Unwanted effects of CP

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University
in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible
association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems
in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a
1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of
10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been
asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous
studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who
recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had
only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult
disorders we

Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked
disorder

Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3%

Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9%

Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2%
or addiction

More
than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7%
one disorder *

* More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions &
antisocial behavior.

Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for
1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear
association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during
childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse
or dependence and externalizing problems."
http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Degree of............
Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme
physical
punishment

Violent
inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%...............100%
at San Quentin

Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%................64%
Delinquents

High
School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%.................0%
drop-outs

College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San
Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html

Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray
Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and
nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children
than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings
may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80
percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the
10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or
struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly
four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to
commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children
than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by
their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52
http://nospank.net/males.htm

Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

This data suggest that the non-spanking population in Canada has been
shrinking steadily from over 36% to about 19% over a period of 50 years!
Canadians are spanking more now than in the past???? Or is this a case
of garbage in garbage out as they say in Computer Science?

It perflexed me to see such obvious flaws from a supposedly "peer-revieved"
journal. It's then that I noticed, in the same journal, an editorial
from no other than Murray Straus himself: "Is it time to ban corporal
punishment of children?" (http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0821.htm)
It's then dawn to me, the timing of this with the pending court case to
repeal Section 43. This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt
to sway public opinion. So much for the integrity of a supposedly
objective 'scientific' journal. I remembered during the Clinton
Scandal, JAMA editor got in trouble for publicing a study on whether
American college students think oral sex is sex. He was canned. I
wonder if the standard in Canada is any different?

In the end, the Canadian court rejected the anti-spanking zealotS's argument.
Section 43 was not repealed.

Doan

On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University
in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible
association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems
in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a
1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of
10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been
asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous
studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who
recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had
only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult
disorders we

Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked
disorder

Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3%

Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9%

Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2%
or addiction

More
than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7%
one disorder *

* More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions &
antisocial behavior.

Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for
1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear
association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during
childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse
or dependence and externalizing problems."
http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Degree of............
Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme
physical
punishment

Violent
inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%...............100%
at San Quentin

Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%................64%
Delinquents

High
School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%.................0%
drop-outs

College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San
Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html

Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray
Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and
nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children
than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings
may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80
percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the
10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or
struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly
four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to
commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children
than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by
their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52
http://nospank.net/males.htm

Doan wrote:
Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

Why is the "TOTAL" row missing, Doan?

It's highly significant, and the ONLY issue in this study, actually.
Cross referenced to the psychiatric problems they were seeking to
correlate.

This data suggest that the non-spanking population in Canada has been
shrinking steadily from over 36% to about 19% over a period of 50 years!

Not if you read how they actually sorted sample. It would have been
likely far more top heavy at the younger ages, and very slim indeed at
the older age. "Abused" were removed from the total sample to make up
this tabulated group.

Bet you haven't figured out how that would skew the age spanking issue
by age, have you?

Or you have an obscured it deliberately.

Don't you think people should have the current URL?

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805

The old one's dead as your head. R R R R .

Canadians are spanking more now than in the past????

No. This sample has a tiny number of elderly and a large population of
young. The tiny population of elderly is bound to have fewer spanked in
it. Why, because of the rarity of NON abused children in the older
population.

Percents may LOOK like they are significant, but not if there is
extreme disparity in the compared sample SIZE.

Or is this a case
of garbage in garbage out as they say in Computer Science?

In your head stupid. It was stupid when you posted it, and it's stupid
that you didnt' catch your mistake then or now.

You either are lying, or you are too stupid to see the rest of the
study and how the tabulated group was "cleaned." And too stupid to see
that age was not the factor they were aiming to discover. But the
psychiatric associations with FREQUENCY OF SPANKING AND SLAPPING.

Thus, this tiny remaining old age group would badly skew outcomes in
the mind of someone that makes all his arguments by trying to remove
anything that would confound your compulsion to attack anything and
anyone that stands for non-spanking. Or you think that it does. 0:-

You can't even understand data.

The age was not the factor, the prevalence of slapping and spanking
was. After each age group had been 'cleaned' of those who reported they
were abused. Have you looked at the other characteristics of the
sample? There's some unique information...like most were not born in
Canada, and they spoke another language.

This was not a survey to statistically determine the incidence of
spanking in the population by taking this sample from Ontario and
extrapolating it to Canada's population over a fifty year period.

It would NOT have mattered what their ages were. Why they even included
that it was an age sample is beyond me, because they could be combined
by age and STILL SHOW THE CORRELATION TO EACH OF THE VERTICLE COLUMNS.
THE ONE'S YOU DIDN'T SHOW THAT ARE NOW AT THE NEW URL OF
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805

The TOTAL row is the significant percentages for the outcomes. Age
hasn't a damn thing to do with it.

That row you didn't show, Doan....R R R R R

And later they DO show the chart that removed age entirely. Because,
dear boy, that IS the point of this study. Not age.

It perflexed me to see such obvious flaws from a supposedly "peer-revieved"
journal.

I should hope to shout it "perflexed"[sic] you so. They knew what they
were doing and YOU did not.

On of the great dangers in presuming from percentages is to have a very
large whole number compared to a very small whole number, by a
percentage characteristic.

It's then that I noticed, in the same journal, an editorial
from no other than Murray Straus himself: "Is it time to ban corporal
punishment of children?" (http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0821.htm)
It's then dawn to me, the timing of this with the pending court case to
repeal Section 43.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt
to sway public opinion. So much for the integrity of a supposedly
objective 'scientific' journal.

Mmm...what a yuk. A journal covers issues that are of public interest
in a timely fashion.

I notice my gardneing magazines do that to. I must call them up and
remind them of how unprofessional it is to release a fall edition as
they Sept-Oct volume.

Doan, they'd have been remiss if they had NOT published on this subject
with one of the major issues coming up in their legal system.

I remembered during the Clinton
Scandal, JAMA editor got in trouble for publicing a study on whether
American college students think oral sex is sex. He was canned. I
wonder if the standard in Canada is any different?

Politics like the Clinton bs are one thing, wide ranging social issues
are another.

The stanard on social issues is, if you are a journal like this one,
you better damn well cover it.

In the end, the Canadian court rejected the anti-spanking zealotS's argument.
Section 43 was not repealed.

And once again the liar strikes. Why is it you avoided saying they
amended it instead?

That the conditions under which a child can be spanked are so severely
limited now it might as well be done away with altother? They now have
a minimum and maximum age range, and limites as to where and with what
a child can be hit. NONE OF WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE.

Yer a liar.

Nothing remarkable, but people need to know it.

Doan has a habit of trying to take the high moral road with the
senseless statement, all to often proven to be fatal to children, that
he supports the parent make up their mind whether to spank or not and
the state should have nothing to say about it. Isnt' that right Doan?

The state should not interfere?

Yet again and again parent's deciding decide badly and children die or
are injured. And they were just disciplining.

Does Doan consistently say this when some spanking advocate comes here
and says those that do not spank are harming their children by not
"teaching them properly?"

Nope.

How do we know this?

Easy. See if he defends both sides of the issue. He doesn't.

So, he's a liar. He's a spanking advocate hiding behind a facade of
lies and deceptions.

Point out to me where he has defended any non-spanking arguments.

Point out to me where he has argued against spanking advocacy
arguments.

Point out to me where he has posted a study and defended it that
adocated not spanking and using other methods.

So much for Doan the liar.

Doan you defend spankers and attack non-spankers. NEVER THE OTHER WAY
AROUND.

Hence you lie when you say you support parents making their own
decisions, unless of course you want them to with inadequate or wrong
information. You want to and work toward them making decisions in favor
of spanking. Only.

Doan

On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

Why is the "TOTAL" row missing, Doan?

Because it's irrelevant!

It's highly significant, and the ONLY issue in this study, actually.
Cross referenced to the psychiatric problems they were seeking to
correlate.

Read the limitation part!

This data suggest that the non-spanking population in Canada has been
shrinking steadily from over 36% to about 19% over a period of 50 years!

Not if you read how they actually sorted sample. It would have been
likely far more top heavy at the younger ages, and very slim indeed at
the older age. "Abused" were removed from the total sample to make up
this tabulated group.

Are you so STUPID? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative
sample"???

Bet you haven't figured out how that would skew the age spanking issue
by age, have you?

It skewed the representativeness???

Or you have an obscured it deliberately.

Don't you think people should have the current URL?

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805

Did you notice I said it's a REPOST of the one in 2001?

The old one's dead as your head. R R R R .

Duh!

Canadians are spanking more now than in the past????

No. This sample has a tiny number of elderly and a large population of
young. The tiny population of elderly is bound to have fewer spanked in
it. Why, because of the rarity of NON abused children in the older
population.

Do you understand the meaning of "representative sample"?

Percents may LOOK like they are significant, but not if there is
extreme disparity in the compared sample SIZE.

No, STUPID! It doesn't matter what the size is if it is REPRESENTATIVE!


Or is this a case
of garbage in garbage out as they say in Computer Science?

In your head stupid. It was stupid when you posted it, and it's stupid
that you didnt' catch your mistake then or now.

You either are lying, or you are too stupid to see the rest of the
study and how the tabulated group was "cleaned." And too stupid to see
that age was not the factor they were aiming to discover. But the
psychiatric associations with FREQUENCY OF SPANKING AND SLAPPING.

Thus, this tiny remaining old age group would badly skew outcomes in
the mind of someone that makes all his arguments by trying to remove
anything that would confound your compulsion to attack anything and
anyone that stands for non-spanking. Or you think that it does. 0:-

You can't even understand data.

The age was not the factor, the prevalence of slapping and spanking
was. After each age group had been 'cleaned' of those who reported they
were abused. Have you looked at the other characteristics of the
sample? There's some unique information...like most were not born in
Canada, and they spoke another language.

Huh! Do you understand the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

This was not a survey to statistically determine the incidence of
spanking in the population by taking this sample from Ontario and
extrapolating it to Canada's population over a fifty year period.

So it is not REPRESENTATIVE???

It would NOT have mattered what their ages were. Why they even included
that it was an age sample is beyond me, because they could be combined
by age and STILL SHOW THE CORRELATION TO EACH OF THE VERTICLE COLUMNS.
THE ONE'S YOU DIDN'T SHOW THAT ARE NOW AT THE NEW URL OF
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805

Do you know the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

The TOTAL row is the significant percentages for the outcomes. Age
hasn't a damn thing to do with it.

So you think the researchers are stupid to include age????

That row you didn't show, Doan....R R R R R

It's irrelevant!

And later they DO show the chart that removed age entirely. Because,
dear boy, that IS the point of this study. Not age.

Did you happenned to read the LIMITATION part?

It perflexed me to see such obvious flaws from a supposedly "peer-revieved"
journal.

