The Embry study: What it actually said.

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

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?"

But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP,
but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires,
and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely.

So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of
spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the
argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay
out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to
lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries.

Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that?

Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and
pathologies?

Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I
have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are
lying, again.

Tsk. Doan. Tsk.

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

wrote:
Doan-

Is Kane still dribbling about his unbiased research studies and using
it to support the punishment of parents who don't goose step to his
diatribe?

You seem terribly free with your lies, still. I thought you had learned
your lesson. Do you recall this post to you?

"I was just informed today of this post. The man who identifies himself
here as "Chris C." has very blatently plagarised my copyrighted
material "50 Principles and Alternatives to Punishment" from my
website ChildAdvocate.org and has posted it as if it is his own. In
addition, he removed two of the 50 principles. My website strongly
speaks out against legalized assaults on children. Chris C. is
actually using my material intended to be against corporal punishment
in order to support his pro-corporal punishment stance! You can view
the page and the article from which he plagarised at:
http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm

Chris, I will take legal action if your post is not removed and unless
you publically post a full appology with an explanation of what you
did.

-Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed., LMHC"

I still have the original posts by you, wherein you do exactly as
charged above.

I think you are the one "dribbling" my fried.

Or you wouldn't label the studies so accurately. "Unbiased."

In fact, Embry is said to have had a belief in the use of spanking to
teach children street entry boundaries....UNTIL....he observed for
himself, the counter information. That they did not reduce entries, but
in fact, increased entry attempts.

So what you have you accused me of?

Of being correct?

As for punishment for parents? Why yes. Do you not believe in punishment
for parents that injure children?

Or do you, like Doan, want to rant here, but insist that your beliefs
are YOUR business and no one elses?

I notice that in your sigline...about chosing to not spank, but never
admitting you have no children to practice upon.

Very funny lad.

All in all.



*****
Non-spanker by choice,

It's not a choice when you have no children, Chris. This is the logic
you and Doan (who yet questions other's logic) seem to use a lot.

It's like saying you are a hero because you choose not to rob banks.

It earns you a big, "You don't spank? You don't have kids? SO WHAT?"

Chris C.
TX

0:-







Doan wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Doan wrote:


The Lie:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per
hour."

Still don't know where I got that, eh? R R R R RR

NOT FROM THE EMBRY STUDY!

Doan


Is this another "mistake", Kane? ;-)

Doan




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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

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?"

Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA! If there is no data (or not enough data)
about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the
conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9.

"9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an
interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to
play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction
between parent and child."

And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands
not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of
Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's
Entry into the Street"

But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP,
but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires,
and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely.

LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole!
The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said
was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower
the rate of street entries!

So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of
spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the
argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay
out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to
lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries.

LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets?

Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that?

Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking?

Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and
pathologies?

Lying seems to be your compulsion!

Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I
have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are
lying, again.

You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


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

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?"


Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA!

It's in front of you.

If there is no data (or not enough data)
about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the
conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9.

I never claimed it had to do with spanking. What I claimed in fact is
exactly what you say above....it most deliberately choses to be,
"NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!" but about the absence of it.

This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and
mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine?

You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of
his in mid, would you?

"9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an
interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to
play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction
between parent and child."


Yes, it says that. That does not negate that the study was in fact about
alternatives to spanking, does it?

And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands
not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of
Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's
Entry into the Street"

Then why did he in fact record two "Punishments" which his observers
code as physical punishment? Why would he include instructions to note
and record "Physical Punishment?"

In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course
) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following
percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report)

"... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental
Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction),
and 71% (Parental Praise)"

Note: Time out instruction was a routine were the parent did a practice
time-out with the child to familiarize the child with the proceedure,
and somewhat desensitize the parent to feeling guilty about imposing
it...thus...cackle removing some of the "punishment" aspect of the
"Sit and Watch" routine, as time-out was called and taught.

Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers
even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero
events occuring agreement between them.

Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline
observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied phase?

Let's see, shall we.

On page 29, Table 6, the columns are labelled, Behavior, Cases1,
Agreements etc. Cases1 refers to number of home visits during which the
observers recorded the behavior.

They are recorded as occuring in the following number of visits, and so
recorded:

Child in time out = 1

Parent's use of PUNISHMENT = 2

Parental reprimand = 12

Parental praise = 15

time out instruction = 1

Remember, these indicate VISITS in which the behavior was observed, not
the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been
more, but of course they cannot be less.

These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not
observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes
observation periods.

Hence, we have two incidences of what Doan would like to not admit is
classifiable under his 'spanking' claim. It was physical punishment and
the observers are taught to distinguish between non-cp and this, which
is cp.

What is very remarkable, and Doan avoids it carefully and makes claims
that are not supportable if one reads ALL the data available, was the
dramatic DROP in the number of street entries as the dramatic drop in
numbers of reprimands occurred in comparing the baseline and the post
workshop events. Page 48. Note the chart records pre, during, and post
entries on a 10 second timeline.

Very telling evidence that the fewer reprimands the more compliance with
instruction to play safe.

The risk exposure dropped by a factor of 12.6. Or more simply, for every
24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjuntion of cars and children
in the street occurred 16 times during baseline, and ONCE after the
workshops and storybooks.


But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP,
but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires,
and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely.


LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole!

Nope. YOu are not seeing the square peg, is all.

The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said
was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower
the rate of street entries!

This makes me wonder if you are getting some poor second hand
information. Physical punishment was tracked, and recorded. It's quite
clear in the "reliability" percentage calculations. On two visits
physical punishment was recorded and the observers did not disagree,
hence the 100% agreement figure.

Not non-cp punishment, because that is covered under Time Outs, as you
have so wisely noted, as being coded as non physical "punishment."

Physical punishment is what it is.

So tell us again, this study was not about "spanking." Go ahead.

So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of
spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the
argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay
out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to
lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries.


LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets?

I've no idea. I do know that physical punishment was recorded twice, as
occurring. From two home visits. It could have been more, but it could
not have been less.

You still wish to pursue this?

Imagine if you will what those of us that have the study, and have
looked at the pages I mention, and the words there I have quoted, think
of you at this moment. Mistaken, or lying, Doan. One or the other and no
other possibility.

This was not a study on spanking, and I agree with you on that point,
and have never claimed otherwise. It as also not a study on white collar
parents, but it's mentioned they make up the majority of studies
families. Hence if I referred to white collar families would you start
screaming at me, "This is not a study on white collar families, STUPID!?"

It isn't a study on spanking (CP) but it does, just as I've mentioned,
attempt to track the use of spanking.


Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that?

Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking?

No, and are you stupid enough to try and claim I was saying this was
solely a study on spanking?

See what I mean about misleading people and lying, Doan? That is what
you appear to be doing, unless of course you wish to retract and admit
you were wrong on there being no mention of CP in the report. That you
simply made a mistake.

There's no fault in an oversight error in such an instance. I doubt I'll
mention it again, unless you try to say again that there was nothing in
this study about spanking.


Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and
pathologies?


Lying seems to be your compulsion!

Doan, you claimed, "the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all."

If there is any mention of spanking (physical punishment) in the study
then it of course had something to do with spanking.

Hence, I did not lie, and at best you simply made a mistake. You missed
the mention of "Punishment" counts in the agreement percentage section
on reliability of observations.

A quick check of how punishments are described by the instructions to
the observers how to code parental actions makes plain, it is physical
punishment, unless you wish to argue "hitting," is not physical
punishment. Embry does not agree with you.

Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I
have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are
lying, again.

You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-)

No, I gave her a perfectly good copy of the same one I have. I did not
include, and haven't referred to the long cumberson appendix. More is
there that substantiates what I've said, but I've stuck strictly with
the first 78 pages.

Doan

You have made of yourself a peripheral player in this ng, rather than a
serious debater arguing for a position, Doan.

You now suffer the consequences.

You created a facade of neutrality, while posting the refutation of it
yourself. You have no posts defending parents who chose not to spank, or
methods to use in place of spanking.

You are basically stupid and ignorant and compulsively driven to defend
an act perpetrated on you as a child.

I am fearing that you had a great deal more than you can remember, or
that you will admit to happen to you as a young child.

This kind of stubborn squirming is so very common to the highly
intelligent, but abused child, caught in trying to defend superstition,
or their own actions and biases. I've seen the duplicate many times.

Did something more than simple light spanking happen to you?

I might be able to help. You have my permission to contact me off group
on THIS alone, if you'd like some advice and direction with this
situation that obviously is growing more acute for you. Or I could
contact you through Alina if you'd prefer. 0:-)

Get help now.

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


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

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?"


Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA!

It's in front of you.

Show me!

If there is no data (or not enough data)
about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the
conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9.

I never claimed it had to do with spanking. What I claimed in fact is
exactly what you say above....it most deliberately choses to be,
"NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!" but about the absence of it.

Nonsense! Unless you are saying that "reprimands" are alternatives to
spanking.

This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Please, don't patronize me with your stupidity again!

Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and
mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine?

Parenting magazine is secondary source, not primary source like the study!
I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the
magazine. I SAW NONE!

You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of
his in mid, would you?

You are being STUPID again! Show me where in the study that the data
support the claim made in the magazine.

"9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an
interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to
play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction
between parent and child."


Yes, it says that. That does not negate that the study was in fact about
alternatives to spanking, does it?

The conclusion was about "reprimands" and reprimands only! Are you so
STUPID as not to see that?

And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands
not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of
Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's
Entry into the Street"

Then why did he in fact record two "Punishments" which his observers
code as physical punishment? Why would he include instructions to note
and record "Physical Punishment?"

He recorded and coded many items. What conclusions can be drawn from
those items are different matters. In fact, the conclusion about
street entries were made specifically about "reprimands" not other
items.


In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course
) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following
percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report)

Irrelevant! Do you know the meaning of reliability?

"... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental
Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction),
and 71% (Parental Praise)"

Note: Time out instruction was a routine were the parent did a practice
time-out with the child to familiarize the child with the proceedure,
and somewhat desensitize the parent to feeling guilty about imposing
it...thus...cackle removing some of the "punishment" aspect of the
"Sit and Watch" routine, as time-out was called and taught.

It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described by Dr. Embry. There is no
disputing that fact!

Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers
even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero
events occuring agreement between them.

Irrelevant!

Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline
observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied phase?

Irrelevant. SEE ABOVE!

Let's see, shall we.

On page 29, Table 6, the columns are labelled, Behavior, Cases1,
Agreements etc. Cases1 refers to number of home visits during which the
observers recorded the behavior.

They are recorded as occuring in the following number of visits, and so
recorded:

Child in time out = 1

Parent's use of PUNISHMENT = 2

Parental reprimand = 12

Parental praise = 15

time out instruction = 1

Remember, these indicate VISITS in which the behavior was observed, not
the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been
more, but of course they cannot be less.

Nevertheless, they are not relevant!

Doan

These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not
observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes
observation periods.

Hence, we have two incidences of what Doan would like to not admit is
classifiable under his 'spanking' claim. It was physical punishment and
the observers are taught to distinguish between non-cp and this, which
is cp.

What is very remarkable, and Doan avoids it carefully and makes claims
that are not supportable if one reads ALL the data available, was the
dramatic DROP in the number of street entries as the dramatic drop in
numbers of reprimands occurred in comparing the baseline and the post
workshop events. Page 48. Note the chart records pre, during, and post
entries on a 10 second timeline.

Very telling evidence that the fewer reprimands the more compliance with
instruction to play safe.

The risk exposure dropped by a factor of 12.6. Or more simply, for every
24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjuntion of cars and children
in the street occurred 16 times during baseline, and ONCE after the
workshops and storybooks.


But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP,
but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires,
and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing safely.


LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole!

Nope. YOu are not seeing the square peg, is all.

The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said
was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower
the rate of street entries!

This makes me wonder if you are getting some poor second hand
information. Physical punishment was tracked, and recorded. It's quite
clear in the "reliability" percentage calculations. On two visits
physical punishment was recorded and the observers did not disagree,
hence the 100% agreement figure.

Not non-cp punishment, because that is covered under Time Outs, as you
have so wisely noted, as being coded as non physical "punishment."

Physical punishment is what it is.

So tell us again, this study was not about "spanking." Go ahead.

So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of
spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the
argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay
out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to
lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries.


LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets?

I've no idea. I do know that physical punishment was recorded twice, as
occurring. From two home visits. It could have been more, but it could
not have been less.

You still wish to pursue this?

Imagine if you will what those of us that have the study, and have
looked at the pages I mention, and the words there I have quoted, think
of you at this moment. Mistaken, or lying, Doan. One or the other and no
other possibility.

This was not a study on spanking, and I agree with you on that point,
and have never claimed otherwise. It as also not a study on white collar
parents, but it's mentioned they make up the majority of studies
families. Hence if I referred to white collar families would you start
screaming at me, "This is not a study on white collar families, STUPID!?"

It isn't a study on spanking (CP) but it does, just as I've mentioned,
attempt to track the use of spanking.


Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that?

Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking?

No, and are you stupid enough to try and claim I was saying this was
solely a study on spanking?

See what I mean about misleading people and lying, Doan? That is what
you appear to be doing, unless of course you wish to retract and admit
you were wrong on there being no mention of CP in the report. That you
simply made a mistake.

There's no fault in an oversight error in such an instance. I doubt I'll
mention it again, unless you try to say again that there was nothing in
this study about spanking.


Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and
pathologies?


Lying seems to be your compulsion!

Doan, you claimed, "the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all."

If there is any mention of spanking (physical punishment) in the study
then it of course had something to do with spanking.

Hence, I did not lie, and at best you simply made a mistake. You missed
the mention of "Punishment" counts in the agreement percentage section
on reliability of observations.

A quick check of how punishments are described by the instructions to
the observers how to code parental actions makes plain, it is physical
punishment, unless you wish to argue "hitting," is not physical
punishment. Embry does not agree with you.

Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I
have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are
lying, again.

You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-)

No, I gave her a perfectly good copy of the same one I have. I did not
include, and haven't referred to the long cumberson appendix. More is
there that substantiates what I've said, but I've stuck strictly with
the first 78 pages.

Doan

You have made of yourself a peripheral player in this ng, rather than a
serious debater arguing for a position, Doan.

You now suffer the consequences.

You created a facade of neutrality, while posting the refutation of it
yourself. You have no posts defending parents who chose not to spank, or
methods to use in place of spanking.

You are basically stupid and ignorant and compulsively driven to defend
an act perpetrated on you as a child.

I am fearing that you had a great deal more than you can remember, or
that you will admit to happen to you as a young child.

This kind of stubborn squirming is so very common to the highly
intelligent, but abused child, caught in trying to defend superstition,
or their own actions and biases. I've seen the duplicate many times.

Did something more than simple light spanking happen to you?

I might be able to help. You have my permission to contact me off group
on THIS alone, if you'd like some advice and direction with this
situation that obviously is growing more acute for you. Or I could
contact you through Alina if you'd prefer. 0:-)

Get help now.

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



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

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?"


Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA!

It's in front of you.


Show me!

I did in my answering post attributed further along in this one.


If there is no data (or not enough data)
about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the
conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9.

I never claimed it had to do with spanking. What I claimed in fact is
exactly what you say above....it most deliberately choses to be,
"NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!" but about the absence of it.


Nonsense! Unless you are saying that "reprimands" are alternatives to
spanking.


This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.


Please, don't patronize me with your stupidity again!

I don’t believe there is anything stupid about referring to this study
as an experiment in using non-CP methods to train children to play away
from the street.

Do you find something illogical in my reference to that age old claim by
spankers that they were spanking their child to teach them to stay out
of the street?

You don’t see the connect and presume I’m patronizing you?

By the way, how does one use “stupidity” to patronize?


Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and
mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine?


Parenting magazine is secondary source, not primary source like the
study!

Yes? And?

I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the
magazine. I SAW NONE!

We have no way of knowing precisely what Dr. Embry was referring to as
his source when he made the magazine statement. He did not say.
Apparently he is not able to confine himself to only those researches
and opinions convenient to your needs for argument by failure to accept
YOU have a burden of proof to prove YOUR claims.

I am aware that he has access, since he cites as most scholarly writers
tend to do, many sources in his report, but would be unlikely to in a
casual non-research study letter to a parenting magazine.

Did he in fact refer to this study in his letter? Did he refer to any,
other than generally speaking, and non-specific?

You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of
his in mid, would you?


You are being STUPID again! Show me where in the study that the data
support the claim made in the magazine.

He apparently tracked the effect of his experimental program on a number
of things that did not include spanking, other than to note it. His
objective was not to study spanking, but to study an alternative.

I certainly noticed the lack of many instances of it. I would presume,
and I think with ample reason, he assumed the families did in fact use
spanking as part of their parenting strategy.

Otherwise why would he have assigned a tracking code to “Physical
Punishment” which is described in part as “hitting?”

As I read the report it appears his intent was to track street entries,
and parent interventions, including their presence in the play area
outside. He showed a strong correlation between having been exposed to
training, the workbook, and the details of the program and a sharp
reduction in street entries, and a sharp increase in parental
supervision (desirable for children under 4), and a reduction in
reprimands.

Apparently there wasn’t enough physical punishment to be able to record
any changes in it, though a minimum of two instances had to have
happened for their to be confidence percentages found for accurate
recording of it.

"9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an
interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to
play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction
between parent and child."


Yes, it says that. That does not negate that the study was in fact about
alternatives to spanking, does it?

The conclusion was about "reprimands" and reprimands only! Are you so
STUPID as not to see that?
No, I am not stupid, and I do not agree with you. This study was about
reduction in reprimands, correlation to that reduction by a reduction in
street entries, and the more frequent presence and intervention of the
parent.

Embry did not offer a “conclusion.” He did present some speculative
information supported by findings. They had to do with considerably more
than “only reprimands.”

Possibly I am not finding what you are referring to. Could you provide
me with a page where Embry concludes something and it’s based on
“‘reprimands’ and reprimands only!“

I covered this in my prior response. He offered the formula for
calculating factor of street entries while a car was present, from
baseline to after the storybooks and workshop. It came out 16 to one. I
do not believe this was caused by the judicious use of parental
reprimands, since he tracked a considerable reduction of them over the
tracking time period.

Possibly I misunderstand your meaning when you say, “The conclusion was
about ‘reprimands’ and reprimands only!

Then it’s possible I could be stupid. Please clarify what you mean.

By the way, do you know how many TOs were actually observed?

Do you understand how LITTLE punishment of any kind was actually used?

Would you like to argue that the reprimands, and TOs were the more
powerful factors to correlate with reduction in rates of street entry?

Or could it be possible there is a connection between the increase in
parental presence, the increase in rewards, the increase in praise, and
the Say-Do system taught to the parents were more more important?

How do you like begin drug kicking and screaming INTO THE DEBATE, Doan?

Are you getting a faint glimmer of the level of my patience and the
ability to project possible "moves" as in chess?

I think you need to stop playing tennis, and get serious about learning
chess.

And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands
not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of
Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's
Entry into the Street"

Then why did he in fact record two "Punishments" which his observers
code as physical punishment? Why would he include instructions to note
and record "Physical Punishment?"


He recorded and coded many items. What conclusions can be drawn from
those items are different matters.

No, they are not "different matters." One is most closely tied to the
other. The recording of items is what researchers and experimenters do
to make presumptions and claims about their theory. What do you think
his theory was? What had he induced, then deduced to begin this
experiment? d

In fact, the conclusion about
street entries were made specifically about "reprimands" not other
items.

Yes, and other things. I do hope you aren't trying to claim this is the
only thing significant that he tracked. Are you? That he concluded that
"reprimands" and rates of street entry were the only two factors being
consider? Really? You'd think that?

Then why would he refer to, on page 49 in the section titled
“DISCUSSION,” “reprimand” rate reduction and say even before a reference
to “reprimand,” “The package also increased parents’ use of praise and
reward for safe play and children’s correct identification of
photographs depicting safe play?”

Why would he track the Parent Presence from baseline to and across
Workshop and Storybooks and remark on the increase in Parent Presence
with the program in place?

Please point out where he linked street entries only to the number of
reprimands and no other factors to street entries.

And try to remember that even in that instance where he does make that
comparison the rate of reprimands went down along with the rate of
street entries.

And the presence of the parents went up. And the rewards and praise went
up. And the Say-Do program worked. A lot more than "reprimands" was
going on here.

Why would his tracking charts include Praise and reinforcement by
Parents against number of street entries by child if this study was
tracking only street entries against reprimands?

You must be tired. The data is apparently right in front of you and you
cannot understand, or even see it. Not even the plain language of what
exactly is being tracked.

Up too late partying, or is this taxing your ability to creatively
weasel out of what this discussion of Embry started as?

In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course
) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following
percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report)

Irrelevant! Do you know the meaning of reliability?

Sure.

You've asked me that before and I gave you a short course in it.

It doesn’t refer to anything NOT present in the study or experiment. I
has to be ABOUT SOMETHING. And in this case, the use of physical
punishment was one of the things being rated for ‘reliability
estimates.’ Or do you disagree? Why would it be in the list of those
things rated if it's not IN the study?

"... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental
Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction),
and 71% (Parental Praise)"

Note: Time out instruction was a routine were the parent did a practice
time-out with the child to familiarize the child with the proceedure,
and somewhat desensitize the parent to feeling guilty about imposing
it...thus...cackle removing some of the "punishment" aspect of the
"Sit and Watch" routine, as time-out was called and taught.


It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described by Dr. Embry. There is no
disputing that fact!

I don’t recall my disputing their existence, but I do note YOU DID, as
in "the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking at all."

And he lists "Punishment" for purposes of coding, thus tracking, as
"physical punishment."

See Page 23, item eleven. "Parental Use of Punishment, If the parent
used force (pulling, pushing, squeezing hard, or hitting) as a
consequence for a child's play in the street during an (observation)
interval, the observers coded this force as punishment."

They did not clump it together with non-cp punishment, as in TO.

You like to use the word, "spanking," but we know that hitting is
spanking, and that all are CP, as in physical punishment. Split hairs if
you like. It's about all you have left now.

And, please try to keep up. You are starting to bore me. Just the same
old hysterically screeching dancing monkeyboy.

Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers
even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero
events occuring agreement between them.


Irrelevant!

No, not to your claim that this study had “nothing” to do with
“spanking.” Unless you wish to argue that hitting isn’t spanking.

By the way, your comment that “ It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described
by Dr. Embry.” is what is “Irrelevant!” to your claim that it didn’t
exist in this study.

Were you mistaken? Are you trying to divert us from that mistake? Isn’t
that misleading? Isn’t misleading, deliberately, lying?

Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline
observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied
phase?

Irrelevant. SEE ABOVE!

Not to our difference of opinion about whether or not this study had
something to do with spanking. There is nothing to “SEE ABOVE” but that
you are once again caught in a mistake and are trying desperately to
change the focus.

You claimed this study was not about spanking, at all. Yet there it is,
and with YOU pointing out there was in fact PUNISHMENT. In this instance
physical punishment. So you are, after claiming not about spanking, you
now identify the spanking code as PUNISHMENT.

So? You were wrong, Doan. And you are not going to admit it. You are
simply going to keep up your crazed monkey dance.

You are digging your hole very deep, Doan, possibly even deeper than
ever before.

You haven't much room left now but to do something unethical and
dispicable. Want to bet I don't have all of your possibilities covered
in that area too? Let's see how dispicable you can be, shall we? 0:-

Let's see, shall we.

On page 29, Table 6, the columns are labelled, Behavior, Cases1,
Agreements etc. Cases1 refers to number of home visits during which the
observers recorded the behavior.

They are recorded as occuring in the following number of visits, and so
recorded:

Child in time out = 1

Parent's use of PUNISHMENT = 2

Parental reprimand = 12

Parental praise = 15

time out instruction = 1

Remember, these indicate VISITS in which the behavior was observed, not
the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been
more, but of course they cannot be less.


Nevertheless, they are not relevant!

Really? They seemed to be to the researchers. They recorded them to
determine a reliability or "confidence" as we call it these days,
percentage.

Doan

WHAT? All done Doan?

Okay, if you say so. But I'm going on.


These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not
observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes
observation periods.

Hence, we have two incidences of what Doan would like to not admit is
classifiable under his 'spanking' claim. It was physical punishment and
the observers are taught to distinguish between non-cp and this, which
is cp.

We were not, by the way, arguing if they were relevant, Doan. We were
arguing if there was ANYthing in the study about spanking. There is, you
were wrong.

Here is what you said, “the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking
at all.”

That is consistent with other claims you’ve made, to me, as well as to
your Texas Turkey.

That would be like saying that the study had nothing to do with white
collar families, though Embry makes a point of it in his remarks about
the sample characteristics. It’s not “about” them but they are the
subjects. So of course they are a factor.

If spanking were NOT a factor, Doan, it would not be mentioned at all.
It was.

It IS irrelevant to the study conclusions, except for one thing. And
that is the subject of this newsgroup, and of Embry’s other remarks, and
of any exploration of alternatives to spanking.

The subject is spanking. Nothing else. Not space exploration, or
reduction of albumin in bird’s eggs, or watermelon cropping in the Nile
Delta.

It is about spanking, as in the deliberate absence of spanking.

I go on to explore this more below, but you ignore it, in your usual
unethical and logically fallacious way, Doan.

I’ll leave it for you and others that might be interested, to contemplate.

To claim this study is not about spanking shows clearly the dishonest
and illogical base you and those like you work from.

This study is an exploration of alternatives to CP in teaching very
young children to stay away from the dangers of the street.

YOU, and others that have posted to this ng and countless thousands of
parents who spank for street entries provide the counterpoint.

Do YOU have a study on the effectiveness of spanking that correlates
increases in frequency, force, rates of intervals between strokes, etc.
that shows one way or the other that spanking works?

