The Kids just make these things up to get back at their parents ...

Greegor wrote:

Kane, While I understand that you still BELIEVE
in the cycle of violence, could you please pass the
GAO information to your friend LaVonne?

Giggle -- LaVonne can read, and she actually read Kane's post. GAO did
not disprove the cycle of violence. I knew this and Kane pointed it
out. Only you didn't seem to understand what you had read.

Isn't it better if you keep your own side better informed?

Still working on the research and null hypothesis, the research
methodology, method of sample selection along with justification, and
statistical analysis? Remember, you were the one with the hypothesis.

What you posted would have failed an undergraduate course for a simple
literature review hypothesis. So, let's get on with that research
proposal, okay?

Perhaps it will bruise her EGO less if you tell her.

Personally, I'm crushed. My ego, in fact, my entire sense of self-worth
is tied to your posts. But I'm sure you knew that, being one of the
most important and influential people in my life whose well-researched
and well-informed opinions form many of my guiding principles.

After writing for several hours, I love the break and the entertainment
you provide.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:

Kane, While I understand that you still BELIEVE
in the cycle of violence,


Nope. I KNOW that it is a fact. The Cycle of Violence not only is proven
scientifically but by common sense. We model the behavior we want our
children to copy. Why is that, do you suppose?

And they do copy us.

could you please pass the
GAO information to your friend LaVonne?


I daresay LaVonne is better informed than I. And we will decide if we
are "friends," Greg, not some ****-assed little insinuating liar like you.

Oh, stab me in the heart! I thought Greegor said you were my friend.
I've relied on him for so long, I cannot imagine making independent and
mutual decisions regarding friendship.

Isn't it better if you keep your own side better informed?


Then I'd have to ask her to inform me, Greg. She is actively engaged in
her profession day to day. I have moved to other things, like the meth
problem in the use. I no longer follow child abuse issues as closely as
before.

She'd be more up to date. I'd come to the information by and by, of course.


Perhaps it will bruise her EGO less if you tell her.

You think her ego is bruised by you making your claim?

I'm totally crushed. Be gentle and let me down easy. For so many
years, my ego and my entire self worth has been determined by Greegor's
opinion of me. Maybe it will be less painful coming from you.

Well, I'll risk YOU bruising it even more, and request that you provide
the proof of your claim...that The Cycle of Abuse is not true.

Oh, don't challenge Greegor like that. He's too well-read, too
informed, and too knowledgeable. He'll just hurt me again with his vast
understanding of research and his knowledge base. I can't take it! And
now he has a hypothesis for a research study that no peer-reviewed
research journal could possibly refuse. Did you read his methodology
and statistical design? Brilliant! Sigh -- I'm finished and my ego is
shot.

Go ahead. Don't worry any more about her feelings than you do abused
children.

Oh please tell Greegor to worry more about my feelings that those of
stupid abused children. Those children probably just lied anyway. And
even when they are bruised and bleeding, they probably lied so they
could get back at their parents. I'm the one that matters, and don't let
Greegor hurt me any more! Oh, and will you be my friend? Greegor says
you are my friend.

Lay The Truth on her, little Greg.

Lordy I love Greegor's posts. I don't know what they do for the future
of children, but they certainly can be fun (grin)!

LaVonne

0:-

LaVonne:
Please acknowledge that you got this!

http://www.ncrj.org/GAOCycle.htm
The GAO Report on the Cycle-of-Abuse Theory
Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child
Victims
Become Adult Abusers (Letter Report, 09/13/96, GAO/GGD-96-178).

Easier to read PDF version
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf


Kane! This is for you!

DRUG ABUSE Research Shows Treatment Is Effective,
but Benefits May Be OVERSTATED

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98072.pdf

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne:
Please acknowledge that you got this!

http://www.ncrj.org/GAOCycle.htm
The GAO Report on the Cycle-of-Abuse Theory
Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child
Victims
Become Adult Abusers (Letter Report, 09/13/96, GAO/GGD-96-178).

