LaVonne, where art thou?

Doan wrote:

It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
certainly should have enough references by now.

LaVonne



Doan

Doan wrote:

It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.

This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
certainly should have enough references by now.

Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)

Doan

LaVonne



Doan

Doan wrote:

Doan wrote:

It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
-------------
No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
Steve

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

Doan wrote:

It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
-------------
No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
Steve

Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
the same mistake as I did! ;-)

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
even stronger than spanking!

For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!

Doan

Poorly done studies are almost CRIMINAL.

When a study purports to be scientifically based, and *peer-reviewed* one would
expect that the criteria of folks sampled by the study would be representative
of the parenting populace at large.

Straus USED TEENAGE, welfare-dependent Moms. Hardly a representative sample of
America.

Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design
classes.

She probably never read 1984, either.

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

Doan wrote:

It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
-------------
No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
Steve

Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
the same mistake as I did! ;-)

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
even stronger than spanking!

For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!

Doan
-----------
You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
smelly ****.
Steve

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:

Doan wrote:

It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.

This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
certainly should have enough references by now.

Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)

Doan

Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???

Doan

Doan wrote:

Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)

Yes, let's start with that. Post the reference to the study, and evidence for
your debate issue.

LaVonne



Doan

LaVonne



Doan

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Doan wrote:

Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
-------------
No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
Steve

Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
but he may have. I don't know. He just challenged me on a Straus et.al study.
I asked him to post a reference and his evidence for his claim. Let's see what
he can do!

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
the same mistake as I did! ;-)

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

And this is a perfect example of the futility of debate with you. You don't
understand this statement, you took the statement out of context, and you provide
no reference so others can refer to the passage you have posted

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
even stronger than spanking!

This is another garbage statement with no evidence of the sort. Did you read this
study? Please provide the reference and page no. of the journal that allowed you
to come to such a bizarre conclusion. I will not do the work for you this time.

For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!

Read the conclusions, Doan. Read the hypothesis. Read the methodology. State
reference and page number that allowed you to draw this conclusion. What was the
purpose of the study? I have the study in front of me and I can do it for you, but
this time I will not do this. You brought up the study, you back up your claims.

LaVonne


Doan