The Embry study: What it actually said.

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 24 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:



Doan wrote:


Hahaha! The PROVEN liars are you and LaVonne! I would question
the worthiness of any "cause" if it has to be promoted with LIES!
Is the "cause" worth it, Kane?

What "LIES!" Childish Droany?


Shall I list them? ;-)



From the Embry study.

Some comments by the researchers:

"... Thus, reprimands met the criteria for a reinforcer during
baseline but not during intervention."

In other words, after the program was in place the parent no longer
NEEDED reprimands to influence the child's wanted behaviors, or
suppress the unwanted behaviors, safe play and street entries
respectively.


No, STUPID!. Look at Figure 7! In other words, the CORRELATION
between reprimands and street entries existed during baseline but
not during intervention. IT IS THAT SIMPLE, STUPID!

The same kind of strange claims from back when you used to try and
"debate" on Straus.


And you have shown the same STUPIDITY!

You seem unable to show how. And figure seven doesn't show there was not
a correlation.

First of all, my comment is quoted from the report. And the authors say
"criteria for a reinforcer" not, correlation, or any words to that
effect, nor can a correlation presence of lack be extrapolated from
those words. Hence........your..........


Then read it again, STUPID! "A coeffiicient of correlation was calculated
between meen baseline rates of entries into the street and performance on
the generalization probe."

Dimwit, that has to do with the PRECEDING PARAGRAPH on a child's
capacity to both behave as desired, (stay way from the street) and his
or her capacity to understand safety issues. Can't you READ?

At the end of the paragraph you are misquoting, by the way, by leaving
out a key component of the sentence, there is CLOSING SUMMATION of the
two preceding paragraphs.

The paragraph starting with "Figure 7 shows...." Is NOT about the two
proceeding paragraphs and their subject. This paragraph is about
reinforcers, NOT safety concept generalization probes.

Just how unbelievably stupid ARE you?

You, you liar, left out the explanation of what a generalization probe
IS to mislead the reader. That last line actually reads, with your
errors corrected and ALL information in it reads:

"A coefficient of correlation was calculated between mean baseline rates
of entries into the street and performance on the generalization (SAFETY
CONCEPT) probe."

A generalization probe is a test, in this experiment, of a child's
ability to integrate and or understand the information presented. Or
informational content. Observers interact with the child to test their
understanding of what they are viewing (in the storybooks...I happen to
have one).

This refers solely to the the performance of the observed children's
behavior verses their understanding of safety concepts (generalization
probes.)

It was found, of course, as you know because it's on the end of the
paragraph you once again snipped out of context from, that there was no
correlation. Children can behave without understanding why. And that is
ALL that is about...and does not at any point refer to figure 7.

It is the closing summation sentence I previously referred to.

It does NOT relate to correlations between reprimands and street
entries, as you are claiming, because there is NO mention or connection.

As the end sentence to the paragraph you creatively altered actually
says: "... Thus, in the case of the observed children, behavior and
safety concept were not related." (END OF SUMMATION...my comment)

In other words, for children of this age, as Embry points out, and cites
others as having discovered, children of this young and age cannot
relate behaviors of themselves (or others) to the complex idea of safety
concepts. He elaborates elsewhere on this issue, making suggestions
about holding off on teaching street CROSSING SAFETY for that very
reason. Staying in a safe play area is easier to teach...by
conditioning...than trying to teach them all the intricacies of street
crossing.

You are once again shown to be an ignorant fool, or a deliberate
misleading liar.

Again, Argumentation by Camouflage. You have quoted by babble and
disconnect.

"Figure 7. shows the probability of oberserved
children receiving a reprimand from parenst 6 intervals preceding or
following an entry into the street"
"During baseline, the lowest
probability (0.02 reprimands per observation)" , "and the highest
probability (0.147 reprimands per observation)" "During intervention,
the ..." Do you understand correlation and probability???

Sure, Very well. Do you understand this did not count anything but those
entries where there were reprimands?

And only for a ten second period? No reprimands outside of that ten
second are counted?

That IS what a probability is.....a representation of what the
researcher thinks will be constant in the large sample and time frame.

However figure 7 does tell us something after you read through the
discussion to the closing sentence, which like all good closing
sentences in a paragraph, offers a summation. Here is what it says:

"Thus, reprimands met the criterion for reinforcer during baseline but
not during intervention."

In other words, reprimands did NOT lower street entries after the
intervention (workshop training), which means, failed to reinforce
desired behavior.

Obviously, as the other charts show, something else did reinforce
desired behavior though in the intervention phase, to the tune of only
10% of street entries compared to baseline. Quite a drop.

Now, to get you by the scruff of the neck and help you understand what
figure 7 actually IS.

Quote, from paragraph three, page 45:

"..The figure offers data of theoretical interest:" Oh, "of theoretical
interest."

