A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Unwanted effects of CP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 2nd 06, 03:55 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unwanted effects of CP

On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


wrote:
Kane said:


Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!

So neither of us "lied."

But you did!

My answer to your question?
There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!

Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably
greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just
as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of
parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of
non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting
pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible
claims.

Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity!


No, you exposed yourself for the child you are. Attempting to make a
"lie" out of something not intended to decieve, and making IT the focus
instead of the content of the material offered. Evasions, childish
babbling, screaming your accusations, claiming things that are not so,
but are because YOU say they are.

The only juvenile here is you! Ask beccafromlalaland, my sock puppet! ;-)

Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake,
possibly.

So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-)


Yes. But only because YOU instisted my meaning had to do with "cause
and effect."

So effect doesnot mean "effect"??? LOL!

Insisting that they are one and the same, so that you could attach
"causation" to the study, which is NOT a claim I made.

So effect is not "causation"??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... are
they mutually exclusive? ;-)

I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the
content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID?

LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read.


How does the order of something one reads constitute the sum total of
entire document?

The subject is the thesis and the body is the supporting arguments. If
the thesis is WRONG, the rest is USELESS!

If you made
the claim, it's WRONG.


The only "claim" I made I made in the subject line was the causual use
of the term "effect." It was YOU that attacked "cause" to it, to lie.
To try to make it something it was not.

So effect is not effect???

You then denied making the claim; THAT IS
A LIE - A BLATANT LIE!


No, it was a mistake. And not a deliberate attempt to decieve. And it
was in response you YOUR amending what "effect" meant...which I had not
claimed. I never said "causation" in relation to the study. YOU added
that.

If you make a mistake then apologize and make a correction. Here is
your chance!

The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly
little pointless ****.

Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed.


Nope. Labeling you for the silly little pointless **** you are by
forcing meaning into something not intended.

More adhom. How typical of you! Tell me, is your mom approve of
that too? ;-)

Your silly game of using "cause and effect" to mean "causation."
Nothing more.

LOL! "cause and effect" doesn't mean "causation"???

Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-)


My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing
going for you but these small asides and tangental excapes when you
have been caugth making a mistake.

So you mom taught to insult people when they pointed out the LIES to
you? What a mom! ;-)

You were, I caught you at it and now you are busy trying to distract
from NOT understand the Canadian study, or the meaning of the data, or
even, Doan, that it was not a Canadian population representative
sample.

LOL! Let's see that again. By eliminating the abused population, the
ratio of the "never-spanked" jumped up to 38%??? You wanted people to
buy that, Kane??? NO ONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe that!

Rather than admit you missed that, here we are, YOU trying to argue
about MY having LIED after YOU changed the meaning of my subject line.

Here your chance to show me the math that prove the above ASSumption!
Come on, Kane. I DARE YOU! ;-)

Doan

Doan

Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N
sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The
Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families.

The sample size in that study is 13! It was not peer-reviewed and
it was never published in any journal! Punishment was employed in
the study.


The sample size was 33. I am reading it right now. You do NOT have the
study, if you are making that claim. It was N 13 and N 20, with both
being considered in the study, and both clearly identified as having a
difference...but only in the pre-action portion of the study by
baseline behaviors. It was a total of 33. All the charts, all the
identifiers, all call it a 33 family study.

I never claimed it was published in a "journal," nor that it was peer
reviewed and have in fact said to the best of my knowledge it was not
(not being able to prove a negative, of course).

And I said punishment was not used I pointed out that I differed with
the author on the use of the term "punish" for setting the child down
for an instructional viewing of other children performing "safe play."

If you have the study, then you are lying about how he presented it,
and if you don't, you are lying when you claimed you did.


That is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

You meant you LIED! ;-)


What deliberate attempt to deceived did I in fact perform?

You are simply shoveling **** to distract from our conversation where I
exposed your ignorance of study protocols and the meaning of
terminology.

You got hammered on your failure to see that the age range differences
were irrelevant to the outcome being examined, and YOU kept asking why
the older people had lower or higher incidences of bad life
outcomes....when NO SUCH CORRELATION WAS OFFERED BY THE STUDY.

You, sir, unless you were lying, were mistaken.

Live with it and stop your silly assed weaseling.

OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick.

Neither! I was right all along!


You were hairsplitting to remove any intended meaning and insisting on
injecting your own meaning without consultation with the author. When I
offer my meaning you reject it and insist that YOUR understanding has
to be MY meaning.


Can't have it both ways, Doan.

You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could
not have been a mistake.

LOL! Tell that to your mom!


In other words, you have not relevant factual rebutal.

In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so
small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when
you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected
my error.

Have you ever apologized to me for your "mistake"?


Never. Why should I?

Have ever even admitted to your obvious mistakes, let alone apologized?


I don't expect you to.

