Kane lies again

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently
point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as
punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage
him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a
punishment,
unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing
"sit and
watch."

Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times
when it is
something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when
children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant.

And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how
to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes.
Surely a human parent can figure that out.

By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder?

If "sit and watch" is voluntary,

Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you
saw they needed information and teaching and support?

Boy, will your kids be deprived.

with the parent inviting the child to sit
and watch while the parent points out how the other children are
playing
safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment
in that
situation.

Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those
episodes before the real thing.

You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right?

But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be
playing very definitely is a punishment.

Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.

The study called it punishment!

Okay. That's what it says.

Hihihi! So you lied!

About what?

You are still ignoring that I disagreed, not that the word wasn't used.

You are a pathological liar, Doan.

I disagree. In two ways. Embry's use of the word, and using "punishment"
as an approach to the child.

So?


Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving
stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for
unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling."

Remember that, Kane?

Might you argue that this "punishment" was the deciding factor in the
reduction of street entries?

It was one of the factor, was it not?

Yep, and what you just posted kind of proves my point...no?

Did you forget this from your own post?

"And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7% "

Notice it included no CP? 0:-

So? The study wasn't about CP.

So, this is a CP newsgroup. Is it not?

That is why I pointed your LIES when you
said:

I didn't lie. You are doing so now.

You pointed out my disagreement with Embry's use of the word,
"punishment," and called it a lie.

Note how small the percentage is for each item on the "problems list"
above, that it isn't of "parents," but just items. ONE parent could have
made all those complaints, or two or three, Doan.

You and I both know there were more than 10 parents, genius.

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

Remembered? ;-)

That's what Embry said he observed with spanking parents. Are you
suggesting it was the unspanked children that were spanked?

And that this group had no parents that spanked before? R R R R R R


Doan


Sure Doan. That's it. It's a 'lie' to disagree with a researcher.

Your argument just fell on your ass.

0:-

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 10 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newst6dnaKGOMnBJObYnZ2dnUVZ_uW3nZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I didn't make that claim. My claim is, as you conveniently
point out for
me, quoting me, is that I disagree with Embry's use of the word to
describe something the child is unlikely to experience as
punishment,
attention from mommy. Mom does sit with the child and encourage
him to
watch safe play.

Normal humans consider parental attention a good thing, not a
punishment,
unless of course mom is whacking the child while he's doing
"sit and
watch."

Children only view parental attention as a good thing at times
when it is
something they want. Being forced to accept parental attention when
children want to do something else can be decidedly unpleasant.

And you, the parent, can't cope with that? Hell a dog trainer knows how
to make an interaction pleasant for the dog for training purposes.
Surely a human parent can figure that out.

By the way, what makes those parental attentions unwelcome, I wonder?

If "sit and watch" is voluntary,

Would you wait for the child to come to you in other situations if you
saw they needed information and teaching and support?

Boy, will your kids be deprived.

with the parent inviting the child to sit
and watch while the parent points out how the other children are
playing
safely, I agree with you that "sit and watch" is not a punishment
in that
situation.

Right. In fact, they parent and child in the study trained for those
episodes before the real thing.

You still haven't asked Doan for a copy and read it, right?

But forcing a child to sit and watch when the child wants to be
playing very definitely is a punishment.

Okay. YOU call it a punishment, I call it a consequence.

The study called it punishment!

Okay. That's what it says.

Hihihi! So you lied!

About what?

About the study!

You are still ignoring that I disagreed, not that the word wasn't used.

He said "he did no such thing"!

You are a pathological liar, Doan.

Hihihi. The proven liar here is YOU!

I disagree. In two ways. Embry's use of the word, and using "punishment"
as an approach to the child.

So?


Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving
stickers for
safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out, for
unsafe
play.

Kane:
"Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling."

Remember that, Kane?

Might you argue that this "punishment" was the deciding factor in the
reduction of street entries?

It was one of the factor, was it not?

Yep, and what you just posted kind of proves my point...no?

No. It proved that you are stupid. No?

Did you forget this from your own post?

Did you see the word PUNISHNENT?

"And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7% "

Notice it included no CP? 0:-

So? The study wasn't about CP.

So, this is a CP newsgroup. Is it not?

But the study is not about CP, are you SO STUPID???

That is why I pointed your LIES when you
said:

I didn't lie. You are doing so now.

Yes, you are a proven liar!

You pointed out my disagreement with Embry's use of the word,
"punishment," and called it a lie.

So now STUPID is your defense?

Note how small the percentage is for each item on the "problems list"
above, that it isn't of "parents," but just items. ONE parent could have
made all those complaints, or two or three, Doan.

You and I both know there were more than 10 parents, genius.

Hahaha! Having trouble reading a simple chart again, Kane? There is no
"small percentag", Kane. It all added up to 100 percent, STUPID!

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

Remembered? ;-)

That's what Embry said he observed with spanking parents. Are you
suggesting it was the unspanked children that were spanked?

Lying again. SHOW ME WHERE HE SAID THAT? IT IS NOWHERE in the study!

And that this group had no parents that spanked before? R R R R R R

Which parents spanked, Kane?


Doan


Sure Doan. That's it. It's a 'lie' to disagree with a researcher.

It's lie when you got caught and you are a liar!

Your argument just fell on your ass.

And my ass fell on your nose. ;-)

Doan

0:-