If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant

You seemed to be doing a rather careful cherry pick of which posts
you'll respond to.

Or did you miss this one from me:
.............................................

Doan wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


What "LIES?"


Where shall I begin? ;-)

LIE #1:
"You don't have a copy. There are none out there that did not come
directly from Dr. Embry."


At the time I made that statement the AAA copies were not
available...just listed as out of print. They changed to an on demand
copy service at 10 cents a page. It was then neither a mistake or a lie.
YOU are lying.

LIE #2:
No punishment and reward.


Where did I say that? I sure didn't say there was no "reward."

I said I disagreed with Embry's characterization of the Time out
procedure as "punishment." I could hardly call it punishment if I did
not think it to BE punishment.

And that's because in the report the description in more detail of the
Sit and Watch procedure was anything but a punishment. In fact, it was
"rehearsed" with the child so it would not be seen as such by the child.

(p.19) "Parents received a handout on using sticker charts and Sit and
Watch (a punishment procedure also known at Time Out)."

You want more? Just ask! ;-)


I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


You know when you are lying. And any attempt to mislead, which you've
done twice, minimum, just in this post, is a lie.

How do YOU know where I got that statement about spanking and increased
running into the street? You don't. So you do not know if it's true or
not.


LOL! I know for SURE that it is not in this study. That is why I asked
and that is why you have done everthing to evade.

Doan


You've lied again, twice. Provide a citation for were I said there was
no "punishment and reward."

And you are concealing, by focusing on these irrelevant to the findings,
bits and pieces, the meat of the experiment.

By the way, when did a 13 sample size (actually comprising almost twice
that many participants...if you count ALL, the children AND their
parents) get to be irrelevant in an experiment?

This wasn't a representative sample. It was an experimental sample.

And it's been replicated. 0:- Successfully.

You don't want to reveal what they found do you? Not until you have
gotten a chance to influence, like any good little propagandist,
everyone's understanding.

Your phony bull**** is piling up around you, Doan.

Dance monkeyboy.

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


--
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 Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Arrogant?

Yes, he is that.

You need to remember that HIS was the challenge to debate Embry, and
mine a refusal to do so until we both had the SAME report...since I
knew, but did not tell him...that there had been TWO studies on the same
subject, but conducted in the first one without a "training program
package."


LOL! Actually, there were THREE, Kane.

Irrelevant.

1980:
Alcohol Education & Traffic Safety Module for Elementary School,
Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, Field Testing Version. James L.
Malfetti, Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia
University.

1981:
Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parenting
Training & Symbolic Modeling for Children; An Experimental Analysis in
the Natural Environment. Dennis Embry, University of Kansas, James L.
Malfetti, Columbia University.

1982:
Safe Playing-Final Report on Field Test. Dennis Embry, James L. Malfetti,
Safety Research & Education Project, Teachers College Columbia University

Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane?

So, during the time you didn't post that there were three, you were lying?

The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
statement SAYS it was meant to examined.


Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-)

Nope. I did not list any other study than the one I was interested in,
Doan. That's hardly making things up.


He's just an arrogant bull****ter. Always has been, always will be.


Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane.

You? Gee I hope not. You are so good at that yourself.

Why the adhom when I have so
NICE to you?

Your claim lacks any proofs.

Is it your mom again? ;-)

Couldn't be.


Doan


And the ad hom was accurate: Doan is an "arrogant bull****ter. Always
has been, always will be."

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

Don't you think it's time to get back to work?

You sure spend a lot of time on your employer's computer, just lying.

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

LOL! Actually, there were THREE, Kane.

Irrelevant.

So the TRUTH is irrelevant to you? ;-)

Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane?

So, during the time you didn't post that there were three, you were lying?

Only if I said there were two. I didn't, you did; thus you are the
LIAR! ;-)

The reason I would not debate him without the same one is that he's
famous for making it up as he goes..presuming results that are not
there, criticizing research for things it was not intended to show,
demanding it show what HE wishes it to show instead of what the methods
statement SAYS it was meant to examined.

Are you it is not you who " making it up as he goes"? ;-)

Nope. I did not list any other study than the one I was interested in,
Doan. That's hardly making things up.

So saying TWO when there were THREE is not making things up???

He's just an arrogant bull****ter. Always has been, always will be.

Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane.

You? Gee I hope not. You are so good at that yourself.

Why the adhom when I have so NICE to you?

Your claim lacks any proofs.

LOL!
Is it your mom again? ;-)

Couldn't be.

So your mom didn't approve? ;-)

Doan

Don't you think it's time to get back to work?

You sure spend a lot of time on your employer's computer, just lying.

