So then, Ken ...

....

Are you going to keep babbling about how I claim "victory" and "beat
my chest" and claim I'm the "alpha male," and other dribbling ****, or
are you going to produce that "considerable evidence" (and that's a
direct quote), that non spanked children are at risk of developing
sociopathy?

As I review your posts I see you almost got there once, but failed to
cite and quote appropriately so that the real material you make
reference to could not be located.

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?

Ask for Doan's help again. It's the least you can do after coming
running at his request to help him when he was cornered like a little
rat.

Give him a "hihihi" from me, thanks.

Kane

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

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?


I only debate HONEST people Kane. You are simply full of ****. You THINK
you won. It's pointless debating somebody like you because reality does
through a warp field. Your SOURCE negated your claims and its own.

Again - Kaney - it's simple. The article (NOT A STUDY -but a SURVEY)
itself noted that in societies where spanking is more common, the reported
aggression was LOWER! NOW you frigging DIMBULB - IF spanking CAUSES
aggression in children there would be NO difference. the fact that there is
suggest to any but the MOST stupid (that'd be youz) that either something
else was fueling the aggression OR that MOMMY was WRONG about it and NOT a
reliable observer. That is WAY over the point on top of your head bozo and
you STILL don't get it no matter how many times it is put in front of your
stupid face. Your eyes just glaze over and you drool. I can't help your
TOTAL lack of intellect to get something so simple. We've been over 22,000
times what a REAL STUDY would be like to document the claim that spanking
CAUSES aggression in kids. You can't understand that either. Attempts by
myself and others to explain it to you bounce off your head like pebbles off
the shields on a Klingon battle cruiser!

I'm not going to document my statements until such time as you
understand how badly YOU have lost.

Give it up, Empty Kane! You have conceded and therefore you HAVE LOST
the debate!

Doan


On 4 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

...

Are you going to keep babbling about how I claim "victory" and "beat
my chest" and claim I'm the "alpha male," and other dribbling ****, or
are you going to produce that "considerable evidence" (and that's a
direct quote), that non spanked children are at risk of developing
sociopathy?

As I review your posts I see you almost got there once, but failed to
cite and quote appropriately so that the real material you make
reference to could not be located.

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?

Ask for Doan's help again. It's the least you can do after coming
running at his request to help him when he was cornered like a little
rat.

Give him a "hihihi" from me, thanks.

Kane

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:00:19 GMT, "KRP" wrote:


"0:-" wrote in message
roups.com...

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?


I only debate HONEST people Kane. You are simply full of ****. You THINK
you won. It's pointless debating somebody like you because reality does
through a warp field. Your SOURCE negated your claims and its own.

What claims? That there was a possible correlation? No, not only did
it support it, that is what Doan labeled it....a correlation study.

I find it odd that you'd claim, after long runs of debate, or
semblance thereto, by you that you now claim you only debate honest
people....and you are refusing to debate me.

Are you saying I was honest then, but am not now? Please explain your
logic.

Again - Kaney - it's simple. The article (NOT A STUDY -but a SURVEY)

Doan called it a study twice that I've quoted to you. He did elsewhere
in our "debate," as well. Both studies I posted cites to were referred
to as studies. Both were peer reviewed as studies, research.

You still want to insist they were not studies?




itself noted that in societies where spanking is more common, the reported
aggression was LOWER!

Lower than what? Where?

NOW you frigging DIMBULB - IF spanking CAUSES
aggression in children there would be NO difference.

I don't follow your logic there. But then you haven't established
either a constant, or any variables we can compare.

And you are arguing to a point not made. Well, except by you? Who are
you claiming, exactly, has argued that spanking "causes" aggression?

If you mean the title of the article, yes, you are correct. That title
was inaccurate. The article itself, however, and the research it was
about, made no such claim. Nor have I.

Feel free to provide proof for your claim that I said that.

the fact that there is
suggest to any but the MOST stupid (that'd be youz) that either something
else was fueling the aggression OR that MOMMY was WRONG about it and NOT a
reliable observer.