Post evidence of my mistake, which I DID should be suffienct for
someone that's ethical, someone thats honest, someone that has
integrety to stop using the same mistake, sans it's correction to
pretend the poster lied or attempted to deceive.

You are a shame to family.


You're a little ****head. Nothing more.

Oops! More adhom.


Opps yourself, moron, you do it all the time.

Let's see now. You mom is proud of that too. ;-)


I can't ask her but I doubt she would be doing anything other than
laughing at your run from your error instead of a honest and courageous
admission.

You screwed up and rather than admit it, you have gone to the usual low
rent sloppy attack mode. Try to force meaning into someone else's words
rather than ask them, and rather than accept their clarification.

Scum behavior.

And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you
have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you
choose "liar."

And you are STUPID! ;-)


I admit to be stupid enough to think you have even a shred of honesty
or ethic.

Good for you. You are consistent.

And you are Ignoranus Kan0! ;-)


Opps! Ad hom, Doan.

What would your parents think?

You cannot win and argument honestly, and have nothing left but this
small minded ****ant pseudo debate, which is blatant fallacious
crappola in debating circles.

You got caught and you haven't the balls, like I had, to admit to the
mistake and move on. I don't even want an apology from you. At least I
certainly don't expect one.

I assume, as you should, that a mistake isn't deliberate aimed at
anyone. YOU want to pretend it's a lie and aimed at someone to decieve
them.

You, sir, are projecting, big time. That's YOUR intent with nearly all
you post here. To decieve.

You touted Baumrind study to this ng as "The Gold Standard" for
methodology, then attacked Embry on the grounds his N of families
wasn't adequate for a scientific study...while all the time knowing
that the Baumrind study had the same N of families.

Or had you forgotten and the criticism of Embry on your part for the
number of subjects was just a "mistake?"

You had no desire to decieve, right?

Doan


Weasel boy, run run run.

R R R R R R



  #22  
Old February 2nd 06, 05:31 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unwanted effects of CP


Doan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


wrote:
Kane said:


Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!

So neither of us "lied."

But you did!

My answer to your question?
There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie.

"Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!

Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of

considerably
greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to

decieve, just
as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of
parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of
non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and

posting
pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest

possible
claims.

Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity!


No, you exposed yourself for the child you are. Attempting to make a
"lie" out of something not intended to decieve, and making IT the focus
instead of the content of the material offered. Evasions, childish
babbling, screaming your accusations, claiming things that are not so,
but are because YOU say they are.

The only juvenile here is you! Ask beccafromlalaland, my sock

puppet! ;-)

Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake,
possibly.

So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-)


Yes. But only because YOU instisted my meaning had to do with "cause
and effect."

So effect doesnot mean "effect"??? LOL!


The meaning, as in all language, of a word depends considerably on
context. Had I said that the "effect" was causal it would be clear I was
claiming "causality." Since I clearly stated repeatedly the study was
(as most all social science research is by it limitations)
"correlational" or a "correlation," my meaning was clear if you read
everything I wrote.

In other words, you intentionally or mistakenly (only you know for sure
0:-) presumed I mean 'causal.'

In fact, because you linked the word "effect" to "cause," to create the
argument that I was claiming "causation" it appears very much like you
weren't mistaken but in fact most deliberately attempted to make a link
you could not make unless you could context. And the context was not there.

In other words, Doan, you are avoiding the embarrassment of being caught
at making a mistaken claim about the Canadian study and thrashing about
wildly on a tangent to divert others, and possibly your own attention
from your mistake, or ignorance, or very possibly a deliberate lie.

I think you are quite intelligent enought to figure out the real world
circumstances that would tend to increase incidence of "never spanked or
slapped" in a small population that had all abused removed from it
first. That's why you are either stupid in your mistake, or lazy, or you
knew and deliberatly lied thinking others could not figure it out for
themselves.

Only you know for sure.

Insisting that they are one and the same, so that you could attach
"causation" to the study, which is NOT a claim I made.

So effect is not "causation"???


I made no such claim. I pointed out that my use of "correlation" to
describe the study made plain that I had not used "effect" in the sense
of cause and effect, that YOU gave to it. Now I know you are lying, and
so do you.

Making an argument by ignoring context is a deliberate (unless you
missed my comments about the "correlational study") attempt to decieve.
You are dodging the exposure of your mistake, or lie about the validity
of the study.

Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... are
they mutually exclusive? ;-)


They most certainly are for the you, the compulsive spanking apologist
and advocate. 0:-

I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the
content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I

DID?

LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read.


How does the order of something one reads constitute the sum total of
entire document?

The subject is the thesis


Nope. That's a presumption on your part. The subject, which is of course
"titleing" -- or it would have more space for the subject field -- is a
part of the whole. To establish the thesis for a document one requires
space to abstract the piece. Even then it cannot be truly representive
of the whole in detail and claims.

