Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.

You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
dealing with the topic.

You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
engage the issues.

Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
Nathan's questions?

And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)

Doan

Probably not. Wouldn't want to tax your corrupt brain.

Kane





0:- wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking.
"Reasonably take in to consideration?"

What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?

How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
thinks by surface appearances?

By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
spanking would have likely presented itself.

But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful.
The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.

The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.

Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.
I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
continuing misbehavior was?

The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
(the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
behavior.

He identifed that population as being very difficult children.

My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?

That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
need to take risks by chosing to spank.

We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
using methods that did not include CP and focused on
consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.

But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
of people do.

Kane

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?

Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

That's would be new.

For you.


I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?

I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

Hihihi! When someone lied, like you, their story often just don't add up!
Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file. I do have
some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?

I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

More lies, Kane? Or are you just logically impaired? Didn't you say
that Alina was me? Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)

Doan

Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?

Doan

One of the hallmarks of such discussions would be to actually respond to
the relevant content. You just dodges, as usual, let me see now..one,
two, three times.

Let's just take one and see if you can actually discuss it and argue
with facts, shall we:

"If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length."

So, did I understand him correctly? Do you agree or disagree?

Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't ready
for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before 6 or 7?

Or would you like to dodge again?

And given that I have done so, and Dr. Embry did so, have you anything
to say that would support your general and nonspecific claim as per your
question?

Here is where you first dodged...to me, after all these years, an
indicator you do not have an argument and you aren't about to admit it.

You asked this question: "If what you said is true about spanking, can
the same be said about other non-cp alternatives like talking and
reasoning with your children?"

I replied: "To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that
children are all five and under."

Can you show how I am mistaken, or failed to understand your question?

Thanks,
Kane

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.
You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
dealing with the topic.

You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
engage the issues.

Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
Nathan's questions?

And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)

Why would I look bad? And remember, it was you that brought up my
mentioning a PDF file so you could use it as a dodge to keep from
engaging in any sensible discussion of the study.

You said you had it. Why would I want to send it to you?

Now, do you wish to discuss the study or not?

Or are you going to simply show that you are no more capable of reasoned
fact based argument than Greg?

Doan

Kane


Probably not. Wouldn't want to tax your corrupt brain.

Kane




0:- wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking.
"Reasonably take in to consideration?"

What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?

How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
thinks by surface appearances?

By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
spanking would have likely presented itself.

But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful.
The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.

The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.

Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.
I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
continuing misbehavior was?

The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
(the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
behavior.

He identifed that population as being very difficult children.

My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?

That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
need to take risks by chosing to spank.

We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
using methods that did not include CP and focused on
consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.

But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
of people do.

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

That's would be new.

For you.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,

Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
a copy?

their story often just don't add up!

That would be you, Doan.

Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.

And the two are mutually exclusive how?

I do have
some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.

So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..

Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

More lies, Kane?

I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
better when you do.

Or are you just logically impaired?

No. Much to your chagrin.

Didn't you say
that Alina was me?

Did I? Why would I do that?

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)

Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
you would do months ago for anyone that asked.


He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
first asked about getting a copy.

Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.

Doan
Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?

Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
asked, like were you Alina?

Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
answer now.

Doan

You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.

You quoted Straus out of context for instance, on his remarks to the
press about Diana Baumrind's presentation at Berkeley. I thought that
particularly foul. A clear attempt to deceive.

You refused to establish you had the same study report of Embry's that I
had...yet another clear attempt to deceive, so as to not have to enter
into debate on issues you knew were going to bury you and your claims
from previous posts on the issues of parenting practices.

And you are still dodging.

Just as I predicted you would in my comments attributed below as:

"Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't
ready for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before
6 or 7?

Or would you like to dodge again?"

You just can't get honest, Doan. That's pretty clear to anyone that
reads your posting history even for a few weeks.

Kane



One of the hallmarks of such discussions would be to actually respond to
the relevant content. You just dodges, as usual, let me see now..one,
two, three times.

Let's just take one and see if you can actually discuss it and argue
with facts, shall we:

"If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length."

So, did I understand him correctly? Do you agree or disagree?

Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't ready
for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before 6 or 7?

Or would you like to dodge again?

And given that I have done so, and Dr. Embry did so, have you anything
to say that would support your general and nonspecific claim as per your
question?

Here is where you first dodged...to me, after all these years, an
indicator you do not have an argument and you aren't about to admit it.

You asked this question: "If what you said is true about spanking, can
the same be said about other non-cp alternatives like talking and
reasoning with your children?"

I replied: "To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that
children are all five and under."

Can you show how I am mistaken, or failed to understand your question?

Thanks,
Kane

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.
You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
dealing with the topic.

You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
engage the issues.

Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
Nathan's questions?

And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)

Why would I look bad? And remember, it was you that brought up my
mentioning a PDF file so you could use it as a dodge to keep from
engaging in any sensible discussion of the study.

Here is your words:
"I guess I'll just have to look bad."
The reason I brought up the PDF file is to exposed your LIES, Kane. It is
simple as that. You went from: have it to don't have it, to poor PDF file
to corrupted PDF file. IT IS JUST STUPID, Kane! It is even funnier when
you brought my posting on another newsgroup, as somehow that make making
a PDF file is easy! So easy that you ended up with a corrupted PDF file.
DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOU LOOKED??? ;-)

You said you had it. Why would I want to send it to you?

Huh? First, I've never claimed to have a PDF copy. Second, I did not ask
you to send it to me. Nathan asked you to send it to him. Why do you
keep on saying stupid lies like these, Kane? Is it PATHOLOGICAL?

Now, do you wish to discuss the study or not?

To a proven liar like you? Or are honestly want to debate?

Or are you going to simply show that you are no more capable of reasoned
fact based argument than Greg?

I've always given facts, unlike you. You see, facts, unlike lies, don't
change. Your stories kept on changing from days to days. ;-)

Doan

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

I see that you have no response to this. So do you really wanted to have
a "civil" discussion or not?


That's would be new.

For you.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,

Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
a copy?

Hihihi! Still more lies! First, I don't have a PDF copy. Second, why
don't you asked Nathan if I've offered to send him a copy or not.

their story often just don't add up!

That would be you, Doan.

What story would that be, Kane? Did I ever claimed to have a PDF copy?

Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.

And the two are mutually exclusive how?

Hihihi! What does "mutually exclusive" has to do with it? How do you
create a corrupted file, Kane?

I do have
some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.

So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..

Are you this stupid? What does knowing how to make and not having the
equipment or the software has to do with it? I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE
A PDF FILE!

Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.

Like a corrupted file? Wanna tell me how to make a corrupted file? ;-)


Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

More lies, Kane?

I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
better when you do.

You don't know your own lies?

Or are you just logically impaired?

No. Much to your chagrin.

That what makes you an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

Didn't you say
that Alina was me?

Did I? Why would I do that?

Yes, you did. Did you forget? See the problem with LIES, Kane? You
can't keep your story straight! ;-)

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)

Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
you would do months ago for anyone that asked.

Hahaha! I don't have a PDF copy, Kane! Not even a corrupted one! ;-)


He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
first asked about getting a copy.

Hihihi! But he didn't ask for a hard copy now, did he, Kane?

Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.

You are not fooling anyone, Kane. ;-)

Doan
Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?

Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
asked, like were you Alina?

Sure. I am not Alina!

Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
answer now.

Go ahead, Kane. I am ready for another laugh. Can you tell me the
address that you claimed to have send a copy to Alina? I am pretty
sure that it was a lie too! ;-)


Doan

You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.

Hihihi! Anyone here believes that Kane is honest and Doan is a liar,
speak up.

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.
You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
dealing with the topic.

You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
engage the issues.

Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
Nathan's questions?

And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)

Why would I look bad? And remember, it was you that brought up my
mentioning a PDF file so you could use it as a dodge to keep from
engaging in any sensible discussion of the study.

Here is your words:
"I guess I'll just have to look bad."

Relevance? I'm pointing out that that is someone else's opinion, as
you can see by reading above.

The reason I brought up the PDF file is to exposed your LIES, Kane. It is
simple as that.

No, just as in the past it is a ploy to avoid the issues under
discussion, and a rather vapid attempt to discredit someone that is
opposed to spanking. You've admitted that is why you come here, Doan.

You went from: have it to don't have it,

You mean a PDF file? I do have it.

to poor PDF file

Yes it did not come out well.

to corrupted PDF file.

Upon being pressured by you for more information by claiming I was
lying, I explained what about the file didn't work. It was only
partially converted to PDF and showed an error message that it would
not load further as it was corrupted. Anyone that's dealt with PDF
files much has seen this before.

IT IS JUST STUPID, Kane!

It is must stupider to attempt to divert from the issues under
discussion by such shabby and childish means, Doan.

I asked you why you didn't send Nathan a copy of the study, either
hardcopy, or PDF since I know that you are perfectly capable of making
one, and have plenty of access to skanners, and Acrobat to do so. You
are, after all, on a university campus. The computer lab is open to
you. It's filled with such equipment and software. And you have access
to it.

Want to tell the folks what you do there?

It is even funnier when
you brought my posting on another newsgroup,

Evidence you have the technical expertise to make a PDF copy. Anyone
that can manage routers certainly isn't pressed technically to make a
PDF file.

as somehow that make making
a PDF file is easy!

Oh? How hard is it? A scan, even without Acrobat and you could make a
graphics pic of it and send that. With OCR and Acrobat you can easily
produce a PDF file.

So easy that you ended up with a corrupted PDF file.

That had to do with old OCR software. You have access to the latest.

DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOU LOOKED??? ;-)

Do you see how stupid you look to anyone that's ever make a PDF file,
given that you are IT trained and employed person?

You said you had it. Why would I want to send it to you?

Huh? First, I've never claimed to have a PDF copy.

You claimed you had a hard copy. When in corner you continually change
the subject.

Second, I did not ask
you to send it to me.

You claimed that I sent it to Alina knowing she was you. Stop your
silly dodging. You've no idea how unethical and stupid it makes you
appear.

Nathan asked you to send it to him. Why do you
keep on saying stupid lies like these, Kane? Is it PATHOLOGICAL?

What lies? I didn't say he didn't ask me. At the time he asked he was
coming across as one of your cronies. I told him, as I've told you, you
can do your own work just fine.

Now, do you wish to discuss the study or not?

To a proven liar like you?

You aren't going to answer the question, obviously.

Or are honestly want to debate?

For better than two years I've asked you to, with minimal requirements
for doing so...simply proof that you have access to the same report I
do. Do you wish to revisit all the dodging you did instead of answer a
couple of simple idenifying questions about your copy...even after I
answered your questions about mine?

You are lying again, Doan.

Or are you going to simply show that you are no more capable of reasoned
fact based argument than Greg?

I've always given facts, unlike you.

Nonsense and a bald faced lie. You have dodged continually for all the
years you've posted her and I'm witness to you continuing it with Embry
study when I asked to discuss it with you.

You see, facts, unlike lies, don't
change. Your stories kept on changing from days to days. ;-)

No they don't. Not have an encylclopedic response to a question or
issue all in one post does not constituted lies or changing a story.

Would you care to apply that criteria to all posters, including
yourself?

Any time you mention something and fail to expand on it then you would
be lying, Doan.

I don't hold you to that criteria because I'm not interested in your
games.

I ask you straight forward questions and you pull this same baloney you
are pulling now.

Doan

You simply are terrified of the Embry study and it's possible impact if
it gains wider distribution. Something I cannot do independly of Dr.
Embry because it is of course his work product and his to decide how
much distribution he wishes.

I hope that Nathan contacting him will encourage him to not only make
his report on the study on street entries more available on line,
especially since it still seems to be the only study of its particular
kind, and that he will share other of his papers on child development
and it's progress over time as he mentioned.

Rather than engage in encouraging that you instead try to engage me in
diversions.

Do you wish to see the study report presented on Dr. Embry's webpage,
in full?

Or do you wish to argue with me, and lie continually by diversion, by
omission, by abuse of context, and by clever manipulation of facts?

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

I see that you have no response to this. So do you really wanted to have
a "civil" discussion or not?

That's would be new.
For you.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,
Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
a copy?

Hihihi! Still more lies! First, I don't have a PDF copy. Second, why
don't you asked Nathan if I've offered to send him a copy or not.

their story often just don't add up!

That would be you, Doan.

What story would that be, Kane? Did I ever claimed to have a PDF copy?

Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.
And the two are mutually exclusive how?

Hihihi! What does "mutually exclusive" has to do with it? How do you
create a corrupted file, Kane?

I do have
some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.
So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..

Are you this stupid? What does knowing how to make and not having the
equipment or the software has to do with it? I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE
A PDF FILE!

Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.

Like a corrupted file? Wanna tell me how to make a corrupted file? ;-)

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

More lies, Kane?
I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
better when you do.

You don't know your own lies?

Or are you just logically impaired?
No. Much to your chagrin.

That what makes you an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

Didn't you say
that Alina was me?
Did I? Why would I do that?

Yes, you did. Did you forget? See the problem with LIES, Kane? You
can't keep your story straight! ;-)

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)
Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
you would do months ago for anyone that asked.

Hahaha! I don't have a PDF copy, Kane! Not even a corrupted one! ;-)

He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
first asked about getting a copy.

Hihihi! But he didn't ask for a hard copy now, did he, Kane?

Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.

You are not fooling anyone, Kane. ;-)

Doan
Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?
Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
asked, like were you Alina?

Sure. I am not Alina!

Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
answer now.

Go ahead, Kane. I am ready for another laugh. Can you tell me the
address that you claimed to have send a copy to Alina?

Nope. But it was in Mexico. Where she claimed to live. If by chance you
are telling the truth I'm not going to hand out her address publicly or
privately. Would you?

I am pretty
sure that it was a lie too! ;-)

I'm pretty sure you are bluffing. Notice you are still avoiding
discussing the study, something you managed to do for two years, Doan.


Doan

You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.

Hihihi! Anyone here believes that Kane is honest and Doan is a liar,
speak up.

Your rants are becoming more and more bizarre, Doan.

Why would anyone want to engage you? Your record here as a most
unethical debater are well known to all. You've driven a dozen or so
people away from this ng with your stupid attacks just like this one.

You refuse to debate the issues, and turn to whatever you can find to
dodge with.

You make outrageous claims about providing the facts, when you in fact
quote out of context, and when challenged you immediately turn to this
kind of garbage posting.

Doan

Kane

Doan wrote:
....a perfect example of how he refuses to debate the actual issues, and
dodges when challenged, then calls the other person a liar to create a
dysfunction trap.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:
I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.


Nathan says:

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

Doan responds:

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

Kane challenges Doan:

To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Doan responds to three points brought up by Kane, One, presumption of
static age; Two, developmental discussion by Embry concerning changes in
capacity to process information and act on it; Three, referring to
Embry's comments as I understood them to mean.

And here we have Doan's usual dodge when cornered and unable to argue.
Never admitting his comments could have missed the point, he comes up
with a crab walk comment:

Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

And as usual, calculated to incite a response from the other poster on
something not related to the issue under discussion.

A clear attempt to deceive by omission, which in many dictionaries
amounts to a lie.

Doan

Would you care to discuss the issue I brought up in response to your,
"If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about
other non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?"

Kane

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

I see that you have no response to this. So do you really wanted to have
a "civil" discussion or not?

Still no answer from you, Kane?

That's would be new.
For you.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,
Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
a copy?

Hihihi! Still more lies! First, I don't have a PDF copy. Second, why
don't you asked Nathan if I've offered to send him a copy or not.

their story often just don't add up!

That would be you, Doan.

What story would that be, Kane? Did I ever claimed to have a PDF copy?

No response here neither?
Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.
And the two are mutually exclusive how?

Hihihi! What does "mutually exclusive" has to do with it? How do you
create a corrupted file, Kane?

No response here neither?

I do have
some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.
So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..

Are you this stupid? What does knowing how to make and not having the
equipment or the software has to do with it? I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE
A PDF FILE!

Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.

Like a corrupted file? Wanna tell me how to make a corrupted file? ;-)

No response here neither?

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

More lies, Kane?
I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
better when you do.

You don't know your own lies?

No response here neither?

Or are you just logically impaired?
No. Much to your chagrin.

That what makes you an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

Didn't you say
that Alina was me?
Did I? Why would I do that?

Yes, you did. Did you forget? See the problem with LIES, Kane? You
can't keep your story straight! ;-)

No response here neither?

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)
Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
you would do months ago for anyone that asked.

Hahaha! I don't have a PDF copy, Kane! Not even a corrupted one! ;-)

He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
first asked about getting a copy.

Hihihi! But he didn't ask for a hard copy now, did he, Kane?

Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.

You are not fooling anyone, Kane. ;-)

Doan
Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?
Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
asked, like were you Alina?

Sure. I am not Alina!

Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
answer now.

Go ahead, Kane. I am ready for another laugh. Can you tell me the
address that you claimed to have send a copy to Alina?

Nope. But it was in Mexico. Where she claimed to live. If by chance you
are telling the truth I'm not going to hand out her address publicly or
privately. Would you?

So that proved that she was me???

I am pretty
sure that it was a lie too! ;-)

I'm pretty sure you are bluffing. Notice you are still avoiding
discussing the study, something you managed to do for two years, Doan.

Hihihi! Is anyone here believe your LIES, Kane?


Doan

You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.

Hihihi! Anyone here believes that Kane is honest and Doan is a liar,
speak up.

Your rants are becoming more and more bizarre, Doan.

Hihihi! Have you looked at your rants and lies, Kane?

Why would anyone want to engage you? Your record here as a most
unethical debater are well known to all. You've driven a dozen or so
people away from this ng with your stupid attacks just like this one.

Hahaha! It's you that driven people away with your harassment and
profanity, not me!

You refuse to debate the issues, and turn to whatever you can find to
dodge with.

Exposing your lies is what I did Kane!

You make outrageous claims about providing the facts, when you in fact
quote out of context, and when challenged you immediately turn to this
kind of garbage posting.

Who makes the outrage claim that Alina is me, Kane? ;-)

Doan