If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland wrote:
0:- Wrote: Some of your responses have influenced my opinion. even so, I would appreciate you treating me as an individual. 0:- Wrote: Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division? Simple pie division of course (can you see the sarcasm dripping?) If you snip away the context, as you just did, it requires either a photographic memory, or a return to and rereading prior posts. Please leave the context in which you remark upon. Thanks. 0:- Wrote: That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things? I have not heard or read about this experiment. Didn't I cite and linke to it? Where's my reference? 0:- Wrote: No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful example and a valid experiment. The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad' (guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty small sample, even by Embry's standards. and I would question it's validity, of couse "some" people in positions of power without checks and balances would abuse the power given them...but certainly not all. I'll read the webpage you supplied and comment further at a later time. No, what that, and many other such experiments show, like the famous shock the victim experiment, is that the vast majority of us will both abuse power and follow unethical orders. A few people in the latter experiment even hit the shock button when the dial was set to "lethal." That even shook the experimenters, seasoned though they were. Of course the recipient "victims" were just actors, but good ones. What makes the big difference between will or won't abuse power in the parent child dyad is the bonding that takes place between mother and child at birth, and the attachment that grows over time. And it's a two way street. The child learns from the model of the parent not to abuse power. We all have it, even babies, as any mother can tell you. 0:- It's foundation is our innate capacity for the empathy response, but it has to be supported and not disrupted, just alike other human traits. Spanking disrupts that learning. And the ability to self control our use of power over others. Thus we need laws to control us. Sad, isn't it? 0:- Wrote: Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many years. I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to with terms such as "true." I come from a background of perhaps more scientific research. Give me anything on Human communication, or Radio and Television broadcasting. Even Adversiting and Public Relations. and I know what you're talking about and what is expected in research. I don't think I said that 50 or more is required (although I may be mistaken, can't remember what I wrote) but having 50 or more trials or subjects makes the outcome of the work more....plausable (that may not be the word I want to use, I have a baby on my lap so I'm not fully engaged at the moment) And you're right the word True isn't an appropriate word. I think the word is PROVE in order to Prove the hypothesis you must have a base from which to build your research. A broad base (more subjects, or more trials) builds a strong foundation to build from there. Of course. The question is though, where is the cutoff point, upward for practicality, and downward for determining the results are no longer valid. The upward limit is usually budget related, and the downward, by the nature of the experiment. This one was calculated to determine if it effected 2-4 year olds. Logically you are correct about the aging and greater understanding, but the "proof" would be in the larger population. Does in fact the rate of street entry accident drop more, less, or the same, in the general population as this group of children whose parents and they participated. 0:- Wrote: Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either side. I do not have a reference for that. Unless you want to talk to one of my college Proffs :-) I trust that college instructors are careful to urge the sample size number upward from a conservative point of view. I agree. I also know that both budget and the nature of the experiement move that dial up or down without damage to the experiment. 0:- Wrote: By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed to be consistent in their actions. and that is precisly why a larger pool of participants is needed. Because you can't count on Human's being consitant. With a larger group of participants you can weed out those who followed the protocol exactly, somewhat, mostly, or not at all. Actually weeding out AFTER the start of the experiment would invalidate. No peer review would let that pass. It gives a better Idea of what works what doesn't. And makes the research results stronger. Having a larger participation base would help support the evidence found in this study. The objective of science is not and never should be, to prove something right, or wrong, correct or incorrect, but to examine it without preconceieved outcomes. Yes, a larger base always adds more credibility but it's like putting more soap in the wash than is needed. You can only get the clothes so clean. 0:- Wrote: Yes, that is true. And, the sample would all age at the same rate. they would all age at the same or near the same rate but they would not mature at the same rate nor have the same level of awareness. And I think you're forgetting a very important peice of the puzzle. Not all of the protocal would work for each family, there has to be room for error. There is little room for that in a small sample size. That is why MORE participants is needed That is why replication is urged. It took place. When we've beaten Embry up enough to satisfy you, I'll introduce some of the other research.[color=blue] 0:- Wrote: And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product against other children how did not and the outcomes would be significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?