Please provide if you do.

This study is about NOT spanking, but doing something else. Or we would
not be having this discussion. You do recall challenging me to debate
this report, do you not? Did you do so in a newsgroup with the title
alt.parenting.spanking? This is not the motorcycle newsgroup. It’s the
spanking newsgroup. And I mentioned this experiment in opposition to the
use of spanking. I doubt anyone else would see it otherwise.

Can you understand this, or are you trying again to mislead yourself and
others?

You are up rather late. Studying?

Let me suggest you go to Embry's own abstract page (iii) and read it
before you claim again that this study is only about one thing and not
others.


0:-

What is very remarkable, and Doan avoids it carefully and makes claims
that are not supportable if one reads ALL the data available, was the
dramatic DROP in the number of street entries as the dramatic drop in
numbers of reprimands occurred in comparing the baseline and the post
workshop events. Page 48. Note the chart records pre, during, and post
entries on a 10 second timeline.

Very telling evidence that the fewer reprimands the more compliance with
instruction to play safe.

The risk exposure dropped by a factor of 12.6. Or more simply, for every
24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjuntion of cars and children
in the street occurred 16 times during baseline, and ONCE after the
workshops and storybooks.


But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP,
but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires,
and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing
safely.


LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole!

Nope. YOu are not seeing the square peg, is all.


The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said
was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower
the rate of street entries!

This makes me wonder if you are getting some poor second hand
information. Physical punishment was tracked, and recorded. It's quite
clear in the "reliability" percentage calculations. On two visits
physical punishment was recorded and the observers did not disagree,
hence the 100% agreement figure.

Not non-cp punishment, because that is covered under Time Outs, as you
have so wisely noted, as being coded as non physical "punishment."

Physical punishment is what it is.

So tell us again, this study was not about "spanking." Go ahead.


So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of
spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the
argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay
out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to
lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries.


LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets?

I've no idea. I do know that physical punishment was recorded twice, as
occurring. From two home visits. It could have been more, but it could
not have been less.

You still wish to pursue this?

Imagine if you will what those of us that have the study, and have
looked at the pages I mention, and the words there I have quoted, think
of you at this moment. Mistaken, or lying, Doan. One or the other and no
other possibility.

This was not a study on spanking, and I agree with you on that point,
and have never claimed otherwise. It as also not a study on white collar
parents, but it's mentioned they make up the majority of studies
families. Hence if I referred to white collar families would you start
screaming at me, "This is not a study on white collar families, STUPID!?"

It isn't a study on spanking (CP) but it does, just as I've mentioned,
attempt to track the use of spanking.


Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that?


Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking?

No, and are you stupid enough to try and claim I was saying this was
solely a study on spanking?

See what I mean about misleading people and lying, Doan? That is what
you appear to be doing, unless of course you wish to retract and admit
you were wrong on there being no mention of CP in the report. That you
simply made a mistake.

There's no fault in an oversight error in such an instance. I doubt I'll
mention it again, unless you try to say again that there was nothing in
this study about spanking.


Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and
pathologies?


Lying seems to be your compulsion!

Doan, you claimed, "the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all."

If there is any mention of spanking (physical punishment) in the study
then it of course had something to do with spanking.

Hence, I did not lie, and at best you simply made a mistake. You missed
the mention of "Punishment" counts in the agreement percentage section
on reliability of observations.

A quick check of how punishments are described by the instructions to
the observers how to code parental actions makes plain, it is physical
punishment, unless you wish to argue "hitting," is not physical
punishment. Embry does not agree with you.


Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I
have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are
lying, again.


You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-)

No, I gave her a perfectly good copy of the same one I have. I did not
include, and haven't referred to the long cumberson appendix. More is
there that substantiates what I've said, but I've stuck strictly with
the first 78 pages.


Doan

You have made of yourself a peripheral player in this ng, rather than a
serious debater arguing for a position, Doan.

You now suffer the consequences.

You created a facade of neutrality, while posting the refutation of it
yourself. You have no posts defending parents who chose not to spank, or
methods to use in place of spanking.

You are basically stupid and ignorant and compulsively driven to defend
an act perpetrated on you as a child.

I am fearing that you had a great deal more than you can remember, or
that you will admit to happen to you as a young child.

This kind of stubborn squirming is so very common to the highly
intelligent, but abused child, caught in trying to defend superstition,
or their own actions and biases. I've seen the duplicate many times.

Did something more than simple light spanking happen to you?

I might be able to help. You have my permission to contact me off group
on THIS alone, if you'd like some advice and direction with this
situation that obviously is growing more acute for you. Or I could
contact you through Alina if you'd prefer. 0:-)

Get help now.

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On 21 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



Doan wrote:


On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



Doan wrote:


On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:




toto wrote:



On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:




The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in

R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that
was printed previously?

Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane.

No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993.


Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH?

Sure.



"Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in
electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are
now available at no cost through this Web site "

What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic
format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE!

So, why did you invite me to find the link and download a copy?


Now when did I do that? You are having problem with your English again.
;-)

2/15/2006 4:21 PM

Kane:
"Or were you mistaken about the electronic availability you copied and
pasted?"

Doan:
"LOL! Why don't you try to get an electronic copy for everyone? Try
it!"

Is that not an invitation to get an electronic copy?


NO! That is a LAUGH IN YOUR FACE for your stupidity!

Harassment?


No!

Yes it is.

No it's not!

Calling other people "smelly-****" is harassment,

No it isn't, unless the person so named is not guilty of sufficient to
warrant such name calling.

Yes it is. ;-)

You know perfectly well, and I've cited the posts here, that Fern in
fact defended the acts of hanging children up naked in church, and with

parent's permission, the congregation beating them with various
objects.

I think my name for her was considerably less than deserved.

It is not stupid to not have information. It is harassment to withhold
information than call someone stupid for not having it.

That IS what you did.

I called Fern a "smelly ****" for what she advocated. There were other
such bits and pieces of advocacy for beating children, even excuses
made
for killing them by parents.

You need to grow up and stop lying about this incident. Each time I
expose the truth it makes plain that you have used this to harass me.

exposing your
STUPIDITY is just plain fun! ;-)

Be that as it may, your methods are harassment.

Only to stupid people! ;-)


I knew there were

no electronic copy but,

But instead of telling me you'd let me make a perfectly innocent mistake
so you could harass?


Nope! Just having fun at your expense!

You told me there was no electronic copy available?

Did I tell you that it was?

Where did you say that?

In the "Level 1" post that you were too stupid to understand! ;-)

by your stupidity,

What is stupid about not knowing something?


stupid:
adj. stupider, stupidest

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a
stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

Kinda of describing you now, doesn't it? ;-)

It is not an answer to my question, and in fact, by using it to answer
me you are fitting the very definition.

That you are STUPID? ;-)

Or you may prove me wrong and point out where it answers my question,
"What is stupid about not knowing something?"

It's smart then??? ;-)

It is neither. Do you know everything there is to know?

Does your not knowing make you stupid?

Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)


you insisted that there is.

No, I insisted that the statement could be interpreted as that. That
publications formerly not available electronically prior to 1993 became
so afterward. Perfectly honest mistake that could be made by anyone. Not
stupid, and certainly not a lie.

And I didn't insist. I simply stated what I thought.


Because you are stupid! ;-)

No, it isn't stupid to make a statement, and now you have gone back to
lying. And doing so by avoiding the truth in my statement. I did not
"insist." That would have required more on my part. I simply stated
what
I thought.

And you were WRONG because you are STUPID! ;-)

What is stupid about stating what someone things?

When it's obviously WRONG!

You do it.

I was RIGHT, though! ;-)


That is why I said you "try to get". DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH???

Of course. Just checking to see if you were in fact harassing. I think we have the answer.


That you are STUPID! ;-)


In other words you have no intelligent comments to make in rebuttal.
Okay.

Only to stupid people like you! STUPID people like you don't understand
"intelligent comments".

Your proof?

By your posts! ;-)

You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the
Hutterites.

Nope. Only that someone was successful in misinforming me. That doesn't
make me stupid, just misinformed. Misinformed people are not by default
stupid.

Not by default but by their action. You were claiming that you have done
your "research", that you have read more than me! In fact, you were wrong and
thus, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the MacMillan
study.

Not so.

Exactly so!

You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study!

I'm not wrong on the Embry study. I haven't debated it with you.

LOL! You haven't "debated" it with me? What do you think all the posts
of this thread is about, STUPID!

You, in
fact, lacked certain key pieces of information. I did not call you
stupid, only not informed. You did not know about the 33 total, observed
and unobserved until well after I had posted it, mentioning only the total.

I have all 3 studies. I told you so. In fact, I was only waiting for
you to spread your lies... AND YOU DID! ;-)

Enough for you? ;-)

Enough proof you don't know what you are talking about and make things
up as you go along, including rules of logic and grammar that are in
fact in error. Just as you have always done in your 'argument' in this
newsgroup.

LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten
from Dr. Embry? Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component
in the Embry study? Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked
kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-)


Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions
while demanding others do so.


Hypocrit! Who claimed that the Embry study can only be gotten from Dr.
Embry?

Because at the time I got it that is what he told me. That he did not
think it was available other than from him.


hahaha! You now blame it on Dr. Embry? How low can you get?

Where am I assigning "blame?" I am simply reporting what he said to me.

So he lied to you?

Why would you assume that? Could he not have honestly believed what he
told me? How would that be a lie?

He is not that STUPID! He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA
Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it.


What is low about that?

By not taking responsibility for your own STUPIDITY! ;-)

I don't think it stupid to believe the producer of the experiment and
study when he tells me something. I would tend to take him as the
authority. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I might even disagree, if I have
information I think is more relevant or recent. But that does not make
him stupid or a liar at the time he said what he did.

Do you always take the word of authority without question? You are an
adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research
to see if what the authority say is right? You see, that is the difference
between you and me. You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take
the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people
"smelly-****", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-)


Isn't what you are doing, "low?"

No. What I have said about the study came straight from the study!

And you don't know where what I said came from. That doesn't make you
stupid, but it makes you a liar to keep insisting your information is
correct and mine is not because yours came from the study -- so I must
be lying.

I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study. In fact, I am
very sure that you made it up. That makes you a LIAR!

In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve
it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of
information.

When you know where I drew that information from, then you can argue it.
Until then you are simply being, well, stupid.

I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it. Until
you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR! And a stupid
liar if you think anyone would believe your lies!


I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time
I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there.

Can't even keep you stories straight! Last time you said you checked it
and it said "out-of-print"! Were you lying then?

I did not know it was available at AAA. When I found reference to AAA I

checked. They said it was not available at that time. I don't know why.

Because you are STUPID, that's why!

Not knowing is stupid? It would be stupid to insist it was not available
AFTER I found out it was. Did I do that?

That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying? Do
you know that? ;-)

Nope.
Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone?

Why didn't you tell Alina way back that it was available there? Could it
known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell
her about it.

According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember? She was suppose to
con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember? Are you saying now that
you were WRONG? ;-)

Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to
say. I can only report what I was told.

And you were told the WRONG thing and you believed it. That is why you
are STUPID! ;-)

I am stupid because I believe the person in charge of the access? How
would I have found out otherwise?

Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library?

It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible
discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a
lie."

AND I PROVED IT! ;-)

No, you haven't. It's not a lie to have incorrect information. It's a
lie to mislead deliberately by omission or commission. YOU, of course
are guilty of both, and I just proved that.

LOL! It's you!

You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at
the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA.

And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-)

Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not?

It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF.

I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even
keep your story straight, can't you? ;-)

But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim
you did.

Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL!

In other words, you lied.

Are you so STUPID?

I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you
claimed you did.


And you were wrong! ;-)

I doubt that. You refused to debate by simply refusing to prove you had

the copy.

YOU have to live with what that appears to be.

If you had it then your own "cleverness" makes you appear the liar,
either then...or now in reference to the past.

LOL! And you are saying that you are too STUPID to fall for my
"cleverness"??? HOW STUPID IS THAT?

If you simply refused to prove it, and weren't lying, then my comment on
street entries and the effects of spanking comes under the same
category. I refuse to tell you were I got that information. Yet you
insist that makes it a lie.


It is a lie because it's not in the study!

I didn't say one way or another that it was in the study.

AND I JUST PROVED TO YOU AND EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP THAT IT IS NOT IN
THE STUDY.

You "PROVED" that? I don't see anything but your unsupported words.
Quote the line, and scan it into a graphic, and put it up on a photo
display site. They are free, and surely you know about them. I just used
one a couple of months ago to display some official documents concerning
me for another newsgroup debate.

I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the
study. You know that!

Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to.

It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.


It's not in the study! ;-)

It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

LOL!

ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT???

You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim
anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-

So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane? Is that what you
were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM!

And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With
Alina it's four, at last count.

LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet. Are you admitting
that you were WRONG??? If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-)

My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I
have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise
to keep.

Lol! That you won't debate with me?

That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to.

LOL! You know how STUPID you sound?

But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I
will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the
study as the source.