"The fact that there is a difference?"

My own experience with survey instruments is that they are designed to
uncover and reject corrupted responses...in fact the entire entry for
that subject person is excluded.

You don't understand survey work, do you, Ken? Or you do and you are
lying now.

What was your Master's thesis on?

That is WAY over the point on top of your head bozo and
you STILL don't get it no matter how many times it is put in front of your
stupid face.

It's so far over my head that it's in the ozone, Ken. It's babbling,
not science.

Your eyes just glaze over and you drool.

Lemme stop and check....DAMN! You are right. I need some lunch.

I can't help your
TOTAL lack of intellect to get something so simple.

If it's so simple I'm sure you could express so even someone so
limited as me could understand better what you are trying to say that
confounds ... well I'll be damned....R R R Surprise, MY POSTED
MATERIAL IN ARGUMENT ON THIS STUDY HAS BEEN REMOVED BY SOMEONE from
the other thread, about folks not missing this one.

Has Greg been proofing and editing you replies?

RRRRRRRRRR RR R R R R R R

Which of these statements supports your claim, and which does not, and
how do you wish to deal with what the report actually said, as opposed
to what you keep saying, erroneously, it said?

"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of
Cultural Norm:" (and no, that's not MY claim, Ken, so give up your
dodges and lying)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...64a564a?hl=en&

From the abstract:
....
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were
less aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety. ...



We've been over 22,000
times what a REAL STUDY would be like to document the claim that spanking
CAUSES aggression in kids. You can't understand that either. Attempts by
myself and others to explain it to you bounce off your head like pebbles off
the shields on a Klingon battle cruiser!

If 22,000 times is accurate, Ken, then you have been mistaken 22k.

Why did you snip this from the other thread,Ken and not respond to it,
and ignore it in your pontificating above?:






I'm not going to document my statements until such time as you
understand how badly YOU have lost.

Oh, now I have to confess I have lost (which would be a lie on my
part) to get you to admit you are lying. Interesting debating tactic.




Read the Achenbach review...or are you unfamiliar with peer review
processes?

http://www.aseba.org/research/discipline.htm
.... Nevertheless, across all the cultures, the mothers who used the
most physical discipline rated their children highest on the CBCL
Aggressive and Anxious/Depressed syndromes. ...

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17284072
....Countries with the lowest use of physical discipline showed the
strongest association between mothers' use and children's behavior
problems, but in all countries higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more aggression and anxiety. ...

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...format=pri nt
....but in all countries higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more aggression and anxiety. ...

Let me explain a few related points about those findings.

Mother who spanked, from all cultures, had a way of describing their
children. They might have been accurate, or not, as you argue.

The point is IT IS THEIR PERCEPTION THAT MATTERS in terms of whether
or not SPANKING WORKS TO LOWER AGGRESSION.

The argument of Doan, and he cited an inaccurate source that cited an
accurate source INNACCURATELY, was that black children benefit somehow
by spanking.

No real study has ever shown that...but because claims based on
opinions are being made to that effect, this study was conducted.

What did it show? That mothers that used spanking more ... regardless
of cultural norms, reported their children misbehaved and were more
anxious. The children reported much the same.

Spanking creates a perception.

It is that which matters. If spanking WORKS they cannot tell it is
doing so or that is what they would report.

They don't say, "He..(or I) behaves better when spanked." Nor do they
say, "Being spanked makes him..(Or I) feel less anxious."

Does that help you understand better what the research really found.

By the way, would you like to take your arguments to the actual
researchers, who you claim did NOT do a study, but "only" a survey?

They refer to the process as "interview." I hope you aren't mistaking
a survey for a "poll."

I believe you can contact them, and read their abstract directly
through:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

1: Child Dev. 2005 Nov-Dec;76(6):1234-46.Click here to read Links
Physical discipline and children's adjustment: cultural
normativeness as a moderator.

