Teenagers faced with spankings

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Kane, I looked over your post at
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html ,
and unless I missed something (possible since I just skimmed over some
places that seemed repetitive), you seemed to be admitting that Embry's
study did not reach any real conclusions regarding spanking. It included
"hitting" (presumably at least mostly spanking) as one of the things it
gathered data on, but your post sounds as if Embry wasn't able to actually
do much with that data.

In addition, attempts to characterize the results of Embry's program as
results of changing from CP to non-CP are grossly misleading. My
understanding is that the program included significant training for both
parents and children, most of which would presumably be about as useful if
parents continued to use CP as if they didn't. That makes it impossible to
conclude that improvements resulting from the program are a result
specifically of parents' giving up the use of CP to punish children for
entering the street.


Here is what the Safe-Playing program, according to the study:

1) ASK
- Ask if your child is going to play safely.
- Ask what playing safely means.
- Define areas of safe play as needed.
2) TIMER
- Set a timer to help you be consistent.
- A timeer helps you remember and lets your child know that you are
serious.
3) PRAISE
- Praise your child for playing safely. Your child values you
attention.
4) REWARD
- Reward your child's safe play. Playing safely is hard work for your
child. Choose something your child likes to earn.
5) SIT & WATCH (a punishment procedure also known as Time Out)
- Going into the street is dangerous. If your child goes into the
street without you, make your child sit and watch for 3-5 minutes.
6) TEACH
- Teach your child about safe crossing. Hold the child's hand and ask
"when it's safe to cross." Give feedback.

Doan

And what did the charts concerning street entries say about "Time Outs"
during the intervention period (post Workship/Storybook training) for
the five chidlren that most entered the street during the baseline
observation period?

And what did that same chart say about praise, for these obviously
responsive children?

Always with the cherry picking, Doan.

R R R R R why don't you give it up.

I just posted the results of the observations of those five to Nathan.
Read my post and see if you can explain away the effectiveness of the
praise.

Or do you wish to claim that a single timeout was punishment enough?

How would you explain the lack of street entries prior to the TO, eh?

You are so stupid, boy.

0:-]



And I didn't notice any indication in your post that Embry's study found
anything that would justify his claim in his letter that spanking increases
the rate of street entry. Without solid, scientifically valid evidence, I
view that claim as highly suspect (to put it mildly) because it would be so
easy for a handful of children who want the attention so much that they
invite spankings to have visibility totally out of proportion to their
numbers, and because the only spankings observers would know about are
spankings that occurred while they were watching, among other possible
issues.

If there is anything meaningful about spanking in the study, I'd appreciate
it if you would summarize what it found. My current impression is that
there isn't enough information about spanking in the study to make it worth
trying to get a hold of a copy, since neither you nor Doan seems to be in a
position to email me one.

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.

His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.

This has gone on for years between us.

Try reading the truth:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...230d568?hl=en&

This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
spanking.

Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
observers.

Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.

This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:

Doan wrote:

Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
himself.

Doan

[[[ My response ]]]

From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
seventh) observers.

Item 11.

Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].

I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV

So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
.....

Get it yet, Doan?

You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.

Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
lying then, thus lying now.

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...panking/messag...

He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
nothing but monkeyboy tricks.

0:- ... end of extract from post ...

Unless of course, if Doan wants to play the spanking is not hitting game
again.

The observers and the researcher would have to, likely as mandatory
reporters, report any "hitting" that did not qualify as "spanking" or our
more common term here, CP.

He lies at every turn.

One makes a mistake and admits it, even providing proof of his own error,
(ask him about the Hutterites) and Doan continues to claim the original
error was a lie.

That itself is a lie.

Best wishes, Kane

Kane wrote
And don't bother asking who I sent it to. That's our little secret, as
they quietly watch Doan lie lie lie and lie some more about the study.

So WHY didn't you send a copy to Doan?