I should hope to shout it "perflexed"[sic] you so. They knew what they
were doing and YOU did not.

Perhaps that is why they included the LIMITATION part, STUPID!

On of the great dangers in presuming from percentages is to have a very
large whole number compared to a very small whole number, by a
percentage characteristic.

HUH? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative sample"?

It's then that I noticed, in the same journal, an editorial
from no other than Murray Straus himself: "Is it time to ban corporal
punishment of children?" (http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0821.htm)
It's then dawn to me, the timing of this with the pending court case to
repeal Section 43.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt
to sway public opinion. So much for the integrity of a supposedly
objective 'scientific' journal.

Mmm...what a yuk. A journal covers issues that are of public interest
in a timely fashion.

LOL!

I notice my gardneing magazines do that to. I must call them up and
remind them of how unprofessional it is to release a fall edition as
they Sept-Oct volume.

Fall begins in September, STUPID!

Doan, they'd have been remiss if they had NOT published on this subject
with one of the major issues coming up in their legal system.

They should have presented both sides of the issue.

I remembered during the Clinton
Scandal, JAMA editor got in trouble for publicing a study on whether
American college students think oral sex is sex. He was canned. I
wonder if the standard in Canada is any different?

Politics like the Clinton bs are one thing, wide ranging social issues
are another.

The stanard on social issues is, if you are a journal like this one,
you better damn well cover it.

LOL!

In the end, the Canadian court rejected the anti-spanking zealotS's argument.
Section 43 was not repealed.

And once again the liar strikes. Why is it you avoided saying they
amended it instead?

Becasue it was not repealed! A fact!

That the conditions under which a child can be spanked are so severely
limited now it might as well be done away with altother? They now have
a minimum and maximum age range, and limites as to where and with what
a child can be hit. NONE OF WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE.

So what does that have to do with whether Section 43 being repealed? You
meant they draw a LINE?

Yer a liar.

You are stupid liar that your mom can be proud of! ;-)

Nothing remarkable, but people need to know it.

LOL!

Doan has a habit of trying to take the high moral road with the
senseless statement, all to often proven to be fatal to children, that
he supports the parent make up their mind whether to spank or not and
the state should have nothing to say about it. Isnt' that right Doan?

And you are immoral and hypocritical!

The state should not interfere?

HUH?

Yet again and again parent's deciding decide badly and children die or
are injured. And they were just disciplining.

There are child-abuse laws already in the book, STUPID!

Does Doan consistently say this when some spanking advocate comes here
and says those that do not spank are harming their children by not
"teaching them properly?"

Now where did I say that?

Nope.

How do we know this?

Easy. See if he defends both sides of the issue. He doesn't.

So, he's a liar. He's a spanking advocate hiding behind a facade of
lies and deceptions.

You are illogical and stupid!

Point out to me where he has defended any non-spanking arguments.

LOL!

Point out to me where he has argued against spanking advocacy
arguments.

LOL!

Point out to me where he has posted a study and defended it that
adocated not spanking and using other methods.

LOL!

So much for Doan the liar.

So much for the stupid, "never-spanked" ignoranus kane0! ;-)

Doan you defend spankers and attack non-spankers. NEVER THE OTHER WAY
AROUND.

liar!

Hence you lie when you say you support parents making their own
decisions, unless of course you want them to with inadequate or wrong
information. You want to and work toward them making decisions in favor
of spanking. Only.

sTUPID liar!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

Why is the "TOTAL" row missing, Doan?


Because it's irrelevant!

To your objective? Sure.

But not to the truth.


It's highly significant, and the ONLY issue in this study, actually.
Cross referenced to the psychiatric problems they were seeking to
correlate.


Read the limitation part!

Read the entire study report. You don't understand how the selected
questionnaires were sorted and culled. It drove up the chance that the
older people would be selecte OUT that had more "slapping and spanking."

All that reported sexual or physical abuse were discarded from the
collection of questionnaires. That would have two effects. A great many
that were spanked and slapped would also have been removed because more
in the past, compared to more recently, would have had both or all such
events in their childhoods.

That leaves a very small group of elderly that have more likelihood of
never having been spanked or slapped at all.

This data suggest that the non-spanking population in Canada has been
shrinking steadily from over 36% to about 19% over a period of 50 years!

Not if you read how they actually sorted sample. It would have been
likely far more top heavy at the younger ages, and very slim indeed at
the older age. "Abused" were removed from the total sample to make up
this tabulated group.


Are you so STUPID? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative
sample"???

Very well. Indeed. Do you?

The population was general in the original group. It was very
methodically pared down. It is NOT a representative sample the instant
it undergoes any culling.

So I have to ask you, representative sample of what?

Certainly not the general population.

It was not controlled originally for age. It was a community survey
questionnaire that was later subject to extraction for certain
characteristics, one of which was not having experienced sexual and
physical abuse. That was done to remove the high probability for
psychiatric disorders and lifestyle problem issues that nearly always
accompany those who have such experiences in childhood.

It was to isolate those who had ONLY been either or spanked and slapped
or not.

Bet you haven't figured out how that would skew the age spanking issue
by age, have you?


It skewed the representativeness???

Yep. Remove all the abused. If they were all of an age, THEN you'd have
a less unrepresentative sample (representative of the spanked and
slapped) But it's bound to vary over 50 years age span. And remove the
abused (and we know that beating children severely was more common 50
years ago than today, but by way of CPS intervention) and you have a
much smaller OLDER group left that had not been abused, but had been
spanked or slapped, but....more, much more likely to NOT have been.

They got isolated out by removal of all those that had been spanked and
slapped AND sexually and or physically abuse.


Or you have an obscured it deliberately.

Don't you think people should have the current URL?

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805


Did you notice I said it's a REPOST of the one in 2001?

Yep, and I am denied responded to your content then why?


The old one's dead as your head. R R R R .


Duh!


Canadians are spanking more now than in the past????

No. This sample has a tiny number of elderly and a large population of
young. The tiny population of elderly is bound to have fewer spanked in
it. Why, because of the rarity of NON abused children in the older
population.


Do you understand the meaning of "representative sample"?

Sure do. Representative of what?

You avoided the TOTALS line that shows clearly this was NOT a study
seeking the answer, "how many non-spanked and non-slapped are there in a
population of 14 to 65 year olds."

It was a study on how those that were or not, regardless of age exhibit
psychiatric and other mental health issues.

They were looking for ONLY those who had not been sexually or physically
abused. And that's what they got. And the 50 year age range caused a
heavy reduction in the spanked and slapped in the very much smaller
population of the 65 and older.


Percents may LOOK like they are significant, but not if there is
extreme disparity in the compared sample SIZE.


No, STUPID! It doesn't matter what the size is if it is REPRESENTATIVE!

Ah, but this points up your ignorance of things statistical. In fact,
when you attempt to compare two groups, or more, that are highly
disparate, say in size (as was the case here) and age (as was the case
here) ONLY by percentage you compromise the "significance."

Five percent of 100 compared to five percent of ten is almost useless in
social science to draw any conclusions.

That's why the totals from that chart and reading the other charts is of
such significance, and the age range and percentage of 'never' has
little to no significance by comparison between them.

Their difference doesn't matter. It was an artificial construct due to
the sorting process that removed the spanked, who happened to also be
either or sexually and physically abused. Unless you wish to claim
you've found evidence in the study that they would have had a lot of
"never spanked" among them.

That's were the more frequently spanked went. Logically.


Or is this a case
of garbage in garbage out as they say in Computer Science?

In your head stupid. It was stupid when you posted it, and it's stupid
that you didnt' catch your mistake then or now.

You either are lying, or you are too stupid to see the rest of the
study and how the tabulated group was "cleaned." And too stupid to see
that age was not the factor they were aiming to discover. But the
psychiatric associations with FREQUENCY OF SPANKING AND SLAPPING.

Thus, this tiny remaining old age group would badly skew outcomes in
the mind of someone that makes all his arguments by trying to remove
anything that would confound your compulsion to attack anything and
anyone that stands for non-spanking. Or you think that it does. 0:-

You can't even understand data.

The age was not the factor, the prevalence of slapping and spanking
was. After each age group had been 'cleaned' of those who reported they
were abused. Have you looked at the other characteristics of the
sample? There's some unique information...like most were not born in
Canada, and they spoke another language.


Huh! Do you understand the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

Do you understand you've embarrassed yourself four times now asking if I
do, when you don't?

Representative of what, Doan?

This was not a survey to statistically determine the incidence of
spanking in the population by taking this sample from Ontario and
extrapolating it to Canada's population over a fifty year period.


So it is not REPRESENTATIVE???

Now you are getting it. No, it is not representative of Canada. If that
were the case they could NOT remove any of the participants for any reason.

It would be like doing a study on prevalence of ethnicity in Canada and
removing all the Vietnamese because they were older, or sexually abused
and physically abused.

This was a study on prevalence of psychiatric and problem behaviors of
those that were or were not slapped and spanked, with all those that
were, but how had been sexually abused or physically abused removed.

What it IS representative of, Doan, is this:

Canadians that have been or have not been slapped or spanked that have
NOT been sexually or physically abused (the latter of which most
assuredly having been slapped and spanked).

Got it now? It's a sample tailored not to slapping and spanking, but to
correlating PSYCHIATRIC AND OTHER LIFE PROBLEMS TO SLAPPING AND SPANKING
WITH SEXUALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSE REMOVED SO AS NOT TO SKEW THE RESULTS
OF THE SLAPPING AND SPANKING SET.

It would NOT have mattered what their ages were. Why they even included
that it was an age sample is beyond me, because they could be combined
by age and STILL SHOW THE CORRELATION TO EACH OF THE VERTICLE COLUMNS.
THE ONE'S YOU DIDN'T SHOW THAT ARE NOW AT THE NEW URL OF
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805


Do you know the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

Well, I know you don't.

Not if you think it applies to the whole Canadian population that has
been spanked or slapped. It doesn't, because it removes those that have
been more and more severely spanked and slapped to the point it's called
physical abuse.


The TOTAL row is the significant percentages for the outcomes. Age
hasn't a damn thing to do with it.


So you think the researchers are stupid to include age????

Nope. Honest. They went on to mention in their report, which you should
read, and I suggest others do as it's very interesting, many other
factors not relevant. The age range was likely shown to show who had
been left OUT. No one below 14, and you'll note, the above 64 except
where special interview conditions were set for the 65 and up set.



That row you didn't show, Doan....R R R R R


It's irrelevant!

You wish it were. It's not. It's what they were seeking for the
comparative correlations of spanking and slapping to various psychiatric
and life problem issues.


And later they DO show the chart that removed age entirely. Because,
dear boy, that IS the point of this study. Not age.


Did you happenned to read the LIMITATION part?

