Teenagers faced with spankings

Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
The Safe Playing program has little to do with spanking/non-spanking. It's
about using rewards and punishment. Kane claimed that there was no
punishment is FALSE! Here is an earlier admission on the issue of
punishment:
"One of the conversations between Doan and I concerns his claim that my
comments on Dr. Embry's use of the word "punishment" in regards to a
technique he calls "sit and watch," has to do with my disagreeing that
having the child sit and watch other children at "safe play" for a few
minutes is "punishment," not just that Dr. Embry never mentions the
word. "

Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)
Really? How so?

I've noticed that Kane has an interesting habit of pretending that
punishments are not punishments when it suits his purposes. If "sit and
watch" is what it sounds like - a child who goes out in the street having to
sit and watch other children play instead of being allowed to play - that is
very definitely a punishment.
I presume you haven't read the study report, so Doan can more easily
con you.

Hahaha! Why don't you provide with the PDF copy you claimed to have.
Or you are the one that trying to con him?

You said I had a PDF copy, I didn't.

I recall trying to make one and having it fail to render well. My copy
from Embry is a copy of a copy and not even straight pages, with
considerable fading in some sections.

Show where I said I had a PDF copy, Doan the liar.

The sit and watch included the parent, usually the mother, being with
the child.

So?

The real distinguishing feature as to whether or not something is a
punishment is in whether its intent is that the unpleasant experience deter
the child from doing the same thing again.
No, that's called 'discipline.' A pure punishment is not limited to
teaching. It's done to hurt, or take something from the one punished.

That is some of the children cried! Or did you missed that from study,
Kane?

I must have. Why don't you post it here, Doan. Or do I have to double
dare you to get you to show once more you don't wish to debate, but to
play and make a fool of yourself.

How many cried and how many times did they cry? And how does that prove
it's "punishment?" Children cry for any number of reasons at such young
ages.

The report I have has no mention of crying. None. I'm sure Nathan will
be happy to quote for me where the copy you are providing him mentions
crying.

That is is you wish to be childish and not provide yourself the
information to support your claim of crying.

If they came from punishing families (which my copy says they did) they
might well have over reacted to the simple sit and watch exercise,
thinking they were being punished for being "bad."

In fact the design of the Sit and Watch section shows considerable
attention to it being as neutral as possible in presentation to the
child. As a consequence of that, this will happen, instructions.

The "watch" part makes it rather clear it's not designed as punishment.
But as a teaching tool.

But then, I also have said that I differ with Embry on sit and watch
being a "punishment," if indeed that's how he meant it to be experienced.

I might even consider it a fault, had he not also built in the more
neutral consequences tone, and even had the parent and child to
rehearsals, and be trained on it in the pre field activity phase.

Doan

You get dumber by the day.

Anyone you send that study to, Doan, as you know, will start to take a
really serious look at punishment vs non-punishment alternatives.

Embry proved even that parental reprimands needed to go down as part of
the process, and they did. Just verbal reprimands.

And the results were remarkable. You don't want anyone to have it and
you know it, liar.

You think you have an ally in Nathan, but I'll predict that in the long
run his views will change. The study is that good.

And your claim it's too small a study group is a joke to any researcher
reading that kind of bull****.

Surveys need large groups, while experiments need small groups so
variable controls can be managed.

This was a program of instruction and validation by field testing.

Just how stupid are you?

0:-

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

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

When kids understand the concept of justice, they don't see it as
hypocrisy.
Or do you consider it hypocritical to put someone in jail for kidnapping?

What an odd afterthought. It's entirely non sequitur to the issue of
little kids doing something we don't want them to do.

As for kids understanding; this flies in the face of what you, along
with other spankers claim. They wish to use spanking on little kids
(and they do to the age range from about 2 to 7 or so, at a highest
rates of all...also the abuse rate is higher..odd coincidence)
precisely because they cannot 'reason' with them.

Their logic, well, I guess they see the logic in it, but I don't. It's
even bad animal training.

Now tell me, are you going to wait until a child is old enough to
"understand the concept of justice" around 6 being the absolute minimum
(and rarely then....kids start getting 'justice,' fairness, around 8 or
9...some a little longer...in fact not until age about 42 snicker),
or do you wish to rethink the "spank them precisely because they can't
be reasoned with," concept?

