The Embry Study: What it actually said.

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, toto wrote:


On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:44:02 -0800, "0:-"
wrote:


In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards"
involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion
for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The
parent is there to facilitate, not "teach."

And, we can keep that passion for learning in older children. We
just need to stop believing that we must *control* them and realize
that they want to learn and can learn if we *allow* it.


Theory is nice, Dorothy. It's when the rubber hits the road, so to speak,
is when the whole thing breaks apart. Just look at the history of public
education; lots of theory but, in the end, we are failing our kids
miserably!

Dorothy is NOT describing how public education is actually delivered.
YOU are.

She is describing how SHE works. And she is NOT the usual teacher. I
assure you. I used to teach teachers. And what I taught is what she is
discussing right now. Preservation of the passion, the natural drive to
learn that all children come with.

I'm not the least surprised though that you don't understand it, and
think that all teachers are teaching like Dorothy suggests and are thus
failing.

It's quite the other way around.

It's very difficult to get teachers to open up to the concepts she is
presenting. They were mostly raised like you...spanked, about 90% or so
of them if the surveys are to be believed. They are hooked by
punishment, as you are, and will tend to fall back on to it under any
pressure.

I'm collecting information currently about classroom performance of
teachers. Now and then I run into those like Dorothy. Mostly I run into
sorry ones. The ones that believe as you do. The former have consistent
success with more children in their classes. The latter have poor
success and then only with the few that can tolerate (usually be the
parental habit of punishment) punishment as a method. At least "the
punishing teacher isn't as punishing as the punishing parent."

Every school that manages to integrate such non punitive and natural
passion for learning methods into the classroom experiences higher
academic achievement..as well as having classrooms where "management"
isn't even a concept of suppression, but simply a challenge to direct
all the learning activity children WANT.

Thankfully though, there are many like Dorothy, and you see them most
often when some teacher is awarded for their remarkable work in the
classroom.

I have watched teachers such as this work. They have conquered the
hardest part.....the tendency to see children as resistant learners.
They tend to test every "program" by that paradigm, and if the program
is a punisher, a learning suppressant method, they reject it.

And they don't always tell the administration, 0:- either. They are
mavericks. But successful ones.

Personally I love'em.


Doan

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 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! I knew there were
no electronic copy but, by your stupidity, you insisted that there is.
That is why I said you "try to get". DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH???


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?

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?

Yet you claim I'm lying.

Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people. We were talking about
the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it. Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

That makes you a liar.

LOL!

And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.

And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.

LOL! STOP LYING!

Doan

You call them liars, or mistaken, or failures if they do no provide
encyclopedic information in each sentence they post.

You take single sentences out of context, when the answer to your lying
accusation is right there a line or two later, sometimes even in the
very next sentence.

You continue, for instance, to use my ad hom about a fithly evil poster
that advocated in favor of beating children with belts, suspended naked
for the church to whale on. You do this after I've pointed out my
reason for using it.........AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
whether or not you support her in her advocacy of this kind of
treatment of children.

That makes you a liar, Doan, or a supporter of her advocacy of child
beating.

Take you pick from the above.

YOu challenge people to debate, claiming they are afraid to, when in
fact your "debate" consists of cherry picking commentary by authors
that do not go to the objective of their experiment or study; making
claims that are not factual.

Your claim of 13 being a small sample, for instance, and ignoring that
it was from an experiment, not a survey study. Experiments can use
small or large samples.

YOU could not prove in this one that the sample size did in fact negate
the findings.

You are dishonest.

And you are a child with a problem. I think it's related to spanking.

And you lie when you claim again, as you did recently, that you do not
"tell parents to spank."

Arguments in support of spanking and against nonspanking is exactly.

Honest people freely admit their biases. I for instance intend to
influence people not to spank. And I've done it successfully many times
since 1976.

I have no idea if you've convinced anyone to spank, but you sure work
hard at it.

You are a liar. And not over hairsplitting the meaning of some word, or
what you might have meant, but specifically for your long campaign here
to support people like Dobson and his views, and your attacks on any
and every argument for not spanking.

Stop pretending to be something you are not. It makes you look as
dishonest as you are.

Kane

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?

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?

by your stupidity,

What is stupid about not knowing something?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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


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.

Is everything someone won't tell you therefore a lie?

If so, and that's your rule, then for a year while you refused to answer
my few simple questions that would prove you had Report # of the Embry
study you lied.


Yet you claim I'm lying.


Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people.

What in my statement would be misleading?

We know that Embry was quoted in the parenting magazine saying very much
the same thing. He put no numerical value, but simply said "more often,"
or words to that effect.

My statement, except for the numberical value I mentioned would conform
to the claim of his findings as he quoted them to the magazine.

We were talking about
the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it.

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?

Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


That makes you a liar.


LOL!

By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!


And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.


And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

I do not follow. What exactly did she not believe that I said and what
did you say that she believed?


You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.


LOL! STOP LYING!

I'm not. A review of your postings shows this to be true on many
occasions. And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

Doan


You call them liars, or mistaken, or failures if they do no provide
encyclopedic information in each sentence they post.

You take single sentences out of context, when the answer to your lying
accusation is right there a line or two later, sometimes even in the
very next sentence.

You continue, for instance, to use my ad hom about a fithly evil poster
that advocated in favor of beating children with belts, suspended naked
for the church to whale on. You do this after I've pointed out my
reason for using it.........AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
whether or not you support her in her advocacy of this kind of
treatment of children.

That makes you a liar, Doan, or a supporter of her advocacy of child
beating.

Take you pick from the above.

YOu challenge people to debate, claiming they are afraid to, when in
fact your "debate" consists of cherry picking commentary by authors
that do not go to the objective of their experiment or study; making
claims that are not factual.

Your claim of 13 being a small sample, for instance, and ignoring that
it was from an experiment, not a survey study. Experiments can use
small or large samples.

YOU could not prove in this one that the sample size did in fact negate
the findings.

You are dishonest.

And you are a child with a problem. I think it's related to spanking.

And you lie when you claim again, as you did recently, that you do not
"tell parents to spank."

Arguments in support of spanking and against nonspanking is exactly.

Honest people freely admit their biases. I for instance intend to
influence people not to spank. And I've done it successfully many times
since 1976.

I have no idea if you've convinced anyone to spank, but you sure work
hard at it.

You are a liar. And not over hairsplitting the meaning of some word, or
what you might have meant, but specifically for your long campaign here
to support people like Dobson and his views, and your attacks on any
and every argument for not spanking.

Stop pretending to be something you are not. It makes you look as
dishonest as you are.

Kane



I'm sorry you felt compelled to not answer any of the charges and
challenges above.

Does that mean you are lying or stupid?

Make rules and you are stuck with living with them, Doan.