Read it all. Do you have the capacity to expand your understanding
beyond your need to focus ONLY on the small part that seems to support
your little pet theory this was a flawed study, specially timed for the
issue of the attempting to repeal 43?


It perflexed me to see such obvious flaws from a supposedly "peer-revieved"
journal.

I should hope to shout it "perflexed"[sic] you so. They knew what they
were doing and YOU did not.


Perhaps that is why they included the LIMITATION part, STUPID!

I always know when you have reached your own limit of intellectual
capacity to unravel a problem.


On of the great dangers in presuming from percentages is to have a very
large whole number compared to a very small whole number, by a
percentage characteristic.


HUH? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative sample"?

Yep. I know that a very tiny sample compared to a very large sample, or
other highly disparate common variables can negate the significance of a
percentage comparison. Happens all the time.

This was not what you think it was, Doan.

If I take 1000 red apples, and 5 yellow apples, and compare for rot, I
am very likely to find a higher percentage of rot in the 1000, and very
possibly NONE in the yellow.

It does NOT tell me about the chance of rot in the apple crops.

Neither the red nor the yellow. If I combine them though I can make a
much more informed estimate of the TOTAL crop's chance of rot.

To find out if there is the same chance of rot in both yellow and red
apples I would have to have about a 1000 of EACH, then make the
percentage of rot from each one known, and compare them.

I might find one has more than the other, or not, but I cannot compare
five of one to a 1000 of the other and claim I have a "representative"
sample.

That's why you will find in that report NO, I REPEAT NO, chart listing
the psychiatric and life problem issues compared BY AGE. Only by
incidence of slapping and spanking from the TOTALS LINE.

They knew what they were doing, and you have NOT refuted their study and
proved it was a flawed study done as a political ploy.

It was done to INFORM the public of ONE of the viewpoints on the issue.

You are aware at the time there were other publications displaying the
counter arguments, are you not?

Why do you not attack them for "political" expedience and flawed
information? I certainly saw much of the latter. No such study proving
that spanking and slapping LOWERED the incidence of psychiatric
problems, but a hell of a lot of bull**** and garbage just like you and
your cronies post here.


It's then that I noticed, in the same journal, an editorial
from no other than Murray Straus himself: "Is it time to ban corporal
punishment of children?" (http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0821.htm)
It's then dawn to me, the timing of this with the pending court case to
repeal Section 43.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt
to sway public opinion. So much for the integrity of a supposedly
objective 'scientific' journal.

Mmm...what a yuk. A journal covers issues that are of public interest
in a timely fashion.


LOL!

Yes, I see you are embarrassed. You should do something about that
transparency of yours.

Both sides fielded a great deal of information during the build up to
the decision. Do you take umbrage at the other side as well?

Do you question the objectivity of them as well? Of course not. You are
just a phony.

I notice my gardneing magazines do that to. I must call them up and
remind them of how unprofessional it is to release a fall edition as
they Sept-Oct volume.


Fall begins in September, STUPID!

My magazine, as I pointed out, comes in issues that cover two months.
The fall issue is mailed to me in August and placed on the magazine
racks at the same time.

You don't garden, do you? 0:-

This would be the same as the buildup period to the amendment 43 issue
in Canada.

Doan, they'd have been remiss if they had NOT published on this subject
with one of the major issues coming up in their legal system.


They should have presented both sides of the issue.

Why? Do you know a lot of scientific publications that give space to
those that support their arguments with, "I was spanked and I turned out
okay?"

What study exists that shows a correlation between spanking slapping and
better mental health, less drug use, less criminal behavior?

You and others here have been asked for that for years. No response.

Sorry but they can't publish what doesn't exist.

0:-p

And they sure aren't waiting for you to show up.

I remembered during the Clinton
Scandal, JAMA editor got in trouble for publicing a study on whether
American college students think oral sex is sex. He was canned. I
wonder if the standard in Canada is any different?

Politics like the Clinton bs are one thing, wide ranging social issues
are another.

The stanard on social issues is, if you are a journal like this one,
you better damn well cover it.


LOL!

Sorry about that compulsive giggle.

In the end, the Canadian court rejected the anti-spanking zealotS's argument.
Section 43 was not repealed.

And once again the liar strikes. Why is it you avoided saying they
amended it instead?


Becasue it was not repealed! A fact!

Yep. And it's a fact that you did not discuss that it was CHANGED.

I'm perfectly happy with both facts.

Are you?

That the conditions under which a child can be spanked are so severely
limited now it might as well be done away with altother? They now have
a minimum and maximum age range, and limites as to where and with what
a child can be hit. NONE OF WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE.


So what does that have to do with whether Section 43 being repealed?

Nothing at all. It does though, 0:-, have a great deal to do with the
recognition there is a high potential risk for injury. Just as they
stated, in deciding to change the law, even if not repeal it.

And it means a whole lot to you poor advocates for CP. Now doesn't it?

You
meant they draw a LINE?

No. They did what I did. Point out the risk potential and their concern
for children.

They aren't stupid enough to try and claim there is a definable discrete
"line" between abusive striking of a child, and non injurious spanking
for discipline.

Others aren't so wise as this, and do try to. Or at least claim they
know where it is, but can't define it for anyone else's easy use.

Everyone draws their own line, sometime rightly, and sometimes very
wrongly indeed.

It doesn't mean the line is there. It's no more accessible as a line
than agreement on where the line is precisely between high temperature
and low temperature. The use of the term LINE is pointless and
introduced here as a concept by you folks. And you can't define it.

The typical ignorance of the devoted spankers.

Yer a liar.


You are stupid liar that your mom can be proud of! ;-)

I'm afraid the judge of which of us is stupid lies only with us, and
with the readers. I can't give my parents my posts to read. Have you
given yours to your parents to read and comment on?


Nothing remarkable, but people need to know it.


LOL!

I suggest a short intense behavioral therapy session for that compulsive
laughter. It's really showing you for the fool you are.

Doan has a habit of trying to take the high moral road with the
senseless statement, all to often proven to be fatal to children, that
he supports the parent make up their mind whether to spank or not and
the state should have nothing to say about it. Isnt' that right Doan?


And you are immoral and hypocritical!

Please provide some proof of your claims.

I do not advocate for children to be deliberately hurt by their parents,
like animals, to force them into or out of any behaviors or learning.

I do not support this pain while excusing it elsewhere unless it is for
the protection of the child. If a bat a child aside to save them from
running into traffic I did not hit them to teach them anything.

And I will make a point of using Embry's methods to teach them, without CP.


The state should not interfere?


HUH?

I asked you a question. I'll try again. We are talking about CP and
Canada's position via that law. And of course, my growing campaign for
at the very least a law as limiting as Canada's 0:- but preferably one
that totally limits all CP to zero. For children and adults (though
adults have been covered on this issue for a very long time now).


Yet again and again parent's deciding decide badly and children die or
are injured. And they were just disciplining.


There are child-abuse laws already in the book, STUPID!

Ah, you are learning by the minute here. This is turning into one of our
most successful teaching experiences. I hope you appreciate you are
getting a freebie.

All we really have to do is put spanking were it belongs then. With the
existent "child-abuse laws already in the book."

Couldn't be more pleased.

Don't want to rain on your parade or diminish this learning experience
for you, but I, and others, have already thought of that and are
exploring it...for some time.


Does Doan consistently say this when some spanking advocate comes here
and says those that do not spank are harming their children by not
"teaching them properly?"


Now where did I say that?

You are claiming you haven't supported their position by NOT responding
to it negatively?

You go silent and we are to assume that's neutrality, when at every turn
of our posting OUR position you attack?

Interesting.

The Good Germans had that habit as well.


Nope.

How do we know this?

Easy. See if he defends both sides of the issue. He doesn't.

So, he's a liar. He's a spanking advocate hiding behind a facade of
lies and deceptions.


You are illogical and stupid!

Point out the logic in your position that would disprove mine above.

Do you in fact defend both sides of the issue, or are equally silent on
both sides?


Point out to me where he has defended any non-spanking arguments.


LOL!

Well? Have you?


Point out to me where he has argued against spanking advocacy
arguments.


LOL!

Well, have you?

If you cannot find them, then it's logical to assume you do have a side
in this debate and it's with spankers against non-spankers for the use
of spanking.


Point out to me where he has posted a study and defended it that
adocated not spanking and using other methods.


LOL!

Can't do it, can you?

So much for Doan the liar.


So much for the stupid, "never-spanked" ignoranus kane0! ;-)

What, "LOL!" is our "so much for?" R R R R R


Doan you defend spankers and attack non-spankers. NEVER THE OTHER WAY
AROUND.


liar!

Provide proof by post and link to post where you do in fact defend
non-spankers and attack spankers.

Should be easy.

Hence you lie when you say you support parents making their own
decisions, unless of course you want them to with inadequate or wrong
information. You want to and work toward them making decisions in favor
of spanking. Only.


sTUPID liar!

Nope. Just logic. You defend spanking by attacking anti spanking
arguments, and defend spankers arguments.

Prove otherwise.

Doan

0:-]




--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

Why is the "TOTAL" row missing, Doan?


Because it's irrelevant!

To your objective? Sure.

But not to the truth.

The "truth" according to you??? You don't know the truth! YOU CAN'T
HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)

It's highly significant, and the ONLY issue in this study, actually.
Cross referenced to the psychiatric problems they were seeking to
correlate.


Read the limitation part!

I guess you can't deal with facts! ;-)

Read the entire study report. You don't understand how the selected
questionnaires were sorted and culled. It drove up the chance that the
older people would be selecte OUT that had more "slapping and spanking."

Nope. It said: "Limitation of design and measurement in this study
require caution in interpreting the findings. For example, available
research suggest that cp peaks at ages 3-4 and that the ability to recall
events that happenned befor age 5 is limited."

Do you understand that, ignoranus kane0?

All that reported sexual or physical abuse were discarded from the
collection of questionnaires. That would have two effects. A great many
that were spanked and slapped would also have been removed because more
in the past, compared to more recently, would have had both or all such
events in their childhoods.

It said: "Spanking was not included as a criterion for physical abuse."

Do you understand that, ignoranus kane0?

That leaves a very small group of elderly that have more likelihood of
never having been spanked or slapped at all.

Oh that they can't remembered what happenned way back when they were 3 or
4 year olds!

This data suggest that the non-spanking population in Canada has been
shrinking steadily from over 36% to about 19% over a period of 50 years!

Not if you read how they actually sorted sample. It would have been
likely far more top heavy at the younger ages, and very slim indeed at
the older age. "Abused" were removed from the total sample to make up
this tabulated group.


Are you so STUPID? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative
sample"???

Very well. Indeed. Do you?

Absolutely! ;-)

The population was general in the original group. It was very
methodically pared down. It is NOT a representative sample the instant
it undergoes any culling.

So it lost all credibility after culling??? ARE YOU SO STUPID???

So I have to ask you, representative sample of what?

Of the general popuplation.

Certainly not the general population.

Then it is no longer valid, STUPID!

It was not controlled originally for age. It was a community survey
questionnaire that was later subject to extraction for certain
characteristics, one of which was not having experienced sexual and
physical abuse. That was done to remove the high probability for
psychiatric disorders and lifestyle problem issues that nearly always
accompany those who have such experiences in childhood.

Do you why they grouped them by ages, SUPID?

It was to isolate those who had ONLY been either or spanked and slapped
or not.

It can't since no one remembered what happenned to them way back when they
were 3 0r 4 years old. So the effect is that those who claimed to be
never-spanked were most likely were spanked! (Ask Straus! ;-0)

Bet you haven't figured out how that would skew the age spanking issue
by age, have you?


It skewed the representativeness???

Yep. Remove all the abused. If they were all of an age, THEN you'd have
a less unrepresentative sample (representative of the spanked and
slapped) But it's bound to vary over 50 years age span. And remove the
abused (and we know that beating children severely was more common 50
years ago than today, but by way of CPS intervention) and you have a
much smaller OLDER group left that had not been abused, but had been
spanked or slapped, but....more, much more likely to NOT have been.

Then it is no longer valid!

They got isolated out by removal of all those that had been spanked and
slapped AND sexually and or physically abuse.

So older people were more likely to be spanked and sexually abuses than
younger ones??? ARE YOU SO STUPID, IGNORANUS KANE0!


Or you have an obscured it deliberately.

Don't you think people should have the current URL?

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805


Did you notice I said it's a REPOST of the one in 2001?

Yep, and I am denied responded to your content then why?

Because you once again showed your STUPIDITY! ;-)

The old one's dead as your head. R R R R .


Duh!


Canadians are spanking more now than in the past????

No. This sample has a tiny number of elderly and a large population of
young. The tiny population of elderly is bound to have fewer spanked in
it. Why, because of the rarity of NON abused children in the older
population.


Do you understand the meaning of "representative sample"?

Sure do. Representative of what?

General population!

You avoided the TOTALS line that shows clearly this was NOT a study
seeking the answer, "how many non-spanked and non-slapped are there in a
population of 14 to 65 year olds."

But they pointed out that results are so out of reality that anyone with a
decent analytical skill would that the data are not reliable!

It was a study on how those that were or not, regardless of age exhibit
psychiatric and other mental health issues.

By asking responding things that they can't remembered???

They were looking for ONLY those who had not been sexually or physically
abused. And that's what they got. And the 50 year age range caused a
heavy reduction in the spanked and slapped in the very much smaller
population of the 65 and older.

Nonsense!


Percents may LOOK like they are significant, but not if there is
extreme disparity in the compared sample SIZE.


No, STUPID! It doesn't matter what the size is if it is REPRESENTATIVE!

Ah, but this points up your ignorance of things statistical. In fact,
when you attempt to compare two groups, or more, that are highly
disparate, say in size (as was the case here) and age (as was the case
here) ONLY by percentage you compromise the "significance."

You are wrong! The difference between polling 1000 persons and 1 million
persons are miniscule. Are you sure you know your math???

Five percent of 100 compared to five percent of ten is almost useless in
social science to draw any conclusions.

Is that the sample size in the Embry study is only 13? ;-)

That's why the totals from that chart and reading the other charts is of
such significance, and the age range and percentage of 'never' has
little to no significance by comparison between them.

Nope. The sample size in this study is 4,888!

Their difference doesn't matter. It was an artificial construct due to
the sorting process that removed the spanked, who happened to also be
either or sexually and physically abused. Unless you wish to claim
you've found evidence in the study that they would have had a lot of
"never spanked" among them.

Again. The only thing that relevant is whether the sample size they
used is representative of the general population!

That's were the more frequently spanked went. Logically.


Or is this a case
of garbage in garbage out as they say in Computer Science?

In your head stupid. It was stupid when you posted it, and it's stupid
that you didnt' catch your mistake then or now.

You either are lying, or you are too stupid to see the rest of the
study and how the tabulated group was "cleaned." And too stupid to see
that age was not the factor they were aiming to discover. But the
psychiatric associations with FREQUENCY OF SPANKING AND SLAPPING.

Thus, this tiny remaining old age group would badly skew outcomes in
the mind of someone that makes all his arguments by trying to remove
anything that would confound your compulsion to attack anything and
anyone that stands for non-spanking. Or you think that it does. 0:-

You can't even understand data.

The age was not the factor, the prevalence of slapping and spanking
was. After each age group had been 'cleaned' of those who reported they
were abused. Have you looked at the other characteristics of the
sample? There's some unique information...like most were not born in
Canada, and they spoke another language.


Huh! Do you understand the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

Do you understand you've embarrassed yourself four times now asking if I
do, when you don't?

I just show you how stupid you are! Is this another case of your
"formidable research skill" a la the Hutterites? ;-)

Representative of what, Doan?

General population!


This was not a survey to statistically determine the incidence of
spanking in the population by taking this sample from Ontario and
extrapolating it to Canada's population over a fifty year period.


So it is not REPRESENTATIVE???

Now you are getting it. No, it is not representative of Canada. If that
were the case they could NOT remove any of the participants for any reason.

If it is not representative then the study is meaningless.

It would be like doing a study on prevalence of ethnicity in Canada and
removing all the Vietnamese because they were older, or sexually abused
and physically abused.

So your result would be that there is no Vietnamese in Canada??? HOW
STUPID ARE YOU, IGNORANUS KANE0?

This was a study on prevalence of psychiatric and problem behaviors of
those that were or were not slapped and spanked, with all those that
were, but how had been sexually abused or physically abused removed.

And that some how affected the older people more than the younger ones???
ARE YOU SO STUPID???

What it IS representative of, Doan, is this:

Canadians that have been or have not been slapped or spanked that have
NOT been sexually or physically abused (the latter of which most
assuredly having been slapped and spanked).

And how does that affected the older ones more than the younger ones?

Got it now? It's a sample tailored not to slapping and spanking, but to
correlating PSYCHIATRIC AND OTHER LIFE PROBLEMS TO SLAPPING AND SPANKING
WITH SEXUALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSE REMOVED SO AS NOT TO SKEW THE RESULTS
OF THE SLAPPING AND SPANKING SET.

But only the older ones????

It would NOT have mattered what their ages were. Why they even included
that it was an age sample is beyond me, because they could be combined
by age and STILL SHOW THE CORRELATION TO EACH OF THE VERTICLE COLUMNS.
THE ONE'S YOU DIDN'T SHOW THAT ARE NOW AT THE NEW URL OF
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805


Do you know the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

Well, I know you don't.

And you are STUPID!

Not if you think it applies to the whole Canadian population that has
been spanked or slapped. It doesn't, because it removes those that have
been more and more severely spanked and slapped to the point it's called
physical abuse.

And the older one more likely to be abused??? ARE YOU SO STUPID? ;-)


The TOTAL row is the significant percentages for the outcomes. Age
hasn't a damn thing to do with it.


So you think the researchers are stupid to include age????

Nope. Honest. They went on to mention in their report, which you should
read, and I suggest others do as it's very interesting, many other
factors not relevant. The age range was likely shown to show who had
been left OUT. No one below 14, and you'll note, the above 64 except
where special interview conditions were set for the 65 and up set.

But you said age "hasn't a damn thing to do with it"! Are you making
another "mistake"? ;-)



That row you didn't show, Doan....R R R R R


It's irrelevant!

You wish it were. It's not. It's what they were seeking for the
comparative correlations of spanking and slapping to various psychiatric
and life problem issues.

And they acknowledged that their data is not reliable (since people tend
not to remember what happenned when they were 3-4 years old).

And later they DO show the chart that removed age entirely. Because,
dear boy, that IS the point of this study. Not age.


Did you happenned to read the LIMITATION part?

Read it all. Do you have the capacity to expand your understanding
beyond your need to focus ONLY on the small part that seems to support
your little pet theory this was a flawed study, specially timed for the
issue of the attempting to repeal 43?

Did they repeal section 43? ;-)


It perflexed me to see such obvious flaws from a supposedly "peer-revieved"
journal.

I should hope to shout it "perflexed"[sic] you so. They knew what they
were doing and YOU did not.


Perhaps that is why they included the LIMITATION part, STUPID!

I always know when you have reached your own limit of intellectual
capacity to unravel a problem.

And I know that you are really STUPID! ;-)


On of the great dangers in presuming from percentages is to have a very
large whole number compared to a very small whole number, by a
percentage characteristic.


HUH? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative sample"?

Yep. I know that a very tiny sample compared to a very large sample, or
other highly disparate common variables can negate the significance of a
percentage comparison. Happens all the time.

This was not what you think it was, Doan.

If I take 1000 red apples, and 5 yellow apples, and compare for rot, I
am very likely to find a higher percentage of rot in the 1000, and very
possibly NONE in the yellow.

But what happenned when you have 1 millions red apples and 5 thousand
yellow apples, Kane?

It does NOT tell me about the chance of rot in the apple crops.

It tell you that when your sample size is small (like 13 in the Embry
Study), your result is not significant!

Neither the red nor the yellow. If I combine them though I can make a
much more informed estimate of the TOTAL crop's chance of rot.

But that is not the case in this study since their sample size is quite
large (4,888)!

To find out if there is the same chance of rot in both yellow and red
apples I would have to have about a 1000 of EACH, then make the
percentage of rot from each one known, and compare them.

You could also have 1000 and more than 1000; they don't have to be the
same size!

I might find one has more than the other, or not, but I cannot compare
five of one to a 1000 of the other and claim I have a "representative"
sample.

5 is too small; just like 13 is too small in the Embry study.

That's why you will find in that report NO, I REPEAT NO, chart listing
the psychiatric and life problem issues compared BY AGE. Only by
incidence of slapping and spanking from the TOTALS LINE.

And they told you that the respondents can't remember what happenned when
they were 3-4, the time period where were most likely to be spanked!

They knew what they were doing, and you have NOT refuted their study and
proved it was a flawed study done as a political ploy.

That is why they acknowledged the LIMITATIONS of their study.

It was done to INFORM the public of ONE of the viewpoints on the issue.

So much for a balanced view! ;-)

You are aware at the time there were other publications displaying the
counter arguments, are you not?

Really? So an publication needs only to publish one side? ARE YOUR SO
STUPID? ;-)

Why do you not attack them for "political" expedience and flawed
information? I certainly saw much of the latter. No such study proving
that spanking and slapping LOWERED the incidence of psychiatric
problems, but a hell of a lot of bull**** and garbage just like you and
your cronies post here.

Read all the letters to the editors. You did , right? ;-)


It's then that I noticed, in the same journal, an editorial
from no other than Murray Straus himself: "Is it time to ban corporal
punishment of children?" (http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0821.htm)
It's then dawn to me, the timing of this with the pending court case to
repeal Section 43.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt
to sway public opinion. So much for the integrity of a supposedly
objective 'scientific' journal.

Mmm...what a yuk. A journal covers issues that are of public interest
in a timely fashion.


LOL!

Yes, I see you are embarrassed. You should do something about that
transparency of yours.

Both sides fielded a great deal of information during the build up to
the decision. Do you take umbrage at the other side as well?

Do you question the objectivity of them as well? Of course not. You are
just a phony.

Sure I do, if they claimed to be a respectable journal.


I notice my gardneing magazines do that to. I must call them up and
remind them of how unprofessional it is to release a fall edition as
they Sept-Oct volume.


Fall begins in September, STUPID!

My magazine, as I pointed out, comes in issues that cover two months.
The fall issue is mailed to me in August and placed on the magazine
racks at the same time.

But it's the Sept-Oct volume, STUPID!

You don't garden, do you? 0:-

I do and then I don't; it depends on the weather! ;-)

This would be the same as the buildup period to the amendment 43 issue
in Canada.

And Section 43 were upheld, were it not? ;-)

Doan, they'd have been remiss if they had NOT published on this subject
with one of the major issues coming up in their legal system.


They should have presented both sides of the issue.

Why? Do you know a lot of scientific publications that give space to
those that support their arguments with, "I was spanked and I turned out
okay?"

Have you read the Archives of Pediatrics?

What study exists that shows a correlation between spanking slapping and
better mental health, less drug use, less criminal behavior?

Correlation is not cause and effect. Your claimed it "The Effect of CP"
showed that you don't know what you are talking about. STUPID is the
kind word! ;-)

You and others here have been asked for that for years. No response.

The burden of proof is on the anti-spanking zealotS side. What I have
asked for is study that compare cp and non-cp alternatives under the
same statistical scrutinies. You know the studies that you and Lying
LaVonne claimed to have posted "numerous times". ;-)

Sorry but they can't publish what doesn't exist.

You meant they are not in the "archives"??? Are you saying that LaVonne
is lying and you conspired with her???

0:-p

And they sure aren't waiting for you to show up.

It's in the "archives", right LaVonne?

I remembered during the Clinton
Scandal, JAMA editor got in trouble for publicing a study on whether
American college students think oral sex is sex. He was canned. I
wonder if the standard in Canada is any different?

Politics like the Clinton bs are one thing, wide ranging social issues
are another.

The stanard on social issues is, if you are a journal like this one,
you better damn well cover it.


LOL!

Sorry about that compulsive giggle.

Don't worry. Your mom will be proud. ;-)


In the end, the Canadian court rejected the anti-spanking zealotS's argument.
Section 43 was not repealed.

And once again the liar strikes. Why is it you avoided saying they
amended it instead?


Becasue it was not repealed! A fact!

Yep. And it's a fact that you did not discuss that it was CHANGED.

So I stated a fact and you called me a liar? Don't you think you owe me
an apology? ;-)

I'm perfectly happy with both facts.

Yes, you called me a liar! I demand an apology!

Are you?

Sure! Are you going to apologize? ;-)

That the conditions under which a child can be spanked are so severely
limited now it might as well be done away with altother? They now have
a minimum and maximum age range, and limites as to where and with what
a child can be hit. NONE OF WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE.


So what does that have to do with whether Section 43 being repealed?

Nothing at all. It does though, 0:-, have a great deal to do with the
recognition there is a high potential risk for injury. Just as they
stated, in deciding to change the law, even if not repeal it.

And it means a whole lot to you poor advocates for CP. Now doesn't it?

Nope.

You
meant they draw a LINE?

No. They did what I did. Point out the risk potential and their concern
for children.

So they didn't draw a line??? ;-)

They aren't stupid enough to try and claim there is a definable discrete
"line" between abusive striking of a child, and non injurious spanking
for discipline.

So they use "reasonable standard"???

Others aren't so wise as this, and do try to. Or at least claim they
know where it is, but can't define it for anyone else's easy use.

Gee! Imagine that people have been using "reasonable standard" for
thousands of years. So when you hit your kid, you didn't know the
line either??? ;-)

Everyone draws their own line, sometime rightly, and sometimes very
wrongly indeed.

Gee! People have a choice dont' they. ;-)

It doesn't mean the line is there. It's no more accessible as a line
than agreement on where the line is precisely between high temperature
and low temperature. The use of the term LINE is pointless and
introduced here as a concept by you folks. And you can't define it.

The line is there! We "reasonable" peole have no problem with it.
Do you know where a line is one used a taser on a SIX-YEAR OLD? ;-)

The typical ignorance of the devoted spankers.

Or the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS. ;-)

Yer a liar.


You are stupid liar that your mom can be proud of! ;-)

I'm afraid the judge of which of us is stupid lies only with us, and
with the readers. I can't give my parents my posts to read. Have you
given yours to your parents to read and comment on?

My parents never gave me the right to call a woman "smelly-****" under
any circumstances. How about yours? ;-)


Nothing remarkable, but people need to know it.


LOL!

I suggest a short intense behavioral therapy session for that compulsive
laughter. It's really showing you for the fool you are.

Have you looked in the mirror? ;-)


Doan has a habit of trying to take the high moral road with the
senseless statement, all to often proven to be fatal to children, that
he supports the parent make up their mind whether to spank or not and
the state should have nothing to say about it. Isnt' that right Doan?


And you are immoral and hypocritical!

Please provide some proof of your claims.

Read you posts!

I do not advocate for children to be deliberately hurt by their parents,
like animals, to force them into or out of any behaviors or learning.

But you call others names and "smelly-****"! ;-)

I do not support this pain while excusing it elsewhere unless it is for
the protection of the child. If a bat a child aside to save them from
running into traffic I did not hit them to teach them anything.

LOL! 50,000 volts on a six-year old. You should be proud!

And I will make a point of using Embry's methods to teach them, without CP.

No punishment? ;-)


The state should not interfere?


HUH?

I asked you a question. I'll try again. We are talking about CP and
Canada's position via that law. And of course, my growing campaign for
at the very least a law as limiting as Canada's 0:- but preferably one
that totally limits all CP to zero. For children and adults (though
adults have been covered on this issue for a very long time now).

And I supported child-abuse laws!

Yet again and again parent's deciding decide badly and children die or
are injured. And they were just disciplining.


There are child-abuse laws already in the book, STUPID!

Ah, you are learning by the minute here. This is turning into one of our
most successful teaching experiences. I hope you appreciate you are
getting a freebie.

All we really have to do is put spanking were it belongs then. With the
existent "child-abuse laws already in the book."

Couldn't be more pleased.

I am glad! ;-)

Don't want to rain on your parade or diminish this learning experience
for you, but I, and others, have already thought of that and are
exploring it...for some time.

LOL!

Doan


Does Doan consistently say this when some spanking advocate comes here
and says those that do not spank are harming their children by not
"teaching them properly?"


Now where did I say that?

You are claiming you haven't supported their position by NOT responding
to it negatively?

You go silent and we are to assume that's neutrality, when at every turn
of our posting OUR position you attack?

Interesting.

The Good Germans had that habit as well.


Nope.

How do we know this?

Easy. See if he defends both sides of the issue. He doesn't.

So, he's a liar. He's a spanking advocate hiding behind a facade of
lies and deceptions.


You are illogical and stupid!

Point out the logic in your position that would disprove mine above.

Do you in fact defend both sides of the issue, or are equally silent on
both sides?


Point out to me where he has defended any non-spanking arguments.


LOL!

Well? Have you?


Point out to me where he has argued against spanking advocacy
arguments.


LOL!

Well, have you?

If you cannot find them, then it's logical to assume you do have a side
in this debate and it's with spankers against non-spankers for the use
of spanking.


Point out to me where he has posted a study and defended it that
adocated not spanking and using other methods.


LOL!

Can't do it, can you?

So much for Doan the liar.


So much for the stupid, "never-spanked" ignoranus kane0! ;-)

What, "LOL!" is our "so much for?" R R R R R


Doan you defend spankers and attack non-spankers. NEVER THE OTHER WAY
AROUND.


liar!

Provide proof by post and link to post where you do in fact defend
non-spankers and attack spankers.

Should be easy.

Hence you lie when you say you support parents making their own
decisions, unless of course you want them to with inadequate or wrong
information. You want to and work toward them making decisions in favor
of spanking. Only.


sTUPID liar!

Nope. Just logic. You defend spanking by attacking anti spanking
arguments, and defend spankers arguments.

Prove otherwise.

Doan

0:-]




--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its
association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general
population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I
couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

Why is the "TOTAL" row missing, Doan?


Because it's irrelevant!

To your objective? Sure.

But not to the truth.

The "truth" according to you??? You don't know the truth! YOU CAN'T
HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)

It's highly significant, and the ONLY issue in this study, actually.
Cross referenced to the psychiatric problems they were seeking to
correlate.


Read the limitation part!

I guess you can't deal with facts! ;-)

Sure I can. What facts are you referring to? I said back to you.......


Read the entire study report. You don't understand how the selected
questionnaires were sorted and culled. It drove up the chance that the
older people would be selecte OUT that had more "slapping and
spanking."

Nope. It said: "Limitation of design and measurement in this study
require caution in interpreting the findings. For example, available
research suggest that cp peaks at ages 3-4 and that the ability to recall
events that happenned befor age 5 is limited."

I didn't say it said anything. I explained how things work when
selecting out a group of questionaires by removing some that fall
outside the parameters of the intended study subject.

Do you understand that, ignoranus kane0?

I understand quite well. Better than you.

All that reported sexual or physical abuse were discarded from the
collection of questionnaires. That would have two effects. A great many
that were spanked and slapped would also have been removed because more
in the past, compared to more recently, would have had both or all such
events in their childhoods.

It said: "Spanking was not included as a criterion for physical abuse."

Yep. And that does not mean that those that were abused were not spanked
also.

That would have removed those that were spanked but in addition abused.

Do you understand that, ignoranus kane0?

Do you wish to claim the abused where not also spanked?

That leaves a very small group of elderly that have more likelihood of
never having been spanked or slapped at all.

Oh that they can't remembered what happenned way back when they were 3 or
4 year olds!

Neither, pouting child, can the young age group remember. In fact much
older people tend to have short term memory loss and increase
recollection of once forgotten childhood events.

This data suggest that the non-spanking population in Canada has
been
shrinking steadily from over 36% to about 19% over a period of
50 years!

Not if you read how they actually sorted sample. It would have been
likely far more top heavy at the younger ages, and very slim
indeed at
the older age. "Abused" were removed from the total sample to make up
this tabulated group.


Are you so STUPID? Do you understand the meaning of a
"representative
sample"???

Very well. Indeed. Do you?

Absolutely! ;-)

YOu have misapplied it then, your usually interminable and tiresome way.

This was not a group representative of the population at large. It was a
group that had a specific subset removed. For a specific purpose. And it
was not to calculate the rate of spanking and slapping, or never being
spanked and slapped, but to measure what the oucomes were for those
reporting along the continuum listed at the top of the chart.

The population was general in the original group. It was very
methodically pared down. It is NOT a representative sample the instant
it undergoes any culling.

So it lost all credibility after culling??? ARE YOU SO STUPID???

No, but you are. I lost NO credibility whatsoever. Any more than
Baumrind lost by removing those "subjected to abusive spanking." But
then this one was not about that. It was about determining how much
spanking and slapping correlated with how much psychiatric and other
problems people had. It did that quite well.

You playing with something you know little about child.

So I have to ask you, representative sample of what?

Of the general popuplation.

It cannot be if those that were spanked, slapped, and abused were removed.

It's short the spanking and slapped as well as the abused count.

Your contention is it shows that there was less spanking 50 years ago.

It doesn't, because many of the spanked were removed.

All participants were asked if they had been spanked or slapped and to
rate the frequency. They were also asked if they had been sexually
abused and if they have been spanked. If they answered yet to either of
the two latter questions then their answer to being spanked and the
frequency thereof was lost forever. That's NOT representative sample of
the general population, for the general population still has those that
were abused, sexually abused, and spanked within it.

To say this is a representative sample of the general population would
be to remove an ethnic group and contend the sample thus was
representative of all Canadians. It would not be.

Certainly not the general population.

Then it is no longer valid, STUPID!

Yep, it's not. But it's YOU that claimed it was a representative sample.

So who is the stupid one? Or have you conceded that that is not valid
for the purposes any longer of proving that the orginal full sample, had
it included all the spanked, would have been more in that higher age
group, or less?

I contend, since a group was removed that surely had a high incidence of
spanking and slapping, it would have been a good deal more, percentage
wise of that age block sample.

It was not controlled originally for age. It was a community survey
questionnaire that was later subject to extraction for certain
characteristics, one of which was not having experienced sexual and
physical abuse. That was done to remove the high probability for
psychiatric disorders and lifestyle problem issues that nearly always
accompany those who have such experiences in childhood.

Do you why they grouped them by ages, SUPID?

To show that they were REMOVING PART OF THE SAMPLE. The abused, and to
show the entire range.

It was to isolate those who had ONLY been either or spanked and slapped
or not.

It can't since no one remembered what happenned to them way back when
they
were 3 0r 4 years old. So the effect is that those who claimed to be
never-spanked were most likely were spanked! (Ask Straus! ;-0)

Where does it say that? And of course, could be. And that would prove as
per your contention that what again?

That the older age group was actually spanked more?

Of course it would.

Now think slowly and carefully. It would have pulled down the incident
of problems later in life. Did it?

No, because THAT set, the other age block, had been cleaned of those
that had spanking and slapping AND abuse.

That left more of those, by concentration of the sample around "Never"
more likely.

Or they thought they had never been spanked. Interesting though, Doan,
that they also reported less problems, eh? Think about that for awhile.

You claim they wouldn't remember is not accurate to live's reality.
People DO remember if they were spanked and how often no matter how old
they get, into senility. They DO though, suppress memories of ABUSE.

Bet you haven't figured out how that would skew the age spanking
issue
by age, have you?


It skewed the representativeness???

Yep. Remove all the abused. If they were all of an age, THEN you'd have
a less unrepresentative sample (representative of the spanked and
slapped) But it's bound to vary over 50 years age span. And remove the
abused (and we know that beating children severely was more common 50
years ago than today, but by way of CPS intervention) and you have a
much smaller OLDER group left that had not been abused, but had been
spanked or slapped, but....more, much more likely to NOT have been.

Then it is no longer valid!

Not for YOUR claim. But they were not trying to create an age related
incidence of spanking and slapping. Just a set of people that had
different rates, from many to never, for the purpose of the study. And
that only.

Hence, the did NOT pretend it was representative of ALL Canadians.

Read page one, Results, very carefully. You will see that in the
preceeding paragraph they describe who the questioned, and included age
and other factores, but in Results they most pointedly do NOT mention
age. And they clearly point out that the results shared in detail come
from the group that had reported NOT being sexually or physically abused.

They got isolated out by removal of all those that had been spanked and
slapped AND sexually and or physically abuse.

So older people were more likely to be spanked and sexually abuses than
younger ones??? ARE YOU SO STUPID, IGNORANUS KANE0!

Older people, when they were children were KNOWN to be more often
PHYSICALLY ABUSED. not as you said, "spanked and sexually abused."

You can be assured though that sexually abused children do not escape
being spanked.

I think in your frantic rush to scream at me again, Doan, you make a
silly error in the first sentence.

"So older people were more likely to be spanked and sexually abuses than
younger ones???"

There was NO CPS in Canada, or the US, 50 years ago and more. It was an
invention of the 60s and 70's. Look up the history if you don't believe me.

Given that, Doan, then the children of today have interventions that
either stop or inhibit such things that the older folks didn't have.

They were more likely to be spanked, slapped, physically abused as well,
and sexually abused.

With all that had all of those things happen to them, or either of the
first two, and either one or both of the second, those were not counted.
Thus, not representative of the general population, but only that part
of the population with that same characteristic experience.

Which of course makes it INVALID FOR YOUR CLAIM, and perfectly valid
for their desired correlation of spanking and slapping and life problems.


Or you have an obscured it deliberately.

Don't you think people should have the current URL?

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805


Did you notice I said it's a REPOST of the one in 2001?

Yep, and I am denied responded to your content then why?

Because you once again showed your STUPIDITY! ;-)

No, it's because you do not want me to show what a fool you made of
yourself back then attempting to extrapolate from the study what it was
not about.

Just like other times you'v pulled this same trick, either to mislead
(lie) or because you are so stupid you let your own trauma fog your
vision and analytical thinking capacity if it's in any involved with
your own childhood experience of being spanked.

This is not a study tracking the rate of spanking for age groups. That
was skewed by the removal of a great many of the subjects, in all age
groups, but likely many more in the older groups. That does NO harm to
the collection of data to examine, as I've said, the correlations as
listed.


The old one's dead as your head. R R R R .


Duh!


Canadians are spanking more now than in the past????

No. This sample has a tiny number of elderly and a large
population of
young. The tiny population of elderly is bound to have fewer
spanked in
it. Why, because of the rarity of NON abused children in the older
population.


Do you understand the meaning of "representative sample"?

Sure do. Representative of what?

General population!

One cannot use a sample as representative if some subset is removed that
has some characteristics of the remaining group but an additional one
the group does not have.

All those spanked, slapped, and abused were removed. That concentrates
the remainder pushing toward the "never" end.

NO person that as a child was NEVER spanked was removed. The youngest
age group would have more that spanked, and less "never" and the older
would have more "never" and less spanked.

The latter because more were in fact spanked, and abused and removed
from the analytical sample.

You avoided the TOTALS line that shows clearly this was NOT a study
seeking the answer, "how many non-spanked and non-slapped are there
in a
population of 14 to 65 year olds."

But they pointed out that results are so out of reality that anyone
with a
decent analytical skill would that the data are not reliable!

No, they pointed out that a very special subset had been removed that
took spanked and slapped with it, and would have left more 'never' behind.

Not in total NUMBER of course, but in percentage of the remaining sample.

More left this group proportionately than any other age group. That
tends to increase the percentage of what is found there if the occurance
by NUMBER goes up at all. And this group was from a time when there was
a great deal of abusive beating going on.

AND NO AGENCY TO INTERVENE AND IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL in any case. So not
even the Mounties would be involved.

It was a study on how those that were or not, regardless of age exhibit
psychiatric and other mental health issues.

By asking responding things that they can't remembered???

That would be self limiting because ALL respondents, regardless of age
were asked the same questions. All would then have the same memory
limitation of youth..that is being too young to remember. And it's
discussed.

Go to the document and search on "recall"

It's right there in front of you. Can you not see it, or do you not
understand it. Or do you have a need to assign a meaning to it that does
not exist?

They were looking for ONLY those who had not been sexually or
physically
abused. And that's what they got. And the 50 year age range caused a
heavy reduction in the spanked and slapped in the very much smaller
population of the 65 and older.

Nonsense!

Go to page 806 and in the last paragraph right hand column read how they
cleaned the sample to reduce it.

You've find I'm right and you are wrong.

If you clean out the abused, you clean out those who were also spanked.
In the older population it would have to mean more were removed. As the
years passed the real incidences of abuse diminished (not the counted
ones, but the subject remembered ones...much more accurate in an
isolated study group) because of changes in child welfare social work
and beatings no longer being as acceptable as they once were.


Percents may LOOK like they are significant, but not if there is
extreme disparity in the compared sample SIZE.


No, STUPID! It doesn't matter what the size is if it is
REPRESENTATIVE!

Ah, but this points up your ignorance of things statistical. In fact,
when you attempt to compare two groups, or more, that are highly
disparate, say in size (as was the case here) and age (as was the case
here) ONLY by percentage you compromise the "significance."

You are wrong! The difference between polling 1000 persons and 1 million
persons are miniscule. Are you sure you know your math???

Yep. It's you that don't. The percentage difference is concentrated
toward higher in the smaller group. And diluted downward in the larger
group.

In most variables in social science this is a common problem.

But it would NOT effect the outcomes they actually conducted this study
for. Effects of spanking and slapping on later life.

Five percent of 100 compared to five percent of ten is almost
useless in
social science to draw any conclusions.

Is that the sample size in the Embry study is only 13? ;-)

Why are you changing the subject? It's 33 by the way.

That's why the totals from that chart and reading the other charts
is of
such significance, and the age range and percentage of 'never' has
little to no significance by comparison between them.

Nope. The sample size in this study is 4,888!

Yep. From an original sample size with ALL subjects of what?

Do you know their definition of "abuse" for removing subjects for that
experience. Acts from pushing, and grabbing, and shoving to physical
attack. People that are shoved and pushed and grabbed tend also to be
spanked and slapped. But they were removed from the sample anyway,
because it had to be, by definition (read the title of the report out
loud) only slapping and spanking. They could NOT include the other acts
of more violence and known more severe outcomes or they'd have had a
different title, and thus watered down the significance of the slapping
and spanking correlations to life outcomes.

Their difference doesn't matter. It was an artificial construct due to
the sorting process that removed the spanked, who happened to also be
either or sexually and physically abused. Unless you wish to claim
you've found evidence in the study that they would have had a lot of
"never spanked" among them.

Again. The only thing that relevant is whether the sample size they
used is representative of the general population!

No, that is NOT true for the title of the study. They wanted to isolate
a subset. Those that had NOT been abused. Then and only then did they
look at the slappingspanking issue and life outcomes.