I'm sometimes confused by spanker's logic, I confess. Possibly I need a
punch in the mouth, since I don't "understand" this logic and you
cannot "reason" with me since it's NOT LOGICAL.

How is it that you make such a big fuss about how old children have to be in
order to understand the concept of justice, yet you completely miss the fact
that the same basic reasoning skills that are needed to judge justice are
also needed to judge hypocrisy?

For little kids, it is NORMAL for there to be things that big people are
allowed to do but they aren't. It isn't hypocrisy. It's just how the world
works when you're four years old.

Very young children can understand the proto-justice concept of, "If
children disobey or do something wrong, they get punished." They are not
yet able to judge what rules are just and what rules might be unujust. But
they understand that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between bad
behavior and getting punished.

Young children's first experience with a proto-hypocrisy concept is probably
something along the lines of, "Why is it okay for you to do it, but not me?"
If they can't get a satisfactory answer, they may think, "This is stupid, so
I'm going to do what I want to anyhow." But more complex concepts like
"hypocrisy" don't come until later.

You've also talked about there being things that children don't fully
understand at the time but that lay a groundwork for them to understand as
they get older. Well guess wha?. The concept of justice is one of those
things. And the concept of hypocrisy is another. As children become old
enough to understand the concepts of justice and hypocrisy, they can look
back at past events and apply those concepts. And the reality is that most
of us who were spanked tend to conclude that most of the spankings we got
were essentially fair.

What you're doing is taking YOUR view of how YOU think children OUGHT to
react and projecting it onto children who are simply too young to see things
the way you think they should. You need to stop spending so much time
harping about how you don't think I understand enough about child
development and start spending a little more time focusing on how your own
image of how children react to being spanked clashes with th way children
actually develop.

I know how Google works. I've used it zillions of times - which is
precisely why I'm significantly more reluctant to wade through Google
search
results than I would be to look at specific links. That's not to say
that I
won't do it, but I haven't been in a mood to thus far.

Then stop arguing with me about issues that are so closely tied to
child development.

The real problem here is that you keep interpreting me as saying things that
I'm not. You've been learning about and debating the subject of spanking
for years, if not decades. As a result, you tend to project things you've
heard and seen from other people onto things that I write. In doing so, you
interpret my words as saying a whole lot more about child development issues
than they really are. In practical terms, what you are doing is building up
straw men and then using claims that I don't know enough about child
development as a basis for knocking down your own straw men.

If you could show me cases where what I've actually written contradicts
child development theory, and where my own experience is not sufficient to
show that the claims you attribute to child development theory are
inaccurate or at least incomplete, then learning more about child
development would be a much higher priority for me. But thus far, every
accusation I've seen has fit into one of three categories. Either I knew
from personal experience that your claims were off target without needing
additional study, or what you accused me of saying was different from what I
actually said and how I actually think, or your claims were so obviously
filtered through your own gargantuan biases that I dismissed them as not
credible.

snip

What makes you think the process of 'getting something they want,' or
'having fun' isn't about learning?

Let's see. That's a hard one. Maybe, BECAUSE I WAS A CHILD MYSELF?

Two points. One, that's your experience and hardly can be generalized
to the entire population, and two, everyone thinks they remember their
childhood accurately only to find out from some old timer that was
there as an adult, their memories are not precise, nor accurate at all.

Before I go on, let me make clear what my childhood experience actually was.
There were things that I enjoyed doing that had a very significant learning
value. For example, when I was about ten years old, the show Baa Baa Black
Sheep (later renamed Black Sheep Squadron) got me very interested in air
combat in World War II, and from there in other aspects of the war (albeit
never to the same extent). I read all or parts of numerous books on the
subject.

But there were also a lot of things I enjoyed doing that had essentially no
learning value any given time I did them - especially after I'd already done
them a zillion times before. Simnilarly, I've seen numerous other children
do things that they thought were fun but that involved negligible learning
value any given time the children did them. So my experience makes it
crystal clear that your presumption that children's choices are always
motivated by a desire to learn is completely preposterous.

As for the two specific points you are making here, those points strike me
as absurd in this context. If I were making a claim that relied on the
accuracy of certain specific memories, or that required that other
children's purposes be almost identical to what mine were, you would have a
valid point. But the reailty is that for your presumption to be valid,
either huge numbers of my memories would have to have been turned
essentially upside down for no conceivable reason, or my experiences would
have to have been wildly different from those of most other children. Even
in and of themselves, both of those possibilities could be dismissed as so
unlikely as to be ridiculous. And when what I've seen observing other
children adds further confirmation that not everything children want to do
has significant learning value, the image you paint becomes even more
completely preposterous.