You are attempting to mislead, or you are mistaken. 0:-

and the body is the supporting arguments. If
the thesis is WRONG, the rest is USELESS!


You are now presuming the body does not stand alone. No title consitutes
a "thesis." Please show your source of such a claim.

You are wrong. And If I titled a piece in the subject line "LOOK AT
THIS," it would not make any of the content wrong. Unless YOU can PROVE
my intent was to deceive, as so often Fern's posts attempt to in the
subject field (putting "CPS causes.." when no such thing was shown in
the body) then you are speculating.

You are free to speculate all you wish. No reference to a "subject" is
indicated in any definition of a thesis in web documents, or others for
that matter.

Definitions of thesis on the Web:

* an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument
* dissertation: a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting
from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A thesis (literally: 'position' from the Greek θÎ*σις) is an
intellectual proposition. ----In academia, a thesis or dissertation is a
document that presents the author's research and findings and is
submitted in support of candidature for a degree or professional
qualification.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis

* Tesis (Thesis) is a 1996 Spanish film. The feature debut of
director Alejandro Amenábar, and written by him and Mateo Gil, it won
seven 1997 Goya Awards, including the award for Best Film. It stars Ana
Torrent, Fele MartÃ*nez and Eduardo Noriega.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_(film)

* The basic argument advanced by a speaker or writer who then
attempts to prove it; the subject or major argument of a speech or
composition.
csmp.ucop.edu/crlp/resources/glossary.html

* Original research often required for a Master's Degree.
www.usd.edu/library/instruction/glossary.shtml

* a written paper elaborating on original research, arguing a
specific view. Theses are often written for the completion of an
academic degree, usually the Master's degree.
http://www.library.appstate.edu/tuto.../glossary.html

* A substantial report which contains the result of research
undertaken for either a Master’s degree or a PhD.
www.vuw.ac.nz/home/glossary/

* An attitude or position on a problem taken by a writer or speaker
with the purpose of proving or supporting it.
library.thinkquest.org/23846/library/terms/

* A thesis is a substantial Master's level paper presenting
independent research, which makes a contribution to the current body of
knowledge in a scholarly field.
gradschool.uoregon.edu/glossary.html

* A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of
research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree. USU
dissertations and theses are shelved between the reference collection
and the computer section, and may not be borrowed. USU dissertations
published from 1998 to the present are available electronically; select
the Dissertations and Theses link listed under the Collections section
on the LRC homepage.
www.lrc.usuhs.mil/jargon/jargon_words.html

* Doctoral Masters
www.loc.gov/marc/dc/subtypes-20000612.html

* A written work containig the results of research on a specific
topic prepared by a candidate for a bachelor's or master's degree.
www.sic.hr/eng/glossary.htm

* The central idea of an essay. The thesis is a complete sentence
(although sometimes it may require more than one sentence) that
establishes the topic of the essay in clear, unambiguous language.
http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/lite...glossary_t.htm

* The documented results of research, resulting in a degree being
confirmed on the researcher.
www.petech.ac.za/library/libglos.htm

* is an unproved statement, which is represented in the form of a
premise, supported by arguments. Thesis tells a reader the point you are
making in a topic-related discussion of your work.
http://www.customresearchpapers.us/s...clopedia/t.php

* A dissertation presented at third-level institutions
www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/519

* An essay or treatise presented by a candidate in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree.
http://www.seattlecentral.org/facult.../glossary.html

* the point of the essay
wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/130/133428/glossary.html

* "a position to be maintained [supported] or proved" (Oxford
Canadian Dictionary). A thesis is an answer to a judgement-type question.
http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agrah...tpglossary.htm

* The central argument that an author tries to make in a literary
work. Some might consider JD Salinger’s thesis in The Catcher in the Rye
that society often forces people to be phoney.
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/b...section2.rhtml

* A written research component of a postgraduate programme having a
value of 10 or more points.
https://ndeva.auckland.ac.nz/nDeva/Help/terminology.htm

* A sentence that establishes the point, main argument or direction
of a paper.
www.karinscourtyard.com/arkmanual/glossary.html

* the University’s student information system.
www.staffs.ac.uk/services/qis/gloss.html

* The central argument of your essay.
www.sonyaunrein.com/finalProject/glossary.htm

* "The point." The thesis is the statement being made or the
question being asked by the producer of the work; it is the centerpiece
of that work. It may be stated overtly up front, or it may be subtly
revealed through time. At its simplest, it the statement of Who? What?
When? and Where plus the author's viewpoint or situation. Back.
www.trincoll.edu/~tvogel/gloss.htm

* is the particular proposition, or argument, relating to the topic
that you advance in a paper. A thesis is a statement of interpretation,
as opposed to observation. The thesis is the heart of any critical paper.
homepages.stmartin.edu/fac_staff/smead/Writerly%20Terms.htm