No support for a conclusion, dummy boy.

You have shown nothing here but that you either do NOT understand what
you read. Cannot read enough to understand what you read. Or you do read
and understand and deliberately misquote, leaving out key elements for
understanding, and deliberately attempt to relate tangential information
to that which it is unrelated to.


Argumentation by Camouflage.


And yours is argument by STUPIDITY! ;-)

Oh? You want to show us how the tail end of one paragraph is connected
to the next one on a different subject?

Generalization probe and behavior correlation was done with. NO
connection to figure 7.

Figure 7 is theory -- probability, is game theory...chance, not
proof...speculation by the author..acceptable to do by the
researcher...as long as it is clear. He was, and that WAS to me, why not
to you?

All that statement meant was that though present, reprimands no longer
reinforced, after the intervention.


It's said "baseline" and "during intervention", STUPID!

Yes, that is what I said. Worked as a reinforcer at baseline, did not
during intervention. Can't you read, or is this simply more harassment?
Or are actually signing off on the sentence with your name, "STUPID!?"

And "it's said," is meaningless. I know how the two words are said.

My argument had nothing to do with figure #7. Nor does it have to do
with my argument in the least.


Your argument only shows your STUPIDITY! ;-)

I'm afraid that is not true. I can take this report apart end to end and
put it back together again and have at least a 90% probability of
understanding the author's meaning and how the data relates to the
supporting descriptive narration.

It is not even a correlation information-available chart. What is needed
is simply not there.

You attempted to paint my argument in your stinky skunk stripes. Mine is
more in the nature of a tiger, thanks.

Let's look at the chart though. It's quite interesting.

You use it to claim a correlation existing in one instance and not the
other?

There is no street entry number OR rate referred to in figure 7, on page
48. No connection is possible to even consider.

Only "observations," "rate of reprimands," and a time interval scale are
on this chart. The dots are time occurrences of an event by a child and
parent. There can be no zero entries on this chart. They weren't
measured, of course. (Your reference to "Correlation" just feel on it's
ass).


The "dots" showed the rates, STUPID!

That is what I said. You are stupid to not see that right in front of
your nose.

That is what follows if you can read a chart, when I say, "The dots are
time occurrences of an event by a child and parent."

You can't show how that means anything but that the dots showed "rates."

Of course they are used to measure the rates of reprimand. They are
reprimands in response to street entries by children.

My words are, from above, "rate of reprimands."

They are also along the x-axis for time intervals. Do you know how to
read a chart?

You can't even read a simple
graph???

Sure I can. You are simply pretending to harassing and scream and yell
and in fact make a fool of yourself.

The y-axis is "Rate of Reprimands" and the x-axis is "10 second
interval". STOP MAKING A FOOL of yourself!

Did you see me claim otherwise? Where please? 0:-


10 seconds, about five before and five afer street entry events is the
measure.


It's SIX, STUPID! -6 to +6!

Yes of course, my error. 6 ten second intervals. Of course you seemed to
have not noticed that each was ten seconds not a six second scale. How
chuckle observant of you.

And, least you forget....this is a probability chart...hence it is
theoretical and to be used for estimates NOT as proof of anything in
particular. Go back and read the descriptive paragraph again that YOU
though was related to the generalization VS behavior coificient of
correlation calculation....R R R R R R R

Problem is, for you, the 'count' isn't street entries, but children
being observed being reprimanded. Any number of times, per entry, but
not zero. Any number of entiries, but not zero. Possibly even only ONE
observed 10 second time interval per entrym, but that would not account
for the changes in rates of reprimands, now would it?


It's the rates, STUPID! Read the notation for the y-axis, "Rate of
Parental Reprimands Per Observation"!

What are the "It's" you refer to? And that does not say per street
entry. Hence whatever it is you are claiming you do not understand, or
are just badly mistaken, or you are still doing Doan 2000 et al.

My paragraph of explanation above stands as written.

The children are being observed during 12 10 second time intervals.
There can be no zero reprimands, nor zero entries. We do NOT know the
number of the former, only the rate.

And we only know there were 'some' entries because they triggered 'some'
reprimands. Not one, not five, but a rate PER OBSERVATION PERIOD.

So what is it again you'd like to claim?

"In other words, the CORRELATION between reprimands and street entries
existed during baseline but not during intervention. IT IS THAT SIMPLE,
STUPID!"

Please show us the calculation that would show this correlation that
existed during baseline, using only the data from figure 7.

Then if you will, provide us with proof, and this will be far more easy,
that they did not exist during intervention.

(of course it didn't...this chart doesn't measure it for either ONE).

You will actually be able to prove a negative claim....and of course
prove that you are wrong.

I of course had a great deal more here, and you failed to respond to
any, so I will by default declare my comments and questions and
challenges correct. 0:- ...snip....


