If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: No, Ken, you see if you think that, according to Doan you are either lying and or stupid. It's Canadian by the way, and nothing about it is unusual. They cleaned out a set of questionaires that had one characterist they need to remove to isolate another. Spanked and never spanked. That portion of the original sample could have have those children that might have been spanked and or slapped but had been either sexually or physically abused or both. Doan wants us to believe that age mattered, and that surely older people in the remaining reduced sample could not have a lower percentage of "never spanked/slapped" than people in the three younger samples. If one reads the entire study it's obvious there are variable uncontrolled for, that do not need to be since the goal is determine the correlations between between incidences of childhood spanking/slapping frequency and adult negative outcomes. Age had nothing to do with the study except to describe the remaining sample. The characteristics of the removed questionnaires would be nice to know, but it was not included. I just hope no one, not you, and certainly not I, would presume, as Doan has to, that the never spanked percentage of older people has to be smaller for some reason. Why? Because he thinks older people were spanked more? Well, the were abused more too and would have been removed for that reason. But then if you reduce the N size, you increase the percentage point of each remaining N in the sample. It's usually not terribly significant in like sample sizes. But it's obvious the N of the older would be LESS than the N of the younger because there was indeed more instances of shoving, pushing, grabbing and attacking children in the past. And it was more accepted 50-60 years ago, and became less so over time. Thus the steps in the age blocks that gradually increased the N of the younger, and of course then reduced the percentage of never spanked. The answer lies, of course, in so many older, as HE claimed, being spanked or slapped (with which I agree, of course) but also being weeded out because they were also abused. That reduces the sample of the older, thus increasing the percentage value of each individual remaining that was never spanked and or slapped. So are you admitting that the above claim by you is a "mistake", Kane? ;-) So you are admitting you are a child that jumps behind whatever little piece he can find when he's lost the debate? Kane That sound like a dodge! That read like a phony question to harass rather than debate. You addressed nothing in my commentary, except an unidentified "claim." 0:- It is a dodge! ;-) Doan |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
Doan wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: No, Ken, you see if you think that, according to Doan you are either lying and or stupid. It's Canadian by the way, and nothing about it is unusual. They cleaned out a set of questionaires that had one characterist they need to remove to isolate another. Spanked and never spanked. That portion of the original sample could have have those children that might have been spanked and or slapped but had been either sexually or physically abused or both. Doan wants us to believe that age mattered, and that surely older people in the remaining reduced sample could not have a lower percentage of "never spanked/slapped" than people in the three younger samples. If one reads the entire study it's obvious there are variable uncontrolled for, that do not need to be since the goal is determine the correlations between between incidences of childhood spanking/slapping frequency and adult negative outcomes. Age had nothing to do with the study except to describe the remaining sample. The characteristics of the removed questionnaires would be nice to know, but it was not included. I just hope no one, not you, and certainly not I, would presume, as Doan has to, that the never spanked percentage of older people has to be smaller for some reason. Why? Because he thinks older people were spanked more? Well, the were abused more too and would have been removed for that reason. But then if you reduce the N size, you increase the percentage point of each remaining N in the sample. It's usually not terribly significant in like sample sizes. But it's obvious the N of the older would be LESS than the N of the younger because there was indeed more instances of shoving, pushing, grabbing and attacking children in the past. And it was more accepted 50-60 years ago, and became less so over time. Thus the steps in the age blocks that gradually increased the N of the younger, and of course then reduced the percentage of never spanked. The answer lies, of course, in so many older, as HE claimed, being spanked or slapped (with which I agree, of course) but also being weeded out because they were also abused. That reduces the sample of the older, thus increasing the percentage value of each individual remaining that was never spanked and or slapped. So are you admitting that the above claim by you is a "mistake", Kane? ;-) So you are admitting you are a child that jumps behind whatever little piece he can find when he's lost the debate? Kane That sound like a dodge! That read like a phony question to harass rather than debate. You addressed nothing in my commentary, except an unidentified "claim." 0:- It is a dodge! ;-) Yes, it is a dodge to address nothing in my commentary, except an unidentified "claim." You are still being a spoiled little child that refuses to debate honorably. Your family is shamed. Again. Doan 0:- -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: No, Ken, you see if you think that, according to Doan you are either lying and or stupid. It's Canadian by the way, and nothing about it is unusual. They cleaned out a set of questionaires that had one characterist they need to remove to isolate another. Spanked and never spanked. That portion of the original sample could have have those children that might have been spanked and or slapped but had been either sexually or physically abused or both. Doan wants us to believe that age mattered, and that surely older people in the remaining reduced sample could not have a lower percentage of "never spanked/slapped" than people in the three younger samples. If one reads the entire study it's obvious there are variable uncontrolled for, that do not need to be since the goal is determine the correlations between between incidences of childhood spanking/slapping frequency and adult negative outcomes. Age had nothing to do with the study except to describe the remaining sample. The characteristics of the removed questionnaires would be nice to know, but it was not included. I just hope no one, not you, and certainly not I, would presume, as Doan has to, that the never spanked percentage of older people has to be smaller for some reason. Why? Because he thinks older people were spanked more? Well, the were abused more too and would have been removed for that reason. But then if you reduce the N size, you increase the percentage point of each remaining N in the sample. It's usually not terribly significant in like sample sizes. But it's obvious the N of the older would be LESS than the N of the younger because there was indeed more instances of shoving, pushing, grabbing and attacking children in the past. And it was more accepted 50-60 years ago, and became less so over time. Thus the steps in the age blocks that gradually increased the N of the younger, and of course then reduced the percentage of never spanked. The answer lies, of course, in so many older, as HE claimed, being spanked or slapped (with which I agree, of course) but also being weeded out because they were also abused. That reduces the sample of the older, thus increasing the percentage value of each individual remaining that was never spanked and or slapped. So are you admitting that the above claim by you is a "mistake", Kane? ;-) So you are admitting you are a child that jumps behind whatever little piece he can find when he's lost the debate? Kane That sound like a dodge! That read like a phony question to harass rather than debate. You addressed nothing in my commentary, except an unidentified "claim." 0:- It is a dodge! ;-) Yes, it is a dodge to address nothing in my commentary, except an unidentified "claim." LOL! So a "mistake" is now an "unidentified claim"??? You are still being a spoiled little child that refuses to debate honorably. And you are still ignoranus kane0! ;-) Your family is shamed. Again. And your mom is still proud of you? ;-) Doan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Games Chess CDs 2006-, and Boris Continuum Complete v4.0 , SideFX Houdini Master v8.0.474(Win/Linux), CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X3 v13.0, Adobe After Effects 7.0 PRO, Premiere Pro 2.0, Encore DVD v2.0, Audition v2.0, other 2006-Jan-25-to-2005-Aug-20 n | [email protected] | General | 1 | February 19th 06 05:19 PM |
Combination vaccines safe for children | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 50 | August 19th 05 06:43 PM |
FOAD Bigots | bobbie sellers | General | 190 | August 1st 05 10:07 AM |
QUACK DISINFORMATION ABOUT MERCURY | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 81 | March 17th 05 04:26 PM |
Are neuroleptics helpful to anyone? | Linda | Kids Health | 0 | October 5th 03 09:14 PM |