I'll grant that children can learn from most of their activities, but
with
most of the things children do for fun, learning is only a minor side
effect.

Wrong. It is the exact opposite. Play and "fun" are where the most
learning takes place. Sometimes even the most profitable. My brother is
a fortune 500 exec. Aerospace industry. As a kid he cluttered our
bedroom up with more damned electronics and other mechanical
experiments...pretty near killed us both one time.

By interrupting what I wrote at the point where you did here, you grossly
misrepresented my position. In my very next sentence, I made it clear that
what is a minor side effect at any given time adds up to something
important. Had you responded to what I wrote as a unified whole, rather
than interrupting in a way that pretends the rest of my paragraph didn't
exist, you should have seen that. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of
your habit of looking for any excuse to attack sentences individually
without even trying to understand the bigger picture of what I'm saying.
And I'm also tired of your just ASSUMING that I think the same way that
other people who defend spanking do when a lot of the time, my views are at
least as close to yours as they are to theirs.

I assure you, he played and he had fun with that stuff, and other
science hobbies right into a million dollar paycheck.

The side effect adds up, so that if parents close off entire
avenues of exploration, the result can be a serious loss.

We are a world of geniuses cut off from ourselves by bad parenting
practices.

One of them is the failure to encourage and guide play and instead
power struggle with the child to 'learn' things they either aren't
interested in at the moment, or actually don't need.

Like how to sit an hour at a time for five hours in rows of seats.

The biggest single obstacle to what you want is probably economies of scale.
The reason why schools are structured the way they are is not that it's the
best way for children to learn. It's that it was viewed as the best idea
people could come up with for how a relatively small number of teachers can
teach a vastly larger number of children. In order to make education more
like what you want on a mass basis, either we would need a truly enormous
(and hugely expensive) increase in the number of teachers, or teachers would
need to be able to handle a much higher level of complexity than they are
currently required to.

One of the many things I like about the voucher concept is the vastly
greater scope it would give schools to experiment - at least as long as the
schools aren't too burdened by regulations. I'd love to see what schools in
a voucher context could do in the direction you want to see education go,
because the potential seems absolutely enormous if ways can be found to make
the concept work well on a reliable basis.

But there is so
much redundancy in children's opportunities to learn through play and
such
that the loss of a few individual opportunities here and there is highly
unlikely to make any real difference.

You have it exactly backwards. The way we raise our children routinely
denies them such opportunities. Children love to learn. Just not always
what YOU want them to. And failure to integrate reality and encourage
learning what the child wants to learn is the major failing of
education.

I've watched "unschooling" homeschoolers for years prove this. The
general public is sure those kids allowed that much freedom to chose
will never learn much of anything. The exact opposite is true. They run
their parent's ragged (joyfully accepted of course) with major learning
activities, often not unlike my brother did with us in my family. He
went to public school, but it was a joke for him. No challenge at all.

He even tried college. Laughed at that for a year, and went on to his
OWN studies while he started work at the company he owns a large
portion of today.

You're committing a logical fallacy here. I fully agree that children love
to learn when they find something sufficiently interesting - which, in turn,
opens the door to especially great potential when adults can encourage and
support children's interests and help children get interested in a wide
variety of things. But that in no way implies that everything children want
to do is motivated by a desire to learn.

Note that conventional schools are extremely inefficient. A huge amount of
time is wasted repeating explanations that some children understood but
others didn't, or doing additional exercises in things that a lot of the
chiildren already understood, or trying to deal with behavior problems. And
the fact that children often aren't all that interested in what they are
supposed to be learning erodes the value still further.

(When I started college, I took an "Introduction to College" type course,
and one of the things we studied were the "seven laws of learning." The
first two were "Want to know it," and, "Intend to remember it." I forgot
the other five because they weren't different enough from what I'd already
known for me to want to know them or intend to remember them beyond the end
of the class. That became an important object lesson to me in just how
important those first two laws really are.)

Successful unschooling doesn't require anything even close to children's
being interested in activities with significant learning value one hundred
percent of the time. It just requires that the children be interested in
spending enough time in a wide enough range of activities with significant
learning value that the amount of time children spend in unproductive
activities isn't any worse than the wastage in conventional schools.

I'll also point out unschooling is another area where self-selection bias
makes it hard to determine actual success rates. Logically, we would have
to expect that families who try unschooling are a lot more likely to stick
with it if it seems to be working for them than if it isn't. That makes it
relatively difficult to get a clear picture of how reliably well the concept
works.

Further, the opportunities that
children find the most fun are not always the ones they will be able to
learn the most from.

Typical. And wrong.

I watched my wife's kids, when they were little (we were family friends
back then before my first wife died) fall in love with Little House on
The Prairie. Would you believe their mom and dad continued to expand on
that for years to include concepts as "useless" as world history and
calculus?

Would the kids' having to miss a single Little House episode have made that
impossible? Or was it the cumulative effect of Little House that offered
the leverage?

You can start just about anywhere and study just about anything in the
universe with even a little imagination.

How much time, on average, did your wife and her then-husband invest in such
efforts? I can see such concepts working with a little imagination and a
huge amount of time (especially if a parent is able to make being a parent a
full-time job), or with a whole lot of imagination and less time. But I
don't see how you get from Little House to Calculus without a large amount
of one or the other.

Most parents can't be bothered and shuffle it off to the schools.

Most parents hardly even consider the possibility that such a thing could
work because they've never invested enough time and imagination to get a
picture of how they would make it work if they tried it. And a lot of
families would have to make serious, or even impossible, sacrifices to give
up the use of public schools as a free babysitting service.

snip

That's why it's important to understand that you argued for spanking
children because they are too young to be reasoned with. Now we are
going
to expect them to have a "clear understanding?" In the toddler to 5
years?

You're putting words in my mouth here. The words you are using here are
dangerously close to the, "spank them because that's all they
understand,"
mindset, which I find highly distasteful.

Then possibly you would like to review what you did say and get back to
me.

Nathan, Dec 8:

"Children are ready to start making simple choices about simple things
long
before they are capable of making the kinds of vastly more complex
choices,
about vastly more omplex things, that adults have to make. For the
most
part, the need for punishment arises from the need for simple, easily
understood consequences because the child isn't ready yet to live in a
world
with adult consequences. "

So tell us, when are these key points in time and development when they
are ready to start making simple choices, to avoid being spanked?

This is another take on your, "Draw an exact line," game, which I got tired
of long ago. Can you draw an exact line regarding what is or is not child
pornography without being essentially arbitrary in how you draw it? If not,
should we make all child pornography legal just because drawing an exact
line is impossible?

Nathan again:

"If you've spent much time around children age four or five, and you
don't
think they have will, you are living in a state of denial. There are a
lot
of things they don't have anywhere near as much of as adults -
information,
experience, understanding of complex interrelationships, and such. But
they
very definitely have will - as they can make abundantly clear when
someone
tries to get them to do something they don't want to do or to stop
doing
something they want to do. "

I presume you are arguing that this "will" makes them spankable. Since
when did 'will' become synonumous with capacity to reason? And isn't
"reasoning" and the small child's incapacity one of the reasons to take
the shortcut of spanking to control them?

The reason why will is important is that it carries with it the capacity to
know what kind of behavior is expected, but choose not to behave acceptably.
As for capacity to reason, it doesn't take all that much reasoning capacity
to understand the concept that if Mommy counts to three, and you haven't
obeyed (or at least started to obey) by the time she gets to three, you'll
get spanked. From what I've seen, that level of reasoning is within the
capacity of four-year-olds.

So which is it. Are we going to spank when they can understand why they
are being spanked, or are we going to spank because they aren't yet
capable of responding to reason?

In a sense, both. For spanking to work properly, a child needs to
understand (or at an absolute minimum be able to figure out) what he did
that resulted in the spanking. That's a simplistic why, but it's a why.
Beyond that, I find the idea of spanking a child who is too young to
understand in advance that what he is doing is wrong and could result in a
spanking highly distasteful.

But if a child is old enough to understand why he shouldn't do something,
and good explanations are provided, it can be hoped that the child will
behave acceptably without any need for spankings. On the other hand, if the
child chooses to ignore the explanations and do what he wants to anyhow, I
don't arbitrarily rule out spanking as an option.