* Thesis statement or thesis is the principal focus of an essay. It
is usually phrased in the form of a question to be answered, a problem
to be solved, or an assertion to be argued. The word thesis derives from
a Greek term meaning "something set down," and most good writers find
that "setting down" their thesis in writing helps them tremendously in
defining and clarifying their topic before they begin to write an
outline or a rough draft.
http://www.pearsoned.ca/text/flachma...ss_iframe.html

* is the central idea in a work of writing, to which everything
else in the work refers. In some way, each sentence and paragraph in an
effective essay serves to support the thesis and to make it clear and
explicit to an audience. Good writers, before they begin to write, often
set down a thesis sentence or thesis statement to help them define their
purpose. They may also write this statement into their essay as a
promise and a guide to readers.
members.tripod.com/hjohnsonmac0/TermsToKnow.htm

All this is to dodge your embarassment at being either mistaken, or
caught in a deliberate subtrefuge. A lie.


If you made
the claim, it's WRONG.


The only "claim" I made I made in the subject line was the causual use
of the term "effect." It was YOU that attacked "cause" to it, to lie.
To try to make it something it was not.

So effect is not effect???


Do you insist that a single word be extracted and it's meaning presumed
only without the context surrounding it?

Effect is effect if it's presented alone.

Does my post include the words "correlational study?"

You then denied making the claim; THAT IS
A LIE - A BLATANT LIE!


No, it was a mistake. And not a deliberate attempt to decieve. And it
was in response you YOUR amending what "effect" meant...which I had not
claimed. I never said "causation" in relation to the study. YOU added
that.

If you make a mistake then apologize and make a correction.


I don't need to make an apology. If so, where's yours for your claim the
Canadian study is invalid in all it's arguments based on a claim you
make that turns out to be unfounded?

Here is
your chance!


I made no mistake in using the word "effect" in the subject line, unless
I used it with "cause" and failed to state that the study was
correlational. Did I do so?

The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly
little pointless ****.

Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed.


Nope. Labeling you for the silly little pointless **** you are by
forcing meaning into something not intended.

More adhom. How typical of you! Tell me, is your mom approve of
that too? ;-)


I'm sure she would, given how you have dodged the truth about your claim
to invalidate at study where you failed to do so, and failed to
acknowledge your mistake or lie, and are now going on at length over a
construct YOU created by picking a single word and claim it means
something in context that it plainly did not.

Your silly game of using "cause and effect" to mean "causation."
Nothing more.

LOL! "cause and effect" doesn't mean "causation"???


Of course it does. But I did not say "cause and effect," now did I? LOL!

YOU did. That's why I used quote marks.

Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-)


My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing
going for you but these small asides and tangental excapes when you
have been caugth making a mistake.

So you mom taught to insult people when they pointed out the LIES to
you? What a mom! ;-)


My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing
going for you but these small asides and tangental escapes when you
have been caught making a mistake.

You have pointed out no "lies" to me. You have pulled a single word out
of context, refused to accept the rest of the document and claimed I
"lied."

Pretty silly don't you think, considering that you are using it to cover
up your embarassment?

You were, I caught you at it and now you are busy trying to distract
from NOT understand the Canadian study, or the meaning of the data, or
even, Doan, that it was not a Canadian population representative
sample.

LOL! Let's see that again. By eliminating the abused population, the
ratio of the "never-spanked" jumped up to 38%??? You wanted people to
buy that, Kane??? NO ONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe that!


Please show how by so doing, eliminating what would have increased the
percentage of spanked and slapped group, it would not have increased the
"never."

The abused would have included a high incidence, probably 100%, of
children that had also been spanked and or slapped. That reduces the
remaining sample size, thus multiplying the percentage of 'never.'

One doesn't have to be smart or stupid to figure that out. Just aware of
reality and of the processes and outcomes of sample culling. There's no
magic to this, and I can't help but wonder how you do not know it
already. Thus I assumed you lied.

Could it be possibly my belief that you are quite intelligent is wrong?
Or that my presumption that your childhood experience has crippled your
critical thinking ability in some way is true?

Rather than admit you missed that, here we are, YOU trying to argue
about MY having LIED after YOU changed the meaning of my subject line.

Here your chance to show me the math that prove the above ASSumption!
Come on, Kane. I DARE YOU! ;-)


Math? Why would it take math? It's simple logic.

If you have N sample size with some having A only and some having B
only, and some having A and B together, and you remove all those with A
characteristic, more likely to have B in connection to A, and many, if
not all will have an AB combination. the lack of A and B in the
remaining sample N is going to be increased by percentage.

In fact there will be no A at all in the final sample. So the final
sample will have no A, and much less B, and more of the N that were
"never-spanked." There can be NO never spanked or slapped in A. So
where are they? In the final sample, of course, increasing the
percentage of never-spanked.

No math is needed.