Easier to read PDF version
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf

Gave you a long extensive response on this Greg, and not only pointed
out what proves you are mistaken, the Cycle of Sexual Abuse is not
bogus, but still in active research.

All one has to do is read the comments in the report to see that.

And much of it admits that the research that tended to show less
correlation was either weak or lacked key components required for
authoritative outcomes.

In other words, Greg it's not disproved.

Or were you just doing LaVonne a favor?



Kane! This is for you!

DRUG ABUSE Research Shows Treatment Is Effective,
but Benefits May Be OVERSTATED

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98072.pdf

Thank you. Do you have an opinion or argument you wish to express?

Do you think that possibly in the ensuing 8 years, there might have been
a bit of progress?

Nothing in this in any way refutes my statements in these ngs, and you
might want to address this one to Doug, as HE is the one that claims
drug abuse treatment for Meth addicts is as effective as for others.

I suspect he'll have a similar response, if he is having an honesty day,
as reports since would likely be more informative.

Seems like none, though, is all that effective, eh?

Do you wish to argue that since benefits are "overstated" that this is
sufficient cause to end programs?

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)

23 different studies found no correlation.
Even if you fake up one, it'll have a long way to go
to overcome what GAO found out in 1996.

Greegor wrote:
23 different studies found no correlation.
Even if you fake up one, it'll have a long way to go
to overcome what GAO found out in 1996.

You have yet to cite and reference the exactly statements in context.

The truth is the context shows exactly what LaVonne said, and what I
said. The GAO report of STUDIES did not show that the CSA is not proven
to be bogus.

When you find a clear claim that the CSA is NOT true let us know.





--
"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)

Kane wrote
If it's just my belief, why would I ask you for proof
of what you claim refutes my "belief?"

You affirm "Cycle of Abuse" based on ""belief""
even though there has never been any proof
besides anecdotes.

I even told you that I know of a case that
supports the idea of "Cycle of Abuse" but
without statistical correlation it is nothing
more than an anecdote or "isolated incident".

Did you see a disgusting case and become
determined to exaggerate an anecdote into
a truism?

I saw a disgusting case but decided
that it must be anecdotal only, citing GAO reports.

I'll give you this:
I do believe there is a "Cycle Of Abuse" BUT
at some percentage level. Can you PROVE the
percentage or will you go on and on acting as
if victims always perpetrate?

Hazard a guess as to the PERCENTAGE, Kane?

What percent of victims later perpetrate?

SHOULD people in agencies presume guilt,
or just have a bias about a person based on this?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
If it's just my belief, why would I ask you for proof
of what you claim refutes my "belief?"

You affirm "Cycle of Abuse" based on ""belief""
even though there has never been any proof
besides anecdotes.

Wrong. Read the GOA report itself. I looks at both those whose research
show it is, and that it isn't. Lack of 'consensus," Greg? Means BOTH
sides do not agree.

Now if the report said they HAD consensus that the Cycle of SEXUAL Abuse
(get your terms straight...Cycle of Abuse is used for other meanings)
did NOT exist, you'd have a solid case. Did it say that?

I even told you that I know of a case that
supports the idea of "Cycle of Abuse" but
without statistical correlation it is nothing
more than an anecdote or "isolated incident".

Greg, you can't claim "means nothing" in such circumstances. You can say
it lacks causal proof by research standards, but you cannot simply say,
"means nothing." Of course it means something.

Thousands of practitioners SEE it constantly. Of course it "means"
something.

Did you see a disgusting case and become
determined to exaggerate an anecdote into
a truism?

Nope. I saw hundreds of my own, and read cases of hundreds (probably
thousands during my long career), where the molester (in our cases
mostly children themselves - teens) had in fact been molested. And in
many cases the parents ... the perpetrators ... related in their own
life history that they too had been molested.

I saw a disgusting case but decided
that it must be anecdotal only, citing GAO reports.

That's nice. The GAO does not support that there is NO COSA, but that
some research supports it and some does not. Lack of consensus simply
means people don't all agree.

I'll give you this:
I do believe there is a "Cycle Of Abuse" BUT
at some percentage level. Can you PROVE the
percentage or will you go on and on acting as
if victims always perpetrate?

One, no, I cannot prove to the standards you require, Greg, because you
are in denial when it comes to science. You have argued against social
science research, so obviously unless I personally kill and dissect a
few hundred victims as experimental subjects, for the TRUE scientific
method, YOU aren't going to accept, is that not correct?

Tell us what standard you insist on, and possibly I can answer that
question. You are not as good as Doan, but you are just as stupid.

Hazard a guess as to the PERCENTAGE, Kane?

I cannot, nor can anyone else with any precision. You have read the
speculation. Most, and I agree, victims of sexual molestation as
children (females especially) do NOT grow up to be molesters.

This does NOT, however, clarify...as the GAO report is specific
about...just what factors went into them escaping offending.

Age at victimization, frequency, who the perp was, what happened,
duration, how disclosure was responded to, the kind of help given or
withheld, the developmental level of the victim, and even their general
health and intelligence, all play a part.

Thus, it's not really possible to 'guess.'

All I can say, and all I have said, is that among PERPS, there is a
fairly high number that report being sexually abused as children.

Even those, as I have told you, are not 100% believable. My shrink
friend in therapeutic work with adult offenders would put it, if memory
serves me, at about 20%.

That, Greg, is serious enough to give attention to. Not to take
someone's children away (as does NOT happen, liar) but to be concerned
about.

In another thread, Greg, on the "Famous Adoption" that turned into a
child molest by the adoptive father you insisted the agency failed to
investigate thoroughly enough.

Which puts you right between that proverbial rock and that inevitable
hard place.

What if they HAD found out he was sexually abused as a child? Would that
be sufficient to deny him adopting?

If so, Greg smirk why?

What percent of victims later perpetrate?

You pretend to claim 0:- that you have read the report and you ask that?

That is an unknown for two reasons: there isn't enough data to come up
with a definitive number to analyze, and there are too many victims
where no report is every made.

It's impossible to claim a number and no one does. They speculate.

For the purposes of CPS, however, the question has to be turned around.
If they have a case with suspected sexual abuse was the suspected person
sexually abused as a child?

Then, you have something to be concerned about....remember YOUR argument
that CPS FAILED in the "FAMOUS ADOPTION" thread?

Why would YOU make the claim if YOU did not believe that there WAS a
risk of some kind in a person who has been sexually abused sexually
abusing their child or others?

SHOULD people in agencies presume guilt,
or just have a bias about a person based on this?

No.

One, they do not presume guilt. They investigate.

And their bias is protecting the child. So they investigate. One of the
questions they ask about and investigate, is if the person has been
sexually abused.

After thousands and thousands of cases with founded sexual abuse having
that component...that the perp was themselves sexually abused as a
child, don't you think they should pay attention?

You mistake an academic challenge for a practical application requirement.

CPS would be remiss, just as you appeared to be arguing in the "Famous
Adoption" thread if they did NOT give considerable attention to the
possibility the perp who was molested molested in reaction and or many
of the other reasons attached to being a victim acting out.

Your game is to pretend 0:- that CPS is wrong no matter what it does.
Isn't that your pretense, Greg? 0:- Or do you just pretend to pretend?

Pretendingly yours, 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)

Kane wrote
Thousands of practitioners SEE it constantly.
Of course it "means" something.

Practitioners of what? The dark arts?
Perhaps "seeing it constantly" is an affectation and should be treated.

Kane wrote
Nope. I saw hundreds of my own,

You're a psych patient posing as a psych professional.
So was Curio Jones.

LaVonne wrote
there is no way you can claim that this prooves

Can you proove it does exist?

Please provide your research!
Not prose, not descriptions, not propaganda, proove it!