You have mixed data where it does not apply. You do not know what figure
7 is actually about. A probability chart cannot be used to calculate
correlations of anything. More especially if it does not have the
elements needed for the comparison.

And a "criterion" as it says, is not even faintly related to a
"correlation."

Let me help you out. Go back and read page -45- from the top. The first
two paragraphs, where you used facetiously the first sentence from the
second of them, are entirely about "Story book and generalization probe
data. And looking for any correlation between levels of understanding
and actual performance of the child.

The calculation showed, for baseline and intervention so little
statistical or materially significant difference it showed that the one
did not effect the other....as in "behavior and safety concept were not
related."

This had NOTHING whatsoever to do with figure 7, and in fact reference
figure 6. And, you will note, these were from the NON-OBSERVED CHILDREN
SAMPLE. Which means, child, that the 'unobserved' children were tested.

Then, in paragraph two, without actually saying so, and YOU quoted from,
they are referring to the UN - OBSERVED children (observed or unobserved
always means in relation to baseline. I suspect that the baseline
unobserved who DID PARTICIPATE AS THE REPORT SAYS, are sometime being
referred to and not clearly enough. It never means the baseline children
were not tracked by observers later in the study...obviously they were
and it's charted for us on page 46, figure 6).

I hope this is all some help to you. I appreciate you spotting
relatively quickly my "error" in the theory chart on probability.

It is, of course, 12 ten second intervals. I'll see if I can find any
related errors of mine and correct them for you.

I was most pleased you went there to try and make an argument.

Now, tell us again about how the first sentence of the second paragraph
on page 45 relates to figure 7 again, will you?

Or just continue to throw in your guesses and frantic scramblings. It's
really entertaining. I love puzzles.

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 Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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.


Note that "Parent's use of punishment" (assuming that this means spanking)
is ONLY 2 times. And this is EXACTLY the number of OCCURANCES they
observed. Imagine that, children in this study are at the ages where
spanking is the most prevalent and about 90%+ of the population are
spanked, yet the observers can only see two occurances. In fact, the
study noted that "Table 6 offers reliability estimates for the remaining
observed behaviors, all of which occurred INFREQUENTLY." They didn't
even computed the "mean reliabilities" "because the behavior occured
infrequently." Did you miss that part, Kane?

Doan

Hi Alina,
I you are still out there, please respond to this message. Kane is now
claiming that he has sent you a copy of the Embry study. He also claimed
that YOU TOLD HIM that you sent me an envelope and postage so that I can
send you a copy of the Embry but I kept the envolope and postage and
never send the study to you. THIS IS A SERIOUS ATTACK ON MY INTEGRITY.
That is why I have to use this public forum since I don't know where you
are. Please response when you have a chance.

Doan

PS. My apology to other participants of this newsgroup
since this is not relevant to any of you.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Doan wrote:


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

So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed. Are you
saying now that you were WRONG? I think you OWED not only ME but Alina
also, A BIG APOLOGY!

Doan

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

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.



Note that "Parent's use of punishment" (assuming that this means spanking)
is ONLY 2 times.

Then you cannot claim is not about spanking from two perspectives now.

And this is EXACTLY the number of OCCURANCES they
observed. Imagine that, children in this study are at the ages where
spanking is the most prevalent and about 90%+ of the population are
spanked, yet the observers can only see two occurances.

The do not watch 24/7.

You are stupid.

In fact, the
study noted that "Table 6 offers reliability estimates for the remaining
observed behaviors, all of which occurred INFREQUENTLY."

Yep.

They didn't
even computed the "mean reliabilities" "because the behavior occured
infrequently." Did you miss that part, Kane?

Nope. They found what they found. If you wish them to find more then YOU
run a study or find a study that indeed did find more.

Your comments are stupid. You make a claim, yet you do not qualify that
claim.

What is the significance of them finding behavior occuring infrequently.

Make an argument, or you are simply commenting on content to no point,
and then making and innuendo I was supposed to.

That's not debate, it's just harrassment, stupid.




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

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

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.


So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed.

Only you and I know the real answer to that. Why don't you round her up
and have her come here and comment. I can't seem to find her. Surely you
can. 0:-

Are you
saying now that you were WRONG?

Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid.

I think you OWED not only ME but Alina
also, A BIG APOLOGY!

Nope, you owe this entire newsgroup an apology, a great big apology, but
then you have been a perennial fake and fraud.

We don't expect you to get honest now.

You've been a constant liar and group thug since your first posts here.

Doan

Doan't




--
"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:
Hi Alina,
I you are still out there, please respond to this message. Kane is now
claiming that he has sent you a copy of the Embry study. He also claimed
that YOU TOLD HIM that you sent me an envelope and postage so that I can
send you a copy of the Embry but I kept the envolope and postage and
never send the study to you.