Nathan, Dec 9:

"Getting a switch could be more problematical, depending on the child's
age,
because it would keep the response from being immediate. If the child
isn't
old enough to understand the concept of delays between causes and
effects,
the lost time would prevent the child from making a connection between
the
original behavior and getting switched. And in any case, for the kind
of
young child we are presumably talking about here, using a switch would
be
serious overkill. "

If I am not mistaken, while your argument isn't directly about this
issue, it presumes spanking is a viable option (sans overkill 'switch')
for children too young to understand why they are being spanked.

You're ignoring the context. You were claiming that if a child hurt a
parent, saying a loud "Ouch!" and thereby startling the child would work
because the child won't like being startled and won't want it to hapen
again, but that switching the child wouldn't. I replied by pointing out
that if a child won't do something because being startled was unpleasant,
then by the same logic, the child would be expected to have the same
reaction to not liking being swatted.

However, you had said "switched," not "startled." So I had to address the
issue of children who are young enough that the extra time needed to get a
switch would render the switching ineffective.

All of this was in the context of what would or would not work to modify a
child's behavior. Further, it was based on the presumption that the child
is old enough to figure out not to do something because a consequence that
startles the child is unpleasant - but since you didn't specify what age you
think that is, I wanted to cover the full range of ages where such a
reaction seemed plausible.

None of this was an endorsement for the idea that spanking was a good choice
in any particular situation. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your
idea that your scenario would work but spanking wouldn't.

You're also misinterpreting what I said about "clear understanding." The
important thing, if children are to feel safe as long as they are trying
to
behave, is that they have a clear understanding of how they need to
behave
if they want to stay out of trouble, coupled with some willingness to
forgive them if they aren't always perfect in staying within those
boundaries. It is not necessary that they have a complete understanding
of
exactly why the boundaries are defined the way they are.

A "Clear understanding?" I'm confused.

Teens don't even have a "clear understanding" of cause and effect much
of the time. Their hormones and limitations still extant in their
brains and it's functioning preculde that.

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier, you made this big argument about
how all it takes to stop a child from hurting a grown-up is for the grown-up
to say a loud Ouch!, which startles the child, which will cause the child
not to repeat the behavior because he doesn't want to be startled again.
That requires a PRACTICAL understanding of cause and effect. The child
might have little or no understanding of the reasons why the cause leads to
the effect, but the child doesn't have to understand how the relationship
works to clearly recognize that it exists.

snip

You use the word "understand" yet you earlier used the reasoning that
children can't "understand" and we would be wasting our time when a
spank
would get the job done.

I think I need to clarify an important point. Once children are old
enough
to understand verbal explanations, when spanking is used properly,
children
understand how they need to behave in order to avoid being spanked.
Because
of that, all that should be needed most of the time is the threat - the
understanding that the child will get spanked if his behavior crosses
certain lines (preferably with a little bit of allowance for occasional
unintentional lapses).

Then you don't think children should be spanked if a child can't
understand why they are being spanked.

And you claim my methods take longer. R R R R R

Thus, the situation is NOT, "when a spank would get the job done."
Rather,
most of the time, the job is done without things reaching the point of an
actual spank.

Beside the point. That's not what we are discussing, though I'd be
happy to point out to you that if a parent focuses on those areas,
times, and conditions the need to 'spank' need never come.

It's not beside the point at all. The ideal is for children to have a good
enough understanding of what kinds of behavior will result in spankings that
they avoid those behaviors and, in the process, avoid actually getting
spanked. When that works reasonably well, most of the times spanking
affects children's behavior do not involve actual spankings. Just the
credible threat of a spanking if the child doesn't comply is usually enough.

That is a very, very different mental image from the one you paint with the
words, "when a spank would get the job done." You make it sound as if the
spanking comes without any attempt to keep things from reaching the point of
actual spanking.

snip

I agree that children deserve to be cut a reasonable amount of slack,
usually more than adults would expect to receive in similar situations
(and for the youngest children, often a whole lot more). But there
are
limits to how much slack I think it is fair or reasonable to expect
parents to cut their children, and to how much slack I think it is
good
for the children to have cut for them.

Compare those two long sentences to each other.
Notice you had to link them with 'but?'

But, is a way to slid away from the truth.

But, is a way to recognize a complex truth with two sides to it. But, is
a
way to find middle ground instead of having to rush to one extreme or the
other.

What the hell is a "complex truth?"

A truth with more 'truthiness?'

