Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Y_6dnTodXYg_myjYnZ2dnUVZ_uvinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I
rebutted, successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean
"cause?"
You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.
Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is NOT
included in correlation studies.

You gave as what is called a "strong cite." You listed more than a dozen
links and CLAIMED LOUDLY that they supported your claim that "X leads to y"
is a "STATEMENT OF CORRELATION" now you claim it supports BOTH causality
AND correleation - yet as Doan has shown from YOUR SOURCES that it is a
STATEMENT OF CAUSALITY! YOUR OWN SOURCES KANE! YOURS!!!! The article is
about a correlation HOWEVER - HUMP, one cam make a statement of causality
WITHIN an articcle on corelation.

Yes, that is true, and I've said so. How is it you missed that?

And much more importantly, what has that to do with the article itself?
Is there some portion that makes either claim? If so what might that be?

Please respond in the thread SLTAIC. I'll respond there.

Of course if you wish to go unchallenged on this issue you can stay in
this thread and talk to yourself, and the gallery. I'm sure there are
few that will stay with you.

The same as it is permissible to make a
statement of correlation within an article on causality so long as the MAIN
POINT of the article is not tainted by confusing the two.

I'll discuss the main point with you when we are in the thread and
you've accept my acceptance of your challenge to debate by Robert's
Rules of Order, or some recognized standard set of rules for debate.

They are out there.


Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

No sir, they know you are a poor confused little man. By now they know
that you don't know what the fukkkkk you are talking about.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Both cause and correlations are associated
with "X leads to Y" logic.

They can see it. They can see Doan is lying about it. And that you are
as well.

It's embarrassing to watch. I like to work with trustworthy people in
debate.

Can't say I didn't try.

Kane

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:BOGdnbj8JN2lkCjYnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I
rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"
You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.
Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-
No, Kane. I have followed this discussion and know that you, Kane, are
lying! Show me a link where they said "x leads to y" means correlation
and not causal!
I made no such claim. So you are lying.


Sure you did - LOUDLY and ANGRILY!

Really? Citation please. Of my loud and angry claim.

Now that you are realizing just how
FULL OF **** you were - and you have egg all over your face you are TRYING
to say that "it's both!"

No, that is not true. I said the the statement is related to
correlation. It is, just as our claim is true. We are both correct, or
were, until you insisted that it has to be ONLY causal.

NOPE you're still as full of **** on than as you
were at first.

We can go back and forth name calling and everyone notes that I ask we
move to the body of the article, while you continue to dawdle with the
question that is not relevant.

It appears you are being evasive and working very hard to avoid two
issues. The body of the article, and the production of proof that
children who are not spanked are at risk of developing 'sociopathy'
behaviors.

I am waiting for your next turn in your style of debate to
turn around and claim that it was YOU all along that said it was a statement
in causality and I was the idiot who said it was correlation.

You'd have a very long wait.

Something you desire?

Ken, why are you avoiding the article itself and insisting on arguing
the title? How does the title serve to change the meaning of the article?

If it does not, then you are trying to fill up the time and pages with
avoidance.


Any bets on how long that will take?

Well just roughly as long as it serves you to avoid those challenges I
posed to you, when you said, "There is NO scientifically acceptable
evidence that spanking causes aggression in Children. There is
considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can produce sociopathy in
children."

I am beginning to entertain the thought that it could be long to
indefinite, or infinite, in fact.

I do not believe you will debate and respond to those challenges with
anything more than demands I prove something before you do.

I posted the article. My comments with it, and the article is the
evidence. You responded with comments and offered no connected evidence,
just unsupported opinion.

And you have not even touch, may I say, dared to touch the second claim
you made.

In plainer language, Ken, you are a liar, fraud, and fool.

But you know that. That's what all this is about....cover-up.

And a retreat from reality.

Please come back, give it a good try. We can debate these points, I'm sure.

And you are man enough to admit your error, I'd bet.

0:-]

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
...
Bull**** you are patting each other on the back.
Nope. He warned you.

Now Kane you and Ron like to PLAY newsgroup BULLIES, you "WARN" people
of this that and the other when they don't knuckle under to you. You can't
handle anyone who stands up to your PUNK behavior.