Doan


I dare you, without shouting or the frantic arm waving your choice of
words indicates, to show logically how Never-spanked could not be
concentrated to increase the percentage in the final sample, when the
group was divided as it was.

......snip............

Did you miss this part below, or have you decided that all discussion
that might prove your history of lying best be avoided?

Or was this simple a mistake?

Or are you looking for a single word, that by taken from context, linked
to a phrase to create another meaning, then arguing about it would be a
good way to avoid this little mistake below?

You touted Baumrind study to this ng as "The Gold Standard" for
methodology, then attacked Embry on the grounds his N of families
wasn't adequate for a scientific study...while all the time knowing
that the Baumrind study had the same N of families.


Want to tell the folks the sample size? Want to fix your mistake, or
apologize for your deliberate attempt to deceive when claimed that
number used by Embry was insufficient?

Or could it be the Baumrind study was insufficient and no Gold Standard
at all, but just your hyperbole?

As Riak noted in a famous responce, all Baumrind really "proved" was the
obvious...that any toxin sufficiently diluted down has no adverse
effect. You can take strychnine without injury, if it's in sufficiently
small parts per million. So to with "spanking," as youv'e tried again
and again to exuse with similar arugments of "reduction of force."

You don't stand a chance, Doan, even with your own feeble use of the
fallacious debate ploy of "reducto absurdum."

Only the studid, or psychologically crippled, would fail to see your
mistake.


Or had you forgotten and the criticism of Embry on your part for the
number of subjects was just a "mistake?"

You had no desire to decieve, right?


Well?


Doan


Weasel boy, run run run.

R R R R R R


No answer. As usual. Let's pick a word...say "decieve" from my comments
above. Let's see if you can divert everyone with a treatise on
"decieve," Doan. R R R R R

What will be your entire thesis contained in the subject field of your
post, eh?

R R R R R R
  #23  
Old February 2nd 06, 05:48 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unwanted effects of CP

Doan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


wrote:

Kane said:



Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!


So neither of us "lied."

But you did!


My answer to your question?

There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!


WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!


Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably
greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just
as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of
parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of
non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting
pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible
claims.


Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity!


Claims are not proofs. Just claims.


Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake,
possibly.


So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-)


Possibly.

Did you miss that word in my response above? Odd.

I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the
content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID?


LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read.


Yes?

If you made
the claim, it's WRONG.


I could be, if a person read not further where they would find my
comments on the study referring to it as "correlational." Did you fail
to read further?

And when did "wrong" get to be a lie? Is that a cultural thing, or a
failure to comprehend English?

You then denied making the claim; THAT IS
A LIE - A BLATANT LIE!


No, I denied that the meaning you gave to it by isolating one word, and
combining it to another word, making a phrase that has a common link to
another term "causation" was consistent with my meaning made abundantly
clear in my use of "correlation."

I did not lie. You had to connive to make it appear so.


The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly
little pointless ****.


Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed.
Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-)


Doan


Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N
sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The
Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families.


The sample size in that study is 13! It was not peer-reviewed and
it was never published in any journal! Punishment was employed in
the study.


Either you do not have the Embry study report, or you are misreading, or
you are lying, only you know for sure.

My copy has 33, 20 not baseline observed prior to the action phase of
the study and 13 that were, but all included in the full study.

The 20 have a start to finish charting that is significant even standing
alone...since it shows a very steep change in behaviors of parent and
child, just like the thirteen.

Baseline for them would be 0 "behaviors" noted. That does not change the
significance or removed them from the study, or Embry would have so
indicated. He did not.


That is a deliberate attempt to deceive.


You meant you LIED! ;-)


No, I meant you did, or you were mistaken and did not know that Embry's
study was a total of 33.

All 33 are listed, all are 33 are described in detail, family and child.
All participated.

Your author of the abstract failed to note that and stuck on the number
13, presuming something that was not so. That the 20 were excluded. They
were not. You'd know that if you had the study, or had it and read it
and understood it.


OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick.


Neither! I was right all along!


No, you were wrong and still are. The sample size was the same for
Baumrind as for Embry.


Can't have it both ways, Doan.

You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could
not have been a mistake.


LOL! Tell that to your mom!


You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could
not have been a mistake.

In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so
small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when
you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected
my error.


Have you ever apologized to me for your "mistake"?


Since when does a mistake require an apology. Simply acknowledging is
sufficient. An apology is appropriate when damage has been done. Were
you damaged?


You're a little ****head. Nothing more.


Oops! More adhom. Let's see now. You mom is proud of that too. ;-)


Let's see, you used it for another dodge. 0:-

Whenever you see an ad hom from me, you should ask yourself, 'is he
setting me up to trick me into doing one of my dodges, rather than
answer the charge?"

And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you
have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you
choose "liar."


And you are STUPID! ;-)


Really? Then you claim you are smart not to admit your mistakes and I'm
"stupid" when I admit mine?