Afraid of something he would see?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
And don't bother asking who I sent it to. That's our little secret, as
they quietly watch Doan lie lie lie and lie some more about the study.

So WHY didn't you send a copy to Doan?

He claimed he had it. Why would I send him a copy if he had it already.
I simply asked him to prove he had it.

He choked, as usual, and lied.

Afraid of something he would see?

Not in the least. In fact he's the one terrified of what parents will
learn in the process of making up their own mind.

An objective reader can't miss that praise and instruction beats the
hell out of punishment and CP.

Embry isn't a complicated a study as Doan would like to make you and
others believe.

Any credible person that I don't think is either a Doan clone, or a
buddy of his that will ship him a copy ( I still think there's a chance
he's lying ) can have one from me.

I even paid the shipping myself on some I sent out.

Those folks are laughing their asses off at him.

We have an agreement that they won't engage him while I shred him into
Top Ramen.

It's pretty obvious he's lying and dodging like the weasel he's always
been.

Arguing with me about "PDF" files when he totally bypassed the data and
commentary from the Embry study in the same post.

Toooo much, Greg. He's one of those, "I'm too smart for you," dimwits
that are so stupid they actually believe others can't easily see through
them.

How stupid is that?

You want to discuss the Embry study, do you?

Get a copy from AAA or Doan. He's said he'd send anyone that ask. Odd
that no one has asked.

RR R R ..well, accept Alina and 'she' told me he asked for postage so
'she' wasn't getting it.

I sent her a copy post paid.

Odd, she suddenly and completely disappeared at that point, and Doan
started actually having quotes from the study.

Must just be a coincidence, eh?

0:-] Kane

Kane, did I catch things correctly that you do have a PDF of Dr. Embry's
study but it's a really lousy one? If so, and if it's not so terrible as to
be totally and completely useless, could you please send it to me? (The
return address on my posts here is valid.)

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Kane, did I catch things correctly that you do have a PDF of Dr. Embry's
study but it's a really lousy one? If so, and if it's not so terrible as to
be totally and completely useless, could you please send it to me? (The
return address on my posts here is valid.)

Hihihi! This is getting interesting. Knowing Kane, my bet is that he
will come up with some lame excuse to weasel and dodge this one. The dog
ate it! ;-)

Doan

On 12 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
And don't bother asking who I sent it to. That's our little secret, as
they quietly watch Doan lie lie lie and lie some more about the study.

So WHY didn't you send a copy to Doan?

Afraid of something he would see?

He claimed to have sent it to many people. Funny thing is these people
seem to be non-existent! Must be his imaginary friends! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Kane, did I catch things correctly that you do have a PDF of Dr. Embry's
study but it's a really lousy one? If so, and if it's not so terrible as to
be totally and completely useless, could you please send it to me? (The
return address on my posts here is valid.)

Hihihi! This is getting interesting. Knowing Kane, my bet is that he
will come up with some lame excuse to weasel and dodge this one. The dog
ate it! ;-)

Doan

I don't need an excuse. I already told you and Nathan, presuming he
reads this thread, that no, I would not send him a copy. You, after
all, have it and have said you'd send it.

Did you lie then?

Or don't you want him to have it?

He's clearly established his position in this, and it's to do as you
do, harass. Or he would't ask for a flawed copy.

Yer a couple of winners, you are.

Neither one of you actually wish to debate the Embry study, you've made
that clear.

Or you can prove you do, and send him a copy.

0:-]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:6_SdnURJv4xNQOPYnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, I looked over your post at
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html ,
and unless I missed something (possible since I just skimmed over some
places that seemed repetitive), you seemed to be admitting that Embry's
study did not reach any real conclusions regarding spanking. It included
"hitting" (presumably at least mostly spanking) as one of the things it
gathered data on, but your post sounds as if Embry wasn't able to
actually do much with that data.
The study was not designed to track the effects of spanking...CP...but to
track the effects in a population of methods that did not use CP.

This sounds like spin to me.

How can you tell without the study report?

Because, unlike you, I gave the actual data from the study. He saw right
through you! ;-)

My understanding is that the purpose of the
study was to track the effects of a particular program, a program that
introduced several changes at once.

Mmmm..yes, it could be described that way. After all, we can presume the
families were fairly typical. If you read the demographics of them from
the study you'd see they were. Something of a cross section, with many
kinds of folks with many kinds of children, though all children were
five years and younger..3 years two months, to a bit over five as I recall.

When a number of different things
change at the same time, it is impossible to draw a scientific conclusion
that any particular change was responsible for the difference in results.

No it isn't. Not if you understand how to conduct research and don't kid
yourself or others... 0:- ... that one can remove all variables but one
in human behavior subjects experiments.

Huh? How do they do that, Kane? Are you speaking as a researcher? ;-)
They should give you the Noble Prize if you can show people how to do
that, Kane. ;-) Remember, Kane, it is sometime better to keep quiet
and have people think you are a fool than open your and remove all doubt.
YOU HAVE JUST OPENNED YOUr MOUHT! ;-)

Doan

On 13 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Kane, did I catch things correctly that you do have a PDF of Dr. Embry's
study but it's a really lousy one? If so, and if it's not so terrible as to
be totally and completely useless, could you please send it to me? (The
return address on my posts here is valid.)

Hihihi! This is getting interesting. Knowing Kane, my bet is that he
will come up with some lame excuse to weasel and dodge this one. The dog
ate it! ;-)

Doan

I don't need an excuse. I already told you and Nathan, presuming he
reads this thread, that no, I would not send him a copy. You, after
all, have it and have said you'd send it.

Hahaha! Of course he reads this thread, STUPID. He is asking you!

Did you lie then?

Did I ever claim to have a PDF copy, STUPID?

Or don't you want him to have it?

If I have something to hide, like you, I would not want him to have it.
;-)

He's clearly established his position in this, and it's to do as you
do, harass. Or he would't ask for a flawed copy.

Do you feel you are being harass by me? ;-)

Yer a couple of winners, you are.

And you are just STUPID, you are! ;-0

Neither one of you actually wish to debate the Embry study, you've made
that clear.

Hihihi! You are too STUPID to know what a debate is!

Or you can prove you do, and send him a copy.

Why don't you?

Doan

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, did I catch things correctly that you do have a PDF of Dr. Embry's
study but it's a really lousy one? If so, and if it's not so terrible as to
be totally and completely useless, could you please send it to me? (The
return address on my posts here is valid.)

It's not totally and completely useless, except by asking for it of
course, as an obvious joining with Doan to harass. You should be more
subtle.

I've said I won't send it to anyone that I believe would share it with
Doan, and I think you would.

Simple, isn't it.

How is it, with Doan right here, easy to ask, and all you'd have to pay
would be the pittance for postage, that you haven't asked him? He could
provide you with a perfect library copy.

Or so he claims.

You aren't afraid to share your snail mail address with him, are you?

And Nathan, trust me, Doan has access to a scanner, and could sent you a
scanned nicely readable copy via e-mail attachment, or even, as I
mentioned to you recently, convert it to a PDF format.

Ask him privately what he does for a living and where he does it if you
cannot read his headers for yourself and figure it out.

So why did you ask me for this flawed copy again?

Or don't you see how obvious that is?

When you wish to debate, and not harass, you just let me know, Nathan.

You can indicate that by either obtaining your own copy, via AAA, or
simply asking Doan for and receiving a copy of his.

After all, he offered, did he not?

When you say you have it, I'll have a question or two to establish that
we have matching copies. Wouldn't want to put either of us at an
advantage over the other, or confuse the issues by having bits and
pieces the didn't have. Right?

Heck, you can ask me for identifying info using the copy you get too.
Fair's fair. Tit for tat. You get a question, I get a question.

Kane