That is NOT representative of the whole Canadian population. It IS,
however, representative of those that were NOT abused, under the
definition provided in the study.
Look at page 807, left column, toward the bottom and read the definitions.

It's plain they removed, thus removing that part of the similar members
of the general population, those with those definitions marked for
removal from the study. NOT representative of the Canadian general
population.

That's were the more frequently spanked went. Logically.


Or is this a case
of garbage in garbage out as they say in Computer Science?

In your head stupid. It was stupid when you posted it, and it's
stupid
that you didnt' catch your mistake then or now.

You either are lying, or you are too stupid to see the rest of the
study and how the tabulated group was "cleaned." And too stupid
to see
that age was not the factor they were aiming to discover. But the
psychiatric associations with FREQUENCY OF SPANKING AND SLAPPING.

Thus, this tiny remaining old age group would badly skew outcomes in
the mind of someone that makes all his arguments by trying to remove
anything that would confound your compulsion to attack anything and
anyone that stands for non-spanking. Or you think that it does. 0:-

You can't even understand data.

The age was not the factor, the prevalence of slapping and spanking
was. After each age group had been 'cleaned' of those who
reported they
were abused. Have you looked at the other characteristics of the
sample? There's some unique information...like most were not born in
Canada, and they spoke another language.


Huh! Do you understand the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

Do you understand you've embarrassed yourself four times now asking
if I
do, when you don't?

I just show you how stupid you are! Is this another case of your
"formidable research skill" a la the Hutterites? ;-)

Representative of what, Doan?

General population!

The General population of Canada has had the physically and sexuallly
abused removed?

The study removed those from the sample before surveying for quality of
life outcomes, Doan.


This was not a survey to statistically determine the incidence of
spanking in the population by taking this sample from Ontario and
extrapolating it to Canada's population over a fifty year period.


So it is not REPRESENTATIVE???

Now you are getting it. No, it is not representative of Canada. If that
were the case they could NOT remove any of the participants for any
reason.

If it is not representative then the study is meaningless.

No, it is meaningful for those ONLY spanked and slapped or not, but NOT
physically or sexually abused.

They were removed for two reasons. One it would skew the results badly
because that population is known to have a very high incidence of
negative quality of life outcomes. And two, the question being asked was
about SPANKING AND SLAPPING, and the correlation of only those to life
outcomes.

It would be like doing a study on prevalence of ethnicity in Canada and
removing all the Vietnamese because they were older, or sexually abused
and physically abused.

So your result would be that there is no Vietnamese in Canada??? HOW
STUPID ARE YOU, IGNORANUS KANE0?

Of course not. That IS my point.

That is why I said, "like" because it would be stupid to do that, and
claim the sample was representative of anything but the group left,
WITHIN THE GENERAL POPULATION.

It would NOT be stupid though, to say, " we are studying only
non-Vietnamese people."

There is nothing wrong statistically in doing so if you say so and
that's your purpose. Just as they carefully did in this study, Doan.
They removed the ones abused.

Like to like, Doan. And as in this study, like to like.

It is NOT a general population "representative."

This was a study on prevalence of psychiatric and problem behaviors of
those that were or were not slapped and spanked, with all those that
were, but how had been sexually abused or physically abused removed.

And that some how affected the older people more than the younger ones???
ARE YOU SO STUPID???

Moi. But Doan, there was NO comparison by age to outcomes...how it
affected people according to age. Are you once again working from a
different report than I? 0:-

That is not what it shows. The correlation is to freguency, not age.
Learn to read the charts. Stop putting in what is not there. That's
chart one. Age, no outcome.

Look again at page 808, which you carefully avoided discussing before
because it so clearly shows what refutes your nonsense. You will find NO
mention of age in either chart.

In other words, "outcomes, no age." So were do you get that question,

The chart on AGE was to identify the participants. Not to show age
correlations. It shows ONLY incidences by percentage without analysis.
That's why the analysis shows up sans age.

Notice that back on table 1, NO mention of outcomes is included. It's
only age groups and frequency of slapping/spanking.

The relevence of age differences is NOT critical in any way, as to
frequency. And so were do you get, since I had not mentioned any such
correction age-outcome, this silliness?

" And that some how affected the older people more than the younger ones???
ARE YOU SO STUPID???"

Are you yelling into that famous mirror you think others are looking
into when in fact they are seeing and talking to YOU?


What it IS representative of, Doan, is this:

Canadians that have been or have not been slapped or spanked that have
NOT been sexually or physically abused (the latter of which most
assuredly having been slapped and spanked).

And how does that affected the older ones more than the younger ones?

I've no idea. The study does not chart that out. My guess is, purely
from life experience and having not a single thing to do with your
premise that this was a flawed study, it's harder on the older ones.

Stress and its worst outcome, clinical depression, tends to accumulate
and not be completely removed each time there is a stressful incidence.
In the old there is long buildup, in youth a shorter one, on average.

But you are reading things into the study again that was not there.

You appear to be grasping at whatever straw possible. I can see some
things to criticize the study for, but YOU have not found a one, and are
now making them up.


Got it now? It's a sample tailored not to slapping and spanking, but to
correlating PSYCHIATRIC AND OTHER LIFE PROBLEMS TO SLAPPING AND
SPANKING
WITH SEXUALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSE REMOVED SO AS NOT TO SKEW THE
RESULTS
OF THE SLAPPING AND SPANKING SET.

But only the older ones????

The correlation is NOT to age, Doan. No chart addresses AGE and
outcomes. They take the totals of the vertical columns from table one,
and they apply the results of those questions about life problem
outcomes to those TOTALS, not to age. It does not come into either
analytical chart.

It would NOT have mattered what their ages were. Why they even
included
that it was an age sample is beyond me, because they could be
combined
by age and STILL SHOW THE CORRELATION TO EACH OF THE VERTICLE
COLUMNS.
THE ONE'S YOU DIDN'T SHOW THAT ARE NOW AT THE NEW URL OF
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805


Do you know the meaning of REPRESENTATIVE?

Well, I know you don't.

And you are STUPID!

I cannot be stupid, since I know that this was not a representative
sample of Canadians. It had been cleaned of a set that has like in the
general population. Therefore it is looking at variables that exist in
only a subset of the entire population. Thus, not 'representative' of all.

I can't speak in any simpler terms. I've lost the capacity for baby talk
years ago, about age 19 months, as I recall. Or so my loving mother told
me.

Not if you think it applies to the whole Canadian population that has
been spanked or slapped. It doesn't, because it removes those that have
been more and more severely spanked and slapped to the point it's
called
physical abuse.

And the older one more likely to be abused??? ARE YOU SO STUPID? ;-)

You have some proof that older Canadians are likely to have abused at
less or the same rate as those today who are younger?

When there was no CPS, and beating was in fashion, and the definition of
physical abuse was shoving, pushing, and grabbing as well as attack?

Please, elaborate.


The TOTAL row is the significant percentages for the outcomes. Age
hasn't a damn thing to do with it.


So you think the researchers are stupid to include age????

Nope. Honest. They went on to mention in their report, which you should
read, and I suggest others do as it's very interesting, many other
factors not relevant. The age range was likely shown to show who had
been left OUT. No one below 14, and you'll note, the above 64 except
where special interview conditions were set for the 65 and up set.

But you said age "hasn't a damn thing to do with it"! Are you making
another "mistake"? ;-)

It does not. Not with the outcome of the desired correlation
information. They did NOT use age to determine OUTCOMES, only incidences.

The only thing age was used for was to slightly change the interview
process for the very old, and to set a lower limit. It hasn't a damn
thing to do with YOUR "it."



That row you didn't show, Doan....R R R R R


It's irrelevant!

You wish it were. It's not. It's what they were seeking for the
comparative correlations of spanking and slapping to various
psychiatric
and life problem issues.

And they acknowledged that their data is not reliable (since people tend
not to remember what happenned when they were 3-4 years old).

Yep. That would mean that any memory recovered from prior to 3-4 years
old would not be included. Got that yet?

That simply means they cannot tell you if someone was abused, slapped,
spanked, seuxally abused in that age group. So they are limiting their
analysis to those ages listed.

Honesty. As is required for work that is expected to be reviewed in a
journal. It was. Seen any peers knockin' it yet? I haven't.

You seem to think you are prince of statistical analysis though. But
it's easy to see you are an amateur and not very good at that. I have to
talk baby talk to you to get you to understand the simplest things.

And later they DO show the chart that removed age entirely. Because,
dear boy, that IS the point of this study. Not age.


Did you happenned to read the LIMITATION part?

Read it all. Do you have the capacity to expand your understanding
beyond your need to focus ONLY on the small part that seems to support
your little pet theory this was a flawed study, specially timed for the
issue of the attempting to repeal 43?

Did they repeal section 43? ;-)

Nope.

Did they change it?

Yep.

Did this study cause it to NOT be repealed, or did it cause it to be
changed? I haven't read the transcripts of the proceedings. Have you?

It perflexed me to see such obvious flaws from a supposedly
"peer-revieved"
journal.

I should hope to shout it "perflexed"[sic] you so. They knew what
they
were doing and YOU did not.


Perhaps that is why they included the LIMITATION part, STUPID!

I always know when you have reached your own limit of intellectual
capacity to unravel a problem.

And I know that you are really STUPID! ;-)

You haven't the capacity to judge, given this little demonstration of
yours to miss the critical elements in a study. To put meanings in where
they are not. To put things into the study that were not there.

And, as usual, to attempt to isolate something, attempt to give it
meaning, and miss the larger context and how it effect what was
isolated. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

And all you can come back with is "STUPID!" as rebuttal?


On of the great dangers in presuming from percentages is to have
a very
large whole number compared to a very small whole number, by a
percentage characteristic.


HUH? Do you understand the meaning of a "representative sample"?

Yep. I know that a very tiny sample compared to a very large sample, or
other highly disparate common variables can negate the significance
of a
percentage comparison. Happens all the time.

This was not what you think it was, Doan.

If I take 1000 red apples, and 5 yellow apples, and compare for rot, I
am very likely to find a higher percentage of rot in the 1000, and very
possibly NONE in the yellow.

But what happenned when you have 1 millions red apples and 5 thousand
yellow apples, Kane?

There will be a tendency to have a higher percentage in the smaller set
than the larger.
And in this case there was a removal. Let's say, like the abused, the
more abused and already half rotten apples were removed. The
distrubution can be caused by many factors unseen. On crop may have had
more apple maggot, you know, those cute little cartoon worms. It could
be that their egg laying parent is more attracted to red.

It does NOT tell me about the chance of rot in the apple crops.

It tell you that when your sample size is small (like 13 in the Embry
Study), your result is not significant!

I don't care. I never presented the Embry study as a statistically
significant study. Embry did not present it for that purpose. I pointed
out it was significant because of the OUTCOME due to the training.

I'm happy that anyone simply draw their own conclusions. He did not, as
you notice, publish in a journal for review. It's significant to ME, and
to those that care about children equally with parents.

Neither the red nor the yellow. If I combine them though I can make a
much more informed estimate of the TOTAL crop's chance of rot.

But that is not the case in this study since their sample size is quite
large (4,888)!

Yep. And so? You are trying to compare unalikes. A young age to an old
one, without knowing the size of either by number. You only know the
percentage of incidences of spanking and slapping. And not the outcomes
by age.

To find out if there is the same chance of rot in both yellow and red
apples I would have to have about a 1000 of EACH, then make the
percentage of rot from each one known, and compare them.

You could also have 1000 and more than 1000; they don't have to be the
same size!

Nope, but that have to be not too far apart, and they have to be
similar...which is NOT stated..in the incidence of spanked and
slapped/frequent to never, verses abused.

The older group would have experienced more incidences of abuse.

I might find one has more than the other, or not, but I cannot compare
five of one to a 1000 of the other and claim I have a "representative"
sample.

5 is too small; just like 13 is too small in the Embry study.

I'm not discussing the Embry study. Why are you? It has no bearing here.
And it had but one age set. And as far as I know no long term outcomes
measure. Not a lifetime as is the cae in this study.

That's why you will find in that report NO, I REPEAT NO, chart listing
the psychiatric and life problem issues compared BY AGE. Only by
incidence of slapping and spanking from the TOTALS LINE.

And they told you that the respondents can't remember what happenned when
they were 3-4, the time period where were most likely to be spanked!

That would be ALL, so they cancel out for statistical analysis. They are
off by only an unknown. Common in statistics if the unknown is likely to
be something much weighted to one group and not the other and only then
rejected. If it is a common variable, it cancels itself out by it's
commoness.

That would be so in this case. Children below 4, as YOU yourself have
noted in this very newsgroup, are the more frequently spanked, and 90%
0:- off ALL parents spank.

Kind of sorts things out, eh?

They knew what they were doing, and you have NOT refuted their
study and
proved it was a flawed study done as a political ploy.

That is why they acknowledged the LIMITATIONS of their study.

They acknowledge what they cannot include. It is an even exclusion of
the same thing from one age group to the next. Preschool children then
and now tend to be spanked at about the same rate.

Your thrashing about again. 0:-

It was done to INFORM the public of ONE of the viewpoints on the issue.

So much for a balanced view! ;-)

Yep. So much for the spankers balanced view, and especially yours.

You have a study for us that shows that conversely the incidence of
spanking effects the incidence of life outcomes from the more frequent
the better the outcomes?

Feel free to post it, and free to send to Canada or any school of social
work for vetting.

I can provide you some names.

You are aware at the time there were other publications displaying the
counter arguments, are you not?

Really? So an publication needs only to publish one side? ARE YOUR SO
STUPID? ;-)

You see to now understand my comment and question.

This that confusion you slide into when you have lost track of what is
going on, can't remember what transpired and are fearful you might make
something up to fill in YOUR gap.

Sorry, you already did it. More than once.

A publication is not obligated to print both sides. However I'm with
you. If YOU come up with or find a study, or wish to do one yourself
that shows a correlation of more spanking better life outcomes, just
trot it on out.

Submit it to the journals. If it's even the equal of this outdated one
you tried to foist on us as flawed, I'll pressure them to print it. Lots
of angry letters about parity, fairness, etc.

Why do you not attack them for "political" expedience and flawed
information? I certainly saw much of the latter. No such study proving
that spanking and slapping LOWERED the incidence of psychiatric
problems, but a hell of a lot of bull**** and garbage just like you and
your cronies post here.

Read all the letters to the editors. You did , right? ;-)

Not all. "a hell of alot," is not all.


It's then that I noticed, in the same journal, an editorial
from no other than Murray Straus himself: "Is it time to ban
corporal
punishment of children?"
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0821.htm)
It's then dawn to me, the timing of this with the pending court
case to
repeal Section 43.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt
to sway public opinion. So much for the integrity of a supposedly
objective 'scientific' journal.

Mmm...what a yuk. A journal covers issues that are of public interest
in a timely fashion.


LOL!

Yes, I see you are embarrassed. You should do something about that
transparency of yours.

Both sides fielded a great deal of information during the build up to
the decision. Do you take umbrage at the other side as well?

Do you question the objectivity of them as well? Of course not. You are
just a phony.

Sure I do, if they claimed to be a respectable journal.

They are. Do you reject as unrespectable any professional
journal/publication that does not print both sides?

I've some doozies I'd like to introduce you to then. I think you know a
few, as you've cited them.


I notice my gardneing magazines do that to. I must call them up and
remind them of how unprofessional it is to release a fall edition as
they Sept-Oct volume.


Fall begins in September, STUPID!

My magazine, as I pointed out, comes in issues that cover two months.
The fall issue is mailed to me in August and placed on the magazine
racks at the same time.

But it's the Sept-Oct volume, STUPID!

Of course it's the volume marked "Sept-Oct" and Fall. And it's useless
in gardening unless it arrives a month early. One needs time to read,
plan, aquire materials. I buy my fall bulb, tulips etc. from that issue.
They won't get to me in time unless I have it August. I worry over a
late arrival and bug the mailman if it's a day late.

You don't know anything about gardening and gardening publications do you?

I buy it or receive it in August to USE in the fall.

That's just how it is. They don't print late summer information in
August gardening magazines. It's TOO late. People want to know a couple
of months ahead to plan, etc.

You don't garden, do you? 0:-

I do and then I don't; it depends on the weather! ;-)

Well you don't read the gardening mags then, or don't understand them. I
have one on my desk. I just openned it after looking at the most
surprizing cover, February-March. It's not Spring yet, Doan but the
cover is talking about Tulips. Not planing but FINDING them come Spring.
This mag is region sensitive, and they know that we get bulbs coming up
later than most areas.

This would be the same as the buildup period to the amendment 43 issue
in Canada.

And Section 43 were upheld, were it not? ;-)

No, actually Doan it was not. It was changed. It no longer is the same
Section 43 it was. It just has retained some of the content and the
name. It was to fend off the nutcases like you and your buddies. A small
diminishing little infestation of maggots.

Reasonable arguments in favor of spanking are interesting and engaging.
If presented honestly. Your kind of presentation is just **** spewing.

Doan, they'd have been remiss if they had NOT published on this
subject
with one of the major issues coming up in their legal system.


They should have presented both sides of the issue.

Why? Do you know a lot of scientific publications that give space to
those that support their arguments with, "I was spanked and I
turned out
okay?"

Have you read the Archives of Pediatrics?

No.

What study exists that shows a correlation between spanking
slapping and
better mental health, less drug use, less criminal behavior?

Correlation is not cause and effect. Your claimed it "The Effect of CP"
showed that you don't know what you are talking about. STUPID is the
kind word! ;-)

Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Do you apply this same demand to the proponents of spanking as to their
language?

I asked you for a study showing correlation. That's a lower standard.
Can you not even produce THAT?

I didn't ask you to prove causual effects. You are becoming weirder and
weirder as this tome progresses.

You and others here have been asked for that for years. No response.

The burden of proof is on the anti-spanking zealotS side.

No, we were late to the game. This ng is alt.parenting.spanking. Not
alt.parenting.non-spanking.

And historically you folks were spanking before we were non-spanking.
The burden is on YOU to defend YOUR claims that spanking works.

And no such study has ever been done, not even one with decent
correlations.

If so, post it.

What I have
asked for is study that compare cp and non-cp alternatives under the
same statistical scrutinies.

It has not been done to my knowledge. I answered this question the same
way weeks ago.. I Have pointed to correlation studies.

No such study has come from YOUR side either, now has it?

How shoddy you are.

You know the studies that you and Lying
LaVonne claimed to have posted "numerous times". ;-)

No such claim was made. We did not say that studies "that compare cp and
non-cp alternatives under the same statistical scrutinies," have been
posted here.

If I did it was most certainly in error.

I have said that studies have been posted, but NOT that they fit that
precise criteria.

So, if YOU are going to demand them of us, then it is only fitting that
we demand them of YOU.

If you think they exist, then pop them up here. If you know they don't
then why ask for them?

Sorry but they can't publish what doesn't exist.

You meant they are not in the "archives"??? Are you saying that LaVonne
is lying and you conspired with her???

No. I'm saying that you asked for something specific that we did not say
we had posted. We said we had posted studies, not "studies that compare
cp and non-cp alternatives under the
same statistical scrutinies."

0:-p

And they sure aren't waiting for you to show up.

It's in the "archives", right LaVonne?

Your on the dodge again little monkeyboy.

This has nothing to do with the study you posted and claimed was flawed,
now does it?

You are trying to slide way again, crabwise.

The rest is simply avoidance and dancing about. To avoid the truth of
your failure to produce any reasonable logical and truthful rebuttal.

.............hence, poof.............

sTUPID liar!

Nope. Just logic. You defend spanking by attacking anti spanking
arguments, and defend spankers arguments.

Prove otherwise.

Dead silence, I see.

0:-

Doan wrote:
Repost: (I posted this back in 2001)

Taking the
time to read "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with
lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample."
(http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-161/issue-7/0805.htm#content), I couldn't help
but notice the following from the data of the "never" group:
Age 15-24: 18.6%
Age 25-44: 16.0%
Age 45-64: 20.5%
Age =65: 36.1%

By the way, what does this have to do with the validity of the study I
posted below?

Come on, did you really think I'd missed the fact you couldn't debate
it and had to diverge?

R R R R ...

Others may miss your dodges Doan, but I doubt I've missed even one in
all our posting. Some ignore. Some I laugh at. And some, like now, I
point out to you.

So?

Anything wrong with the study below?

0:-

snip.....................................

You failed to invalidate the Canadian study, Doan. You did your usual
feint and dodge and looking for weak spots, but found not a single one.
That's because you lie, Doan.

Liars really don't know how to argue to the facts. So they inject what
isn't there. Presume what isn't being said. And generaly make silly
asses of themselves as you did.

Then there is this.

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Degree of............
Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme
physical
punishment

Violent
inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%...............100%
at San Quentin

Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%................64%
Delinquents

High
School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%.................0%
drop-outs

College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San
Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

....snip.............

On 31 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:
College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%


Do you really want to rehash this, ignoranus kane0? ;-)
First, you lied about the Embry Study, now you wanted to rehash this one?

Looked at how the "never-spanked" fared? Just 2% of College freshmen and
just 5% of Professionals! Looked like they are under-represented there
too! ;-)

Do you know of any Great Man who were never-spanked, Kane? Did you say
Einstein? ;-)

Doan

Kane said:

Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0? WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Doan