* Lansford JE,
* Chang L,
* Dodge KA,
* Malone PS,
* Oburu P,
* Palmerus K,
* Bacchini D,
* Pastorelli C,
* Bombi AS,
* Zelli A,
* Tapanya S,
* Chaudhary N,
* Deater-Deckard K,
* Manke B,
* Quinn N.

Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC
27708-0545, USA.

Interviews were conducted with 336 mother-child dyads (children's
ages ranged from 6 to 17 years; mothers' ages ranged from 20 to 59
years) in China, India, Italy, Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand to
examine whether normativeness of physical discipline moderates the
link between mothers' use of physical discipline and children's
adjustment. Multilevel regression analyses revealed that physical
discipline was less strongly associated with adverse child outcomes in
conditions of greater perceived normativeness, but physical discipline
was also associated with more adverse outcomes regardless of its
perceived normativeness. Countries with the lowest use of physical
discipline showed the strongest association between mothers' use and
children's behavior problems, but in all countries higher use of
physical discipline was associated with more aggression and anxiety.

PMID: 16274437 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:15:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

Give it up,

Nope.

Empty Kane! You have conceded

I have conceded I can't prove the moon landing wasn't staged too.

That means nothing.

I conceded to only what I had actually argued, that the title did not
fit the content. Ken conceded by running, which he's still doing, that
he has not evidence for his claim about non spanking and child
sociopathy.

and therefore you HAVE LOST
the debate!

You are now lying again.



Doan


On 4 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

...

Are you going to keep babbling about how I claim "victory" and "beat
my chest" and claim I'm the "alpha male," and other dribbling ****, or
are you going to produce that "considerable evidence" (and that's a
direct quote), that non spanked children are at risk of developing
sociopathy?

As I review your posts I see you almost got there once, but failed to
cite and quote appropriately so that the real material you make
reference to could not be located.

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?

Ask for Doan's help again. It's the least you can do after coming
running at his request to help him when he was cornered like a little
rat.

Give him a "hihihi" from me, thanks.

Kane

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:00:19 GMT, "KRP" wrote:
I only debate HONEST people Kane. You are simply full of ****. You THINK
you won. It's pointless debating somebody like you because reality does
through a warp field. Your SOURCE negated your claims and its own.

I'm still puzzling over the above and what it has to do with all that
evidence on the development of sociopathy in non-spanked children.

This especially has me frustrated: "It's pointless debating somebody
like you because reality does through a warp field."

How frustrating to debate with someone whose language I appear to not
speak very well.


0:]

When you "conceded" Kane, what exactly was it to?
Your revisionism on this fascinates me.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:15:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

Give it up,

Nope.

It's your choice! Just like it your choice to remain STUPID!

Empty Kane! You have conceded

I have conceded I can't prove the moon landing wasn't staged too.

But that wasn't in the debate, STUPID.

That means nothing.

It meant YOU LOST!

I conceded to only what I had actually argued, that the title did not
fit the content. Ken conceded by running, which he's still doing, that
he has not evidence for his claim about non spanking and child
sociopathy.

You conceded and YOU LOST, STUPID!

and therefore you HAVE LOST
the debate!

You are now lying again.

The proven liar here is YOU, Kane!

Doan

Greegor wrote:
When you "conceded" Kane, what exactly was it to?

I must have posted this a dozen times so far. If you are interested in
joining in and supporting a liar, just say so.

Your revisionism on this fascinates me.

Revisionism?

Ken is claiming I, what's called in debate, a positive
assertion...meaning it can be proven...(unlike a negative claim which is
usually impossible to prove) that I stated that spanking 'CAUSES'
aggression in children.

He refused, though he puts my alleged statement in quotes, to provide
any actual quote of mine...any real words I spoke and provide a link to
that post.

In other words, he accuses and runs. Doan supports him. I've given Doan
a little "treatment" for his condition...the one where he makes false
accusations. You might have noticed.