A complex truth is, as the term suggests, a truth that is complex. It's a
truth with more than one side to it, where looking at one side without
seeing the other (or others) paints a distorted picture. Or, looking
another way, a complex truth is a combination of two or more simpler truths
that need to be considered together in order to get a complete and accurate
picture.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
You accuse AF of lying because he omitted important information. By that
standard, you are also a liar because you repeatedly talk about how huge a
proportion of criminals were spanked without bothering to mention how hugely
disproportionate a percentage of those were subject to abuse, not just what
the law considers acceptable spanking. Compared with the seriousness of
your omission, AF's is no big deal.
Double standard then? What makes mine more serious than his, in
argument?

As for criminals, I also included other categories that did not report
"abuse" as such. One study I referred to deliberately screened OUT such
victims, and stuck with CP only.

They experienced more depression, drug use, and suicide attempts.

---

I'm having a hard time pinpointing whether your reference to Dr. Embry's
"study" is to his his letter to Children Magazine, which says nothing about
a study in the scientific sense of the term, or to something else. In
regard to the letter, I see some serious problems. Embry wrote, "Actual
observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding,
reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children.
Yes. That is correct. He said it, and I have witnessed such
oppositional behavior from chidlren parented as he mentions.

Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents'
attention." But observational data collected by watching children would be
guaranteed to give skewed results.
Why?

Children who quickly decided that going
into the street wasn't worth getting spanked would be unlikely to be
observed going out into the street at all, and thus unlikely to be observed
getting spanked for it.
That's not what he observed or what he said.

In contrast, the less successful spanking is in
deterring children from going out in the street, the higher the probability
of their being observed going out into the street and getting spanked.
And his observation was the all CP and scolding was related to higher
incidences of children going into the street.

Why don't you provide the actual data from the study to see if that
statement is true? Come on, Kane. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

What's you hurry little liar?

Hahaha! Did I expose your lies again?

Doan

Nathan, if he decides he wants the study, and I believe he's said he
does, and that you were going to provide it, can wait and have context
and the full report to work from to develop any argument, challenges, or
questions about what I've said.

Why can't you send him the PDF file you claim to have? ;-)

Your shouting you childish dares proves clearly just how little you
bring to this debate.

And exposing your lies is my favorite! ;-)

And how much you lie.

Hihihi! The proven liar here is you. No punishment, right? Can only get
from Dr. Embry, right? The AAA foundation said it was out of print,
right? No wonder even Chris Dugan called you STUPID!

Doan

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.

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

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.

Like what?

In addition, attempts to characterize the results of Embry's program as
results of changing from CP to non-CP are grossly misleading.

Then you'd have to take that up with him. He was quoted in a parenting
magazine as having said what he said about his work. He stated that
reprimands, spanking, yelling, etc. had a counterproductive results.
The rate of street entries went up.

Teaching, coaching, etc. without those things resulted in a reduction.

You don't have the study yet.

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.

What an odd conclusion. Even none CP was reduced both intentionally,
and by actual recorded observations of parental input.

I think I'll wait unti you have the study. This is becoming a Doan
exercise. Speculation without foundation.

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.

They did't record the cycles of the moon either, Nathan. You can
speculate all you want...but until you have the study in hand we are
just chit chatting.

Enough. Get back to me when you have the study.

Best wishes, Kane



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

On 12 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


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.

Like what?

In addition, attempts to characterize the results of Embry's program as
results of changing from CP to non-CP are grossly misleading.

Then you'd have to take that up with him. He was quoted in a parenting
magazine as having said what he said about his work. He stated that
reprimands, spanking, yelling, etc. had a counterproductive results.
The rate of street entries went up.

And the data in the study says what, Kane? Why don't you provide the data
from study?

Teaching, coaching, etc. without those things resulted in a reduction.

You don't have the study yet.

Of cours he doesn't, that is why you should send him the PDF copy that you
claimed to have. ;-0

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.

What an odd conclusion. Even none CP was reduced both intentionally,
and by actual recorded observations of parental input.

I think I'll wait unti you have the study. This is becoming a Doan
exercise. Speculation without foundation.

Hahaha! I provided data from study to back up my claim. Unlike you, I
don't have to resort to lies. Remember why Chris Dugan called you STUPID?
It is because tactic, like this, you used. If an agenda has to be
supported with lies, what is that agenda worth, Kane?

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.

They did't record the cycles of the moon either, Nathan. You can
speculate all you want...but until you have the study in hand we are
just chit chatting.

Enough. Get back to me when you have the study.

Hahaha! This is hysterical. Why don't you just send him a copy, Kane.
That would save alot of work now, won't it? BTW, you haven't disputed
any of the data that I provided from the study.

Doan


Best wishes, Kane



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

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.

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.

Go ahead, Kane. Can you summarize it for Nathan?

Doan

"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

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

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.
Like what?

In addition, attempts to characterize the results of Embry's program as
results of changing from CP to non-CP are grossly misleading.
Then you'd have to take that up with him. He was quoted in a parenting
magazine as having said what he said about his work. He stated that
reprimands, spanking, yelling, etc. had a counterproductive results.
The rate of street entries went up.

And the data in the study says what, Kane?

That not yelling, fewer reprimands, and no hitting (you made that point
yourself in another post) and their replacement with training, and
rewards, and proper sequencing of questions and instruction resulted in
fewer street entries. Can't you read.

Why don't you provide the data
from study?

Because you want to argue from ignorance.

And I have, from time to time. You have not.

Teaching, coaching, etc. without those things resulted in a reduction.

You don't have the study yet.

Of cours he doesn't, that is why you should send him the PDF copy that you
claimed to have. ;-0

I've already shown that you are lying about my "claimed," Doan.

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.
What an odd conclusion. Even none CP was reduced both intentionally,
and by actual recorded observations of parental input.

I think I'll wait unti you have the study. This is becoming a Doan
exercise. Speculation without foundation.

Hahaha! I provided data from study to back up my claim.

No you haven't.

Unlike you, I
don't have to resort to lies. Remember why Chris Dugan called you STUPID?
It is because tactic, like this, you used. If an agenda has to be
supported with lies, what is that agenda worth, Kane?

You are the one with that answer, Doan.

You claimed someone would have to be stupid to believe there were
punishing families in the study, yet Punishment was not only coded, but
observed and recorded.

You want to claim that there is no "spanking" involved, but the
description of "Punishment" in the instructions to the observers on what
behaviors to record includes 'hitting,' as one of four.


Page 7 of the S-P OBSERVATION CODE

(E) PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT (using a delta symbol for marking the behavior
chart). If the parent uses force (pulling, pushing, squeezing, hitting)
as a consequence for the child's playing in the street, score punishment
(Delta sign) in that interval.

What part of hitting do you understand as not being Corporal Punishment,
Doan? Does the word "force" to you equate with not using physical force?

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.
They did't record the cycles of the moon either, Nathan. You can
speculate all you want...but until you have the study in hand we are
just chit chatting.

Enough. Get back to me when you have the study.

Hahaha! This is hysterical. Why don't you just send him a copy, Kane.

It's hysterical that you would require me to when you have claimed you
have it and will send it to anyone that asks for it.

That would save alot of work now, won't it? BTW, you haven't disputed
any of the data that I provided from the study.

Oh?

Guess again, stupid liar.

You won't even give a reference to where in the study a piece of "data"
is located.

Our past posts show the opposite. That I have given data, and references
to pages and charts. Repeatedly, and you have claimed it says things it
doesn't and fail to respond to what it does say.

You are so busy dodging your lies become more and more transparent.

Doan


Best wishes, Kane

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

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.

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.

Go ahead, Kane. Can you summarize it for Nathan?

You turned him down? R R R R R ...rich.

You won't send him a copy?

The same old dodge. What, three years old now?

R RR R...what a little liar you are.

Can't you put the document in PDF format from a scanner, Doan? Are they
that poorly equipped at USC?

The point of the study isn't that it was a comparison between spanking
and non spanking, but that it was what you asked for long ago...a study
that showed non-cp methods to be at least as good as CP or better.

The absence of CP is the key.

And CP was tracked, Doan. I've posted the page to you where it was for
the purpose of establishing an reliability percentage.


Doan

Doan the weasel, dodges again.

Why aren't you clambering to mail him a copy, Doan? Why didn't you,
rather than I, who did, tell him where to get a copy?

What's up with that, Doan? Any reason you don't want him to have a copy?

What happened to your, "I provide anyone that asks a copy?"

Were you lying?

I simply won't provide a copy to anyone that would provide YOU a copy,
because I think you are lying about having one.

0:-

"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