Interesting ethical system you operate by if my question could be
answered in the affirmative.


Good for you. You are consistent.


And you are Ignoranus Kan0! ;-)


Notice I don't use your ad homs as an opportunity to dodge anything?

Is that stupid of me?


Doan


Kane


--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006
  #24  
Old February 2nd 06, 06:32 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unwanted effects of CP

These results look like pretty typical American statistical research.

Ken Johnson

  #25  
Old February 2nd 06, 07:12 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The logic of Kane Unwanted effects of CP

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
[snipped] Garbage load of craps just for Kane to hide his LIES! ;-)

LOL! Let's see that again. By eliminating the abused population, the
ratio of the "never-spanked" jumped up to 38%??? You wanted people to
buy that, Kane??? NO ONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe that!


Please show how by so doing, eliminating what would have increased the
percentage of spanked and slapped group, it would not have increased the
"never."

The abused would have included a high incidence, probably 100%, of
children that had also been spanked and or slapped. That reduces the
remaining sample size, thus multiplying the percentage of 'never.'

One doesn't have to be smart or stupid to figure that out. Just aware of
reality and of the processes and outcomes of sample culling. There's no
magic to this, and I can't help but wonder how you do not know it
already. Thus I assumed you lied.

So let's cut all crap and address the point you make. Let's say we
start with a sample size of a nice round number of 100 people. If 10% of
this group is "never-spanked", we have 10 people. Right, Kane? That
leaves us with 90 people in the "spanked" population. Are you with me
so far? ;-) How many people do we have to remove from this "spanked"
population of 90 in order the ratio of the "never-spanked" group to
get to 38%? Let's see if 10% of the sample size were "abused" and
we remove them, the ratio of the "never-spanked" is now 10/90, or
approx. 11%. Right, Kane? Shall we continue?

If 20% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio
of the "never-spanked" is now 10/80, or 12.5%.

If 50% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio
of the "never-spanked" is now 10/50, or 20%.

If 60% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio
of the "never-spanked" is now 10/40, or 25%.

If 75% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio
of the "never-spanked" is now 10/25, or 40%.

Using your logic and simple mathematic as I have demonstrated above,
about 75% of the population in Canada were "abused"!!!

Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)

Doan



  #26  
Old February 2nd 06, 07:13 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unwanted effects of CP


Like Mark Twain said: lies, damn lies and statistics! ;-)

Doan

On 2 Feb 2006 wrote:

These results look like pretty typical American statistical research.

Ken Johnson



  #27  
Old February 2nd 06, 07:29 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Kane a LIAR? Unwanted effects of CP


Kane,
This is your original post. I've search every word in this post for
the word "correlation". Please show me where you said "correlation"
and not "effect" as you claimed. If you can show me where you CLEARLY
stated that this is "correlation", I will PUBLICLY APOLIZE for calling
you a liar. If not, I will DEMAND that you PUBLICLY APOLIZE and
post a retraction.

Doan

On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University
in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible
association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems
in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a
1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of
10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been
asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous
studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who
recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had
only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult
disorders we

Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked
disorder

Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3%

Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9%

Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2%
or addiction

More
than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7%
one disorder *

* More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions &
antisocial behavior.

Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for
1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear
association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during
childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse
or dependence and externalizing problems."
http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Degree of............
Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme
physical
punishment

Violent
inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%...............100%
at San Quentin

Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%................64%
Delinquents

High
School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%.................0%
drop-outs

College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San
Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html

Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray
Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and
nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children
than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings
may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80
percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the
10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or
struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly
four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to
commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children
than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by
their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52
http://nospank.net/males.htm



  #28  
Old February 3rd 06, 02:31 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unwanted effects of CP

No, Ken, you see if you think that, according to Doan you are either
lying and or stupid.

It's Canadian by the way, and nothing about it is unusual. They cleaned
out a set of questionaires that had one characterist they need to
remove to isolate another. Spanked and never spanked. That portion of
the original sample could have have those children that might have been
spanked and or slapped but had been either sexually or physically
abused or both.

Doan wants us to believe that age mattered, and that surely older
people in the remaining reduced sample could not have a lower
percentage of "never spanked/slapped" than people in the three younger
samples.

If one reads the entire study it's obvious there are variable
uncontrolled for, that do not need to be since the goal is determine
the correlations between between incidences of childhood
spanking/slapping frequency and adult negative outcomes.

Age had nothing to do with the study except to describe the remaining
sample.

The characteristics of the removed questionnaires would be nice to
know, but it was not included.

I just hope no one, not you, and certainly not I, would presume, as
Doan has to, that the never spanked percentage of older people has to
be smaller for some reason. Why?

Because he thinks older people were spanked more? Well, the were abused
more too and would have been removed for that reason. But then if you
reduce the N size, you increase the percentage point of each remaining
N in the sample.

It's usually not terribly significant in like sample sizes. But it's
obvious the N of the older would be LESS than the N of the younger
because there was indeed more instances of shoving, pushing, grabbing
and attacking children in the past. And it was more accepted 50-60
years ago, and became less so over time. Thus the steps in the age
blocks that gradually increased the N of the younger, and of course
then reduced the percentage of never spanked.

The answer lies, of course, in so many older, as HE claimed, being
spanked or slapped (with which I agree, of course) but also being
weeded out because they were also abused.

That reduces the sample of the older, thus increasing the percentage
value of each individual remaining that was never spanked and or
slapped.

He'd rather talk though, as you will find, about whether I was, by the
subject field content, claiming this was a causal study rather than a
correlational one.

He is claiming "cause" means "effect."

Interesting logic, eh?

No definition I know of isolates the term "effect" to being ONLY
related to a cause, as in "Causation" It is only ONE of the related
terms. "Effect" is a soft word, unlike "cause."

It does not mean cause, only the outcome of cause, or the outcome of
intent, or the outcome of some action.

In fact what he does not realise smirk he's arguing is that the
content of study are so powerfully correlational they approach evidence
of a causal link that should be explored further.

But it cannot be ethically, because any further study of a higher
scientific order would likely require the destructive methods of hard,
materials, or mechanical science.

So far as I know it's been illegal because of ethical concerns to do
such testing on humans.

One would have to pick a group of newborns, of as close a gestation and
hereditary factors, and reduce them into groups to apply various levels
of spanking and slapping upon..from 0 to frequently N.

And observe and record the reqsult while keeping all other variables
reduced to constants.

The latter is of course impossible with humans even in a closed
evironment. It's hard enough with animal subjects. Unethical with
humans.

This seems to be pretty much the directly and type of argument
presented again and again, -- which makes it pseudo scientific since it
can't be outside the constraints of social science research.

Does social science equal the physical sciences? Well, since the object
is NOT to conclusively prove anything for all time in EITHER, then yes,
of course it's the equal. We simply have to use what's left to make
decisions and draw premise from each.

Because neither is perfect and all knowing. Nor ever will be.

I can smash a mans finger and ask him if it hurts. I will have very
good "scientific" evidence that smashing people's fingers hurts, if I
employ a large enough sample N. 0:-

I can chart long term outcomes by watching the for a few weeks or years
afterward for a longitudinal study. Much could be learned.

Problem is I'll be arrested. And my notes confiscated for evidence
before I can complete my work.

OR, I can ask, as Soc Scientists do, of all you folks gathered here for
the flumboiance test (means some other reason than finger smashing pain
specifically) how many of you have had your finger smashed?"

The REST OF YOU ARE EXCUSED.

"Now tell me, you remaining, the circumstances, how hard you were hit,
what you were hit with and how many times you were hit and did try to
pull aw.....etc etc etc. .. "

I have not adhered strictly to the scientific method of materials
science, the physical sciences, even the biological sciences, BUT, if a
have some info about the rate of lying about such things, I can factor
that in. And I can come up with a meaningful presumption about "The
Incedence of Long Term Negative Outcomes in Some That Have Their
Fingers Smashed."

I do not NEED to know their ages particularly, nor is it of particular
concern, except older people, in a big enough sample, will probably
have more instances of finger smashing.

Irrelevant to my question. OUTCOMES.

Am I boring anyone?

Well, it's about this lying weasel that is now dodging this issue and
doing his, "let's argue about the real meaning of what you said, after
I take a moment to juice up what you said by pretending to connections
that don't exist except in my mind and that of anyone I can mislead."

Or, more properly labeled, Red Herring for dinner.

Kane

  #29  
Old February 3rd 06, 02:48 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Kane a LIAR? Unwanted effects of CP


Doan wrote:
Kane,
This is your original post. I've search every word in this post for
the word "correlation". Please show me where you said "correlation"
and not "effect" as you claimed. If you can show me where you CLEARLY
stated that this is "correlation", I will PUBLICLY APOLIZE for calling
you a liar. If not, I will DEMAND that you PUBLICLY APOLIZE and
post a retraction.

Doan


Two questions: why would I have to use the word "correlation" in this
post rather than in a following post explaining my meaning when
challenged?

The most you could claim is that I erred, and that only by insisting
that my mean had to be " "cause and effect" thus a claim of "causality"
being made.

What comment did I make?

Did I say anything?

Did I say "Unwanted causal effects of CP?"

Let's look at definitions:

"ef·fect n.

1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.

2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence:
The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action
had no effect on the trade imbalance.

3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic
effect.

4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing
the jury.

5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new
regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.

6. a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a
general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh
atmosphere of the drama. b. A particular impression: large windows that
gave an effect of spaciousness. c. Production of a desired impression:
spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.

7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly
worried, or words to that effect.

8. effects Movable belongings; goods.

tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects


1. To bring into existence.

2. To produce as a result.

3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
"

You'll not it does NOT limit itself to YOUR definition of ONLY being
linked to "causality." It isn't the cause. It is what follows the
cause.

The study look at correlation to determine an effect relationship.

As in, " 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result."

You do understand the meaning of "or" do you not?

In this case the agent would be spanking and slapping.

There was no "causal" claim so I am not saying there was. The study did
not say "Caused by," I didn't say caused by. And when asked I pointed
out that it was a correlation.

In fact YOU dropping the word 'cause' in when no such word was ever
used shows your intent was to confuse the issue, or you failed to
determine that "effect" does NOT mean cause, it means simply effect, of
anything.

As you are so fond of saying, correlation is not causation, and I've
never disagreed, and in fact have used the same phrase myself, for the
same reason.

You are simply dying to keep everyones attention focuses on this Red
Herring so they will be distracted from your demonstration of a major
thinking error in presuming that a culled sample couldn't possibly
contain a higher percentage of non spanked children than a lower
percentage of yet another sub category.

You failed to read the study in full or failed to understand it.

Go back and read it.

And, "cause and effect" is not "causal." One is, and one isn't. Nor did
I include the word "cause" in my subject field. There can be an effect
from correlation. All you have to have is enough of it. Too little, and
arguments fail. A whole lot of it, and arguments become much stronger.

That is why the caveat by the authors. They frequently point out the
possibities being other than what one might assume. Those in the
physical sciences, particularly biological ones, often do the same.

It does not mean they are confessing their work is WRONG, stupid. Only
that like ALL research it COULD be.

And "there appears to be a linear association" is nothing more than
pointing out a correlation. And a strong one at that. They are
pointing to a possible "effect." Would you argue with them they are
claiming "cause?"

You are just dodging with your usual aging manure. Time to put it on
the garden.

0:-


On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University
in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible
association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems
in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a
1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of
10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been
asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous
studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who
recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had
only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult
disorders we

Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked
disorder

Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3%

Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9%

Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2%
or addiction

More
than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7%
one disorder *

* More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions &
antisocial behavior.

Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for
1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear
association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during
childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse
or dependence and externalizing problems."
http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Degree of............
Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme
physical
punishment

Violent
inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%................100%
at San Quentin

Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%.................64%
Delinquents

High
School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%..................0%
drop-outs

College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%..................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%..................0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San
Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html

Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray
Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and
nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children
than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings
may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80
percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the
10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or
struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly
four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to
commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children
than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by
their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52
http://nospank.net/males.htm



  #30  
Old February 3rd 06, 03:12 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Kane a LIAR? Unwanted effects of CP


On 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Kane,
This is your original post. I've search every word in this post for
the word "correlation". Please show me where you said "correlation"
and not "effect" as you claimed. If you can show me where you CLEARLY
stated that this is "correlation", I will PUBLICLY APOLIZE for calling
you a liar. If not, I will DEMAND that you PUBLICLY APOLIZE and
post a retraction.

Doan


Two questions: why would I have to use the word "correlation" in this
post rather than in a following post explaining my meaning when
challenged?

The most you could claim is that I erred, and that only by insisting
that my mean had to be " "cause and effect" thus a claim of "causality"
being made.

What comment did I make?

Did I say anything?

Did I say "Unwanted causal effects of CP?"

Let's look at definitions:

"ef·fect n.

1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.

2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence:
The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action
had no effect on the trade imbalance.

3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic
effect.

4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing
the jury.

5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new
regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.

6. a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a
general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh
atmosphere of the drama. b. A particular impression: large windows that
gave an effect of spaciousness. c. Production of a desired impression:
spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.

7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly
worried, or words to that effect.

8. effects Movable belongings; goods.

tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects


1. To bring into existence.

2. To produce as a result.

3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
"

You'll not it does NOT limit itself to YOUR definition of ONLY being
linked to "causality." It isn't the cause. It is what follows the
cause.

So which meaning does "effects of cp" falls into in this case? ;-)

Doan


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Games Chess CDs 2006-, and Boris Continuum Complete v4.0 , SideFX Houdini Master v8.0.474(Win/Linux), CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X3 v13.0, Adobe After Effects 7.0 PRO, Premiere Pro 2.0, Encore DVD v2.0, Audition v2.0, other 2006-Jan-25-to-2005-Aug-20 n [email protected] General 1 February 19th 06 06:19 PM
Combination vaccines safe for children Mark Probert Kids Health 50 August 19th 05 06:43 PM
FOAD Bigots bobbie sellers General 190 August 1st 05 10:07 AM
QUACK DISINFORMATION ABOUT MERCURY Ilena Rose Kids Health 81 March 17th 05 05:26 PM
Are neuroleptics helpful to anyone? Linda Kids Health 0 October 5th 03 09:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.