[ sorry I did not follow this portion [quote=0:- What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly apply the program. well that's good at least. But again not everything in the protocal would work for all children or families. A larger sample size would be imperitive to "truly" see accurate numbers. For this group...Yippe, but that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results.[/color] Nope, everyone didn't. That is the purpose of statistical analysis in science. All children, for instance, did not have a 10% reduction in street entries. That's the group percentage. If you are going to use this study as a jumping off point to "no spanking" you have to fill in the blanks...unfortunatly I don't feel this does a good job of giving a peek at the "big picture" We never see single scientific experiments of any kind provide finite answers. Nature, and human nature, simply don't work that way. I would never, for instance, tell someone that this is the only experimental work to consider in making a decision not to spank, or to spank. And I'm not doing so in this instance. This is but a foundation for work that followed, and like any reputable scientist, Embry built on the work of others, whom he cites for various elements of consideration in his report. 0:- Wrote: Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects. The ultimate of course would be to be invisible. In this instance he did not allow the observers to be any of the program trainers. And there was time that the parents were not even present outdoors with the child. And the child did in fact do street entries. That hardly equates with the observers having an influence suppressing street entries and pressure on parents to be present. Of course that's not possible in such a small sample size. But in a LARGER base group the % of error could be reduced greatly. Yes. Your criticizm is duly noted. It also not required to have a massive size based on the outcomes he recorded and analyzed. He was careful to NOTE himself the limitations inherent. The study is not a study that says you must stop spanking your child at all costs. It is a study that says simply, "this is what we found." 0:- Wrote: That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him? I'm sorry you don't like answering my honest questions. I'm sorry you can't make them more honest. Again you have snipped information critical to understanding your remarks. That in itself is questionable as a debating practice. 0:- Wrote: I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments (and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational survey). perhaps it was a mistake, you seem to make quite a few of them. No, the doctor was very clear on his criticism. And the submission to the newsgroup was no mistake. And no one could mistake Straus' study and the report to be about anything but a survey. No experiment was set up. No learning, nothing but questioning the subject sample as to their practices. 0:- Wrote: Oh brother. You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic? If you could see the big eye roll that i did when I read that...NO I dont' mean allowing toddler to go into traffic. I mean a group that was observed without using the protocal. The control group already existed. It is the public. Embry was examining the public records of street entry injury and deaths by age. That's a fairly large control group sample, when you consider he was using national data. He could be fairly certain virtually none of those families had his program and been taught it. A Control group is a group just allowed to continue on their merry way. Yes. The entire nation of children 2-4 years old data was already available. He was looking for changes to a small representative group by way of exposure to his program. He again noted the limitations, as his tended to be whitecollar, and suggested further study with blue color and other groups. In this such experiment that would allow the researcher to see if the number of street entries reduced acourding to the age of the subject. Already available information. One would simply be repeating what is in the public record. As I suggested earlier We don't know if the protocal really worked or if the kids became more aware of the possibility of being flattened like a pancake. Yes we do to the extent it could be tested. The question should be, did the public data support that children in the 6 month span of time of the same age have a reduction to 10% of injuries and deaths from street entry that corresponded to NO SUCH program, just a change in age. It didn't. The difference between 2 and 2.5 years, or 3 and 3.5 years, and 4 and 4.5 years is unlikely to tell you much of anything, no matter how fast children are learning at that age. They still fall far short of any real capacity to judge the speed of oncoming automobiles. Some of your questions are covered in the study. I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! I'd like to hold on to my copy so that if we debate I have it to refer to. You should get a copy for yourself. And if you respond, please do not snip either your comment or mine from the above. Thank you. I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my Alma Mater. Then why would you ask me for my copy other than to play at being Doan? Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me? 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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day that's your problem not mine. Having Lengthy bits of conversation floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and unnecessary....at least for me. Perhaps you should do some memory excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier post. Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next portion just so we are clear. NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT MY FAMILY. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, AND YET YOU FEEL IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT.
__________________
Becca Momma to two boys Big Guy 3/02 and Wuvy-Buv 8/05 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
LOL! Sound like ignoranus kane0 lives up to his name. Doan On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote: kane Wrote: I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! I'd like to hold on to my copy so that if we debate I have it to refer to. You should get a copy for yourself. And if you respond, please do not snip either your comment or mine from the above. Thank you. I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my Alma Mater. Then why would you ask me for my copy other than to play at being Doan? Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me? A little bit of advice....read the post fully and THEN respond. You'll avoid sounding like an idiot when you have to go back and ask questions about things you have already responded to. I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day that's your problem not mine. Having Lengthy bits of conversation floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and unnecessary....at least for me. Perhaps you should do some memory excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier post. Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next portion just so we are clear. NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT MY FAMILY. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, AND YET YOU FEEL IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. -- beccafromlalaland [/color] |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland wrote: kane Wrote: I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! I'd like to hold on to my copy so that if we debate I have it to refer to. You should get a copy for yourself. And if you respond, please do not snip either your comment or mine from the above. Thank you. I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my Alma Mater. Then why would you ask me for my copy other than to play at being Doan? Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me? A little bit of advice....read the post fully and THEN respond.[/color] A little bit of advice to you. Don't assume one hasn't. You'll avoid sounding like an idiot when you have to go back and ask questions about things you have already responded to. Why would I ask a question about something I've already responded to if you are bring it up again? Because you ASKED IT AGAIN. I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of smilies. Such as :-) If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day that's your problem not mine. No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. Having Lengthy bits of conversation floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and unnecessary....at least for me. Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude. Perhaps you should do some memory excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier post. You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being harassing and rude. Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next portion just so we are clear. Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT MY FAMILY. So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not understand the interogatory sentence? A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have been speaking rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not assume, as you just did. Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go ahead. AND YET YOU FEEL IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. A question is not an assumption. What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually comments from the flow: " Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me?" Do you see the question mark? Twice? How could you miss it and presume I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and accused me. How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, without asking me? I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. See the difference? IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children as you appear to be behaving toward me? IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are being toward me. Are you doing the same with your children? And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you DO know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me. Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are being so abusive toward your children. -- beccafromlalaland Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your children or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan, though he's more clever and weasel like. Chill, lady. If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter what meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs you. A three dollar bill. Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to spanking. Or, blow up and prove what an out of control twit you really are. Doan got to you. Obviously. He's a liar, and you buy into his bs with nary a word of protest. He lies about being neutral and "let the parent decide for themselves," and any objective person, and especially one opposed to spanking as you claim to be, would see through it in a split second. He has spent year after year, pretending to be not supporting either side, but in fact has never once spoke in opposition to spanking arguments or babblings up to and including horrible thrashing of childre. Let a single post pop up that opposes spanking and he's all over with his phony debate. My dear, you are as phony as him, regardless of what you declare yourself to be. A crock of bull**** is what you actually are. Or you could grow up, learn to be discriminating and recognize his bias and vicious attacks on non spankers and endless support for spanking. "let parents make up their own minds," Indeed. Stop your pretending. 0:- |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland wrote: kane Wrote: I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a copy...why don't you send me yours LOL! I'd like to hold on to my copy so that if we debate I have it to refer to. You should get a copy for yourself. And if you respond, please do not snip either your comment or mine from the above. Thank you. I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my Alma Mater. Then why would you ask me for my copy other than to play at being Doan? Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me? A little bit of advice....read the post fully and THEN respond.[/color] A little bit of advice to you. Don't assume one hasn't. You'll avoid sounding like an idiot when you have to go back and ask questions about things you have already responded to. Why would I ask a question about something I've already responded to if you are bring it up again? Because you ASKED IT AGAIN. I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking. Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of smilies. Such as :-) If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day that's your problem not mine. No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. Having Lengthy bits of conversation floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and unnecessary....at least for me. Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude. Perhaps you should do some memory excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier post. You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being harassing and rude. Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next portion just so we are clear. Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT MY FAMILY. So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not understand the interogatory sentence? A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have been speaking rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not assume, as you just did. Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go ahead. AND YET YOU FEEL IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. A question is not an assumption. What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually comments from the flow: " Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me?" Do you see the question mark? Twice? How could you miss it and presume I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and accused me. How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, without asking me? I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. See the difference? IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children as you appear to be behaving toward me? IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are being toward me. Are you doing the same with your children? And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you DO know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me. Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are being so abusive toward your children. -- beccafromlalaland Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your children or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan, though he's more clever and weasel like. Chill, lady. If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter what meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs you. A three dollar bill. Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to spanking. Or, blow up and prove what an out of control twit you really are. Doan got to you. Obviously. He's a liar, and you buy into his bs with nary a word of protest. He lies about being neutral and "let the parent decide for themselves," and any objective person, and especially one opposed to spanking as you claim to be, would see through it in a split second. He has spent year after year, pretending to be not supporting either side, but in fact has never once spoke in opposition to spanking arguments or babblings up to and including horrible thrashing of childre. Let a single post pop up that opposes spanking and he's all over with his phony debate. My dear, you are as phony as him, regardless of what you declare yourself to be. A crock of bull**** is what you actually are. Or you could grow up, learn to be discriminating and recognize his bias and vicious attacks on non spankers and endless support for spanking. "let parents make up their own minds," Indeed. You are just a sloppy carbon copy of him. Stop your pretending. 0:- |
#106
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post only allows 10,000 characters in a single post.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Kane said: I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. That statment answers that question...YES In my opinion you meant to be nasty about my child rearing methods. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And any parent being asked if they are abusive toward their children would take offense, and defend themselves. Quote:
If I were anything less than honest here you would not be comparing me to doan...I would get my own category, but because you can not make heads or tails of me because I don't fit your mold of what a Non-spanker thinks and feels then I must be a puppet. Quote:
Quote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=coopn...n&lr=&filter=0 I Googled coopnwhitsmommy+spank* for you. There is a specific post at gentlechristianmothers.com entitled How to become a gentle mother that you may find interesting. It was the one that started me down the path to Non-spanking. And Why I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they are misguided in their parenting...it wasn't long ago I was one of them. I believe it is in the public domain. If you can access the board without logging in you can see my post count is well over 600 and I would gladly let you read any of my other posts if you so wish,just to prove that I am not a fake.
__________________
Becca Momma to two boys Big Guy 3/02 and Wuvy-Buv 8/05 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Doan wrote: Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are available, the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's world. ;-) Doan Isn't it strange you didn't point out these sources to "Aline/Alina," though. 0:- |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
beccafromlalaland wrote: I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post only allows 10,000 characters in a single post. The attributions, so we may who is saying what, are badly mangled. I find the free mail program, Thunderbird, does an excellent job of controlling attributions display properly. It will handle, if your IP provides the service, an excellent newsreader as well. I’ll try to sort through your post as best I can, as to who said what when. Bear with me and correct where you see I might have erred. kane Wrote: beccafromlalaland: I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking This below is my response. Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of smilies. Such as :-) LOL means Laugh Out Loud which is also an acceptable communication of a joking or playful attitude. Sometimes one must read between the lines to catch the meaning. kane Wrote: No, it is more often used derisively. If one is kidding playfully useually a winker smilie is the preferred symbol. 0;- And the problem with written communication, unless people are long time associates and preferably know each other personally, is that no, one should not have to read between the lines. Doing so creates the kind of errors of assumption you made when I asked you if you used the same tactics with your children, as a question. Or, if you insist that we must “understand each other” and you understood me to be asking a question in a accusatory manner, then my comment about stands. You were using LOL derisively. See how badly it works to force the other to read between the lines? If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day that's your problem not mine. In a two way conversation if one asks the other to clarify such a reply is extraordinarily rude. I make NO apology for not being able to follow some specific thought of yours if you do not attribute it when you remark later about it. If for nothing else then for accuracy it needs to be seen adjacent to the later commentary about it. No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd remember from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to. I don't have a problem remembering who's who and what's what from day to day week to week, but I do have a very good memory which aids in that. Neither do I, beyond the ordinary. I also have a good memory. That does not mean I remember everything, and especially not fine details that I might NOT have given the weight to the other did. Propertly attribute your remarks please. That is NOT and unreasonable request, while yours that I remember whatever detail out of all your postings contents you chose to refer to blindly, is more certainly an unreasonable request. I may be at an unfair advantage given that talent. It would not do you the least good if I remarked on some past comment of mine with poor reference to the content of my prior remark. You do NOT refer to a prior remark clearly enough for me, or anyone, to know what you are referring to. I can remember the plot and characters of nearly every book I've read in recent years, as well as the lines from plays from highschool. One of those weird things that comes in handy for me but can annoy others. Then you are willing to annoy others deliberately? Refusing to accomodate them in such a simple thing is in fact rude. kane Wrote: Having Lengthy bits of conversation floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and unnecessary....at least for me Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude. I don't use "Usenet" and 90% of my postings are on forums in which one can easily scroll up to refresh their memory. You are posting to a Usenet newsgroup (Now delivered by Google...or any other newsreader you wish..but still Usenet) and I do NOT have your forums, nor should I be forced to join them to read your prior posts in the thread. Kindly quote the material you are commenting about. Your newsreader, whatever it is, badly screws up the attributions, so that I had to go through and hand correct the various incorrect “” marks. kane Wrote: In fact, below was yet another one. YOUR comments were in double “” when they should have been singles. I have to hand correct them now for any reader to be able to follow. This is not a personal correspondence. We are in a public forum and it’s inconsiderate of the other readers and posters to post incomprehensible material that loses which author is saying what. Perhaps you should do some memory excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier post. You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being harassing and rude. Actually, that was a serious bit of friendly advice. Doing Memory excercises not only improves your short term memory but there is some evidence that it will improve your recall ability in your waning years. And accourding to a researcher friend of mine may even help lessen the severity of memory loss in Dementia patients. You are being deliberately ageist. My memory in fact is far better than most people my age. My request is not out of line, and it is unreasonable for you to ask this of me above to follow YOUR sloppy posting habits. kane Wrote: (again having to snip double attribution marks to singles) Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next portion just so we are clear. Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before. You've poked Momma bear one too many times, I'm not rude...I'm defensive. Defensive? I have your family here and threaten them? How? My remarks are to YOU, not your children. In fact I’m the one being DEFENSIVE of your children. You are simply defending yourself against what you took as an insult, and may or may not have been. You cannot know unless you ask. kane Wrote: (again you say I am making a statement, but this yelling is YOUR statement. This time I’ll leave the double attributions so you can see it and do something about it, hopefully) NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN. NOW Kane responds: Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish. Now who's being rude? I am not being rude. This is a newsgroup titled “alt.parenting.spanking.” There is nothing rude about discussing children, since they are impossible to remove from such a subject. They are the object of the “spanking” in the title. This is about parenting. One parents children. I do not question your parenting ethics...nor do I even mention your children in posts. I would never DREAM of doing something that rude, not even with provocation. You have been repeatedly rude, almost from the start of this ng. You have accused me, for instance, of not answering your questions, only to find that after I had to jostle you famous “memory” that I had indeed answered them ALL, as asked. Even correctly attributing them in my post. kane Wrote: NO I DIDN’T. The forum you post to and through does NOT translate it’s attributions to other formats, such as google, or various newsreaders. The rest of us are standardized...it’s YOUR forum that is not. And I should NOT have to join your forum to discuss these issues with you. This is USENET, not your forum. This is YOU, incorrectly attributed by YOUR forum service. Get it fixed, or use a proper newsreader. Plenty of free ones to not make this jumbled mess. This is YOU: THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME ABOUT MY FAMILY. So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not? Yes I have said rude things to you, but NEVER in a million years would I poke you about the way you raise your children. You can’t even keep straight whether or not I’ve answered you. You insult my memory, when your own, that you claim is so special failed you miserably over the claim I hadn’t replied to your questions. You were rude then, you are being so NOW. That hardly equates with any justification to lecture me as you are now doing. You can’t even apply the newsgroup title properly. Children are in the subject field of this ng by default. I WILL ask questions about and discuss children here, yours, mine, or anyone’s I choose. Your “orders” are refused. Again. Here’s some of you polite discourse directed at me from prior posts, after you totally screwed up by NOT properly attributing and thus losing YOUR own way and falsely accusing me of failure to respond: “,,,I didn't quote Kane in my prior post because it would have been more confusing trying to filter through the bs...” “ ... I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am responding to...but I've been wrong before. ...“ You WERE wrong. And yet YOU are accusing me, where I was trying to direct your attention to correcting your error by the use of direct quotes of my posts, with an insulting comment that I was just trying to “cover” my butt. “Until then get off your hobby horse, and learn to play with the grown ups who actually discuss CURRENT research, CURRENT parenting challenges, and CURRENT solutions to their parenting challenges. b~ “ I did not start the insulting in this exchange with you in this thread. You have pushed the boundary of civility constantly. You began with me by calling my response that exposed Doan for the harassing vicious little provacatuer he obviously is, “childish.” You haven’t let up since. I don’t pretend to be nice, or demand it of others, you phony. Before you correct ME, clean your own house. Or we can continue on our merry way insulting each other – and not going indignant about it, phony. kane Wrote: YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE, Nonsense. Where’s that famous memory of yours. You wrote that you have two high needs children. That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not understand the interogatory sentence? What kind of question is that? An ordinary question. You are an adult, not a child. That’s correct. I treat adults in the way adults should be treated, and I treat children in age appropriate fashion. How would I know that unless I asked you? Do you and realize that you confirmed my feeling that your original question was in fact meant as an insult...or are you going to choose to ignore it? Ignore what? Your “feeling?” No, why should I. Given that I had a “feeling” your comment about getting my copy of the Embry study from me ended in “LOL.” Get it? kane Wrote: A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have been speaking rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not assume, as you just did. One can ask a question in an accusatory fashion. That is what you did. That question asked in the context it was in was inflamatory. Sure one can. And no, you do not KNOW that it was meant to be “inflamatory”[sic]. And stop pretending YOU have not been deliberately insulting since first posting here and continuously ever since. There are just too many examples. “And you are still arguing about it...one word comes to mine It starts with a C ends with a Y and has RAZ in the middle. “ kane Wrote: Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go ahead. I don't need to you already answered it. No I didn’t. Kane said: I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. That statment answers that question...YES In my opinion you meant to be nasty about my child rearing methods. You cannot logically draw from my question that I meant to be nasty. You can infer it, but nothing logically proves it. It’s your feeling, not a fact. That statement, with the “IF” in it does NOT prove that I meant to be nasty. kane Wrote: AND YET YOU FEEL IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY CHILDREN. A question is not an assumption. the context in which you chose to ask that question, turned it from a question to an assumption. if you had not assumed that I treat my children poorly you would not have asked that question. No such logical inference can be made. I could have asked you that question for a number of reasons, none of which was “nasty.” You made a rude accusatory comment toward me. You have a record of doing so throughout this thread and this ng when you posted to it in response to me, and on an occasion toward me when responding to Doan. I want to know if you treat your children the same way. Is my question provoking the very response that I suspected it might, but hoped it wouldn’t? kane Wrote: What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually comments from the flow: " Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being playfully friendly with me?" Do you see the question mark? Twice? How could you miss it and presume I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and accused me. Of course I saw the question marks. Again the context in which you asked the question lead me to the assumption that you were presuming that I treat my children poorly. Nope. That was YOUR reaction. I was concerned you MIGHT BE. And even IF I made such an assumption rather than ACCUSE you, I asked for clarification from you. kane Wrote: How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you, without asking me? How do you feel about asking questions that force someone to assume that you assumed something? No one forces you to assume anything. YOU assume it. You did not even come back with a question to find out IF I meant to be nasty. You simply accused me of it. And further more what gave you the idea that it was OK to ask a question that inflammatory? What is NOT “OK” about asking that question? Unless invited one should never speak of anothers children...and from what I can recall I never gave you any inkling of permission to make comment or question after my children. You joined a newsgroup called, “alt.parenting.spanking.” We aren’t discussing fetish spanking here. We are discussing parents, spanking, and by obvious inference, the children that would or would not be spanked. It would be like me asking after your sex life. No it wouldn’t. One's family life is intensly personal, and unless asked to make comment or question or given express permission to do so it's best to leave well enough alone. No it is not “intensely personal.” I do not preform sexually in public, but I do and have parented in public. I don’t discuss my sex life publically, but I do my parenting. As for “unless asked; Not if you join a newsgroup that is expressly about the subject of children. This one is. That means you have given permission to discuss family life in the context of child rearing. kane Wrote: I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation. See the difference? You asked a question that forced me to become defensive. kane Wrote: “Forced” you? You are FORCED to answer my question? To become “defensive?” You have no other choice, or choices? How about you simply ask me my meaning, first? Then you don’t have to become defensive until you are sure I am trying to be “nasty.” IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO. To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children as you appear to be behaving toward me? To assume that I would treat my children as I treat an adult, yes. Full circle, and I will remind you of that with the same response as befo A question is not an assumption or an accusation. It’s a question. Because it is YOU get to answer it as you see fit. You chose to come back and accuse me of being nasty. Which of us is being presumptuous? To bring my children and my family life into a conflict between you and I? YES. beccafromlalaland, the name of this newsgroup is “alt.parenting.spanking.” It’s google (Usenet) description is “Discussion about punishment methods for children.” You wish to only discuss this issue by proxie, and other people and their children? [color=blue] kane Wrote: IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT. Yelling makes it true, does it? How about you ASK me if I meant to be nasty and insulting? How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so? I have answered this already. The context that you asked that question was such that it forced me to assume you were being insulting. The context is this newsgroup, which subject is “children” “parenting” and “Discussion about punishment methods for children.” It is NOT automatically an insult to ask, if someone has been posting a long string of insults if they treat their children the same way, but I certainly can see, given your long string of insults why you might take it as one. kane Wrote: I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are being toward me. Are you doing the same with your children? This has been sufficiently addressed. NO, I am not rude attacking or accusatory with my children. I am relieved to hear that. I had both intent to be nasty and insult you, and some concern that you might carry this attitude into parenting situations. See how easy that was when you stop presuming and answered the question? You then didn’t even have to ask me, I told you freely, as I would, had you ASKED. Yes, and you deserved my implication, beccafromlalaland. And you’ll get more if you keep up the stupid insults. Trust me. kane Wrote: And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you DO know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me. Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are being so abusive toward your children. I was/am bieng rude to you...as you have been rude to me. But I must stop, while you continue? Interesting take on debate. Perhaps we both need to go back to primary school and relearn the "golden rule" And any parent being asked if they are abusive toward their children would take offense, and defend themselves. Yup, but they also have choices not to, to consider the poster might have more than one reason for asking, and intended no harm to your children. Do you think I intended to harm your children? If not (and it’s obvious I did not) what’s all your ranting about? It’s about knowing, I believe, that you got caught up with on your constant stream of insults and your accusations. Your deliberate presumptions that I’m lying, and Doan is telling the truth, when in fact any objective reading of his past posts on this subject from it’s beginning, that I supplied you by link would have shown you he only recently found the abstract. Have you actually tried to get it and found it if it is actually still available, as he posted from a screen readout? I’ve seen inaccuracies in those before. AAA, for instance, according to him, told him that they have always had it available. They told me differently, but he insists I’m lying. You swallow what he says, and question what I say. Why is that, beccafromlalaland? Because you are a sucker? Or his style of slimy innuendo and clever lies appeals more? Or are you easily patronized? kane Wrote: Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your children or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan, though he's more clever and weasel like. That is your solution to everything isn't it. Hyperbole. No, it is not my “solution to everything.” I have many solutions to many things, and this one in particular does not follow if you bothered to look at posts of mine to other “nonspankers.” My disagreement with them, and you aren’t the only one, indicates I do not blindly accept them just because they are “non-spankers.” Doan, on the other hand has accepted and agreed with and defended PEOPLE THAT COME HERE DEFENDING BEATING OF CHILDREN, not just spanking. That someone who doesn't agree with you on every point must be a fake, a puppet. Nonsense. I don’t even agree with LaVonne on ‘every point.” I hold a different view than her’s on “punishment,” I believe, and I’ve said so publically. She hasn’t though done anything that would suggest she a fake or a puppet. YOU have. So have others, that claimed to be non-spankers, one going so far as to claim I “drove” them back to spanking I was so rude. I fear for the children of someone that shallow and weak...except of course I know damn well it was a ringer that had no intention of becoming a “non-spanker” but was here to harass. I am a recovering "spank-a-holic" I try very hard on a daily basis to use Grace based discipline, and Gentle Parenting. And you're right, I need to be in control...it sucks, I hate that about myself. I was not allowed control over anything not even my own body for 17yrs. Everything was in turmoil constantly so forgive me if I crave control. I worked with teens in mental health for many years. The first thing I told them after the three day observation period to determine baseline behaviors was this: “Yes, it’s not your fault you were beaten, raped, neglected, abused – or whatever – but it IS your fault if you impose your reactions to it on ANYONE BUT THE PERP.” In other words, no excuses. Nor will I accept them. You yelled at my once in this newsgroup, “grow up.” And I had perfectly good reason to be debating a question of honesty with Doan, so your admonition was totally uncalled for. I think my saying to you now, “Grow up” is right on target. I’m much more invested in you being a non-spanker than winning any argument with you. So when you pull this power trip bull**** on me naturally I’m concerned and ASK if you do this to your kids. If I were anything less than honest here you would not be comparing me to doan...I would get my own category, but because you can not make heads or tails of me because I don't fit your mold of what a Non-spanker thinks and feels then I must be a puppet. Your honesty is what you think I compare you to Doan about? R R R R...no, b~ , it’s not your honesty. It’s your tendency to NOT be honest that did that. The accusations you made that turned out upon examination to be false (thanks for the apology, by the way, I may have missed it or forgotten to acknowledge earlier, but reviewed it today) were what inspired my comparison. Along with the kinds of attacks on the Embry Experiment report. You weren’t simply questioning. You even made up things along the way. And your refusal to get it, but continue to attack it based on partial knowledge from my comments were typical of his bs. He spent a year without it, faking it all the while, picking up bits and pieces from citations likely, and pretending he had it, even miss quoting. And if he had it he’d have known about this, which he did not....he was relying on the partial information in an ABSTRACT which of course is partial by natu There were charts of all 33 of the participants in the study. I knew perfectly well the status of them, but he didn’t know that the 20 existed. Until I spoke of it recently. IF he had known he’d have said. 13 observed, and 20 non-observed. He constantly walks into these little places I leave for him to go. And they prove he’s a liar. But you can’t, or won’t let yourself see it. You’d rather fuss over some exchange between us and blow that up to become indignant over. I have to ask you why you’d prefer to be patronized by him, than challenged by me? kane Wrote: Chill, lady. If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter what meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming. Find a better context to ask questions. That’s absurd. That simply reserves to you the right to pick what next to get indignant about. I might ask you about you husband, or ask if you used objects to spank, or if you don’t like carnations. I have NO WAY of knowing ahead of time what you already are sensitive about, or just might pick out of thin are to use to duck a tough challenge of mine. You want polite? Go to a moderated group. These correspondences are a feed to and from Usenet and they are NOT in a moderated group here. kane Wrote: I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs you. A three dollar bill. Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to spanking. My other online name is coopnwhitsmommy http://tinyurl.com/db977 I Googled coopnwhitsmommy+spank* for you. There is a specific post at gentlechristianmothers.com entitled How to become a gentle mother that you may find interesting. It was the one that started me down the path to Non-spanking. I take it you are referring to this one: “ How to become a Gentle Mother « on: June 29, 2005, 09:54:07 PM » I am a Spanker...I HATE IT. I was raised in a spanking household. I was spanked for every little infraction and I promised I wouldn't do that to my children...but here I am [[icon reference removed-“bang head”]] I think my big problem is I have no tools to deal with misbehavior. HELP ME “ June of last year. You’re new. How you doing with learning alternatives? Now I’m even more surprised at your response to my offerings about the Embry study. You’ve got just 6 months since you started, July last year, through January of this one. Yet you aren’t interested in a program that describes precisely how to teach a child to reduce unwanted behavior? Or have you learned others in that time? And Why I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they are misguided in their parenting...it wasn't long ago I was one of them. I believe it is in the public domain. If you can access the board without logging in you can see my post count is well over 600 and I would gladly let you read any of my other posts if you so wish,just to prove that I am not a fake. Well, it’s easy enough to find. You apparently aren’t faking about your desire not to spank. Nevertheless I find your style here, and your defense of a proven slimy little liar incongruent to that end. Allowing him to divert you from such important work as Embry’s isn’t suggestive of a real interest in learning the methods of non-spanking parenting, in my mind. You mistake my sometimes harsh approach....I think of it as demanding you THINK FOR YOURSELF... for something other than it is. Just a demand. And yes, I DO know how those that have taken up non-spanking generally respond. If you search the archives you can find them here. Rare as they are in this ng. You have NOT been responding like any non-spankers I’ve run into before. They are usually eager to explore. They don’t consider a few minutes reading to be an imposition in something so vital as learning new ways of parenting that you ask for in your post to the above cited forum. I am doing what Doan LIES about doing. Asking you to think for yourself. And I don’t lie about being “neutral,” as he does. I’m honestly and plainly against spanking and other deliberate attempts to hurt and humiliate children to teach them. I disagree, by the way with your definition about abuse and spanking, and the intent of parents. “I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they are misguided in their parenting..” That reads, if you go on, as an excuse for yourself. You don’t want, apparently, to think of yourself as having abused your children by spanking them. If you hit them to cause them pain, which you did if you were a “spanker,” then you abused them. It’s not complicated, and it does not allow for excuses. You did it. Admit. Decide not to do it. And move on. That is the courageous admission you need to make if you truly do not want to revert to spanking and humiliation. Actually DO think for yourself, instead of look for the Doan’s of the world to “excuse you.” He’s a slimy lying creep that has haunted this ng from early on. Snide, nasty, lying and conniving, as he was taught to be. He can’t read a sentence that he can’t twist and misconstrue. Go ahead, read his history of posts. And when you say, “it’s not about you” (Doan and Kane) you are very much mistaken. It is most certaily about the debate between the Doans and the Kanes. The spanking advocates and apologists, and those of us that disagree with pain and humiliation being moral or useful as a way to raise responsible citizens. Wallow in Doan's slime, or answer hard challenges. It's up to you. -- beccafromlalaland Kane |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
How many years now .... ... of posting that he wants "parents to make
up their own mind?" How many years of attacking any information, opinion, or personal story in support of non-spanking? How many years of defending everything from the pro spanking side? How many years of letting slide posters like Fern that supported parents beating their children bloody publicly? How many years of siding with people that, like Fern, advocated for parents to have the last word on whether or not to beat children until they bleed? How many years of riding every bogus hobby horse of the pro spanking noodniks like Lazerlere, and Dobson...the dog "trainer?" The one that thinks raising children is a matter of going to war with them? Doan, the first day I viewed this ng I spotted you for a phony. A quick google search on your posting confirmed it. And nothing I've seen since changes that. You have no intention of allowing parents to make up their own mind, or you would, like any truly objective fence sitter, treat each side of the question equally or you'd hold your views. You are a little child, stuck back where you were first betrayed by your parents with those blows to your body and your mind. It's apparently made you even lie to yourself, if you believe this **** you've posted all these years about your neutrality on this subject. A phony. How very childishly sad you appear. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant
Kane got caught with more LIES! ;-) On 15 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: Well, beccafromlalaland. Kane has a special copy. ;-) According to Kane: "You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come directly from Dr. Embry." Since I have already pointed you to where copies of this study are available, the above claim by Kane is a LIE or a "mistake" in Kane's world. ;-) Doan Isn't it strange you didn't point out these sources to "Aline/Alina," though. 0:- I didn't point out your LIES??? Doan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | October 29th 04 05:23 AM |
The regret mothers now feel ("Why are these parents not shocked over the pain?"): | Pointed Elbow | Pregnancy | 1 | October 9th 04 02:06 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | September 29th 04 05:17 AM |
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list | Greg Hanson | General | 11 | March 22nd 04 01:40 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 03:30 AM |