If you think Doan's recent...

.... behavior posting a bet claiming he would not see my "request" and
his subsequent evasive behavior when I accepted his bet and challenged
him to withdraw or put up was questionable, wait for this.

Doan has repeatedly, in defense of CP, used a sentence. (sentence, not
commentary) where he says Straus says Diane Baumrind's research was
the best...concerning the Berkeley NON peer reviewed presentation of
her research findings.

Repeated Doan has been shown that he takes Straus out of context, only
to have the kind of response (he'd like to call it 'debate' I think
you see here.

Note to the reader. He refers to my comments by lying. I said that Ms
Baumrinds study was NOT available at her own website, not that I
couldn't find it elsewhere. The issue being, if it was that good, why
did it not take a place longside her other work? Enjoy.

We begin with noting the Ms Baumrind seems to have drastically changed
her position toward spanking, from 1991 to the Berkeley presentation.

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] 0:- - 06 Aug 2006
03:59 GMT
If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going
through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines] [[[ Not my removale ]]]

LaVonne

Kane writes:
Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference
concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth.

It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is
what he had to say in total:

http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
"I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several
reporters
after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that
her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:

1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79
cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she
has
split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and
8
cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent
variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to
be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand
because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off.

Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment
for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given,
they would they show that, although the differences are not
significant
because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking,
the worse the outcome for the child. " ...

More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm

Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented
critically and negatively on Straus' work.

Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific
research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in
finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children.

In fact, much of her presentation,

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf

Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn
propaganda
ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come
to defend them.

The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive,
but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA,
and
academic and liberal location.

In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research'
was
almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent -
child interactions.

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
.... "The study I will discuss today was
designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by
mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data
base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten
the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on
child
outcomes." ...

One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time?

And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods
suggested by the age groupings?

And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it
for
peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her
statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication
has
happened.

We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it.

A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did
NOT
in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her
reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking
severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes
that
practice of spanking.

No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her
correctly:
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
"First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be
distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and
intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the
FSP
sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of
physical punishment was normative for that population."

If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an
accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and
bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking
advocate.

Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study
by
finding her description of what is and isn't normative.

One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the
poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and
well inside the legal limitations.

Signature

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message
Tree] Doan - 01 Aug 2006 14:50 GMT
It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]

0:-

You claimed that the study is not available even if if one pays for
it!
I've demonstrated what a FOOL you are in public! ;-) Just like when
you claimed the Embry Study weren't available; just like when you made
claim about the Hutterites with their "non-violent" parenting methods.
When are you gonna learn STUPID "never-spanked" boy? ;-)

Doan

.....so then. (The sources I contacted told ME the Embry study was not
in print. And until I contacted Dr. Embry for it, it apparently was
not. I, MYSELF, urged one of the sources to please put it back in
print...AAA, because of it's importance. ...Doan knows this, ignores
it, apparently because the truth would not serve his agenda. US Davis
listed Embry's study, but let me know it was not in print. I urged
them to run it down and make it available again....I got not reply,
but not long afterward, Doan, who has access to the UoC library
system, suddenly had more accurate information from the Embry study.
Go figger.)

Doan attempts to use the comments of Straus to make a point about the
quality of Baumrind's study, yet he constantly rejects Straus' as
having made errors in his own research.

I find it laughable that he wants to use validation for his position
from someone he otherwise rejects the work of. "Baumrind goooood,
Straus baaaad. Straus good when he is polite about Baumrind, Struas
baaaaad when he does his own research."

Classic double think and error based.

Though this is consistent with his changing positions whenever it
suits him, and using "proof" such as this, the at other times
attacking the very source he's used.

Considering how he handled the bet he offered, I'm not the least
surprised he reneged when I look back at some of his more elegant
pieces such as his reply to the flattening his claim took above. .

Kane

The proven liar is Kane. He is admitting that he has no proof that
Alina is me.

Doan


On 6 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

... behavior posting a bet claiming he would not see my "request" and
his subsequent evasive behavior when I accepted his bet and challenged
him to withdraw or put up was questionable, wait for this.

Doan has repeatedly, in defense of CP, used a sentence. (sentence, not
commentary) where he says Straus says Diane Baumrind's research was
the best...concerning the Berkeley NON peer reviewed presentation of
her research findings.

Repeated Doan has been shown that he takes Straus out of context, only
to have the kind of response (he'd like to call it 'debate' I think
you see here.

Note to the reader. He refers to my comments by lying. I said that Ms
Baumrinds study was NOT available at her own website, not that I
couldn't find it elsewhere. The issue being, if it was that good, why
did it not take a place longside her other work? Enjoy.

We begin with noting the Ms Baumrind seems to have drastically changed
her position toward spanking, from 1991 to the Berkeley presentation.

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] 0:- - 06 Aug 2006
03:59 GMT
If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going
through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines] [[[ Not my removale ]]]

LaVonne

Kane writes:
Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference
concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth.

It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is
what he had to say in total:

http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
"I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several
reporters
after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that
her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:

1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79
cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she
has
split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and
8
cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent
variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to
be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand
because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off.

Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment
for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given,
they would they show that, although the differences are not
significant
because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking,
the worse the outcome for the child. " ...

More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm

Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented
critically and negatively on Straus' work.

Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific
research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in
finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children.

In fact, much of her presentation,

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf

Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn
propaganda
ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come
to defend them.

The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive,
but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA,
and
academic and liberal location.

In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research'
was
almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent -
child interactions.

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
... "The study I will discuss today was
designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by
mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data
base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten
the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on
child
outcomes." ...

One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time?

And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods
suggested by the age groupings?

And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it
for
peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her
statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication
has
happened.

We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it.

A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did
NOT
in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her
reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking
severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes
that
practice of spanking.

No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her
correctly:
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
"First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be
distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and
intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the
FSP
sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of
physical punishment was normative for that population."

If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an
accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and
bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking
advocate.

Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study
by
finding her description of what is and isn't normative.

One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the
poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and
well inside the legal limitations.

Signature

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message
Tree] Doan - 01 Aug 2006 14:50 GMT
It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]

0:-

You claimed that the study is not available even if if one pays for
it!
I've demonstrated what a FOOL you are in public! ;-) Just like when
you claimed the Embry Study weren't available; just like when you made
claim about the Hutterites with their "non-violent" parenting methods.
When are you gonna learn STUPID "never-spanked" boy? ;-)

Doan

....so then. (The sources I contacted told ME the Embry study was not
in print. And until I contacted Dr. Embry for it, it apparently was
not. I, MYSELF, urged one of the sources to please put it back in
print...AAA, because of it's importance. ...Doan knows this, ignores
it, apparently because the truth would not serve his agenda. US Davis
listed Embry's study, but let me know it was not in print. I urged
them to run it down and make it available again....I got not reply,
but not long afterward, Doan, who has access to the UoC library
system, suddenly had more accurate information from the Embry study.
Go figger.)

Doan attempts to use the comments of Straus to make a point about the
quality of Baumrind's study, yet he constantly rejects Straus' as
having made errors in his own research.

I find it laughable that he wants to use validation for his position
from someone he otherwise rejects the work of. "Baumrind goooood,
Straus baaaad. Straus good when he is polite about Baumrind, Struas
baaaaad when he does his own research."

Classic double think and error based.

Though this is consistent with his changing positions whenever it
suits him, and using "proof" such as this, the at other times
attacking the very source he's used.

Considering how he handled the bet he offered, I'm not the least
surprised he reneged when I look back at some of his more elegant
pieces such as his reply to the flattening his claim took above. .

Kane

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:27:10 -0800, Doan wrote:



The proven liar is Kane. He is admitting that he has no proof that
Alina is me.

Same old Doan't, contextual liar.

You know that you were just too stupid to get it that I was feeding
you your own **** as a very clear and in fact all TOO obvious object
lesson.

I've had posts from people that watched it go down that asked long ago
if that was not what I was doing.

But stupid you, want to pretend this is the issue, when YOUR constant
string of lies over the years is the real one.

Doan

And you reneged on a bet, now trying to introduce NEW terms, showing
that you turned DOWN mine.

That's reneging.

Can't stand the heat, Doan't?

YOU RAN FROM your bet being called.

YOU made the bet without any conditions whatsoever, other than a claim
you would not see my request. You didn't even have brains enough to
realize I could make the request HERE, and you would see it, as you
and everyone else reading our posts has.

Thus LOSING the bet before you even heard my terms.

I was the only one that could accept your bet, as you named ME, as in
"I bet you."

I accepted, gave you my terms now you wish to ADD terms?

Dishonest coward and liar, Doan? Yes, you are that, for sure.

Take my bet as it stands or admit you lied and then ran.

Everyone else can see it, even your lying buddies.

Put up, or show your cowardice we all can see anyway.

My offer stands open for another 24 hours.

You going to run AGAIN WITH DIVERSIONS?

YOU HAD NO CONDITIONS, when you hit that send button, stupid.

Don't you think that was STUPID, STUPID?

YOU set yourself up to be shown for the coward and liar you are, Doan.

Remember that, and have a nice peaceful sleep tonight as you
contemplate how YOU sabotaged yourself with your big stupid mouth.

Or in this case, you dainty foolish fingers.

R R R R R R R


LIAR DOAN..YOU ARE LIAR. AND A CHEAT. YOU BET, I CALLED. AND I
REQUESTED PUBLICLY.

AND YOU'LL SEND IT TO WHOEVER I SAY WITHOUT QUESTION. OR YOU'LL
DEMONSTRATE AGAIN YOU ARE A LIAR.

TAKE YOU TIME, MY REQUEST IS IN.

Ask me for the envelope, which admits you back out of the bet YOU
made, or, be really really stupid, since I already requested and you
have responded the posts were I did, and bet...I would enjoy your
$500.

0:]




On 6 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

... behavior posting a bet claiming he would not see my "request" and
his subsequent evasive behavior when I accepted his bet and challenged
him to withdraw or put up was questionable, wait for this.

Doan has repeatedly, in defense of CP, used a sentence. (sentence, not
commentary) where he says Straus says Diane Baumrind's research was
the best...concerning the Berkeley NON peer reviewed presentation of
her research findings.

Repeated Doan has been shown that he takes Straus out of context, only
to have the kind of response (he'd like to call it 'debate' I think
you see here.

Note to the reader. He refers to my comments by lying. I said that Ms
Baumrinds study was NOT available at her own website, not that I
couldn't find it elsewhere. The issue being, if it was that good, why
did it not take a place longside her other work? Enjoy.

We begin with noting the Ms Baumrind seems to have drastically changed
her position toward spanking, from 1991 to the Berkeley presentation.

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] 0:- - 06 Aug 2006
03:59 GMT
If you notice, this paper was presented in 2001, and was still going
through the peer review process. It is now summer 2006. One can put
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines] [[[ Not my removale ]]]

LaVonne

Kane writes:
Well, claims made in this ng as to Straus' comments at the conference
concerning the study don't seem to jib with the truth.

It appears he was being kindly and politic at the conference. Here is
what he had to say in total:

http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
"I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several
reporters
after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that
her
study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not
accepting her conclusions:

1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79
cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she
has
split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and
8
cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent
variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to
be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand
because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off.

Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment
for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given,
they would they show that, although the differences are not
significant
because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking,
the worse the outcome for the child. " ...

More at the link: http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm

Diane Baumrind publicly, in her Berkeley APA presentation commented
critically and negatively on Straus' work.

Yet failed, herself, apparently to provide the rigorous scientific
research protocols she demands of an claims others do not provide in
finding that long term outcomes are negative for spanked children.

In fact, much of her presentation,

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf

Seemed to be a dredging up of many of the trite and well worn
propaganda
ploy statements common in the pro spanking world, as they she had come
to defend them.

The demographics of her sample, as she points out, was NOT inclusive,
but rather confined to the families in the vicinity of Berkeley CA,
and
academic and liberal location.

In addition, a point rarely if ever addressed here, this "research'
was
almost entirely "survey," with very limited observation of parent -
child interactions.

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
... "The study I will discuss today was
designed expressly to meet these elementary methodological criteria by
mining the unusually comprehensive FSP archival case records and data
base, to measure and then control third variables that could threaten
the validity of causal conclusions concerning spanking effects on
child
outcomes." ...

One has to ask, just how far did this material go back in time?

And did it in fact follow the same families over the time periods
suggested by the age groupings?

And to my knowledge, though I was incorrect about her submitting it
for
peer review (she at the least had to have intended to give her
statements in the document above) no such peer reviewed publication
has
happened.

We are still looking and if it turns up I'll be happy to point to it.

A further note relating to my recent comment here that the study did
NOT
in fact impact the real world for policy decision making (Part of her
reasons for doing the study) because legal boundaries for spanking
severity and harm FAR exceed her term, "normative" as SHE describes
that
practice of spanking.

No object is used, and no mark can be made, if I understand her
correctly:
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf
"First, parents who use physical punishment abusively must be
distinguished from those whose use is normative in frequency and
intensity. Therefore, when examining the effects of "spanking", the
FSP
sample was limited to families in which the severity and frequency of
physical punishment was normative for that population."

If the term "normative" does not in fact alarm you as a limit on an
accepted practice that includes leaving marks and using objects, and
bring into question the reality of the study, you must be a spanking
advocate.

Do go and read how limited "normative spanking" is used in her study
by
finding her description of what is and isn't normative.

One will find that many descriptions in this newsgroup of what the
poster considered "normal" fall well outside Baumrind's boundaries and
well inside the legal limitations.

Signature

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message
Tree] Doan - 01 Aug 2006 14:50 GMT
It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]

0:-

You claimed that the study is not available even if if one pays for
it!
I've demonstrated what a FOOL you are in public! ;-) Just like when
you claimed the Embry Study weren't available; just like when you made
claim about the Hutterites with their "non-violent" parenting methods.
When are you gonna learn STUPID "never-spanked" boy? ;-)

Doan

....so then. (The sources I contacted told ME the Embry study was not
in print. And until I contacted Dr. Embry for it, it apparently was
not. I, MYSELF, urged one of the sources to please put it back in
print...AAA, because of it's importance. ...Doan knows this, ignores
it, apparently because the truth would not serve his agenda. US Davis
listed Embry's study, but let me know it was not in print. I urged
them to run it down and make it available again....I got not reply,
but not long afterward, Doan, who has access to the UoC library
system, suddenly had more accurate information from the Embry study.
Go figger.)

Doan attempts to use the comments of Straus to make a point about the
quality of Baumrind's study, yet he constantly rejects Straus' as
having made errors in his own research.

I find it laughable that he wants to use validation for his position
from someone he otherwise rejects the work of. "Baumrind goooood,
Straus baaaad. Straus good when he is polite about Baumrind, Struas
baaaaad when he does his own research."

Classic double think and error based.

Though this is consistent with his changing positions whenever it
suits him, and using "proof" such as this, the at other times
attacking the very source he's used.

Considering how he handled the bet he offered, I'm not the least
surprised he reneged when I look back at some of his more elegant
pieces such as his reply to the flattening his claim took above. .

Kane