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 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! Calling other people "smelly-****" is harassment, exposing your
STUPIDITY is just plain fun! ;-)

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!

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? ;-)

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! ;-)

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! ;-)



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?

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

And you were wrong! ;-)

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

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?


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! Thus, it's a FALSE statement
no matter where it came from. You have study so you should know that.
Yet, you still made the claim. Thus, YOU ARE A LIART!

Is everything someone won't tell you therefore a lie?

Nope! It's what they tell me, contrary to the fact, that's a LIE!
You have the study. You know the claim you made is not the true.
YOU ARE A LIAR!

If so, and that's your rule, then for a year while you refused to answer
my few simple questions that would prove you had Report # of the Embry
study you lied.

LOL! Are you stat STUPID?


Yet you claim I'm lying.


Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people.

What in my statement would be misleading?

That the study has anything to do with spanking. In fact, if you read and
look at Figure 7 in the study, you would have known that!

We know that Embry was quoted in the parenting magazine saying very much
the same thing. He put no numerical value, but simply said "more often,"
or words to that effect.

Parenting magazine is not the original source, the Embry study is. The
only two people who seem to have this study is you and me. THAT MAKES
YOU A LIAR for intentionally giving out FALSE statement.

Take the case of Dorothy, she doesn't have study. So relied on parenting
magazine and QUESTIONED my honesty. I didn't call her a liar but,
instead I set her straight, using the information from the Embry study.
She accepted my explanation and don't even bother to ask for a copy of
the study to check me out, even when you and I tried our best to convince
her to get one.

My statement, except for the numberical value I mentioned would conform
to the claim of his findings as he quoted them to the magazine.

But you have the study and you know that the statement is FALSE! Do you
see that difference, STUPID?

We were talking about
the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it.

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?

Yes, If you can show me anything I said about this study is contrary to
what the study actually said then, you can say that I am a liar. THE SAME
RULE APPLIES TO YOU!

Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?

See above!


That makes you a liar.


LOL!

By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!

THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)


And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.


And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

I do not follow. What exactly did she not believe that I said and what
did you say that she believed?

That the study has anything to do with spanking and street entry, contrary
to the statement you made:

"parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the
highest rate of all per hour"

Do you admit now that that statement is FALSE and misleading?

....

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.


LOL! STOP LYING!

I'm not. A review of your postings shows this to be true on many
occasions. And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

You meant like you? ;-)

Doan


Doan


You call them liars, or mistaken, or failures if they do no provide
encyclopedic information in each sentence they post.

You take single sentences out of context, when the answer to your lying
accusation is right there a line or two later, sometimes even in the
very next sentence.

You continue, for instance, to use my ad hom about a fithly evil poster
that advocated in favor of beating children with belts, suspended naked
for the church to whale on. You do this after I've pointed out my
reason for using it.........AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
whether or not you support her in her advocacy of this kind of
treatment of children.

That makes you a liar, Doan, or a supporter of her advocacy of child
beating.

Take you pick from the above.

YOu challenge people to debate, claiming they are afraid to, when in
fact your "debate" consists of cherry picking commentary by authors
that do not go to the objective of their experiment or study; making
claims that are not factual.

Your claim of 13 being a small sample, for instance, and ignoring that
it was from an experiment, not a survey study. Experiments can use
small or large samples.

YOU could not prove in this one that the sample size did in fact negate
the findings.

You are dishonest.

And you are a child with a problem. I think it's related to spanking.

And you lie when you claim again, as you did recently, that you do not
"tell parents to spank."

Arguments in support of spanking and against nonspanking is exactly.

Honest people freely admit their biases. I for instance intend to
influence people not to spank. And I've done it successfully many times
since 1976.

I have no idea if you've convinced anyone to spank, but you sure work
hard at it.

You are a liar. And not over hairsplitting the meaning of some word, or
what you might have meant, but specifically for your long campaign here
to support people like Dobson and his views, and your attacks on any
and every argument for not spanking.

Stop pretending to be something you are not. It makes you look as
dishonest as you are.

Kane



I'm sorry you felt compelled to not answer any of the charges and
challenges above.

Does that mean you are lying or stupid?

Make rules and you are stuck with living with them, Doan.

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 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.

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.

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.


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?

Where did you say that?

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.

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


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.

What is stupid about stating what someone things?

You do it.


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.


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.

What is low about that?

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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?

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.


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.

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

Not if it's from somewhere else.

You have study so you should know that.

I could have more than "study," Doan. I thought you were a smart boy and
could figure such things out.

Yet, you still made the claim. Thus, YOU ARE A LIART!

I did not make the claim it was in the study. I didn't say one way or
another. I addressed the issue of the group being studied. Approximately
26 people, if you don't count the dads. I understand they weren't much
involved.

13 children, 13 moms, and 20 participating families that were not
observed for baseline.

Do you really think that all the information has to be in the report?

What an odd compulsive sort you are.

Is everything someone won't tell you therefore a lie?


Nope! It's what they tell me, contrary to the fact, that's a LIE!

Contrary to what fact?

You said yourself there was no mention of spanking in the study.

So why would my comment have to then come FROM that study?

And why would it disqualify it from being ABOUT the study or some
portion of it?

You have the study.

Yep. And another one from NZ.

You know the claim you made is not the true.

Nope. I know it to be true.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. Your attempts to manipulate facts and possibilities are coming
very close to making you look like one though.

I've told you repeatedly that I am not saying where the information came
from. Feel free to discount it, if you wish.

But it's not a lie. It's just not source available to you...at least not
through me. You might want to search some more.

Do you call everything that others know and you don't a lie?

If so, and that's your rule, then for a year while you refused to answer
my few simple questions that would prove you had Report # of the Embry
study you lied.


LOL! Are you stat STUPID?

No, I'm not 'stat' or any kind of stupid.

And the only instances you've made that claim about, I was either
mistaken, honestly, or was denied information by YOU and then called
stupid because I didn't have it. Even if I didn't claim to have it.

You just make up things as you go along. A rather typical emotionally
dysfunctional spanked child. We see it a lot in treatment centers and
classrooms.

It takes a lot of work and dedication to help them recover.

Yet you claim I'm lying.


Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people.

What in my statement would be misleading?

That the study has anything to do with spanking. In fact, if you read and
look at Figure 7 in the study, you would have known that!

Where did I say the study had anything to do with spanking?

I mentioned the demographic families, not the study.

You are unable to grasp that someone might have information from other
sources?

You do remember that Embry himself, in the magazine quotation, mentions
the issue of children going into street entries more if they were
SPANKED, do you not?

We know that Embry was quoted in the parenting magazine saying very much
the same thing. He put no numerical value, but simply said "more often,"
or words to that effect.


Parenting magazine is not the original source, the Embry study is. The
only two people who seem to have this study is you and me. THAT MAKES
YOU A LIAR for intentionally giving out FALSE statement.