YOu are lying.

And I have no control over whether or not she got my copy, only control
over sending it.

THIS IS A SERIOUS ATTACK ON MY INTEGRITY.

INTEGRITY? R R R R R R

Doan it bit you on the ass years ago and you ran. You are liar, and a
fraud. You claim things you cannot back up by your posting in this ng.

That is why I have to use this public forum since I don't know where you
are. Please response when you have a chance.

YOu know exactly where "she" is.

0:-

YOu are just lying more.

And you know exactly how to trace her down via her e-mail.


Doan

PS. My apology to other participants of this newsgroup
since this is not relevant to any of you.

The hell it isn't, you little scummy liar. And you better apologize. You
owe people a great deal of apology for your vicious deliberately
disruptive behavior and your determined effort to destroy any real
debate on the issue under consideration, spanking.

0:-



On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Doan wrote:


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

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.

So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed. Are you
saying now that you were WRONG? I think you OWED not only ME but Alina
also, A BIG APOLOGY!

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

Spoken like an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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

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.



Note that "Parent's use of punishment" (assuming that this means spanking)
is ONLY 2 times.

Then you cannot claim is not about spanking from two perspectives now.

And this is EXACTLY the number of OCCURANCES they
observed. Imagine that, children in this study are at the ages where
spanking is the most prevalent and about 90%+ of the population are
spanked, yet the observers can only see two occurances.

The do not watch 24/7.

You are stupid.

In fact, the
study noted that "Table 6 offers reliability estimates for the remaining
observed behaviors, all of which occurred INFREQUENTLY."

Yep.

They didn't
even computed the "mean reliabilities" "because the behavior occured
infrequently." Did you miss that part, Kane?

Nope. They found what they found. If you wish them to find more then YOU
run a study or find a study that indeed did find more.

Your comments are stupid. You make a claim, yet you do not qualify that
claim.

What is the significance of them finding behavior occuring infrequently.

Make an argument, or you are simply commenting on content to no point,
and then making and innuendo I was supposed to.

That's not debate, it's just harrassment, stupid.




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 Sat, 25 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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

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.


So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed.

Only you and I know the real answer to that. Why don't you round her up
and have her come here and comment. I can't seem to find her. Surely you
can. 0:-

LOL! You can't find her but you CAN sent her the Embry study? Wow!
You are amazing!

Are you
saying now that you were WRONG?

Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid.

LOL! I think everybody know that you are STUPID!

I think you OWED not only ME but Alina
also, A BIG APOLOGY!

Nope, you owe this entire newsgroup an apology, a great big apology, but
then you have been a perennial fake and fraud.

We don't expect you to get honest now.

You've been a constant liar and group thug since your first posts here.

Hahaha!

Doan

Doan't

ignoranus kane0!

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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

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.


So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed.

Only you and I know the real answer to that. Why don't you round her up
and have her come here and comment. I can't seem to find her. Surely you
can. 0:-

LOL! You can't find her but you CAN sent her the Embry study? Wow!
You are amazing!

I sent it long ago. I can't find her now. That was the point. Wow! You
are an amazing liar.

Are you
saying now that you were WRONG?

Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid.

LOL! I think everybody know that you are STUPID!

Anyone that would use all inclusives to describe something where it's
impossible can't be too bright. "Everybody" Doan?

I think you OWED not only ME but Alina
also, A BIG APOLOGY!

Nope, you owe this entire newsgroup an apology, a great big apology, but
then you have been a perennial fake and fraud.

We don't expect you to get honest now.

You've been a constant liar and group thug since your first posts here.

Hahaha!

What happened to "LOL!?"

Doan

Doan't

ignoranus kane0!

Doan't you wish.

0:-

Oh what a tangled web we weaved... ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

On 26 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

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

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.


So Alina turned out to be not my "sock puppet" as you claimed.

Only you and I know the real answer to that. Why don't you round her up
and have her come here and comment. I can't seem to find her. Surely you
can. 0:-

LOL! You can't find her but you CAN sent her the Embry study? Wow!
You are amazing!

I sent it long ago. I can't find her now. That was the point. Wow! You
are an amazing liar.

Are you
saying now that you were WRONG?

Only you and I know the answer to that, stupid.

LOL! I think everybody know that you are STUPID!

Anyone that would use all inclusives to describe something where it's
impossible can't be too bright. "Everybody" Doan?

I think you OWED not only ME but Alina
also, A BIG APOLOGY!

Nope, you owe this entire newsgroup an apology, a great big apology, but
then you have been a perennial fake and fraud.

We don't expect you to get honest now.

You've been a constant liar and group thug since your first posts here.

Hahaha!

What happened to "LOL!?"

Doan

Doan't

ignoranus kane0!

Doan't you wish.

0:-