But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's
a LIE! ;-)

You have the study, you know
it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You have no way of knowing if that information came from the
study
or not, other than your claim. I haven't said, one way or the other.

I posted what the study really said. Don't be STUPID!

How do we know that? Who has the study but you, and my recipients?

LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why
didn't they speak up on your behalf?

From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your
speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65.

It doesn't matter if my speedometer is right and your radar is busted?
;-)

In other words you don't want to play by the rules you set.

What rules?

Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's
not stupid, that's just dishonest.

That's you! ;-)

I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the
experiment not listed in the report.

LOL! And everyone suppose to take your words for it right, honest kane?

I haven't offered proof. I simply made a statement, and I've already
told you that you should feel perfectly free to discount it if you wish.

You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-)

Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he
did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive
of what I said.

So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-)

Do with it whatever you want.

LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like
Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-)


Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide
by the same one.


LOL! What rule is that?

The one that says I have to tell you something I don't wish to when
you
claim you do not have to follow the same rule or, I am a liar and you
are not?

When you lied, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Then you lied? Or you do not have to follow the same rule?

I don't lie, you lied!

If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not
identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report.

LOL! Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I see.

Yes, pretty good, isn't it?

You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying?

You are the one that's lying!


Doan

You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking
increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came
from.

Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you
insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I
made NO such claim.


So it's not from the study? Where is the source?

I refused to tell you. I still do. That does not make my statement a
lie. It makes it something you don't know.


I already told you that it's not in study!

And I didn't agree or disagree.

Because you are STUPID!

No, it's not stupid to not answer. It's just honest and smart. I made a
statement. You bit. Now you have to live with it, and reveal as you
frantically try to wriggle out of your own little stupid stumbling rants.

I did not say it was in the study, and I didn't say if it wasn't.

LOL! It's either is or it isn't. I PROVED IT! ;-)

We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows.

You don't konw???

But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have
to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves.

You not going to tell them? ;-)

And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that
it's not there.

THAt YOU LIED!

I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source.

How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that
statement?

You are rambling! ;-)

Thus, it's a FALSE statement
no matter where it came from.

Not if it's from somewhere else.

PROVE IT!

No. You prove you have the study.

Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that?

[snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane]

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 21 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Doan continues with his dodges.


Does your not knowing make you stupid?


Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)

No it doesn't. Were you stupid when you were three and didn't know about
safety concepts?

Is it stupid of me not to know the rate of asteroid impacts upon every
square foot of the planet so that I can calculate my chances of being hit?

And if I do not know something that I should have known but continue to
seek that knowledge, what about this is stupid?

...........Doan continues with his obvious evasions.....


Your proof?


By your posts! ;-)

Which of course isn't an answer to my question.


You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the
Hutterites.

Nope. Only that someone was successful in misinforming me. That doesn't
make me stupid, just misinformed. Misinformed people are not by default
stupid.

Not by default but by their action. You were claiming that you have done
your "research", that you have read more than me!

I speculated it was possible I had read more than you.

In fact, you were wrong and
thus, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

Stupid to speculate?

If so, why do you do so much of it?


You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the MacMillan
study.

Not so.


Exactly so!

Sorry. You are wrong.


You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study!

I'm not wrong on the Embry study. I haven't debated it with you.

LOL! You haven't "debated" it with me? What do you think all the posts
of this thread is about, STUPID!

Up until today, and even then, this was a discussion of what was IN the
study, not a debate about the accuracy of the study and the points upon
which that accuracy is based.

You have a wonderful way of defining terms to your bias, instead of to
reality.

And it took a long time to get you here, but here you are.....debating. 0:-

You, in
fact, lacked certain key pieces of information. I did not call you
stupid, only not informed. You did not know about the 33 total, observed
and unobserved until well after I had posted it, mentioning only the total.


I have all 3 studies.

That's nice.

I told you so.

So?

In fact, I was only waiting for
you to spread your lies... AND YOU DID! ;-)

What lies? You waiting would lead any observer to believe that you did
not know about the total of 33 families. Thus you force others into
conclusions only YOU have the answer to, but bait them into speculating
about.

You think it clever, but it simply proves you are a liar, and a cheat.

To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something
different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to
mislead, Doan.


Enough for you? ;-)


Enough proof you don't know what you are talking about and make things
up as you go along, including rules of logic and grammar that are in
fact in error. Just as you have always done in your 'argument' in this
newsgroup.


LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten
from Dr. Embry?

Dr. Embry himself.

Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component
in the Embry study?

No one. I claimed that I disagreed with the interpretation by Dr. Embry
that Sit and Watch had to constitute "punishment."

You seem to be freely interpreting your own biases into the study, like
claiming it's only about "reprimands," so therefore disagreeing with Dr.
Embry and the report.

Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked
kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-)

No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries as
children that were trained not to enter the street.

I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a
researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel.

Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study
shows....."

YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are
driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'.

That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get
out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment.

Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions
while demanding others do so.


Hypocrit! Who claimed that the Embry study can only be gotten from Dr.
Embry?

Because at the time I got it that is what he told me. That he did not
think it was available other than from him.


hahaha! You now blame it on Dr. Embry? How low can you get?

Where am I assigning "blame?" I am simply reporting what he said to me.

So he lied to you?

Why would you assume that? Could he not have honestly believed what he
told me? How would that be a lie?


He is not that STUPID!

To tell me what he believed? No, I don't presume he's either stupid, or
lies. He states what he believes he knows at the moment. At the moment
he apparently didn't think it was any longer available through AAA.
Though he never mentioned that to me. In fact at the time I asked I of
course did not have a copy...or why would I ask...and I could not
therefore know about how funded the experiment, thus I could not know to
ask him about AAA.

I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were
available through the library.

He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA
Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it.

Or he might have believed they no longer offered it. It's a very old study.

Would you care to write or call him and entertain your speculation that
he lied, or was stupid?

You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or
stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of
required performance? An impossible one, by the way.

What is low about that?

By not taking responsibility for your own STUPIDITY! ;-)

I don't think it stupid to believe the producer of the experiment and
study when he tells me something. I would tend to take him as the
authority. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I might even disagree, if I have
information I think is more relevant or recent. But that does not make
him stupid or a liar at the time he said what he did.

Do you always take the word of authority without question?

No. I was not questioning the study. I was asking for a copy. When he
told me what he did I had no reason to question his answer. Would you?

What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist
somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?"

Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication?

You are an
adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research
to see if what the authority say is right?

On finding the study? I asked him where I could get it. He said he
thought nowhere but from him, apparently. He provided me with
considerably more than I asked for.

You see, that is the difference
between you and me.

Oh yes, I see the difference alrighty.

You would harass someone that answered you to the best of the ability at
the moment, calling them a liar, and stupid. I would not.

Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was
claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do.

You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take
the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people
"smelly-****", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-)

You don't know if I was "never-spanked." I made the remark in reference
to my parents. How would you know, stupid, unless you asked or I
volunteered it, that someone else had or had not spanked me?

I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of
public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their
parent's church a "smelly ****." What would you call her?

I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that
will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I
planned for you to do....actually debate Embry when I KNEW with
reasonable certainty you had the study report in question.

Thanks for your cooperation, even if I had to be so patient. 0:-

Isn't what you are doing, "low?"

No. What I have said about the study came straight from the study!

And you don't know where what I said came from. That doesn't make you
stupid, but it makes you a liar to keep insisting your information is
correct and mine is not because yours came from the study -- so I must
be lying.


I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study.

That's nice. I didn't claim it was. If so, please quote me and cite the
post I said so in.

In fact, I am
very sure that you made it up.

Now who's being stupid. You can't read my mind. You don't know what I
read or who I talk to or what I learn outside this ng. Unless I share it
and the source. I shared it, I'm not sharing the source. You may freely
discount, as I've told you, stupid, a number of times, my comment.

But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure."

That makes you a LIAR!

Nope. It makes you a speculator that isn't intelligent enough to say, "I
believe you are a liar," or "I think you are a liar," or "I looks to me
like you are a liar."

Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a
mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up."

You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you
cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement.

In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve
it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of
information.

When you know where I drew that information from, then you can argue it.
Until then you are simply being, well, stupid.


I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it.

No, you cannot argue it. You could if I said they were from the Embry
study. Did I?

Until
you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR!

You are a liar to claim such when you know perfectly well I never said
it came from the study we are discussing.

And a stupid
liar if you think anyone would believe your lies!

I made clear long ago on this subject that since I'm not offering the
source any reader, including you, may simply discount it.

You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still
do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR ASS NOW.

I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time
I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there.


Can't even keep you stories straight! Last time you said you checked it
and it said "out-of-print"! Were you lying then?

I did not know it was available at AAA. When I found reference to AAA I

checked. They said it was not available at that time. I don't know why.

Because you are STUPID, that's why!

Not knowing is stupid? It would be stupid to insist it was not available
AFTER I found out it was. Did I do that?

That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying?

That is not a question.

Do
you know that? ;-)

Yes, I know that. If after knowing I continued to insist it was out of
print, that would be a lie. I made no such claim. I simply explored it
further by asking you for source.

Show where I "knew" and continued to claim it was out of print.

Nope.
Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone?

Why didn't you tell Alina way back that it was available there? Could it
known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell
her about it.

According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember?

You are not answering my question.

She was suppose to
con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember?

You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question.

YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or
not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim
YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability?

Are you saying now that
you were WRONG? ;-)

No. I am saying that at the time I offered her a copy free. Postage
paid. I did not need to do to her what she claimed in this ng you did to
her, cause her to have to pay for the copy. Why didn't you tell her
about AAA if you had a copy and knew about that source?

In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you
claim to have had then? 0:-

Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to
say. I can only report what I was told.

And you were told the WRONG thing and you believed it. That is why you
are STUPID! ;-)

I am stupid because I believe the person in charge of the access? How
would I have found out otherwise?

Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library?

I didn't ask who they were. I presume a staffer at AAA.

You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had
no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see
if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from.

They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was
willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy.

It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible
discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a
lie."

AND I PROVED IT! ;-)

No, you haven't. It's not a lie to have incorrect information. It's a
lie to mislead deliberately by omission or commission. YOU, of course
are guilty of both, and I just proved that.


LOL! It's you!

No, it's you child. It has been you all along. You claim to have had the
correct information but withheld it from everyone. Until recently.

I have to assume one of the following.

You did not have the study report until recently.

Or, you had it and withheld information about how to acquire it.

Or you just now got it, and are pretending you had it all along, but
oddly, only NOW mentioning AAA as a source. In fact you never mentioned
the library system until recently.

You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at
the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA.

And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-)

That has nothing to do with you. I did not mention it at the time.

Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew
then, did you not?

Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not?

It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF.


I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even
keep your story straight, can't you? ;-)

Yes, that is what they told me. Did they tell you that too? If not, then
why did you withhold the information it could be obtained through them?

My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind.


But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim
you did.

Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL!

If you make it difficult to get, as Alina reported.

If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were
available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first
claimed to have the report...the same invitation you recently extended
to me, and to becca I believe... the library system?

How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or
so. 0:-


In other words, you lied.
Are you so STUPID?

One doesn't have to be a genius to catch you in a lie. You rarely post
without at least one attempt to mislead people. Usually a number of such
attempts, just like this post.

I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you
claimed you did.


And you were wrong! ;-)

I doubt that. You refused to debate by simply refusing to prove you had

the copy.

YOU have to live with what that appears to be.

If you had it then your own "cleverness" makes you appear the liar,
either then...or now in reference to the past.


LOL! And you are saying that you are too STUPID to fall for my
"cleverness"??? HOW STUPID IS THAT?


If you simply refused to prove it, and weren't lying, then my comment on
street entries and the effects of spanking comes under the same
category. I refuse to tell you were I got that information. Yet you
insist that makes it a lie.


It is a lie because it's not in the study!

I didn't say one way or another that it was in the study.

AND I JUST PROVED TO YOU AND EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP THAT IT IS NOT IN
THE STUDY.

You "PROVED" that? I don't see anything but your unsupported words.
Quote the line, and scan it into a graphic, and put it up on a photo
display site. They are free, and surely you know about them. I just used
one a couple of months ago to display some official documents concerning
me for another newsgroup debate.

I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the
study. You know that!

The only way you could prove that what I said was not in the study would
be to quote the whole study.

And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the
study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other.

"I refuse to tell you were I got that information."

You are just afraid to go into the content of that report. Aren't you
little droanner?

This is your monkeyboy dance.

Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to.

It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

It's not in the study! ;-)

I haven't claim it was....or wasn't.


It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

LOL!

Yes, that's all you can do at this point, isn't it, hapless one?


ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT???

You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim
anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-

So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane?

I could.

What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well
under that accusation/question. Is that not true?

Is that what you
were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM!

I wasn't counting on anything. Yes, unfortunately for you, people are
not that stupid. And you are right, you cannot fool them for long.

A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can,
those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging
as fast as your little monkey feet will dance.

They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along
with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with
"spanking" by the study.

It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment.

And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With
Alina it's four, at last count.

LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet.

Yes, I said that. 0:-

Kind of explains some things, doesn't it?

Are you admitting
that you were WRONG???

Oh?

If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-)

Ah, then I don't. Thank you for pointing that out.

We both know the truth. You ready to discuss that with the newsgroup are
you?

My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I
have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise
to keep.

Lol! That you won't debate with me?

LOL! You don't know when you are check, do you boy?

That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to.

LOL! You know how STUPID you sound?

No, I know how stupid I wanted you to think I sounded. Keeping you
thinking you are the smart one is just another chess move. Not a hard
one, but a necessary one. You get stupider the smarter you think you are.


But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I
will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the
study as the source.

But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's
a LIE! ;-)

So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior
management that is not in the study is a lie?

How does that work?

For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be
a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was
not thinking of this study and how it showed a powerful alternative to
spanking)?

You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your
projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan.

That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference.

You have the study, you know
it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You have no way of knowing if that information came from the
study
or not, other than your claim. I haven't said, one way or the other.

I posted what the study really said. Don't be STUPID!

How do we know that? Who has the study but you, and my recipients?

LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why
didn't they speak up on your behalf?

Why should they become involved? I didn't ask them to. I've certainly
not tried to keep them out or bring them in. They are invited to do,
just like your claim, what they want to do; Choose for themselves.

I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any
ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in
honesty, they are staying out to avoid providing you with more boltholes
by attacking them and their words.

I know I watched you enough with others and didn't interrupt while they
tore you a new one.

From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your
speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65.

It doesn't matter if my speedometer is right and your radar is busted?
;-)

In other words you don't want to play by the rules you set.

What rules?

You have none? You don't have a standard to judge another's comments?
You give yourself permission to say anything, make any claim?

How about, for a rule:
"Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)"

Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known?

Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's
not stupid, that's just dishonest.

That's you! ;-)

I am perfectly comfortable if you find my metaphors useful for your
arguments. Feel free.


I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the
experiment not listed in the report.

LOL! And everyone suppose to take your words for it right, honest kane?

I haven't offered proof. I simply made a statement, and I've already
told you that you should feel perfectly free to discount it if you wish.

You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-)

You don't know if I can't or not. I simply won't, just as I stated.
Someday I might. But on my time and my terms, not yours.

You have my permission to discount the statement.

Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he
did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive
of what I said.

So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-)

"Over?" Why only two choices, your two?

Why not, "along with?" Why not, "as adjunct to?" Or, "Dr. Embry's other
thoughts and discoveries?"

I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important
than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you.

Do you believe there is no connection between what Dr. Embry might say
in a non-academic non-research setting more casually, and what he does
say in a report on his research experiment?

Do with it whatever you want.

LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like
Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-)

I think I'd rather believe them than you, and no one has said they
don't. Why would they, since I've not tried to establish it as coming
from the study, or mentioned any source whatsoever.

It could be an opinion.

It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy.

I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I?

Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide
by the same one.


LOL! What rule is that?

The one that says I have to tell you something I don't wish to when
you
claim you do not have to follow the same rule or, I am a liar and you
are not?

When you lied, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Then you lied? Or you do not have to follow the same rule?

I don't lie, you lied!

If you insist I have to tell you something you ask about, and you do
not, Doan, that makes you dishonest, and a liar. It IS an attempt to
mislead people into assuming YOU have some authority over me that you do
not.

And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a
liar, then constitutes a lie on your part.

If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not
identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report.

LOL! Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I see.

Yes, pretty good, isn't it?

You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

So you have rules for you that are different for others. Is that it?

If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying?


You are the one that's lying!

There is something you keep missing. I never deliberately attempt to
mislead anyone. You do, constantly.

If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety
and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make
up a normal sounding name and use it as a nym, for instance.

And I do reserve the right, when I've been obviously lied to, to lay a
trap for he liar by pretending to agree with him, or her.

Doan

You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking
increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came
from.

Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you
insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I
made NO such claim.


So it's not from the study? Where is the source?

I refused to tell you. I still do. That does not make my statement a
lie. It makes it something you don't know.


I already told you that it's not in study!

And I didn't agree or disagree.

Because you are STUPID!

No, it's not stupid to not answer. It's just honest and smart. I made a
statement. You bit. Now you have to live with it, and reveal as you
frantically try to wriggle out of your own little stupid stumbling rants.

I did not say it was in the study, and I didn't say if it wasn't.


LOL! It's either is or it isn't.

Yes. That is correct. But I haven't said it was or wasn't. I've refused
to say.

I PROVED IT! ;-)

Proved what to who?

Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And
they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor
was I claiming it wasn't.

So what is this you have "PROVED?"


We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows.

You don't konw???

Sure, I know. But I'm not discussing it with you as proof, one way or
the other. I'm telling you, stupid little boy, that I won't say.

But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have
to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves.

You not going to tell them? ;-)

Nope. How many times must I repeat it?

I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where
it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada.

And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that
it's not there.

THAt YOU LIED!

But I didn't say it was there, nor that it wasn't. I am speculating on
your claim, not mine.

So you understand the modifier, "If?" It's the second word in the
sentence right after "and."

I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source.

How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that
statement?

You are rambling! ;-)

No, I am posting in long response to your long rambling attempt to make
me out a liar on no evidence at all. I have not said what the source is,
nor have I said what it isn't.

You are free to speculate and even claim all you want, and I'll not
verify or deny it. Why should I?


Thus, it's a FALSE statement
no matter where it came from.

Not if it's from somewhere else.


PROVE IT!

No. You prove you have the study.

Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that?

Of course. Didn't you know that's what I wanted to hear?

There is a rough critical mass of information that provides sufficient
correlation for an intelligent person to make significant presumptions
and thus take various related actions.

All I can say to you at this point is, Thank you sincerely from the
bottom of my heart.

[snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane]

Things that show you are a liar. That you are unethical. And that you
are cheat. And propose questions about your mental stability.

Doan

I see you are well back into your little monkeyboy cave where you won't
have to debate Embry, Doan. If I can see it, so can others.

Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of
"spanking" as part of the study, right?

Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 21 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Doan continues with his dodges.

Kane continues with his LIES! ;-)


Does your not knowing make you stupid?


Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)

No it doesn't. Were you stupid when you were three and didn't know about
safety concepts?

It's when you are an old and still have the mental capacity of a three
year old! ;-)

Is it stupid of me not to know the rate of asteroid impacts upon every
square foot of the planet so that I can calculate my chances of being hit?

Yes, if you were stupid enough to claim that you know anything about them
and later proven to be false!

And if I do not know something that I should have known but continue to
seek that knowledge, what about this is stupid?

Only when you mouthed off as you do with the Embry study! ;-)

..........Doan continues with his obvious evasions.....

Kanes continues with his LIES! ;-)


Your proof?


By your posts! ;-)

Which of course isn't an answer to my question.

But proved that YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)


You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the
Hutterites.

Nope. Only that someone was successful in misinforming me. That doesn't
make me stupid, just misinformed. Misinformed people are not by default
stupid.

Not by default but by their action. You were claiming that you have done
your "research", that you have read more than me!

I speculated it was possible I had read more than you.

And you were WRONG because you are STUPID!

In fact, you were wrong and
thus, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

Stupid to speculate?

Stupid to be WRONG!

If so, why do you do so much of it?


You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the MacMillan
study.

Not so.


Exactly so!

Sorry. You are wrong.

I am right! ;-)


You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study!

I'm not wrong on the Embry study. I haven't debated it with you.

LOL! You haven't "debated" it with me? What do you think all the posts
of this thread is about, STUPID!

Up until today, and even then, this was a discussion of what was IN the
study, not a debate about the accuracy of the study and the points upon
which that accuracy is based.

You have a wonderful way of defining terms to your bias, instead of to
reality.

LOL! You meant like "effects" without cause?

And it took a long time to get you here, but here you are.....debating. 0:-

LOL!

You, in
fact, lacked certain key pieces of information. I did not call you
stupid, only not informed. You did not know about the 33 total, observed
and unobserved until well after I had posted it, mentioning only the total.


I have all 3 studies.

That's nice.

I told you so.

So?

YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)


In fact, I was only waiting for
you to spread your lies... AND YOU DID! ;-)

What lies? You waiting would lead any observer to believe that you did
not know about the total of 33 families. Thus you force others into
conclusions only YOU have the answer to, but bait them into speculating
about.

You think it clever, but it simply proves you are a liar, and a cheat.

No. It proved that you are a LIAR and STUPID! ;-)

To call ME stupid over something YOU withheld, while claiming something
different...as in 13 vs 33 families, is a lie, a deliberate attempt to
mislead, Doan.

13 children, Kane!


Enough for you? ;-)


Enough proof you don't know what you are talking about and make things
up as you go along, including rules of logic and grammar that are in
fact in error. Just as you have always done in your 'argument' in this
newsgroup.


LOL! Let's see. Who was it that claimed that the study can only be gotten
from Dr. Embry?

Dr. Embry himself.

And you believed him?
Who was it that claimed that there were no punishment component
in the Embry study?

No one. I claimed that I disagreed with the interpretation by Dr. Embry
that Sit and Watch had to constitute "punishment."

You seem to be freely interpreting your own biases into the study, like
claiming it's only about "reprimands," so therefore disagreeing with Dr.
Embry and the report.

I only interprete what available in the study. I don't rely on
second-hand reported, which has proven to be false! ;-)

Who was it that claimed that the study showed the spanked
kids have the highest rate of street entries? Was it you? ;-)

No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries as
children that were trained not to enter the street.

That is false!

I didn't say if it was this study, or another, or the opinion of a
researcher, or Dr. Embry, or my aunt Mabel.

Opinion is like an asshole, everybody has one! ;-)

Feel free to post in relation to those words where I say "this study
shows....."

LOL!

YOU jumped to a conclusion unwarranted by my words, because you are
driven to puff up your own intelligence and derides others'.

Nope! Because YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

That's a very serious emotional problem,Doan, and you are letting it get
out of hand. Getting the best of your good judgment.

LOL!

Stupid asshole.

Yes, that's you! ;-)

No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions
while demanding others do so.


Hypocrit! Who claimed that the Embry study can only be gotten from Dr.
Embry?

Because at the time I got it that is what he told me. That he did not
think it was available other than from him.


hahaha! You now blame it on Dr. Embry? How low can you get?

Where am I assigning "blame?" I am simply reporting what he said to me.

So he lied to you?

Why would you assume that? Could he not have honestly believed what he
told me? How would that be a lie?


He is not that STUPID!

To tell me what he believed? No, I don't presume he's either stupid, or
lies. He states what he believes he knows at the moment. At the moment
he apparently didn't think it was any longer available through AAA.
Though he never mentioned that to me. In fact at the time I asked I of
course did not have a copy...or why would I ask...and I could not
therefore know about how funded the experiment, thus I could not know to
ask him about AAA.

I thought you first said you had the study "long time ago", in your
garage! ;-)

I asked about library access. He apparently didn't know they were
available through the library.

He is a researcher and did his study funded by the AAA
Traffic Safety Foundation. He would know that they have it.

Or he might have believed they no longer offered it. It's a very old study.

Would you care to write or call him and entertain your speculation that
he lied, or was stupid?

I don't need to. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

You seem to think that honest mistakes constitute some dishonesty or
stupidity. Why is that? Do you hold yourself to this high degree of
required performance? An impossible one, by the way.

In you case, you have a habit of making "mistakes"! ;-)

What is low about that?

By not taking responsibility for your own STUPIDITY! ;-)

I don't think it stupid to believe the producer of the experiment and
study when he tells me something. I would tend to take him as the
authority. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I might even disagree, if I have
information I think is more relevant or recent. But that does not make
him stupid or a liar at the time he said what he did.

Do you always take the word of authority without question?

No. I was not questioning the study. I was asking for a copy. When he
told me what he did I had no reason to question his answer. Would you?

What, the study said clear PUNISHMENT. Are you sure you not questiong
the study? Keep you story straight, boy! ;-)

What would you say? "Dr. Embry, I think you are lying, it must exist
somewhere but your files, tell me right now, STUPID!?"

You could tell him that "researcher" like you kept it in a garage! ;-)

Or would you take his word for it, after 25 years since the publication?

Or you could do a google search and find it in less than a minute.
Dorothy did and she found it! Why can't you? You said you worked with
computer all the back to 1967! ;-)

You are an
adult. Do you know to think for yourself? Do you do you own research
to see if what the authority say is right?

On finding the study? I asked him where I could get it. He said he
thought nowhere but from him, apparently. He provided me with
considerably more than I asked for.

LOL! How nice of him to give you the wrong information. ;-)

You see, that is the difference
between you and me.

Oh yes, I see the difference alrighty.

You would harass someone that answered you to the best of the ability at
the moment, calling them a liar, and stupid. I would not.

LOL! I called you for what you are - STUPID ASSHOLE! ;-)

Not until I knew that he had information contrary to what he was
claiming and continued to mislead and do stupid games just as you do.

But you already said you had the study "long ago". Shall I look back
in the "archives"? ;-)

You were "never-spanked", I was spanked; you take
the words of authority without question, I don't; you called people
"smelly-****", I don't; you are STUPID, I am not! ;-)

You don't know if I was "never-spanked." I made the remark in reference
to my parents. How would you know, stupid, unless you asked or I
volunteered it, that someone else had or had not spanked me?

You volunteered it! I didn't ask.

I called someone, using a "nym" by the way, that championed the use of
public beating of naked children with objects while strung up in their
parent's church a "smelly ****." What would you call her?

I wouldn't call your mom that! ;-)

I'm afraid you are wrong about who is and isn't stupid, Doan, but that
will continue to be proven here, as long as you continue to do as I
planned for you to do....actually debate Embry when I KNEW with
reasonable certainty you had the study report in question.

Thanks for your cooperation, even if I had to be so patient. 0:-

LOL!

Isn't what you are doing, "low?"

No. What I have said about the study came straight from the study!

And you don't know where what I said came from. That doesn't make you
stupid, but it makes you a liar to keep insisting your information is
correct and mine is not because yours came from the study -- so I must
be lying.


I know 100% that they are NOT from the Embry study.

That's nice. I didn't claim it was. If so, please quote me and cite the
post I said so in.

LOL! It's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are LIAR! ;-)

In fact, I am
very sure that you made it up.

Now who's being stupid. You can't read my mind. You don't know what I
read or who I talk to or what I learn outside this ng. Unless I share it
and the source. I shared it, I'm not sharing the source. You may freely
discount, as I've told you, stupid, a number of times, my comment.

LOL! See! YOU ARE STUPID!

But calling it a lie is stupid. You have to have proof to be "sure."

I already have proof. It's the study, STUPID! ;-)

That makes you a LIAR!

Nope. It makes you a speculator that isn't intelligent enough to say, "I
believe you are a liar," or "I think you are a liar," or "I looks to me
like you are a liar."

I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR! Prove to me otherwise! You can't!

Instead you make the stupid statement, that would require you to be a
mind reader, "In fact, I am very sure that you made it up."

I AM VERY SURE!

You can be sure I put one word after the other in sequence, but you
cannot claim they do not refer to a true statement.

I AM SURE YOU ARE STUPID and A LIAR! ;-)

In fact, when applying the title "stupid" to someone I usually reserve
it for just that kind of claim. A stupid one, based on a lack of
information.

When you know where I drew that information from, then you can argue it.
Until then you are simply being, well, stupid.


I know they are not from the Embry study, thus I can argue it.

No, you cannot argue it. You could if I said they were from the Embry
study. Did I?

One more time, if it's not from the study, it is FALSE and you are a liar!

Until
you can prove it's in the Embry Study, YOU ARE THE LIAR!

You are a liar to claim such when you know perfectly well I never said
it came from the study we are discussing.

It's not from study. That is why I said YOU ARE A LIAR!

And a stupid
liar if you think anyone would believe your lies!

I made clear long ago on this subject that since I'm not offering the
source any reader, including you, may simply discount it.

I do! ;-)

You need to hold on to it because you have so little else, and you still
do not want to actually debate the study, but boy, I HAVE YOUR ASS NOW.

LOL! Yes you do have my ass - with your mouth! ;-)

I'm not a hypocrite. I simple state what I know at the time. At the time
I was unaware that it was available at AAA. And I didn't get it there.


Can't even keep you stories straight! Last time you said you checked it
and it said "out-of-print"! Were you lying then?

I did not know it was available at AAA. When I found reference to AAA I

checked. They said it was not available at that time. I don't know why.

Because you are STUPID, that's why!

Not knowing is stupid? It would be stupid to insist it was not available
AFTER I found out it was. Did I do that?

That wouldn't be stupid, after knowing it, but it would be lying?

That is not a question.

It's a statement of fact!

Do
you know that? ;-)

Yes, I know that. If after knowing I continued to insist it was out of
print, that would be a lie. I made no such claim. I simply explored it
further by asking you for source.

Show where I "knew" and continued to claim it was out of print.

It is out of print - STUPID!

Nope.
Did I try to withhold that AAA information from anyone?

Why didn't you tell Alina way back that it was available there? Could it
known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell
her about it.

According to you, she was my sock puppet, remember?

You are not answering my question.

You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

She was suppose to
con a copy out of you and send it to me, remember?

You are defying the time sequence to avoid answering my question.

You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

YOU would have known then. YOU did not know then if she had a copy or
not. You would have to presume she didn't at that time, but you claim
YOU had a copy. Again, why did you not tell her about the AAA availability?

You are dodging! ;-) Did you not call her my sock puppet?

Are you saying now that
you were WRONG? ;-)

No. I am saying that at the time I offered her a copy free. Postage
paid. I did not need to do to her what she claimed in this ng you did to
her, cause her to have to pay for the copy. Why didn't you tell her
about AAA if you had a copy and knew about that source?

Because, according to you, SHE WAS MY SOCK PUPPET trying to con a copy out
of you! Were you wrong?

In fact, why did you conceal everything at the time about the copy you
claim to have had then? 0:-

I offered every who wanted a copy! Is that to conceal????

Possibly they simply hadn't the staff to handle the printing. Whose to
say. I can only report what I was told.

And you were told the WRONG thing and you believed it. That is why you
are STUPID! ;-)

I am stupid because I believe the person in charge of the access? How
would I have found out otherwise?

Who is "in charge of access"? Did you bother to check the library?

I didn't ask who they were. I presume a staffer at AAA.

LOL! Did you email to Fairley Washington?

You have to remember that until I actually got a copy from Embry I had
no knowledge of the AAA connection, and when I asked them it was to see
if there was a source other than Embry people could get a copy from.

You first said you had a copy in your garage! Can't keep your story
straight? ;-)

They told me no, not at that time. I didn't ask further because I was
willing to provide anyone that asked with a copy.

It's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. Any possible
discrepancy not in the control of the other person, to you, becomes "a
lie."

AND I PROVED IT! ;-)

No, you haven't. It's not a lie to have incorrect information. It's a
lie to mislead deliberately by omission or commission. YOU, of course
are guilty of both, and I just proved that.


LOL! It's you!

No, it's you child. It has been you all along. You claim to have had the
correct information but withheld it from everyone. Until recently.

I have to assume one of the following.

You did not have the study report until recently.

Or, you had it and withheld information about how to acquire it.

Or you just now got it, and are pretending you had it all along, but
oddly, only NOW mentioning AAA as a source. In fact you never mentioned
the library system until recently.

You claim you had the report. You offered a copy of it. You did not at
the time offer Alina or anyone one else access to it from AAA.

And Aline was suppose to con one from you, remember? ;-)

That has nothing to do with you. I did not mention it at the time.

She was my sock puppet and it has nothing to do with me???

Why did you not mention AAA as a source at the time? Surely you knew
then, did you not?

Because I already had a copy at hand! Why should I bother to point them
elsewhere when I can just give them mine, STUPID?

Did you not KNOW it as available through them? How could you not?

It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF.


I thought you said the AAA said it wasn't available. You can't even
keep your story straight, can't you? ;-)

Yes, that is what they told me. Did they tell you that too? If not, then
why did you withhold the information it could be obtained through them?

Because I can provide anyone that asked a copy!

My story is straight as can be, your's is as crooked as your mind.

LOL!

But you withheld that information, or you didn't have it when you claim
you did.

Offering a copy of what I have is witholding information? LOL!

If you make it difficult to get, as Alina reported.

LOL! I offered her a copy and YOU DIDN'T, claiming she was my sock
puppet. Tell me, who made it difficult for her? BTW, did you apologize
to her?

If you withhold the same sources you would have had to know were
available. Why did you not invite anyone way back then...when you first
claimed to have the report...the same invitation you recently extended
to me, and to becca I believe... the library system?

I first offer her copy of mine. She, like Dorothy, didn't want to give
me her address. That is when I point her to other sources. I came
through for her and she RESPECTED ME for it. You, on the other hand,
INSULTED her by claiming that she is my sock puppet! YOU OWED HER
AND Alina an apology! BE A MAN and APOLOGIZE!

How odd that you would never mention that until just the past week or
so. 0:-


In other words, you lied.
Are you so STUPID?

One doesn't have to be a genius to catch you in a lie. You rarely post
without at least one attempt to mislead people. Usually a number of such
attempts, just like this post.

LOL! And you think you can fool others!

I know you did not have it when we first started this discussion and you
claimed you did.


And you were wrong! ;-)

I doubt that. You refused to debate by simply refusing to prove you had

the copy.

YOU have to live with what that appears to be.

If you had it then your own "cleverness" makes you appear the liar,
either then...or now in reference to the past.


LOL! And you are saying that you are too STUPID to fall for my
"cleverness"??? HOW STUPID IS THAT?


If you simply refused to prove it, and weren't lying, then my comment on
street entries and the effects of spanking comes under the same
category. I refuse to tell you were I got that information. Yet you
insist that makes it a lie.


It is a lie because it's not in the study!

I didn't say one way or another that it was in the study.

AND I JUST PROVED TO YOU AND EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP THAT IT IS NOT IN
THE STUDY.

You "PROVED" that? I don't see anything but your unsupported words.
Quote the line, and scan it into a graphic, and put it up on a photo
display site. They are free, and surely you know about them. I just used
one a couple of months ago to display some official documents concerning
me for another newsgroup debate.

I already did. I quoted exactly what it said in the study. You have the
study. You know that!

The only way you could prove that what I said was not in the study would
be to quote the whole study.

NO! The burden of proof is on you!

And, you are in defiance of reality again. I did not claim it was in the
study. In fact I made plain I would not say one way or the other.

Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

"I refuse to tell you were I got that information."

You are just afraid to go into the content of that report. Aren't you
little droanner?

This is your monkeyboy dance.

Surely YOU could do that and prove..well, whatever it is you wish to.

It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

It's not in the study! ;-)

I haven't claim it was....or wasn't.


It still won't prove whether what I said is true or not. Until you know
MY source you have not argument.

LOL!

Yes, that's all you can do at this point, isn't it, hapless one?


ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT???

You didn't provide any proof, as you claimed you did. You can claim
anything is in the study and no one knows but you and I. 0:-

So you could lie and nobody would know right, Kane?

I could.

And you did but nobody is buying! Even people on your side don't
believe you!

What precisely does that prove? Anyone can lie. You qualify as well
under that accusation/question. Is that not true?

That you are a LIAR! ;-)

Is that what you
were counting on? PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT STUPID! YOU CAN'T FOOL THEM!

I wasn't counting on anything. Yes, unfortunately for you, people are
not that stupid. And you are right, you cannot fool them for long.

And I, unlike you, don't try to fool other people. I know they are
intelligent and will see through a lie!

A number of people recall Embry's comments to the magazine. They can,
those that have the study now, can read it and see that you are dodging
as fast as your little monkey feet will dance.

Funny, Kane. THEY KEPT QUIET! ;-)

They have seen you make a claim that you yourself then blew up, along
with another of your claims, about the lack of any involvement with
"spanking" by the study.

LOL! AND "THEY" has been QUIET! Why is that, Kane?

It's there. It was counted. It was physical punishment.

LOL! And the conclusion was on "reprimands"! ARE YOU SO STUPID?


And the few people I've already delivered a copy of the study to. With
Alina it's four, at last count.

LOL! I thought you said Alina was my sock puppet.

Yes, I said that. 0:-

Were you WRONG? ;-)

Kind of explains some things, doesn't it?

Explains what?

Are you admitting
that you were WRONG???

Oh?

Don't have the guts to admit you wrong, Kane? YOU ARE ALSO A COWARD!

If so, you owe her and me an apology! ;-)

Ah, then I don't. Thank you for pointing that out.

We both know the truth. You ready to discuss that with the newsgroup are
you?

LOL! And you sent a copy of the study? ;-)

My comment being or not being in the study, doesn't make me a liar. I
have not said one way or the other if it's there. And I have a promise
to keep.

Lol! That you won't debate with me?

LOL! You don't know when you are check, do you boy?

That is NOT to debate you on Embry. Now and then I slip. Or chose to.

LOL! You know how STUPID you sound?

No, I know how stupid I wanted you to think I sounded. Keeping you
thinking you are the smart one is just another chess move. Not a hard
one, but a necessary one. You get stupider the smarter you think you are.

LOL!

But I won't on this. So in fact you are being stupid, after I told you I
will not reveal the source to you to keep claiming I was speaking of the
study as the source.

But the study is the PRIMARY source, Kane. If it's not in the study, it's
a LIE! ;-)

So anything I discuss about Embry, experiments on child behavior
management that is not in the study is a lie?

Yes! If it is contrary to the fact in the study!

How does that work?

Contrary to the fact is a lie! Simple, Kane! ;-)

For instance, would what Dr. Embry said to the magazine in his letter be
a lie simply because it's not in this study (and we can't be sure he was
not thinking of this study and how it showed a powerful alternative to
spanking)?

You could check the fact with what's in the study. It's that simple,
Kane!

You seem awfully brave with your claims of others lying when it's your
projection. It's you that constantly lie, Doan.

When I have the fact, I called you a LIAR, with proof of course! ;-)

That's what's meant by 'weasel.' And by my "monkeyboy" reference.

Oops! More adhoms! ;-)

You have the study, you know
it wasn't true but you made the claim any way. Thus, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. You have no way of knowing if that information came from the
study
or not, other than your claim. I haven't said, one way or the other.

I posted what the study really said. Don't be STUPID!

How do we know that? Who has the study but you, and my recipients?

LOL! You and them don't know what's in the study? If I lied, why
didn't they speak up on your behalf?

Why should they become involved? I didn't ask them to. I've certainly
not tried to keep them out or bring them in. They are invited to do,
just like your claim, what they want to do; Choose for themselves.

LOL! And they have chosen to ignore you?

I suspect, knowing that any five of you is not really as smart as any
ONE of them, and certainly not any five of you for and one of them in
honesty, they are staying out to avoid providing you with more boltholes
by attacking them and their words.

I know I watched you enough with others and didn't interrupt while they
tore you a new one.

LOL!
From you sad little analogy recently about speed limits. Your
speedometer may say 50, but my cops radar says 65.

It doesn't matter if my speedometer is right and your radar is busted?
;-)

In other words you don't want to play by the rules you set.

What rules?

You have none? You don't have a standard to judge another's comments?
You give yourself permission to say anything, make any claim?

How about, for a rule:
"Not knowing things that you should have known makes you STUPID! ;-)"

Yup! That described YOU!

Shall I list all the things you don't know but you should have known?

Yes! What have I claimed to be false, Kane?

Nor allow YOUR metaphore to be used against your own arguments. That's
not stupid, that's just dishonest.

That's you! ;-)

I am perfectly comfortable if you find my metaphors useful for your
arguments. Feel free.

I did, STUPID! ;-)


I don't have to be looking at this study to know something about the
experiment not listed in the report.

LOL! And everyone suppose to take your words for it right, honest kane?

I haven't offered proof. I simply made a statement, and I've already
told you that you should feel perfectly free to discount it if you wish.

You can't offer any proof since there are none when you lied! ;-)

You don't know if I can't or not. I simply won't, just as I stated.
Someday I might. But on my time and my terms, not yours.

You have my permission to discount the statement.

I don't need your permission! ;-)

Others know what Embry said in the cited letter to the magazine. And he
did say something very similar to what I said, and logically supportive
of what I said.

So they should believe the magazine over the study right, Kane? ;-)

"Over?" Why only two choices, your two?

Why not, "along with?" Why not, "as adjunct to?" Or, "Dr. Embry's other
thoughts and discoveries?"

Because the study is the STANDARD, STUPID!

I don't expect you to defend one thing you say as being more important
than another, unless of course I disagree with you and challenge you.

Do you believe there is no connection between what Dr. Embry might say
in a non-academic non-research setting more casually, and what he does
say in a report on his research experiment?

He can say he believe in UFOs too, if he cares. But if he said that it
is base on his studies and the studies didn't say so, then there is no
connection. It's simple, Kane! ;-)

Do with it whatever you want.

LOL! I think everyone alread had. Hey, even people on your side, like
Dorothy, don't believe you! ;-)

I think I'd rather believe them than you, and no one has said they
don't. Why would they, since I've not tried to establish it as coming
from the study, or mentioned any source whatsoever.

It could be an opinion.

And everyone has an opionion. Opinions are not FACTS!

It could have been a calculation I made. It could have been my fantasy.

Or just LIES! ;-)

I haven't argued that anyone should believe me. Now have I?

LOL!

Try to figure out it. If you have a rule for me, then you have to abide
by the same one.


LOL! What rule is that?

The one that says I have to tell you something I don't wish to when
you
claim you do not have to follow the same rule or, I am a liar and you
are not?

When you lied, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Then you lied? Or you do not have to follow the same rule?

I don't lie, you lied!

If you insist I have to tell you something you ask about, and you do
not, Doan, that makes you dishonest, and a liar. It IS an attempt to
mislead people into assuming YOU have some authority over me that you do
not.

LOL!

And using that to claim, because I refuse to tell you my source, I am a
liar, then constitutes a lie on your part.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

If I'm a liar for not telling you my source, you are a liar for not
identifying, when I asked, identifying information from the report.

LOL! Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I see.

Yes, pretty good, isn't it?

You would think so ONLY IF YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

So you have rules for you that are different for others. Is that it?

If you don't have to tell, then why should I? Or is one or both of us lying?


You are the one that's lying!

There is something you keep missing. I never deliberately attempt to
mislead anyone. You do, constantly.

You lied and I have proven so! Yet, you continued to LIE!

If I've ever attempted to mislead it has been only in personal safety
and the safety of my family. And I do that quite honestly. I don't make
up a normal sounding name and use it as a nym, for instance.

And I do reserve the right, when I've been obviously lied to, to lay a
trap for he liar by pretending to agree with him, or her.

Doan

You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking
increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came
from.

Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you
insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I
made NO such claim.


So it's not from the study? Where is the source?

I refused to tell you. I still do. That does not make my statement a
lie. It makes it something you don't know.


I already told you that it's not in study!

And I didn't agree or disagree.

Because you are STUPID!

No, it's not stupid to not answer. It's just honest and smart. I made a
statement. You bit. Now you have to live with it, and reveal as you
frantically try to wriggle out of your own little stupid stumbling rants.

I did not say it was in the study, and I didn't say if it wasn't.


LOL! It's either is or it isn't.

Yes. That is correct. But I haven't said it was or wasn't. I've refused
to say.

Because YOU ARE A LIAR!

I PROVED IT! ;-)

Proved what to who?

THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! TO EVERYONE IN THIS NEWSGROUP!

Only those with the study that are bothering to read it would know. And
they know that I said that I was not claiming it was in the study. Nor
was I claiming it wasn't.

And they kept QUIET?

So what is this you have "PROVED?"

THAT YOU ARE A LIAR!

We don't know. You say it isn't, and gosh, who knows.

You don't konw???

Sure, I know. But I'm not discussing it with you as proof, one way or
the other. I'm telling you, stupid little boy, that I won't say.

BECAUSE YOU ARE LIAR!

But you aren't to be trusted. So for anyone that's curious, they'll have
to get a copy of the study and find out for themselves.

You not going to tell them? ;-)

Nope. How many times must I repeat it?

UNTIL YOU STOP LYING!

I am not going to provide, at this time, my source. I'll not say where
it is or isn't. Nothing. Nada.

I know! YOU CAN'T! ;-)

And if it's not there, then what has been proven? Nothing, only that
it's not there.

THAt YOU LIED!

But I didn't say it was there, nor that it wasn't. I am speculating on
your claim, not mine.

So you understand the modifier, "If?" It's the second word in the
sentence right after "and."

I already said it could possibly not be there, and from another source.

How is it you can't or won't figure out the simple truth about that
statement?

You are rambling! ;-)

No, I am posting in long response to your long rambling attempt to make
me out a liar on no evidence at all. I have not said what the source is,
nor have I said what it isn't.

You are free to speculate and even claim all you want, and I'll not
verify or deny it. Why should I?

Because YOU ARE A LIAR!


Thus, it's a FALSE statement
no matter where it came from.

Not if it's from somewhere else.


PROVE IT!

No. You prove you have the study.

Already did! I've been quoting from the study, didn't you know that?

Of course. Didn't you know that's what I wanted to hear?

There is a rough critical mass of information that provides sufficient
correlation for an intelligent person to make significant presumptions
and thus take various related actions.

All I can say to you at this point is, Thank you sincerely from the
bottom of my heart.

[snipping all the dodges and garbage from Kane]

Things that show you are a liar. That you are unethical. And that you
are cheat. And propose questions about your mental stability.

Nope! That would be YOU, LYING IGNORANUS KANE0! ;-)

Doan

I see you are well back into your little monkeyboy cave where you won't
have to debate Embry, Doan. If I can see it, so can others.

Oops! More adhoms! ;-)

Kind of stung you with those clear citations about the presence of
"spanking" as part of the study, right?

Showing your STUPIDITY again? ;-)

Poor kid. You have along road ahead of you.

I have a long live ahead of me. ;-)

Doan

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



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

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?"


Data, please! SHOW ME THE DATA!

It's in front of you.


Show me!

I did in my answering post attributed further along in this one.


If there is no data (or not enough data)
about spanking, then IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING! In fact, the
conclusion with regards to street entries was about Item 9.

I never claimed it had to do with spanking. What I claimed in fact is
exactly what you say above....it most deliberately choses to be,
"NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!" but about the absence of it.


Nonsense! Unless you are saying that "reprimands" are alternatives to
spanking.


This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.


Please, don't patronize me with your stupidity again!

I don’t believe there is anything stupid about referring to this study
as an experiment in using non-CP methods to train children to play away
from the street.

Do you find something illogical in my reference to that age old claim by
spankers that they were spanking their child to teach them to stay out
of the street?

It's if you based it on the Embry study! In fact, the quotes I provided
clearly stated that it was about "reprimands", not spanking!

You don’t see the connect and presume I’m patronizing you?

By the way, how does one use “stupidity” to patronize?

By being STUPID like you! ;-)


Do you recall Dr. Embry's own words about what he discovered and
mentioned in the letter to the parenting magazine?


Parenting magazine is secondary source, not primary source like the
study!

Yes? And?

It's not what the study said!

I read the study hoping to see if it supported the claim made in the
magazine. I SAW NONE!

We have no way of knowing precisely what Dr. Embry was referring to as
his source when he made the magazine statement. He did not say.
Apparently he is not able to confine himself to only those researches
and opinions convenient to your needs for argument by failure to accept
YOU have a burden of proof to prove YOUR claims.

So why did you bring up the Embry Study? Why wasted all these years?

I am aware that he has access, since he cites as most scholarly writers
tend to do, many sources in his report, but would be unlikely to in a
casual non-research study letter to a parenting magazine.

Did he in fact refer to this study in his letter? Did he refer to any,
other than generally speaking, and non-specific?

You tell me! ;-)

You wouldn't be presuming he did not have this study, and other work of
his in mid, would you?


You are being STUPID again! Show me where in the study that the data
support the claim made in the magazine.

He apparently tracked the effect of his experimental program on a number
of things that did not include spanking, other than to note it. His
objective was not to study spanking, but to study an alternative.

LOL!

Doan

I certainly noticed the lack of many instances of it. I would presume,
and I think with ample reason, he assumed the families did in fact use
spanking as part of their parenting strategy.

Otherwise why would he have assigned a tracking code to “Physical
Punishment” which is described in part as “hitting?”

As I read the report it appears his intent was to track street entries,
and parent interventions, including their presence in the play area
outside. He showed a strong correlation between having been exposed to
training, the workbook, and the details of the program and a sharp
reduction in street entries, and a sharp increase in parental
supervision (desirable for children under 4), and a reduction in
reprimands.

Apparently there wasn’t enough physical punishment to be able to record
any changes in it, though a minimum of two instances had to have
happened for their to be confidence percentages found for accurate
recording of it.

"9. Parental Reprimands. If the parent reprimanded the child during an
interval about playing in the street or instructed the child not to
play in the street, the observers recorded such verbal interaction
between parent and child."


Yes, it says that. That does not negate that the study was in fact about
alternatives to spanking, does it?

The conclusion was about "reprimands" and reprimands only! Are you so
STUPID as not to see that?
No, I am not stupid, and I do not agree with you. This study was about
reduction in reprimands, correlation to that reduction by a reduction in
street entries, and the more frequent presence and intervention of the
parent.

Embry did not offer a “conclusion.” He did present some speculative
information supported by findings. They had to do with considerably more
than “only reprimands.”

Possibly I am not finding what you are referring to. Could you provide
me with a page where Embry concludes something and it’s based on
“‘reprimands’ and reprimands only!“

I covered this in my prior response. He offered the formula for
calculating factor of street entries while a car was present, from
baseline to after the storybooks and workshop. It came out 16 to one. I
do not believe this was caused by the judicious use of parental
reprimands, since he tracked a considerable reduction of them over the
tracking time period.

Possibly I misunderstand your meaning when you say, “The conclusion was
about ‘reprimands’ and reprimands only!

Then it’s possible I could be stupid. Please clarify what you mean.

By the way, do you know how many TOs were actually observed?

Do you understand how LITTLE punishment of any kind was actually used?

Would you like to argue that the reprimands, and TOs were the more
powerful factors to correlate with reduction in rates of street entry?

Or could it be possible there is a connection between the increase in
parental presence, the increase in rewards, the increase in praise, and
the Say-Do system taught to the parents were more more important?

How do you like begin drug kicking and screaming INTO THE DEBATE, Doan?

Are you getting a faint glimmer of the level of my patience and the
ability to project possible "moves" as in chess?

I think you need to stop playing tennis, and get serious about learning
chess.