I didn't use Parenting magazine as the "original source," though in this
ng that source was mentioned long before the study. I used that source
for a reference to help you sort out the reality of effective programs
for training children to play away from the street. And the study did in
fact record and report only 10% of the number of entries after the
program was effected than the baseline figure.

So I'm willing to consider it a very important experiment using 13
children and as many parents (26 people minimum) and a new program.

Take the case of Dorothy, she doesn't have study. So relied on parenting
magazine and QUESTIONED my honesty.

Did she? Or did she question your 'facts?'

I didn't call her a liar but,
instead I set her straight, using the information from the Embry study.

But you have withheld the study from her, and chided and teased her
about it, and not having it. Why is that I wonder?

She accepted my explanation and don't even bother to ask for a copy of
the study to check me out, even when you and I tried our best to convince
her to get one.

Excepted your explanation of what?

I think she would be very surprised if she actually had and read the
study. The comments you made, and quotes you presented are in one
instance at least, in total opposition to the scope of the study, and
simply enumerate something the authors and researchers pointed out they
are NOT trying to show.

In fact, that they KNOW should NOT be tried with children below a
certain age.

I believe she caught that. I can't imagine she wouldn't, considering her
work.

She knows perfectly well that punishment doesn't work with children
under 3 and 4.


My statement, except for the numberical value I mentioned would conform
to the claim of his findings as he quoted them to the magazine.


But you have the study and you know that the statement is FALSE! Do you
see that difference, STUPID?

It's not false. And you have no proof it's false. I did not say that my
statement was based on the experiment report.

We were talking about

the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it.

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


Yes, If you can show me anything I said about this study is contrary to
what the study actually said then, you can say that I am a liar. THE SAME
RULE APPLIES TO YOU!

Since I told you I'm not debating this report with you it's impossible
to continue.

And I can say anything about it I wish. Some of which may be information
from the report itself, and some not.

You have no proof one way or the other.

And no one can check on you until they have the report themselves. So
you get to say what you wish, and to mislead by quoting commentary by
the authors as caveat about the what the study does NOT do, and pretend
it negates the study itself.

Very clever and very typical of children that have grown up with fear.
Especially intelligent children. They are quite skilled at developing
rationale for the irrational.


Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


See above!

You did not answer my question above, and you are not doing so now by
referring to "See above!"

That makes you a liar.


LOL!

By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)

I'm afraid your meaning escapes me. It does not conform to any rule of
grammar I'm familiar with.

Are you possibly saying that you are in fact a liar?


And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.


And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

I do not follow. What exactly did she not believe that I said and what
did you say that she believed?


That the study has anything to do with spanking and street entry, contrary
to the statement you made:

I didn't claim the study had anything to say about spanking.

If it doesn't say anything about spanking then it is not, by default,
contrary to what I said. It may not mention it. You claim it doesn't.

Where does it say that the parents did NOT use physical punishment?

Did you notice it had a code taught to the observers FOR physical
punishment, with a careful description of what the parental acts would
have to be to be counted?

"parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the
highest rate of all per hour"

Do you admit now that that statement is FALSE and misleading?

Nope. You just don't know the source.

And to anyone in this ng that has followed the debate concerning Embry
and what he said there is that memory of his letter to and quoted by the
parenting magazine.

He said, "more."

That would, if you knew my source, cover my comment.

....

But then I'm not debating Embry with you. I offered to when you
challenged me. You either lied, or played and would not meet the
boundaries I set, perfectly reasonable 0:- ones, and ran out of time.

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.


LOL! STOP LYING!

I'm not. A review of your postings shows this to be true on many
occasions. And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

You meant like you? ;-)

When have I called you "STUPID!?"

So, I still say what I said above, that you have now not answered to
again. "And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

Doan

...........snipping more of Doan's old dodgings........

I'm sorry you felt compelled to not answer any of the charges and
challenges above.

Does that mean you are lying or stupid?

Make rules and you are stuck with living with them, Doan.

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


Have a great day. Hope your boss doesn't mind all the time you spend
doing this.

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 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.

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.

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.


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?

Where did you say that?

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.

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


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.

What is stupid about stating what someone things?

You do it.


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.


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.

What is low about that?

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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?

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.


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.

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

Not if it's from somewhere else.

You have study so you should know that.

I could have more than "study," Doan. I thought you were a smart boy
and
could figure such things out.

Yet, you still made the claim. Thus, YOU ARE A LIART!

I did not make the claim it was in the study. I didn't say one way or
another. I addressed the issue of the group being studied.
Approximately
26 people, if you don't count the dads. I understand they weren't much
involved.

13 children, 13 moms, and 20 participating families that were not
observed for baseline.

Do you really think that all the information has to be in the report?

What an odd compulsive sort you are.

Is everything someone won't tell you therefore a lie?


Nope! It's what they tell me, contrary to the fact, that's a LIE!

Contrary to what fact?

You said yourself there was no mention of spanking in the study.

So why would my comment have to then come FROM that study?

And why would it disqualify it from being ABOUT the study or some
portion of it?

You have the study.

Yep. And another one from NZ.

You know the claim you made is not the true.

Nope. I know it to be true.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. Your attempts to manipulate facts and possibilities are coming
very close to making you look like one though.

I've told you repeatedly that I am not saying where the information
came
from. Feel free to discount it, if you wish.

But it's not a lie. It's just not source available to you...at least
not
through me. You might want to search some more.

Do you call everything that others know and you don't a lie?

If so, and that's your rule, then for a year while you refused to answer
my few simple questions that would prove you had Report # of the Embry
study you lied.


LOL! Are you stat STUPID?

No, I'm not 'stat' or any kind of stupid.

And the only instances you've made that claim about, I was either
mistaken, honestly, or was denied information by YOU and then called
stupid because I didn't have it. Even if I didn't claim to have it.

You just make up things as you go along. A rather typical emotionally
dysfunctional spanked child. We see it a lot in treatment centers and
classrooms.

It takes a lot of work and dedication to help them recover.

Yet you claim I'm lying.


Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people.

What in my statement would be misleading?

That the study has anything to do with spanking. In fact, if you read and
look at Figure 7 in the study, you would have known that!

Where did I say the study had anything to do with spanking?

I mentioned the demographic families, not the study.

You are unable to grasp that someone might have information from other
sources?

You do remember that Embry himself, in the magazine quotation, mentions

the issue of children going into street entries more if they were
SPANKED, do you not?

We know that Embry was quoted in the parenting magazine saying very much
the same thing. He put no numerical value, but simply said "more often,"
or words to that effect.


Parenting magazine is not the original source, the Embry study is. The
only two people who seem to have this study is you and me. THAT MAKES
YOU A LIAR for intentionally giving out FALSE statement.

