Murray Straus, founder of the University of New Hampshire FamilyResearch Lab

Carlson LaVonne wrote:


0:- wrote:

Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

The closest things to gurus I've had would have to be my sixth grade
teacher and one of my Ph.D. advisors. Both believed in me, listened
to me, and encouraged me to pursue my goals.

They were Caucasian, so I suppose they could be considered "lily
white" -- if that's what Greegor means. But since they were human
beings, they were far from perfect.

I've met Murray Straus on several occassions. He's a kind and gentle
man with a brilliant mind, but I doubt he's perfect. I'm sure he
would agree with me.

Your post regarding Murray Straus' birthday certainly did set off a
nerve for Greegor, didn't it?


The normal state for bigots. Frankly I consider them very dangerous
and foolish people, but what are yah gonna do...free speech and all. 0:-

I suppose they are dangerous. I know they engage in foolish behavior.
But hey, I'm all for free speech. Based on several of my recent posts,
I received an email, the first in a long time, from an individual who
never felt right about spanking, has lurked on this ng for apparently a
couple of years, and asked me for more information on child development
and how to parent without spanking.

This is called "remembering the goal."

Sometimes, good things happen.

Regardless of the final decision of this person I extend my best wishes,
for at least he or she ASKED.

Thus proving rationality and good intent.

LaVonne

Kane






LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote

Neither are politically inclined. Both are long time academics with
respectable and reputable methods and professional recognition.



All of your GURUs are lily white



I don't have any Gurus. The closest I can think of was an Okinawan
man that kind of took me under his wing when I was a teen.

Boxer, jockey, race horse trainer, and a man of considerable
character. Spent his teens in the WWII internment camps (Okinawans
are 'Japanese').

I learned, among other things, fine gardening from him. And an
esoteric form of Martial Arts then, that became quite popular world
wide later.

He was not, as I recall, lily white.

and perfect of course!

No one I've ever met is perfect. Are you assuming I think someone is?

Let nothing cramp that cultic mindset.



I'm sorry you have the needs that you do, and that they are
apparently unmet. But, that's how life goes.

Be good.











--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results?

Baumrind discredited herself at the conference in Berkeley when she
presented a "study" that she had avoided submitting for peer review.

It simply added more fuel to the flames of the spanking proponent
propagandists. But it was not 'science,' nor was it properly labeled as
research. You cannot remove the more critical components of the sample
and claim you have done anything BUT remove them. You have not showed
your claim to be true.

You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

She has so abandoned it. And LaVonne is not lying. Her earlier work did
NOT support CP as part of Authoritative parenting.

But later, she changed her mind, Doan. And "abandoned" is an excellent
word, and no lie, to use to relate her current stand to her previous one.

Any researcher that would, in a study of 'parenting' as per the issue of
spanking, remove those children that were spanked harder is NOT still
supporting "authoritative parenting," regardless of what she might
claim. She has badly damaged her credibility thereby.

The day she submits that "paper" she read at Berkeley to publication for
peer review, I'll reconsider my opinion. Though it would, if it passed
review at all, STILL advocate something she did NOT support
before...spanking.

"Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor
and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are
assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods
are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be
assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as
cooperative" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62)."

That WAS her position in 1991. Doan.

Notice what she states about "punitive?"
That would NOT support spanking as a parental choice of "Authoritative"
parents or parenting.

Even your Master, Lazerlere dare not claim, and did not, that Baumrind
supports spanking when she did her study in the 1990's. Nothing in his
view of her work, nor his citing and quoting would suggest she supported
ANY spanking at the time, as she apparently came to by fudged methods in
her "study' reported at Berkeley.

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/L...re.html#table2
"Table 2 summarizes a range of specific parenting practices that were
significantly more characteristic of authoritative parents than of
either authoritarian or permissive parents (Baumrind, 1967). "

Authoritative parenting was seen by her as more characteristic of
Permissive than Authoritarian parenting in the chart shown.

No, Doan, YOU don't have any understanding of research and its
significance and routinely attempt to rearrange findings to suit your
agenda of advocating for spanking. Don't lie any more. You DO so
advocate. No reader here could possibly miss that you do.