LOL! But who will then point out your "MISTAKES"?

Doan

I am still wating. ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


Really? Here is the actual quotes:

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

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

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "

Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


Really? Here is the actual quotes:

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

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

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "

Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)

Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
all our argument on this issue. Why is that?

Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?

Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
"punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
which of course you are avoiding.

0:-

No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.

Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
larger discussion.

In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.

Doan

0:-

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


Really? Here is the actual quotes:

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

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

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "

Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)

Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
all our argument on this issue. Why is that?

Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
did no such thing." don't you understand?

Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?

Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
"punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
which of course you are avoiding.

Because Embry said so! And you said "he did no such thing"!
You are a proven LIAR! ;-)

0:-

No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.

In which context is "he did no such thing."?

Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
larger discussion.

In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.

LOL!

Doan

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


Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

I didn't say there was no punishment, only that I disagreed with Embry
on that definition. In fact you know that's what I said because you
challenged me with "you think you are smarter than Embry?"


Really? Here is the actual quotes:

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

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

This tells me clearly you DO NOT have the study at all. "

Remember that, Kane? So who is the LIAR here? ;-)

Sure I remember. That would be both of us, yet you have failed to post
all our argument on this issue. Why is that?

Why don't you post all of your argument? Which part of "Actually he
did no such thing." don't you understand?

Which part do you not understand in the context of what I said next? Is
that how to win an argument, Doan, to ignore the explanation and
clarification?

It's cleary how you dodge the issues.

You said, above: "Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using time-out,
for unsafe play."

I said, because I disagree with calling it 'punishment,' regardless of
who uses the term, you or him, that "time out for unsafe play," is the
same as "Sit and Watch." The latter is not punishment in my terms, so I
said "Actually he did no such thing."

In fact there was NO Timeout for unsafe play that was not called, "Sit
and Watch" in the context of watching other children in safe play.

That does NOT say he didn't call it punishment, but that it simply was
NOT punishment in my book.

Your command of english is overcome by your capacity for and compulsive
lying.
How delusional are you?

Could it be because I pointed out I disagreed with one definition of
Embry as to "punishment," and agreed with another?

Does Embry not utilize "sitting and watching other children playing
safely" as part of the process? Why would sitting and watcing be a
"punishment?" It's not to me, and he describs it in non punitive terms,
which of course you are avoiding.

Because Embry said so!

I did not say he didn't say so. You are lying again.

And you said "he did no such thing"!
You are a proven LIAR! ;-)

No, I did NOT say he said no such thing.

I said that he 'did' no such thing. "Sit and Watch," as I explained
later and you keep hiding our conversation on it, is not to my mind
'punishment.'

In the study methods described by him he in fact goes to considerable
lengths to not only make Sit and Watch a learning experience, but he
has his observers post it differently than 'punishment.'

If you do have the study you know perfectly well 'punishment' is
defined for coding as "grab, squeeze hard, and spank." Sit and Watch is
NOT coded as "punishment."

That is yet another reason I took exception to "time out" (Sit and
Watch being the only kidn used) being considered a punishment.

How much longer are you going to lie about this?

0:-

No Doan, you deliberately attempt to mislead and you do so by quoting
out of context and ignoring the complete argument on an issue.

In which context is "he did no such thing."?

The context of my willingness to clarify my meaning when you challenged
it.

I pointed out clearly, and you posted it above, that I do not consider
Sit and Watch punishment. What HE calls it, we have established months
ago, I do NOT agree with. That is why I phrased my comment as I did.

I did not say he didn't "say" it. I said he didn't DO it. That plainly
state, and obviously so, by my standards.

If you did NOT understand that, then why did you challenge me as
thinking I was a smart as Embry to challenge him?

The answer, of course, is that you wish to harass, not debate. 0:-

And he even had the parents rehearse it with the children before
actually using it to reduce the likelihood of a negative reaction to
it. It was a time to sit and observe others playing safely.

Otherwise it would not say "Sit and Watch" others playing safely.

By YOUR standards, and that of others devoted to punishment models that
might appear as a 'punishment,' but not to my standards.

I would not even allow the child to presume it was punishment. Study
the study monkeyboy. Try to get out of your biases.

Then when you've given becca a copy, smirk try to convince here. I
don't debate the meaning with you. By the way, I paid for all copies I
gave away. Did you?

Even when repeatedly reminded, as you have been on this issue, of the
larger discussion.

In other words, you are a liar. And attempts to prove another, myself,
as a liar is done by....you guessed it....lying.

LOL!

Another nervous laugh over being caught at your nonsense lies?

Why do you think I call you "monkeyboy?" You jibber and screech, but
you don't actually say much.

Doan

Kane