I didn't use Parenting magazine as the "original source," though in
this
ng that source was mentioned long before the study. I used that source
for a reference to help you sort out the reality of effective programs
for training children to play away from the street. And the study did
in
fact record and report only 10% of the number of entries after the
program was effected than the baseline figure.

So I'm willing to consider it a very important experiment using 13
children and as many parents (26 people minimum) and a new program.

Take the case of Dorothy, she doesn't have study. So relied on parenting
magazine and QUESTIONED my honesty.

Did she? Or did she question your 'facts?'

I didn't call her a liar but,
instead I set her straight, using the information from the Embry study.

But you have withheld the study from her, and chided and teased her
about it, and not having it. Why is that I wonder?

She accepted my explanation and don't even bother to ask for a copy of
the study to check me out, even when you and I tried our best to convince
her to get one.

Excepted your explanation of what?

I think she would be very surprised if she actually had and read the
study. The comments you made, and quotes you presented are in one
instance at least, in total opposition to the scope of the study, and
simply enumerate something the authors and researchers pointed out they

are NOT trying to show.

In fact, that they KNOW should NOT be tried with children below a
certain age.

I believe she caught that. I can't imagine she wouldn't, considering
her
work.

She knows perfectly well that punishment doesn't work with children
under 3 and 4.


My statement, except for the numberical value I mentioned would conform
to the claim of his findings as he quoted them to the magazine.


But you have the study and you know that the statement is FALSE! Do you
see that difference, STUPID?

It's not false. And you have no proof it's false. I did not say that my

statement was based on the experiment report.

We were talking about

the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it.

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


Yes, If you can show me anything I said about this study is contrary to
what the study actually said then, you can say that I am a liar. THE SAME
RULE APPLIES TO YOU!

Since I told you I'm not debating this report with you it's impossible
to continue.

And I can say anything about it I wish. Some of which may be
information
from the report itself, and some not.

You have no proof one way or the other.

And no one can check on you until they have the report themselves. So
you get to say what you wish, and to mislead by quoting commentary by
the authors as caveat about the what the study does NOT do, and pretend

it negates the study itself.

Very clever and very typical of children that have grown up with fear.
Especially intelligent children. They are quite skilled at developing
rationale for the irrational.


Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


See above!

You did not answer my question above, and you are not doing so now by
referring to "See above!"

That makes you a liar.


LOL!

By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)

I'm afraid your meaning escapes me. It does not conform to any rule of
grammar I'm familiar with.

Are you possibly saying that you are in fact a liar?


And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.


And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

I do not follow. What exactly did she not believe that I said and what
did you say that she believed?


That the study has anything to do with spanking and street entry, contrary
to the statement you made:

I didn't claim the study had anything to say about spanking.

If it doesn't say anything about spanking then it is not, by default,
contrary to what I said. It may not mention it. You claim it doesn't.

Where does it say that the parents did NOT use physical punishment?

Did you notice it had a code taught to the observers FOR physical
punishment, with a careful description of what the parental acts would
have to be to be counted?

"parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the
highest rate of all per hour"

Do you admit now that that statement is FALSE and misleading?

Nope. You just don't know the source.

And to anyone in this ng that has followed the debate concerning Embry
and what he said there is that memory of his letter to and quoted by
the
parenting magazine.

He said, "more."

That would, if you knew my source, cover my comment.

....

But then I'm not debating Embry with you. I offered to when you
challenged me. You either lied, or played and would not meet the
boundaries I set, perfectly reasonable 0:- ones, and ran out of time.

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.


LOL! STOP LYING!

I'm not. A review of your postings shows this to be true on many
occasions. And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

You meant like you? ;-)

When have I called you "STUPID!?"

So, I still say what I said above, that you have now not answered to
again. "And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

Doan

...........snipping more of Doan's old dodgings........

I'm sorry you felt compelled to not answer any of the charges and
challenges above.

Does that mean you are lying or stupid?

Make rules and you are stuck with living with them, Doan.

Kane

--


Have a great day. Hope your boss doesn't mind all the time you spend
doing this.

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??? ;-)


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". You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the
Hutterites. You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the MacMillan
study. You showed your STUPIDITY by being wrong on the Embry study!
Enough for 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?

What is low about that?

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

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

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

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!

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! ;-)

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! ;-)

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. ARE YOU SO STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT???

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!

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?
;-)

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?


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!

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.


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!

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

Not if it's from somewhere else.

PROVE IT!

You have study so you should know that.

I could have more than "study," Doan. I thought you were a smart boy
and
could figure such things out.

LOL! PROVE IT!

Yet, you still made the claim. Thus, YOU ARE A LIART!

I did not make the claim it was in the study. I didn't say one way or
another. I addressed the issue of the group being studied.
Approximately
26 people, if you don't count the dads. I understand they weren't much
involved.

13 children, 13 moms, and 20 participating families that were not
observed for baseline.

Don't BS me. That's state is FALSE! And I can prove it! Go ahead, Kane.
Make my day! Let me prove your STUPIDITY, AGAIN! ;-)

Do you really think that all the information has to be in the report?

YES! DUH!

What an odd compulsive sort you are.

What a STUPID ASSHOLE you are! ;-)

Is everything someone won't tell you therefore a lie?


Nope! It's what they tell me, contrary to the fact, that's a LIE!

Contrary to what fact?

The verifiable fact!

You said yourself there was no mention of spanking in the study.

So why would my comment have to then come FROM that study?

BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR!

And why would it disqualify it from being ABOUT the study or some
portion of it?

Because it's contrary to what the study said!

You have the study.

Yep. And another one from NZ.

LOL!
You know the claim you made is not the true.

Nope. I know it to be true.

Then prove it!

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. Your attempts to manipulate facts and possibilities are coming
very close to making you look like one though.

I have proven that you are a liar. I don't make baseless claim like you
do. ;-)

I've told you repeatedly that I am not saying where the information
came
from. Feel free to discount it, if you wish.

I and everyone here already did. SEE IF YOU CAN GET ANYONE TO BELIEVE
YOU, IDIOT!

But it's not a lie. It's just not source available to you...at least
not
through me. You might want to search some more.

LOL!

Do you call everything that others know and you don't a lie?

Only if it contrary to the established fact!

If so, and that's your rule, then for a year while you refused to answer
my few simple questions that would prove you had Report # of the Embry
study you lied.


LOL! Are you stat STUPID?

No, I'm not 'stat' or any kind of stupid.

But you ARE STUPID! ;-)

And the only instances you've made that claim about, I was either
mistaken, honestly, or was denied information by YOU and then called
stupid because I didn't have it. Even if I didn't claim to have it.

LOL!

You just make up things as you go along. A rather typical emotionally
dysfunctional spanked child. We see it a lot in treatment centers and
classrooms.

LOL!

It takes a lot of work and dedication to help them recover.

LOL!

Yet you claim I'm lying.


Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people.

What in my statement would be misleading?

That the study has anything to do with spanking. In fact, if you read and
look at Figure 7 in the study, you would have known that!

Where did I say the study had anything to do with spanking?

EXACTLY!

I mentioned the demographic families, not the study.

LOL!

You are unable to grasp that someone might have information from other
sources?

There might be UFOs too! ;-)

You do remember that Embry himself, in the magazine quotation, mentions

the issue of children going into street entries more if they were
SPANKED, do you not?

Not according to the study you and I had!

We know that Embry was quoted in the parenting magazine saying very much
the same thing. He put no numerical value, but simply said "more often,"
or words to that effect.


Parenting magazine is not the original source, the Embry study is. The
only two people who seem to have this study is you and me. THAT MAKES
YOU A LIAR for intentionally giving out FALSE statement.

I didn't use Parenting magazine as the "original source," though in
this
ng that source was mentioned long before the study. I used that source
for a reference to help you sort out the reality of effective programs
for training children to play away from the street. And the study did
in
fact record and report only 10% of the number of entries after the
program was effected than the baseline figure.

So I'm willing to consider it a very important experiment using 13
children and as many parents (26 people minimum) and a new program.

Showing your stupidity again! ;-)

Take the case of Dorothy, she doesn't have study. So relied on parenting
magazine and QUESTIONED my honesty.

Did she? Or did she question your 'facts?'

My honesty. Ask her!

I didn't call her a liar but,
instead I set her straight, using the information from the Embry study.

But you have withheld the study from her, and chided and teased her
about it, and not having it. Why is that I wonder?

Because I have to "con" one from you? ;-)

She accepted my explanation and don't even bother to ask for a copy of
the study to check me out, even when you and I tried our best to convince
her to get one.

Excepted your explanation of what?

Ask her!

I think she would be very surprised if she actually had and read the
study. The comments you made, and quotes you presented are in one
instance at least, in total opposition to the scope of the study, and
simply enumerate something the authors and researchers pointed out they

are NOT trying to show.

So put what you have on the table. PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT I AM WRONG!

In fact, that they KNOW should NOT be tried with children below a
certain age.

I believe she caught that. I can't imagine she wouldn't, considering
her
work.

She knows perfectly well that punishment doesn't work with children
under 3 and 4.

I would let her speak for herself!


My statement, except for the numberical value I mentioned would conform
to the claim of his findings as he quoted them to the magazine.


But you have the study and you know that the statement is FALSE! Do you
see that difference, STUPID?

It's not false. And you have no proof it's false. I did not say that my

statement was based on the experiment report.

Then prove the veracity of that statement. YOU CAN'T AND YOU KNOW IT!

We were talking about

the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it.

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


Yes, If you can show me anything I said about this study is contrary to
what the study actually said then, you can say that I am a liar. THE SAME
RULE APPLIES TO YOU!

Since I told you I'm not debating this report with you it's impossible
to continue.

Sound like a dodge! ;-)

And I can say anything about it I wish. Some of which may be
information
from the report itself, and some not.

And I will expose your LIES when I see it!

You have no proof one way or the other.

YES, I DO. I have the study! ;-)

And no one can check on you until they have the report themselves. So
you get to say what you wish, and to mislead by quoting commentary by
the authors as caveat about the what the study does NOT do, and pretend

So give them the report, Kane! Or are you so stupid to keep the precious
report to yourself and that anyone, who asked you for it, is working for
me! ;-)

it negates the study itself.

Very clever and very typical of children that have grown up with fear.
Especially intelligent children. They are quite skilled at developing
rationale for the irrational.

At least they don't grow up to be STUPID like you! ;-)


Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


See above!

You did not answer my question above, and you are not doing so now by
referring to "See above!"

I did. Are you so stupid as not to see that!

That makes you a liar.


LOL!

By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)

I'm afraid your meaning escapes me. It does not conform to any rule of
grammar I'm familiar with.

YOU ARE A LIAR? (Subject verb object) ;-0

Are you possibly saying that you are in fact a liar?

No. Let me make it clear for you: IGNORANUS KANE0 IS A LIAR! ;-)


And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.


And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

I do not follow. What exactly did she not believe that I said and what
did you say that she believed?


That the study has anything to do with spanking and street entry, contrary
to the statement you made:

I didn't claim the study had anything to say about spanking.

So why bring it up in this newsgroup, STUPID!

If it doesn't say anything about spanking then it is not, by default,
contrary to what I said. It may not mention it. You claim it doesn't.

Where does it say that the parents did NOT use physical punishment?

Huh?

Did you notice it had a code taught to the observers FOR physical
punishment, with a careful description of what the parental acts would
have to be to be counted?

And the data?

"parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the
highest rate of all per hour"

Do you admit now that that statement is FALSE and misleading?

Nope. You just don't know the source.

It's not in the study!

And to anyone in this ng that has followed the debate concerning Embry
and what he said there is that memory of his letter to and quoted by
the
parenting magazine.

He said, "more."

That would, if you knew my source, cover my comment.

LOL!

....

But then I'm not debating Embry with you. I offered to when you
challenged me. You either lied, or played and would not meet the
boundaries I set, perfectly reasonable 0:- ones, and ran out of time.

You can't debate on anything without LIES! You are EXPOSED! ;-)

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.


LOL! STOP LYING!

I'm not. A review of your postings shows this to be true on many
occasions. And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

You meant like you? ;-)

When have I called you "STUPID!?"

When you are caught with your LIES! ;-)

So, I still say what I said above, that you have now not answered to
again. "And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

"simple refuse" as opposed to "complex refuse"??? ;-)

Doan

..........snipping more of Doan's old dodgings........

LOL! You meant your own?

I'm sorry you felt compelled to not answer any of the charges and
challenges above.

Does that mean you are lying or stupid?

Make rules and you are stuck with living with them, Doan.

Kane

--


Have a great day. Hope your boss doesn't mind all the time you spend
doing this.

LOL! Is that a threat: Should I use a fake account now? ;-)

Doan

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


.........snipping the usual one liner lies...........

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?

...snipping more of Doan's pathetic "argument" ............

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

Your proof?

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.

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

Not 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. 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.

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.

...mercy snip.............

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?


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.


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.

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'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?

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
be you didn't know? Or did you just withhold it for some reason of your
own? What would that reason be? Considering she could have gotten it there.

Why didn't you tell her about the library, if you had it when you said
you did, and you claim that is where you got your copy?

YOu offered her a copy. Did you not.

From where? From the library? And you didn't tell her about that
source? And offer it to her?

She might have had an account herself.

But then, there is was IN THE COPY, Doan, as you and I both know, that
it was in fact DONE for The AAA foundation. So obviously you would have
known to look there, IF you actually had a copy way back then, and tell
her about it.


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?

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.

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.

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

It's in the REPORT COPY ITSELF.

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

In other words, you lied.

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?

No, I'm not saying that. How stupid is it to claim 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.

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.

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:-

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Do with it whatever you want.

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?

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?

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

...........superflous verbiage...............

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.

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

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.

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

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?


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.

You prove that you know were the line is. You prove that you have a
belief personally about whether or not the judge was right in aquiting
that city councilman that beat his kid, and what your argument is.

In fact, I'd say you need to go back over many years of postings and
prove, when you were asked, your claims....instead of screaming
'STUPID!' at the poster, when you claim was so strange and incorrect.


You have study so you should know that.

I could have more than "study," Doan. I thought you were a smart boy
and
could figure such things out.


LOL! PROVE IT!

No.

Yet, you still made the claim. Thus, YOU ARE A LIART!

I did not make the claim it was in the study. I didn't say one way or
another. I addressed the issue of the group being studied.
Approximately
26 people, if you don't count the dads. I understand they weren't much
involved.

13 children, 13 moms, and 20 participating families that were not
observed for baseline.


Don't BS me. That's state is FALSE! And I can prove it! Go ahead, Kane.
Make my day! Let me prove your STUPIDITY, AGAIN! ;-)


Well, go ahead. Prove it. How are you going to, since so many people do
not have the study? You can claim just about anything, can't you?

See why I wouldn't debate with a liar unless he proved to me he had the
study?


I'm sure you can split hairs and find something I left out of the
statement above, but that doens't make it false, or stupid.

You appear to be with your fake macho bull****, however.

Which mother was the only single mother in the study?

Do you really think that all the information has to be in the report?


YES! DUH!

Now that IS stupid. Many details reside in notes that do NOT go into
final reports on studies. You know better than to make the claim you
just did. Notes frequently run into thousands of pages for a report of a
hundred pages.

I have no idea how extensive Embry's notes were, but I can assure you,
it did not come out to a hundred pages or so, like his report. In fact
he only had about 73 or so pages that were the report proper, and the
rest appendix.


What an odd compulsive sort you are.


What a STUPID ASSHOLE you are! ;-)

That depends on one's perspective. Yours seems to be below my waist.
What are you doing down there so much?

Is everything someone won't tell you therefore a lie?


Nope! It's what they tell me, contrary to the fact, that's a LIE!

Contrary to what fact?


The verifiable fact!

What verifiable fact?

I have not told you my source. Unless you have guessed it and can read
it, and can provide a copy of it, then you can't prove it.


You said yourself there was no mention of spanking in the study.

So why would my comment have to then come FROM that study?


BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR!

"why would my comment have to then come FROM that study"
Is what I asked. Your answer makes no sense.

Alina doesn't think I'm a liar.

And why would it disqualify it from being ABOUT the study or some
portion of it?


Because it's contrary to what the study said!

The study didn't even address spanking, other than to have a code
description for the field observers to use if they saw one.

There is no mention of it in any of the charts, but that doesn't prove
it didn't happen, and Doan, it does not address the baseline unobserved.

Getting the hint yet?

You have the study.

Yep. And another one from NZ.


LOL!

I'm sorry if that makes you nervious. I promise I will not call you
stupid (though I certainly consider you stupid for other things you've
done...and chances you've taken, without thinking about your own
protection) for not having the NZ study.

It's pretty interesting, but since I'm not going to debate Embry with
you, I certainly am not going to do so witht he NZ study.

You've proven you won't deal honestly with me, so if you claimed you had
it you'd likely do the same as you did for this past year or so with the
Embry study...pretend you wished to debate, until the deadline ran out.

You know the claim you made is not the true.

Nope. I know it to be true.


Then prove it!

No. There is no practical need. Embry's other statements, and the study
itself are sufficient information to have a debate about...just not with
me. Find someone to debate. If you can.


YOU ARE A LIAR!

Nope. Your attempts to manipulate facts and possibilities are coming
very close to making you look like one though.


I have proven that you are a liar. I don't make baseless claim like you
do. ;-)

No, I am not. And making a claim or not doesn't make me a liar. I made
no particular baseline claim other than to count the number of families.


I've told you repeatedly that I am not saying where the information
came
from. Feel free to discount it, if you wish.


I and everyone here already did. SEE IF YOU CAN GET ANYONE TO BELIEVE
YOU, IDIOT!

I don't care. In fact I believe Dorothy, shortly after you challenged me
on it made a point of quoting Embry from another source that tended to
agree with me in direction...that more CP resulted in more street entries.

I would presume that Dorothy is smart enough, and honest enough to not
try to call me a liar if I'm not offering my source, and knows she is
free to discard my statement, or take it on over evidence.

I'm comfortable with Embry and with Dorothy. And I know that others know
what's in the report, because I sent them copies.

I kind of wonder what they make of your attempts to mangle it by the
usual carefully picked piece that doesn't actually address the intent of
the study experiment though.

They are obviously aware of what you did.


But it's not a lie. It's just not source available to you...at least
not
through me. You might want to search some more.


LOL!

Feeling nervous?


Do you call everything that others know and you don't a lie?


Only if it contrary to the established fact!

What fact is established? That children that are spanked run into the
street more often than children that are not?

Yes, that IS an established fact by Embry and by others in general on
the issue of how corporal punishment fails to work as intended in some
instances.

If so, and that's your rule, then for a year while you refused to answer
my few simple questions that would prove you had Report # of the Embry
study you lied.


LOL! Are you stat STUPID?

No, I'm not 'stat' or any kind of stupid.


But you ARE STUPID! ;-)

That's not what I said. And no, I'm not stupid, though I know you wish
it. Especially now. Alina knows I'm not stupid.

And the only instances you've made that claim about, I was either
mistaken, honestly, or was denied information by YOU and then called
stupid because I didn't have it. Even if I didn't claim to have it.


LOL!

Sorry you are embarrassed.


You just make up things as you go along. A rather typical emotionally
dysfunctional spanked child. We see it a lot in treatment centers and
classrooms.


LOL!


It takes a lot of work and dedication to help them recover.


LOL!


Yet you claim I'm lying.


Yet you are if your intention is to mislead people.

What in my statement would be misleading?


That the study has anything to do with spanking. In fact, if you read and
look at Figure 7 in the study, you would have known that!

Where did I say the study had anything to do with spanking?


EXACTLY!

If I didn't say, then it's not established I made any such claim. But I
didn't say it wasn't either. I've not offered the source, study or other.


I mentioned the demographic families, not the study.


LOL!

Yes, you should be embarassed to let a stupid person like me to uncover
your faulty logic.


You are unable to grasp that someone might have information from other
sources?


There might be UFOs too! ;-)

No, I don't believe in them. And I was in the USAF during a long period
when much study was being done. Had some duties related. I found nothing
that could not be various other physical phenomena. Easily explained
when one has the information needed. 0:-

You seem unable to grasp this concept yourself, or you wouldn't metion
UFOs.

Do you really want to pretend I can't have information from other
sources than the study, related to the population in the study?

You do remember that Embry himself, in the magazine quotation, mentions

the issue of children going into street entries more if they were
SPANKED, do you not?


Not according to the study you and I had!

I didn't mention the study, now did I?

We know that Embry was quoted in the parenting magazine saying very much
the same thing. He put no numerical value, but simply said "more often,"
or words to that effect.


Parenting magazine is not the original source, the Embry study is. The
only two people who seem to have this study is you and me. THAT MAKES
YOU A LIAR for intentionally giving out FALSE statement.

I didn't use Parenting magazine as the "original source," though in
this
ng that source was mentioned long before the study. I used that source
for a reference to help you sort out the reality of effective programs
for training children to play away from the street. And the study did
in
fact record and report only 10% of the number of entries after the
program was effected than the baseline figure.

So I'm willing to consider it a very important experiment using 13
children and as many parents (26 people minimum) and a new program.


Showing your stupidity again! ;-)

Do the children not have parents? Were they not study subjects as well?
If not why were their actions counted and scored and described as part
of the desired outcome?


Take the case of Dorothy, she doesn't have study. So relied on parenting
magazine and QUESTIONED my honesty.

Did she? Or did she question your 'facts?'


My honesty. Ask her!

No, I'm asking you to support your claim. Dorothy is under no obligation
to do so, and you don't know if I've looked or not.

So get honest and trot the words up here that prove your claim...or
don't. It's entirely up to you.

I didn't call her a liar but,
instead I set her straight, using the information from the Embry study.

But you have withheld the study from her, and chided and teased her
about it, and not having it. Why is that I wonder?

Because I have to "con" one from you? ;-)

Stop being silly, child.

She accepted my explanation and don't even bother to ask for a copy of
the study to check me out, even when you and I tried our best to convince
her to get one.

Excepted your explanation of what?


Ask her!

No, you prove your claim.

Dorothy is busy with the child and doesn't need to deal with you,
another one.


I think she would be very surprised if she actually had and read the
study. The comments you made, and quotes you presented are in one
instance at least, in total opposition to the scope of the study, and
simply enumerate something the authors and researchers pointed out they

are NOT trying to show.


So put what you have on the table. PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT I AM WRONG!

No. I'm not debating Embry with you, just calling you a liar. You are
one. Everyone can see it, but you, possibly.

It could be you are just a compulsive. Then of course, you could not see
what others do see about you.

The posts are already, "on the table." Anyone can read them. Even you.

In fact, that they KNOW should NOT be tried with children below a
certain age.

I believe she caught that. I can't imagine she wouldn't, considering
her
work.

She knows perfectly well that punishment doesn't work with children
under 3 and 4.


I would let her speak for herself!

She already did. I'm paraphrasing her.

"Let's you and her fight" is a very childish schoolyard bully tactic,
Doan. I doubt she would fall for it, and I certainly am not going to.

Even where I disagree with her (and I can't remember if I have in the
past) I certainly know I'm not dealing with a liar, and I certainly know
I'm dealing with a highly trained and very experienced professional.

Now with you...........R R R R RR

My statement, except for the numberical value I mentioned would conform
to the claim of his findings as he quoted them to the magazine.


But you have the study and you know that the statement is FALSE! Do you
see that difference, STUPID?

It's not false. And you have no proof it's false. I did not say that my

statement was based on the experiment report.


Then prove the veracity of that statement. YOU CAN'T AND YOU KNOW IT!

Nope. I offered the supporting statement, as did Dororthy, by the way,
from the Embry parenting magazine quotation to show the general
understanding of child behavior that agrees with my statement.

The specifics are not important. Nor the source. And you may feel free
to discount it as you wish. Most of us, particulary the professionals,
know such information to be true.

A number of studies have shown the same.

It's one of the reasons schools all across the country, even in
districts in states that allow paddling have disallowed it. That, and
being sued. 0:-

They know it's counterproductive. It encourages many unwanted outcomes,
not the least of which is the psychological health of the victim, the
child.

Go read your Psych 101 text book. Mine was very clear on such
things...of course yours may have become a political correct piece of
toilet paper. Can't say.

We were talking about

the Embry study and yet you made a claim about it.

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


Yes, If you can show me anything I said about this study is contrary to
what the study actually said then, you can say that I am a liar. THE SAME
RULE APPLIES TO YOU!

Since I told you I'm not debating this report with you it's impossible
to continue.


Sound like a dodge! ;-)

Regardless of what it sounds like, I did tell you that last year. I had
a deadline, you went past it. My requestion was reasonable, and you
refused to participate when you could.

Certainly not my loss. The report will be around for a long time. The
program has been highly successful. It's consistent with findings in the
field of learning theory, and operant conditioning research.

And I can say anything about it I wish. Some of which may be
information
from the report itself, and some not.


And I will expose your LIES when I see it!

You think you do. More often you make a considerable fool of yourself by
insisting something is a lie that is not.

I do not intentionally mislead anyone, but YOU, of course, in our
private little messages enclosed in these larger ones.

At no time have I deliberately tried to mislead a single reader. Ever.

Mistaken? Sure. Who doesn't make mistakes? You?

Misinformed? Sure. You never been misinformed have you?

You have no proof one way or the other.

YES, I DO. I have the study! ;-)

But I did not say my information came from the study, one way or the other.

So they study proves something to you, but to no one else, and it does
not prove from where I got that information.


And no one can check on you until they have the report themselves. So
you get to say what you wish, and to mislead by quoting commentary by
the authors as caveat about the what the study does NOT do, and pretend


So give them the report, Kane! Or are you so stupid to keep the precious
report to yourself and that anyone, who asked you for it, is working for
me! ;-)

I've sent it at my own expense to four people. And if Dorothy asks for
it, she is welcome. I can send it to her for pickup away from her own
personal address to preserve her privacy.

I can't send it to someone that does not ask for it and set up a way to
receive it.

Why are you insisting I send it, if there is no way to address it?

Harassment?

it negates the study itself.

Very clever and very typical of children that have grown up with fear.
Especially intelligent children. They are quite skilled at developing
rationale for the irrational.


At least they don't grow up to be STUPID like you! ;-)

Shermer has a great bit of research cited in his book on Scepticism. He
points out the same thing as other researchers have found. That the
intelligent are much better at fooling themselves into believing things
that are not true. They have the brain power to create these false
supports.

He mentions it because the data shows that it is NOT the unintelligent
that believe more often in the superstitious, but in fact the intelligent.

It's true with Holocaust deniers, and with the Devine Creation folks as
well, that are deniers of evolution.

At one time the Flat Earthers boasted some very well respected
intellectuals of their day. Very smart folks.

And some of my most disturbed clients were highly intelligent, well
read, and well versed in argument to defend the most bizzare of beliefs.

Now you say you
weren't talking about the study???

I haven't said one way or the other. Nor will I. And that does not make
me a liar, unless you wish the same rule applied to you. Do you?


See above!

You did not answer my question above, and you are not doing so now by
referring to "See above!"


I did. Are you so stupid as not to see that!

As usual. I suggest you read my reply at, "see above," rather than
continue the same stupid lying.

That makes you a liar.


LOL!

By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!


THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)

I'm afraid your meaning escapes me. It does not conform to any rule of
grammar I'm familiar with.


YOU ARE A LIAR? (Subject verb object) ;-0

You failed to address the statement that preceeded which you referred to
with "that."

Kane:
"By your rules, yes. It does. LOL!
Doan:
THAT YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)"

Are you possibly saying that you are in fact a liar?


No. Let me make it clear for you: IGNORANUS KANE0 IS A LIAR! ;-)

Prove it.

And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters
for years.


And yet Dorothy believe me about the Embry study and not you..

I do not follow. What exactly did she not believe that I said and what
did you say that she believed?


That the study has anything to do with spanking and street entry, contrary
to the statement you made:

I didn't claim the study had anything to say about spanking.


So why bring it up in this newsgroup, STUPID!

This is a newsgroup with the name, alt.parenting.spanking. I thought it
might be nice to mention the subject in the name. How about you?

If it doesn't say anything about spanking then it is not, by default,
contrary to what I said. It may not mention it. You claim it doesn't.

Where does it say that the parents did NOT use physical punishment?

Huh?

The question is simple enough.

Did you notice it had a code taught to the observers FOR physical
punishment, with a careful description of what the parental acts would
have to be to be counted?


And the data?

As I said, no debate of the report on the experiment. Remember?

If you wish to discuss the data please find someone that didn't give you
a deadline.

If you can find anyone that wants to debate with you.

You might find it a bit difficult given you are so prone to bullying and
lying though. And calling people that ask you to explain your meaning,
"STUPID!"

Folks are like that.

"parents who spanked before had children that attemped entries at the
highest rate of all per hour"

Do you admit now that that statement is FALSE and misleading?

Nope. You just don't know the source.


It's not in the study!

Whatever you say I suppose. sigh I can't say, of course. Not allowed to.

And to anyone in this ng that has followed the debate concerning Embry
and what he said there is that memory of his letter to and quoted by
the
parenting magazine.

He said, "more."

That would, if you knew my source, cover my comment.


LOL!

Are you saying he didn't say it or you can't answer?


....

But then I'm not debating Embry with you. I offered to when you
challenged me. You either lied, or played and would not meet the
boundaries I set, perfectly reasonable 0:- ones, and ran out of time.


You can't debate on anything without LIES! You are EXPOSED! ;-)

Nope. I refused to. That's because you refused a simple request.

You made the choice, really. Not I.

I'm not the least exposed. I don't lie.

You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to
accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first
time around.


LOL! STOP LYING!

I'm not. A review of your postings shows this to be true on many
occasions. And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"

You meant like you? ;-)

When have I called you "STUPID!?"


When you are caught with your LIES! ;-)

Nope. Only when you did something really really stupid.

So, I still say what I said above, that you have now not answered to
again. "And when you are caught you simple refuse to respond with
anything but "STUPID!"


"simple refuse" as opposed to "complex refuse"??? ;-)

You know what they typo was and my meaning. Stop playing at being
stupid. You are too good at it. 0;-


Doan

..........snipping more of Doan's old dodgings........


LOL! You meant your own?

To be honest I have to take out what you dodged. That would be rude of
me to leave my comment and questions and just take out your failures to
respond honestly.

I'm sorry you felt compelled to not answer any of the charges and
challenges above.

Does that mean you are lying or stupid?

Make rules and you are stuck with living with them, Doan.

Kane

--


Have a great day. Hope your boss doesn't mind all the time you spend
doing this.


LOL! Is that a threat:

I never threaten. Did you mean to have a question mark on the end, or
was that a statement of my intent as you believe it to be, hence no
question mark?

Do you believe I threaten you? If so how?

Should I use a fake account now? ;-)

You mean like Fern, observer, Michael, and others?

Sure. Feel free if you wish. I attach NO significance to it. You seem to
have a need to though.

You posted a few posts recently through another account. I don't care
why. Did you have some unsavor reason? I wouldn't have thought so.

Doan

You rest your weary head, boy.

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

Dorothy,

While I agree with what you say regarding spanking and punishment, I
want to comment on statements below regarding methods used for children
with autism, in case there are individuals, especially from misc.kids
that have children with autism. I'm a former special education teacher
and an autism specialist.

toto wrote:

Note that applied behavioral analysis which is a method used in
teaching autistic children and which is the only method that has had
much success began with the use of many aversives and has evolved
into a system which relies almost exclusively on rewards (external
ones primarily with autistic children, but still rewards nonetheless,
not punishments).

Applied Behavioral Analysis has definitely evolved over the years.
While it remains a popular strategy for use in working with children
diagnosed with autism, it is from from "the only method that has had
much success." Research has shown that there are characteristics of
successful intervention for children with autism, regardless of the
strategies or program used. These include structure, predictability,
use of visual schedules, immediate generalization to less intrusive
environments, augmented language, and extended time. There is no
empirical evidence that ABA is preferable over other programs that
incorporate appropriate strategies that have empirical data that
demonstrates effectiveness.

Even with the extreme behavioral problems which
many of these children present, rewards for good behavior have been
found to be more effective than trying to extinguish the bad behavior
with punishments.

Dr. Stanley Greenspan has implemented something called "floor time."
Dr. Greenspan believes that even without punishment, the rewards portion
relies on external control and the child with autism understanding and
responding to the so-called reward. Floor time is a far less intrusive
method that works with the child and helps the children understand
his/her environment and internalize appropriate responses. So far, the
research is extremely positive.

Children whose *bad* behaviors don't get them attention are the kids
whose bad behavior generally goes away. Punishing them is giving
them attention when they misbehave and so it does not help them to
learn *not* to misbehave.

For many children with autism, attention seeking is the last thing on
their minds. Many children with autism would prefer to be left alone
because the world is confusing, and being alone is more internally
rewarding and far less frightening. Often, children with autism respond
behaviorally because they are confused, they perceive the world
differently, and rewards often do little to help them function beyond
the compliance for a reward that is meaningful to them (often a
preferred food).

If you or anyone else reading this would like more information on autism
or working with children diagnosed on the autism spectrum, feel free to
email me personally.

LaVonne


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits