread now, and won't respond in
this one so as not to pollute our debate.

Thanks. Kane




X leads to Y is a STATEMENT in science of CAUSATION! PERIOD! It is NOT a
statement of correlation.

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:BOGdnbn8JN12kSjYnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doan wrote:
....
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."
That does not argue that X leads to Y cannot be a correlation argument.


**** you are STUPID!

See you in the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread, Ken.

And we can take this up where it came from and thus keep a tidy and
boundary confined debate that people can follow.

I'm sure some are interested.

Best wishes, Kane

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Y_6dnTsdXYiBmyjYnZ2dnUVZ_uvinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

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.

Kane EVERY one of your cites - EVERY ONE fails to support your claims.
Not most of them - ALL of them on this subject.

Please show you work.

And move it to the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread where
we started this discussion.

I'll be happy to take your claims up there.

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.

Ron did BUT you argued it.

I contributed what I fully acknowledged as an opinion. That the issue is
far from resolution. You seem to now want to respond to that but instead
insist I was arguing in favor. I was not.

I was looking at issues from both sides...age, training of users, lack
of need, or need.

For me it's not resolved so I really can't productively debate it.

Please stop insisting I must for reasons you claim I have that I do not.

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.

Run little girl RUN.. You didn't post them as "EDUCATION."

Kendra, no one knows why I do what I do unless I tell them. When I do
that is that. All other claims about my reasons by others is plainly
speculation on their part...unless you have discovered telepathy along
with your discovery of behavioral "sociopathy" being either caused or
correlated by not spanking children.

You posed
them to support your CLAIM.

Then you wish to claim you can read my mind?

And my claim was?

AND right along with the Ohio v., Boston cite
you NOW claim you never made.

I speculated I had not. I thought Ron had. But it's not relevant since
the only claim I made was in the nature of it being unresolved and so
not really debatable by me.

Little wonder.

You are, that's a fact.

I did not provide that information to support a claim -- other than I've
stated.

However, I told you that all I can respond with is that I don't accept
that the issue is fully resolved enough for me to have firm opinions.

Hence it's not debatable for me. You of course may claim anything you
wish about SAC dolls. Your claim will go unchallenged by me except for
my unsupported opinion that the discussion in the professional community
and law enforcement is not done on this subject.

Please meet me in SLTAIC thread for our debate on "X leads to" Y is only
one or the other, causal or correlation.

Thanks, Kane