And Figure 7 made it clear that Dr. Embry talked about reprimands
not spanking. Here is the title of Figure 7. "The Probability of
Parental Reprimands occuring Before, During, or After Children's
Entry into the Street"

Then why did he in fact record two "Punishments" which his observers
code as physical punishment? Why would he include instructions to note
and record "Physical Punishment?"


He recorded and coded many items. What conclusions can be drawn from
those items are different matters.

No, they are not "different matters." One is most closely tied to the
other. The recording of items is what researchers and experimenters do
to make presumptions and claims about their theory. What do you think
his theory was? What had he induced, then deduced to begin this
experiment? d

In fact, the conclusion about
street entries were made specifically about "reprimands" not other
items.

Yes, and other things. I do hope you aren't trying to claim this is the
only thing significant that he tracked. Are you? That he concluded that
"reprimands" and rates of street entry were the only two factors being
consider? Really? You'd think that?

Then why would he refer to, on page 49 in the section titled
“DISCUSSION,” “reprimand” rate reduction and say even before a reference
to “reprimand,” “The package also increased parents’ use of praise and
reward for safe play and children’s correct identification of
photographs depicting safe play?”

Why would he track the Parent Presence from baseline to and across
Workshop and Storybooks and remark on the increase in Parent Presence
with the program in place?

Please point out where he linked street entries only to the number of
reprimands and no other factors to street entries.

And try to remember that even in that instance where he does make that
comparison the rate of reprimands went down along with the rate of
street entries.

And the presence of the parents went up. And the rewards and praise went
up. And the Say-Do program worked. A lot more than "reprimands" was
going on here.

Why would his tracking charts include Praise and reinforcement by
Parents against number of street entries by child if this study was
tracking only street entries against reprimands?

You must be tired. The data is apparently right in front of you and you
cannot understand, or even see it. Not even the plain language of what
exactly is being tracked.

Up too late partying, or is this taxing your ability to creatively
weasel out of what this discussion of Embry started as?

In fact under reliability estimates ( you know what they are, of course
) he notes that his observers had "agreement" in the following
percentages: (see page 26..those of you that have the report)

Irrelevant! Do you know the meaning of reliability?

Sure.

You've asked me that before and I gave you a short course in it.

It doesn’t refer to anything NOT present in the study or experiment. I
has to be ABOUT SOMETHING. And in this case, the use of physical
punishment was one of the things being rated for ‘reliability
estimates.’ Or do you disagree? Why would it be in the list of those
things rated if it's not IN the study?

"... reliability estimates were 100% (child in Time-Out), 74% (Parental
Reprimands), 100% (Parental Punishment), 100% (Time-Out instruction),
and 71% (Parental Praise)"

Note: Time out instruction was a routine were the parent did a practice
time-out with the child to familiarize the child with the proceedure,
and somewhat desensitize the parent to feeling guilty about imposing
it...thus...cackle removing some of the "punishment" aspect of the
"Sit and Watch" routine, as time-out was called and taught.


It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described by Dr. Embry. There is no
disputing that fact!

I don’t recall my disputing their existence, but I do note YOU DID, as
in "the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking at all."

And he lists "Punishment" for purposes of coding, thus tracking, as
"physical punishment."

See Page 23, item eleven. "Parental Use of Punishment, If the parent
used force (pulling, pushing, squeezing hard, or hitting) as a
consequence for a child's play in the street during an (observation)
interval, the observers coded this force as punishment."

They did not clump it together with non-cp punishment, as in TO.

You like to use the word, "spanking," but we know that hitting is
spanking, and that all are CP, as in physical punishment. Split hairs if
you like. It's about all you have left now.

And, please try to keep up. You are starting to bore me. Just the same
old hysterically screeching dancing monkeyboy.

Now we could have a 100% agreement (reliability) between all observers
even if there were NO "Physical Punishment" applied. It would be zero
events occuring agreement between them.


Irrelevant!

No, not to your claim that this study had “nothing” to do with
“spanking.” Unless you wish to argue that hitting isn’t spanking.

By the way, your comment that “ It's a PUNISHMENT procedure as described
by Dr. Embry.” is what is “Irrelevant!” to your claim that it didn’t
exist in this study.

Were you mistaken? Are you trying to divert us from that mistake? Isn’t
that misleading? Isn’t misleading, deliberately, lying?

Was that true..no physical punishment recorded in either baseline
observation or interventions and program instruction in the applied
phase?

Irrelevant. SEE ABOVE!

Not to our difference of opinion about whether or not this study had
something to do with spanking. There is nothing to “SEE ABOVE” but that
you are once again caught in a mistake and are trying desperately to
change the focus.

You claimed this study was not about spanking, at all. Yet there it is,
and with YOU pointing out there was in fact PUNISHMENT. In this instance
physical punishment. So you are, after claiming not about spanking, you
now identify the spanking code as PUNISHMENT.

So? You were wrong, Doan. And you are not going to admit it. You are
simply going to keep up your crazed monkey dance.

You are digging your hole very deep, Doan, possibly even deeper than
ever before.

You haven't much room left now but to do something unethical and
dispicable. Want to bet I don't have all of your possibilities covered
in that area too? Let's see how dispicable you can be, shall we? 0:-

Let's see, shall we.

On page 29, Table 6, the columns are labelled, Behavior, Cases1,
Agreements etc. Cases1 refers to number of home visits during which the
observers recorded the behavior.

They are recorded as occuring in the following number of visits, and so
recorded:

Child in time out = 1

Parent's use of PUNISHMENT = 2

Parental reprimand = 12

Parental praise = 15

time out instruction = 1

Remember, these indicate VISITS in which the behavior was observed, not
the number of times they actually occured. Occurances may have been
more, but of course they cannot be less.


Nevertheless, they are not relevant!

Really? They seemed to be to the researchers. They recorded them to
determine a reliability or "confidence" as we call it these days,
percentage.

Doan

WHAT? All done Doan?

Okay, if you say so. But I'm going on.


These figures do not mean there were not MORE occurances that were not
observed, but they do record what WAS observed in the 30 minutes
observation periods.

Hence, we have two incidences of what Doan would like to not admit is
classifiable under his 'spanking' claim. It was physical punishment and
the observers are taught to distinguish between non-cp and this, which
is cp.

We were not, by the way, arguing if they were relevant, Doan. We were
arguing if there was ANYthing in the study about spanking. There is, you
were wrong.

Here is what you said, “the Embry study has nothing to do with spanking
at all.”

That is consistent with other claims you’ve made, to me, as well as to
your Texas Turkey.

That would be like saying that the study had nothing to do with white
collar families, though Embry makes a point of it in his remarks about
the sample characteristics. It’s not “about” them but they are the
subjects. So of course they are a factor.

If spanking were NOT a factor, Doan, it would not be mentioned at all.
It was.

It IS irrelevant to the study conclusions, except for one thing. And
that is the subject of this newsgroup, and of Embry’s other remarks, and
of any exploration of alternatives to spanking.

The subject is spanking. Nothing else. Not space exploration, or
reduction of albumin in bird’s eggs, or watermelon cropping in the Nile
Delta.

It is about spanking, as in the deliberate absence of spanking.

I go on to explore this more below, but you ignore it, in your usual
unethical and logically fallacious way, Doan.

I’ll leave it for you and others that might be interested, to contemplate.

To claim this study is not about spanking shows clearly the dishonest
and illogical base you and those like you work from.

This study is an exploration of alternatives to CP in teaching very
young children to stay away from the dangers of the street.

YOU, and others that have posted to this ng and countless thousands of
parents who spank for street entries provide the counterpoint.

Do YOU have a study on the effectiveness of spanking that correlates
increases in frequency, force, rates of intervals between strokes, etc.
that shows one way or the other that spanking works?

Please provide if you do.

This study is about NOT spanking, but doing something else. Or we would
not be having this discussion. You do recall challenging me to debate
this report, do you not? Did you do so in a newsgroup with the title
alt.parenting.spanking? This is not the motorcycle newsgroup. It’s the
spanking newsgroup. And I mentioned this experiment in opposition to the
use of spanking. I doubt anyone else would see it otherwise.

Can you understand this, or are you trying again to mislead yourself and
others?

You are up rather late. Studying?

Let me suggest you go to Embry's own abstract page (iii) and read it
before you claim again that this study is only about one thing and not
others.


0:-

What is very remarkable, and Doan avoids it carefully and makes claims
that are not supportable if one reads ALL the data available, was the
dramatic DROP in the number of street entries as the dramatic drop in
numbers of reprimands occurred in comparing the baseline and the post
workshop events. Page 48. Note the chart records pre, during, and post
entries on a 10 second timeline.

Very telling evidence that the fewer reprimands the more compliance with
instruction to play safe.

The risk exposure dropped by a factor of 12.6. Or more simply, for every
24 hours of accumulated outdoor play, a conjuntion of cars and children
in the street occurred 16 times during baseline, and ONCE after the
workshops and storybooks.


But in a sense, you are right. The EXPERIMENT was about not using CP,
but using other means to effectively lower the rate of street entires,
and increase the parental involvement when the child was playing
safely.


LOL! You are still trying to fit that square peg into the round hole!

Nope. YOu are not seeing the square peg, is all.


The study has nothing to be with spanking! The most that can be said
was that rewards (praise and stickers) and PUNISHMNENT (Time out) lower
the rate of street entries!

This makes me wonder if you are getting some poor second hand
information. Physical punishment was tracked, and recorded. It's quite
clear in the "reliability" percentage calculations. On two visits
physical punishment was recorded and the observers did not disagree,
hence the 100% agreement figure.

Not non-cp punishment, because that is covered under Time Outs, as you
have so wisely noted, as being coded as non physical "punishment."

Physical punishment is what it is.

So tell us again, this study was not about "spanking." Go ahead.


So, in another sense, you are wrong. It was about the ABSENCE of
spanking. We all know, without even having to think about it, that the
argument of the spankers has been, "I spanked him to teach him to stay
out of the street." Embry has discussed spanking, and it's failure to
lower the rates, and in fact increase the rates of street entries.


LOL! How many of the kids were spanked for running into the streets?

I've no idea. I do know that physical punishment was recorded twice, as
occurring. From two home visits. It could have been more, but it could
not have been less.

You still wish to pursue this?

Imagine if you will what those of us that have the study, and have
looked at the pages I mention, and the words there I have quoted, think
of you at this moment. Mistaken, or lying, Doan. One or the other and no
other possibility.

This was not a study on spanking, and I agree with you on that point,
and have never claimed otherwise. It as also not a study on white collar
parents, but it's mentioned they make up the majority of studies
families. Hence if I referred to white collar families would you start
screaming at me, "This is not a study on white collar families, STUPID!?"

It isn't a study on spanking (CP) but it does, just as I've mentioned,
attempt to track the use of spanking.


Do you honestly think this study and experiment was not about that?


Do you actually stupid enought it was about spanking?

No, and are you stupid enough to try and claim I was saying this was
solely a study on spanking?

See what I mean about misleading people and lying, Doan? That is what
you appear to be doing, unless of course you wish to retract and admit
you were wrong on there being no mention of CP in the report. That you
simply made a mistake.

There's no fault in an oversight error in such an instance. I doubt I'll
mention it again, unless you try to say again that there was nothing in
this study about spanking.


Or have you missed the point again, in service to your compulsions and
pathologies?


Lying seems to be your compulsion!

Doan, you claimed, "the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all."

If there is any mention of spanking (physical punishment) in the study
then it of course had something to do with spanking.

Hence, I did not lie, and at best you simply made a mistake. You missed
the mention of "Punishment" counts in the agreement percentage section
on reliability of observations.

A quick check of how punishments are described by the instructions to
the observers how to code parental actions makes plain, it is physical
punishment, unless you wish to argue "hitting," is not physical
punishment. Embry does not agree with you.


Or, possibly you are still working from another report than the one I
have. Or you have made yet another mistake. Or, heaven forbid, you are
lying, again.


You meant the one you gave to Alina, my sock puppet? ;-)

No, I gave her a perfectly good copy of the same one I have. I did not
include, and haven't referred to the long cumberson appendix. More is
there that substantiates what I've said, but I've stuck strictly with
the first 78 pages.


Doan

You have made of yourself a peripheral player in this ng, rather than a
serious debater arguing for a position, Doan.

You now suffer the consequences.

You created a facade of neutrality, while posting the refutation of it
yourself. You have no posts defending parents who chose not to spank, or
methods to use in place of spanking.

You are basically stupid and ignorant and compulsively driven to defend
an act perpetrated on you as a child.

I am fearing that you had a great deal more than you can remember, or
that you will admit to happen to you as a young child.

This kind of stubborn squirming is so very common to the highly
intelligent, but abused child, caught in trying to defend superstition,
or their own actions and biases. I've seen the duplicate many times.

Did something more than simple light spanking happen to you?

I might be able to help. You have my permission to contact me off group
on THIS alone, if you'd like some advice and direction with this
situation that obviously is growing more acute for you. Or I could
contact you through Alina if you'd prefer. 0:-)

Get help now.

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin