Has anyone seen my old friend Doan?

On 12 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

Seems Doan was just "having fun" with me.

:-)

Does that mean that he never intended to answer The Question?

The question has been answereed - MANY TIMES.
1) There is a difference between spanking and abuse. You already conceded
on this fact.
2) There is a line between spanking and abuse. You already conceded
on this fact.
3) The line are drawn by your local authorities using the "reasonable"
person standard. You should call your local DA or local CPS.
YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!

That he has nothing to base his silly schoolboy antics of "I DARE YOU
I DOUBLE DARE YOU" on?

And once again I DOUBLE DARE YOU on where in the Embry study did he
said that no PUNISHMENT was used? Here is your claim:

"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all."

Is it possible that he's never had the Embry study?

It is possible. It is also possible that you don't have the study
and is just lying. It is also possible that you have the study and
"loved reading it" but was just TOO STUPID to understand it. Which
is it Kane? Here is a quote from the study:

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as: helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used, number of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental estimates
of how often child went into the street."

Do you recognize it?

And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%


I guess we'll never know....because....he ran.

Ran away from debating you, like Chris Dugan? ;-)

And called it "playing with you."

:-)

Kind of clears up a lot about the last few years of his posting here,
doesn't it now.

Or, Droany, would you instead like to come back and some more of MY
"fun?" I'm sure you are missed.

Don't cry, Kane9. I have always been here. I just love watching you
doing the Kane9 Kan't dance! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote in message ...
On 12 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

Seems Doan was just "having fun" with me.

:-)

Does that mean that he never intended to answer The Question?

The question has been answereed - MANY TIMES.

Yes, it has. And each time it has failed the means test. Do you wish
to concede the line itself cannot be located with precision using the
common means a parent would have available as a matter of course in
everyday life?

1) There is a difference between spanking and abuse. You already conceded
on this fact.

There was no "concession." It would be a common fact. Obviously if
something exists it exists somewhere. Evidence it exists is there by
the presence of two things. And action, and a reaction. This still
fails the means test. I cannot locate from your claim that it exists
somewhere.

2) There is a line between spanking and abuse. You already conceded
on this fact.

I made no "concession." I merely know that there is, and that you
claim it. That does not establish its location. We can assume certain
particles exist in nature because we know by their trace of passage
left after the fact.

It does not tell us exactly where they will pass or when or precisely
the conditions we have created will work, until we have tested it many
times, with a marked trace left as proof of our estimates.

3) The line are drawn by your local authorities using the "reasonable"
person standard. You should call your local DA or local CPS.

Means test failure. They can no more define the line than you, or a
parent can. The use exactly the same description. If you leave a mark,
A TRACE, that is deemed damagin, you have crossed the line. That
neither tells you were the line was, or when it was crossed. Not in a
manner that is of much use to a parent.

All one has to do is start considering variables that are far harder
to calculate and control than those used to detect particles.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!

Do I appear too?

Well, you are correct. My problem is that I didn't ask were the line
is located by marking the child victim of assault for testing
purposes. I asked where the line is for avoidance of risk of injury.
That means it has to be predictable and it has to be possible to know
exactly when to stop but while still using CP.

You failed the means test.

You told a driver, for instance, to "make up their own mind" about an
upcoming traffic control zone marked with a speed limit sign, a cop
waiting down the road to ticket them and tell them how fast they are
going, and the sign is painted over.

They are not allowed to go another direction, because the activity is
required, as is CP if you are going to discover and determine the
LIMITS of CP.

The cop will tell you later, you'll have a fine, possibly jail time if
you keep doing it too often, and in our parent child model a damanged
child while you are learning.

That is PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENS TO PARENTS WHO ARE DISCOVERED BY CPS TO
HAVE EXCEEDED THE LIMIT....but neither they, nor the cops, nor you, or
any parents, can tell you where the limit IS.

They don't even begin to discuss the variables effectively. They do
not say, nor is it in statute, that a child below a certain age may
not be hit with an instrument. They do not say what the physical
health and the mental health of the child must be and how that would
move the marker for the limit. They do not say what the relative
developmental level of the child must be to NOT hit or hit.

You may hit a Downs syndrom child or a gifted child with equal
judgement left up to the parent to figure out when to stop. Would you
think that hitting a Down's syndrom child was a good risk situation?
Well, it's perfectly legal if you don't leave a trace on them. Or in
them.

That he has nothing to base his silly schoolboy antics of "I DARE YOU
I DOUBLE DARE YOU" on?

And once again I DOUBLE DARE YOU

Sorry, wrong "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU." You aren't responding to
the "never-spanked" claims you made. You dared me to prove something I
plainly said I have no claim about. YOu claim I made such a claim. So
I said "show me." You are still publically humping it. It's to laugh.
It was just another dodge from the question above that you still
failed to answer as asked.

on where in the Embry study did he
said that no PUNISHMENT was used?

I do not recall making such a claim. I believe I said the study was
not about punishment, but rather the failure of it, much to Embry's
surprise.

Here is your claim:

"Actually he did no such thing.

That's right. I did not claim he said there was no punishment used. I
said I DO NOT BELIEVE PUNISHMENT WAS USED. Embry mislabeled a tool he
used.

He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.

Precisely. He mislabeled and misunderstood how that tool could be used
non-punitively ... but he certainly learned...as that is a core
component, some 25 years later, of his methods still being taught. And
it isn't used as a punishment, but a chance to excercise the modeling
component of human learning.

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all."

The fact you can offer a claim of the subject of punishment being in
the study speaks only to the fact that any study on training little
children 25 years ago is bound to have, as I've said to you before
and you can't or won't hear, the subject of punishment in it.

Embry's study turned out to be proof of it's lack of efficacy in
reaching desired outcomes.

All I actually said was that punishment was shown not to work and
non-punitive methods were shown to...hence the study was about the
success of non-punitive methods.

You may correct my grammar if you think I was unclear, but you may not
call me a liar when you lack proof.

Is it possible that he's never had the Embry study?

It is possible.

Not only is it possible you don't have the study, you have repeatedly
refused to answer the simpliest of questions that would prove you do,
all the while contributing things that you could guess or could find
bits and pieces that MIGHT be in the study, from the massive body of
works of Embry on the same subject.

You don't THE study I do, that's plain.

It is also possible that you don't have the study
and is just lying.

That's possible, but since I'm looking at it sitting right under my
cereal bowl at this moment, hardly a claim that impresses me.

And I've quoted pages by referencing content and page number to you
just a few days ago. Unless I'm doing what I think you are, no, I have
the study.

It is also possible that you have the study and
"loved reading it"

Yep. It's still facinating after all these years. It contains much
I've drawn my conclusions concerning the risks of spanking, and
learning theory based non-punitive methods of child rearing from. I've
shared those concepts with folks for a long time now.

but was just TOO STUPID to understand it.

I guess I'm so stupid that I can take a claim you and your spanking
compulsives have claimed you know and ask you to prove it and you
can't so far. I'm just THAT stupid.

And I know what I read in the study years ago and what is in it still.
And despite either your attempts to con us into thinking you actually
have the study, and your careful picking of one thing to focus on
instead of the more telling sections, it says the same
thing...spanking and for that matter punishment is a lost cause.

What I notice here is that you have found A study possibly. Or you
have found quotes from A study, but it isn't the study I have. I
cannot debate what I do not have. But I can what I do. And here it is
sitting under may cereal bowl.

I have quoted from it and included page numbers.

You seem unable to do the same. You instead appear to be fishing for
more information in hopes, I'd wager, you'll get enough to turn
something up on a search that will lead you to the study I have. Or
trick me into debate with you so that you can move further away from
The Question you haven't answered yet.

Now I'll give you another chance to prove you have the study I have:
Whose name on page six, one you would recognize as the same as someone
that frequents these ngs, is in the 3rd, fourth, and 5th lines, a
single sentence in the first paragraph that reads (and you fill in the
blank): "In 1972, _____ ______ conducted an extensive investigation of
the children's understanding o fsuch operations."

If you miss this one you are either bluffing from bits and pieces or
you simply have a different study. No big thing. But I won't debate on
a study report I don't have. This one is the only one I have.

By the way, should you answer to the two other criteria I'll be quite
happy to exchange copies with you of both our studies, assuming you
haven't lied and actually have one.

Then we can debate. In the mean time....no proof, no debate, no
Question answered truthfully and honestly, no debate, no daring
nonsense claims unproven, no debate.

Remember my promise?

Which
is it Kane? Here is a quote from the study:

It could be from A study, and it could even be an isolated quote by
another researcher on a similar topic, end notes references cited, but
it is not from the study I have.

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as: helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used, number of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental estimates
of how often child went into the street."


Do you recognize it?

I recognize it vaguely as being quoted but not as being in this study
I have in my possesion, but you can settle that easily for us. Simply
give the page number reference...this is a rather lenghty study....and
I'll go right to that page, and find it and we'll have ONE criteria
down, two to go.

Why do you resist responding to questions related to page referrences?
Is it that you know you have snippets or not the study I have? And you
won't admit to it?

The page references please.

And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%

Could that be from EMBRY, D. & MALFETTI, J. L. (1982). Safe Playing:
Final Report on Process Field Test. Washington, DC : AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety?

It looks familiar but I do not have that report. Can't debate what I
don't have and the criteria is not for me to have the study YOU have,
but for you to have the one I do.

Remember....the orginal challenge came from you when you claimed I
didn't have the study.

No such chart is offered in my copy of the study. I cannot comment on
other studies by Embry if I don't have them. I didn't claim to have
them all.

And that is one more use of the word punishment I did NOT see in my
copy of the study. Because this chart and those words aren't in my
copy.

That chart appears to be a baseline survey. It certainly doesn't
support it's use for success in punishment. I know how to, and Embry
learned how to, apply it as a fun and interesting modelling
observation session by the children.

And it appears that way because that is typical of parents attempting
to apply such a tool according to common "timeout" standards...the pre
training baseline connection I made, and how they would have applied
it post training...the point of the study by the way. The one I have
anyway.


I guess we'll never know....because....he ran.

Ran away from debating you, like Chris Dugan? ;-)

Yes, that's right on the mark. You ran away from me just as you did
from Chris.

And called it "playing with you."

:-)

Yes. As I said, a run just like the one from Chris. Different words,
same intent by you the same results.

Simply insisting you are right and leaving no room for debate by that
tactic doesn't constitute the other person running, just you not being
honest.

Kind of clears up a lot about the last few years of his posting here,
doesn't it now.

Or, Droany, would you instead like to come back and some more of MY
"fun?" I'm sure you are missed.

Don't cry, Kane9. I have always been here. I just love watching you
doing the Kane9 Kan't dance! ;-)

Why? I'm not doing the weasel dance. I'm putting you through your
paces and you failed again.

There is no proof you have the study I do. You aren't required to
unless you wish to debate me, and can meet the other two criteria as
well. If you can send your copy to someone that I would trust I'll ask
a few questions to clarify....YOU apparently aren't going to respond
to them.

I even gave YOU page and content and you did not comment...you did not
say I didn't have the study based on that...a very curious absence by
the way, on your part.

You simply ignored my page references offered and ignored my request
YOU provide some page references with your quotes. Or with information
I gave from those pages.

Now why can't you come up with the pages?

Doan

Dance little weasel.
{;-

Here's the deal. I'm so willing to debate Embry's findings with you,
even if we have different studies....or you can find one, any one that
relates to the same subject, street entry reduction by chidlren, and
you clear up the other two criteria for debating, I will exchange
through someone else a copy of my study for a copy of yours. We will
be loaded for weas....Bear, yes, loaded for bear.

Two related reports to debate. Won't it be grand fun?

Or must we watch you do your public obscene exposure and humping act
for another month or three?

Kane