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far.

"This study?" Which study would that be. You support a study that did
NOT get submitted for peer review?

Which ARE you referring to?

The original study, that Lazerlere cites, and I have pointed to, from
1991, or her Berkeley presentation of a "study" she did not chose to
submit for publication?

The original did not support spanking as "Authoritative" parents, Doan.

Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that.

Admit? To a study from 91 that did NOT support spanking? I guess so if
you say so. I know I WOULD ADMIT TO THE SAME THING because it supports
the position of anti spanking advocates.

Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design?

The one NOT submitted for publication is NOT available. Of course it
cannot be compared. We must work for comments about it, since it's not
published anywhere.

And what does, "this one was purely design" mean, Doan?

My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie.

"Won't dare" when what you ask for is impossible because one of the two
is not published?

That makes you a liar, Doan, with a major attempt to deceive, unless you
didn't know the Berkeley presentation was not reviewed for publication.

Here's another quote from Baumrind in the distant past:

"Baumrind called it "a warm, engaged rational parent-child relationship".

"The authoritative model of discipline," she wrote in 1966, "is
characterised by use of firm control contingently applied and justified
by rational explanation of consistently enforced rules.""

Does "rational explanation" look to YOU like "spank them."

Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

No you won't. You'll weasel just like you did with me, looking for ways
to escape out some minor semantic hole.

One can find comments about Baumrinds study presented at the conference,
but NO publication to cite fully.

How do you propose that LaVonne make this comparison?

If you believe it possible, why don't YOU make the comparison to show
that she supported CP in both instances, Doan?

You can't. It's that simple. It does not exist.

She did no such thing in the past.

She abandoned the concept of Authoritative parenting and moved to
support one of the principle components of Authoritarian parenting,
spanking.

Here are some comments that clarify:

http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today010828.html
"Dr. Baumrind, a psychologist known for her classic studies of
authoritative, authoritarian and permissive styles of child-rearing,
said she did not advocate spanking. ...

[[[ Past tense, Doan. And then goes on to, and note the date... ]]]

.... But she argued that an occasional swat, when delivered in the
context of good child-rearing, had not been shown to do any harm. The
studies cited by opponents of corporal punishment, Dr. Baumrind
contended, often do not adequately distinguish the effects of spanking,
as practiced by nonabusive parents, from the impact of severe physical
punishment and abuse. Nor do they consider other factors that might
account for problems later in life, like whether parents are rejecting
or whether defiant or aggressive children might be more likely to be
spanked in the first place.

Dr. Baumrind described findings from her own research, an analysis of
data from a long-term study of more than 100 families, indicating that
mild to moderate spanking had no detrimental effects when such
confounding influences were separated out. When the parents who
delivered severe punishment — for example, frequently spanking with a
paddle or striking a child in the face — were removed from the analysis,
Dr. Baumrind and her colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Owens, found that few
harmful effects linked with spanking were left. And the few that
remained could be explained by other aspects of the parent-child
relationship. "

Baumrind has clearly moved to weasel wording. Trying to melt away the
opposition to spanking but NOT by clearly stating there were NO harmful
effects...and trying to explain them away by "other aspects" that GO
UNNAMED AND UNEXPLORED.

Baumrind went for NEVER including spanking as an alternative, clear up
to 1991, and that's over twenty years from her earliest quotes.

To the nonsense almost babbling acceptance of it as "harmless...but
maybe not quite totally harmless," (I paraphrase) nonsense above.

And when, at the Berkeley conference, Dr. Straus was asked and commented
on the quality of the research methods in Baumrind's study (the man is
polite to a fault and mild mannered), YOU and others, have carefully
avoided posting what ELSE he said.

""There is not absolutely conclusive evidence but there is very strong
evidence, and there's strong evidence that other methods work just as
well," said Dr. Straus, a co- author of "Beating the Devil Out of Them:
Corporal Punishment by American Families and Its Effects on Children.""

In other words, other methods than spanking.

Though you have consistently shown either the incapacity to think
logically and critically with objective analysis, even you have to admit
that if you have two methods with equal effect and one has risk of
injury and the other not, it is logical to chose the one that does not.

Doan

YOU, apologize? Fat chance.

Baumrind has chosen and now advocates for a risk to children and the
relationship that she did NOT for over 20 years.

I leave you with her most telling weasel words, Doan:

"“I am not an advocate of spanking, but a blanket injunction against its
use is not warranted by the evidence. It is reliance on physical
punishment, not whether or not it is used at all, that is associated
with harm to the child.”"

And what I believe you would say ...

"I'm going to beat you, but just a little. For I, the all-knowing Doan
have discovered the magical boundary between harm and no harm in hitting
we call spanking not beating -- when it's done just a little."

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan

You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumreprint.pdf
DIANA BAUMRIND 2001:

Does causally relevant research support a blanket injunction against
disciplinary spanking by parents? Invited address presented at the
annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San
Francisco, CA. COST N/A QTY N/A

First not peer reviewed for professional journal publication, now not
even available as a personal report?

I suspect she's feeling the heat of her own decisions from her own
conscience, and trying to work them out for herself. I consider her an
honest researcher (and very talented) that has let politics and pressure
sway her beliefs. And that tends to destroy objectivity.


Best wishes, Kane




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan

You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?

Yup! That you are very stupid! ;-) Try this:

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindtables.pdf

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan
You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?

Yup! That you are very stupid! ;-) Try this:

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindtables.pdf

Thanks Doan.

And why would not being able to find something makes someone stupid?

It took you two years to find something right under your nose.

0:-


Doan




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan
You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?

Yup! That you are very stupid! ;-) Try this:

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindtables.pdf

Doan

I found, given some of her claims concerning the relative harmlessness
of spanking, this to be most telling from her own words, in "Results:"

"...frequency of
physical punishment was associated with detrimental child outcomes, as
anti-spanking advocates such as Straus claim.

However, there were few significant associations left to explain between
child outcomes and dimensional or categorical measures of normative
physical punishment, and these few were fully explained by plausible
third variables – including baseline child misbehavior, poor parenting
practices, or (in a cross-sectional analysis), adolescents’ perception
of their parents as loving and influential."

Have you ever read her description of "normative physical punishment?"

It is far less severe than the legal descriptions and case-law findings
allow it to be in parental discipline by use of CP.

So basically, just as I've repeatedly stated and YOU continue to ignore,
you cute little liar, the "study" does NOT transfer to the real world --

-- that world where parents spank in the manner the law allows (and
worse) and get away with it. And we have it linked to drug use, suicide,
domestic abuse, crime, and mental illness.

So basically what she is saying is there is still some risk, which would
lead one to believe that REAL WORLD SPANKING is a serious risk to
children and should be banned.

That portion of children and parents she dropped from the study
population are in fact what we have in the real world, Doan.

Yet she plays the political game of so reducing her study population
that we are left with a little academic exercise in how to not address
the real world.

She is arguing that "a little bit of arsenic is harmless" but cannot
really offer the particles per liter, or ounce, or gram, that are safe.

Only that it's 'tiny.'

And we have wells that have SOME arsenic in them and need to decide
whether or not to use the water, or for what that would be safe.

I'd say safety concerns would logically lead us to conclude that NOT
using the water at all would be safest.

If we can get, as Straus said, and the spanking compulsive ignore, the
same results (though some of us think 'better results') with other
methods that do not include CP, why take the risk?

Just for the fun of hitting our kids?

Just because we can?

Just because it makes us feel powerful?

I know a great many people that find it fun not hitting their kids.

And many that think it not okay to do it, "just because they can."

And interestingly, they feel very powerful in terms of the relationship
with their children, and the outcomes they see their children having
from being parented gently, with those "disciplines" that Baumrind
herself once made the mainstay of her "Authoritative" parenting
model....supportive disciplines. Not punitive ones.

You have a nice day, Doan and see if you can work all this out with your
conscience.

Especially your mom and what she might say about Fern's advocacy for
parents beating their children and YOU not stepping up and doing the
honorable thing and confronting Fern, since you are against beating
children.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan
You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?

Yup! That you are very stupid! ;-) Try this:

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindtables.pdf

Thanks Doan.

And why would not being able to find something makes someone stupid?

It took me less than 30 secs with my search engine. You have been
bragging numerous times about your "formidable research skill". Even
worse, you are insinuating that Diana Baumrind has something to hide.
That's very dispicable of you!

It took you two years to find something right under your nose.

It's very to find out that you are a liar, or "mendacious" if you want
to sound intellectual. ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It truly is ironic that many individuals who later criticized Straus'
work had a clear political agenda....to attempt by any means to
discredit his research because they didn't like the results!

You meant just like you discrediting Baumrind because you don't like
the results? You even went as far as LYING by saying that she has
abandoned "authoritative parenting" when it is obvious she has never
done so. Is your agenda worth it when you have to resort to lying?

Regarding Diana Baumrind, like you I was absolutely astounded by her
political shift regarding corporal punishment based on such an
incredibly poorly designed study that was sharply criticized by
researchers and academics, including those individuals that may have
personally agreed with her position. To my knowledge, this study never
passed peer review for publication in a major research journal. The
research designs in her earlier work were extremely sound
methodologically. I know she is getting older, and perhaps this
contributed to the ridiculously poor study and the sharp contrast
between this study and her previous work.

This study is the best study by far. Even opponent to spanking like
Murray Straus admit that. Can you compare and contrast the study
she did on parenting styles and this one to show the claim you made
above that this one was purely design? My bet is that you won't dare
to because what you spewed above is just a lie. Prove me wrong and
I will publicly apolize for calling you a liar in public, LaVonne.

Doan
You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?

Yup! That you are very stupid! ;-) Try this:

http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindtables.pdf
Thanks Doan.

And why would not being able to find something makes someone stupid?

It took me less than 30 secs with my search engine.

Isn't that lovely? Does it make you feel like a better person?

You have been
bragging numerous times about your "formidable research skill".

Naw, once and you kept bringing it up like the little dip you are.

Even
worse, you are insinuating that Diana Baumrind has something to hide.

Nope. Something to reconsider.

That's very dispicable of you!

No, it's presumptuous of YOU to decide my motive. That is what's
despicable of YOU.

Especially given my comments concerning my respect for the greater body
of her work, and my puzzlement over the direction it went in 2001.

What I said was:

"You will find, Doan, that the study report that Baumrind gave as a
verbal presentation to the APA at Berkeley is NOT available even if one
pays for it, at her website, where all the other work of her's is.

Tell you anything?"

One, the document available through her site did in fact list it as not
available.

Two, my comment "tell you anything" could mean any number of things,
including what I mentioned earlier about her...that she may well be
doing some serious thinking about her research.

It took you two years to find something right under your nose.

It's very to find out that you are a liar, or "mendacious" if you want
to sound intellectual. ;-)

What's "very to find out?"

I'm not intellectual. I'm educated. Are either a bad thing? If so how?

Are you not educated? Do you not use your intellect?

Doan

You have managed to dig yourself yet another deep hole, Doan.

Happy to hand you the shovel though. And trust me to do it again.

I'm not a liar, Doan.

I make mistakes at times.

Show how mistakes are lies.

I have opinions, and state them as such. Show how opinions are lies.

Lies are deliberate attempts to deceive.

Show my deliberateness.

I have watched you, with the words on the page, try to make a statement
mean things it does not.

Like Straus' comments in compliment of Baumrind's research.

You post it sans his every next sentence.

I've been laughed at by fools for not only posting those portions of
studies, comments, data, that support my position but right along with
those, that material that can be used to argue against my position.

Who's the honest one between us, Doan?

The one that conceals information, or the one that tells it all on an
issue like Baumrind's Berkeley presentation?

Hmmm?

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Just to simplify this for lay people, Baumrind was against
spanking but her well done research actually SUPPORTED
spanking as a parenting style!

Imagine the upset for these researchers!
Imagine doing research that basically disproves your own beliefs!

Kane carped about peer review again.
What happens if the research disproves the beliefs of every peer
reviewer?
Do they reject it because it refutes their common beliefs?

Would a whole panel of peer reviewers and the researcher themself
actually report results that refute their common beliefs?