Here, Greg, is the only thing I have "conceded." Something I had already
agreed was inaccurate and I did so to move on to debate the actually
issue...the international study...it's abstract, that Ken and Doan
continue to lie about the contents of.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...af86e8d?hl=en&

I quote by attribute a statement of Ken's: " NO weenie YOU made the
first claim. That Spanking MAKES CHILDREN
AGGRESSIVE!

That was Jan 17th and he still, after repeated requests, has refused to
produce proof I made such a claim. I would not do so. And in this post
at the link above I use the term 'correlation.' Obviously NOT claiming
cause.

Ron corrected him some posts early when he made that claim that I said
"cause" that I had not and in fact HE, Ken himself introduced the word
and ascribed it to me improperly.

In the post linked to above, in response and reply to accusations by Ken
Pangborn (still unproven) that I had claimed to support the title of an
article about a study abstract that looked at spanking across six
countries that said, according to him (it did NOT say this by the way),
"BUT "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION" is a direct statement of CAUSATION!
And the article fails to support the claim."

While he's correct about the article, he might was well say it also
fails to support my argument that I've been abducted by female aliens
for breeding purposes...for you see, I haven't, nor have I made such a
claim.

He is making up MY argument as he goes along, by simply lying. You are
familiar with this, I presume? You and Doan?

If you read the post you will see that all through it I am making it
plain that I do not AGREE with the title, as to cause, and point to the
body of the article as the issue, not the title.

He prefers to continue combat over the title, which I'm not in conflict
about except as to point out they meant to say correlation if they were
to be consistent with the article and the language of the abstract.

As you can see he's attempting to make out and argument were there is in
fact none. Not from me.

Here is where I use the word 'concede' which Doan extrapolates my
meaning to be, by abortion of context, a common trick you might
recognize yourself, that I conceded the debate:

"I happily concede no causal relationship in this or ANY social science
research."

In other words, I'm agreeing with myself, and in fact Doan in another
post of his about this study...that it's a correlation study.

That does not concede the debate, only that the title is not accurate
and the study is one of correlation.

Ken continues to ignore that and continues to claim that I said spanking
CAUSES aggression in children.

If you can find any such statement of mine, do let me know.

Now tell me once again, other than to call Ken on his lies and ask him
to prove his claims, how "Your revisionism on this fascinates me," your
statement, fits here?

What did I revise?

We are six weeks into me asking him to prove I made the statement he
claims I did, and he's danced the whole time.

Would you like to take up his cause for him and provide the proof?

Would you like to also argue, as he has, that I am incorrect in stating
that the study itself found that children in all the cultures studied,
regardless of their stance on the use of CP had more anxiety and
aggression if they were spanked, only some less if the culture accept
spanking more?

The authors of the study state in the abstract, quite clearly, twice
that this is what they found.

Pick your argument and let's boogie.

Otherwise, we'll have to view, as I suspect is true, your statement,
"Your revisionism on this fascinates me," as nothing more than your
usual simple minded harassment.

0:-]

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:15:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

Give it up,
Nope.

It's your choice! Just like it your choice to remain STUPID!

Empty Kane! You have conceded
I have conceded I can't prove the moon landing wasn't staged too.

But that wasn't in the debate, STUPID.

That means nothing.

It meant YOU LOST!

I conceded to only what I had actually argued, that the title did not
fit the content. Ken conceded by running, which he's still doing, that
he has not evidence for his claim about non spanking and child
sociopathy.

You conceded and YOU LOST, STUPID!

Conceded what, liar?


and therefore you HAVE LOST
the debate!
You are now lying again.

The proven liar here is YOU, Kane!

Nope. It's you. For years.

You are ducking the issue of the International study just as you have
always done, for years, when you cannot refute the opponents claims and
the evidence presented in support...you go sideways and start bull****
like this...plain lies....I conceded to the truth of the study. That it
was not a causal study...something YOU said yourself to LaVonne claiming
it was a correlation study.

So you are lying, and ducking the content and protecting Ken's lies
about the study and what it actually says, just as you did on the three
ethnic group study.

LIAR!



Doan