How'm I doing so far, readers?

0;-}

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:BOGdnbj8JN2lkCjYnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I
rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"
You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.
Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-
No, Kane. I have followed this discussion and know that you, Kane, are
lying! Show me a link where they said "x leads to y" means correlation
and not causal!
I made no such claim. So you are lying.


Sure you did - LOUDLY and ANGRILY!

Really? Citation please. Of my loud and angry claim.

Now that you are realizing just how
FULL OF **** you were - and you have egg all over your face you are TRYING
to say that "it's both!"

No, that is not true. I said the the statement is related to
correlation. It is, just as our claim is true. We are both correct, or
were, until you insisted that it has to be ONLY causal.

This might be over your head, Kane, but I'll try anyway: YOU CAN HAVE
CORRELATION WITHOUT CAUSALITY BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE CAUSALITY WITHOUT
CORRELATION! You are trying to move the posts again. You were
claimg the statement "x leads to y" can be correlation WITHOUT being
causal. So the claim "Spanking leads to Aggression" is a causal
statement, which cannot be supported by the evidence you provided!

Doan

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:3O6dnayrN80glSjYnZ2dnUVZ_vipnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

On the question "X leads to Y," being limited to causal based research
and not being used for correlation studies, since I was called a liar
and "stupid," for claiming it is used for both types of research:
WHOA ASSHOLE! FOUL!
Let me know when your skid ends. Clean up the streak you left, then lets
discuss it.

I said that "X leads to Y" is a STATEMENT in CAUSATION. It is!

I have agreed with you every time you've made that statement.

It is NOT a correlational statement.

Here is where I disagree.

And where you go wrong.

You are incorrect. I am right. The logic can be used for either and I've
posted examples. The business one was a gem and very clear with all the
wording including your formula in exact form. X leads to Y, and the
claim their finding was correlation.

Prove your claim that it isn't.

Let's start here with a wordy explanation.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...n-metaphysics/

I don't see any narrative.

Where is the quoted citation?

Mmmm...where are the specific words that say X leads to Y is not used in
reporting correlation?

The term and condition correlation is used twice, and there is no
mention anywhere, about either cause or correlation and X and Y
connection. Though there IS a discussion of connection and correlation.

You have failed to carry you claim, again.


It isn't correlation because the statement stands for OUTCOME!!!

The statement stands for the outcome of cause. The statement is also
used to stand for the outcome of correlation.

"X leads
to Y!" OUTCOME is causantion NOT correlation.

No, "outcome" is either. Just as "X leads to Y" is used for both when
needed.

You've quoted nothing from the link above that supports your claim.

This is busy work on your part to keep me from pressing you to debate
the actual issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...ogical_fallacy)
Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in statistics to
indicate that correlation between two variables does not imply there is a
cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Its negation correlation
implies causation is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur
together are prematurely claimed to a cause-and-effect relationship. It is
also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore
because of this") and false cause.

That's an argument to point out correlation does not equal causation,
not "X lead to Y" being confined to cause logic.

And Ken, correlation is an outcome of research as referred to in the
reports generated.

If they claim cause, then it's a causal outcome. If they claim
correlation then, dear boy, it a correlation outcome.

Is English your native language?


Cite some evidence not arising from your mind that is agreed on by the
research community.

I cited some that shows conclusively it is not limited to cause based
research, but is commonly used in correlational research as well.

No your cites did NOT support you as Doan and others have shown.

Others?

Who, our Boy Wizard Greg?

No, Doan does his usual "drop the context" and scream like a monkey
debating ploy. It doesn't prove a thing.

He sit right there on his little monkey ass, and claim something is not
true, or is true, when the opposite is right there for people to read.

The term correlation is used with X and Y logic, and I have posted and
quoted, and linked exactly that.

You are lying, and he's coming to your rescue.

You aren't man enough to tell him to butt out. I've requested that Ron
not join in the debate I keep inviting you to. And you have refused to
show up even when I conceded condition and offered to go with your
screaming and raging claim that I ran when you offered to debate by RRO.

Well, here I am offering to, and suddenly you have come up with yet
another ploy to dodge the debate.

The statement that "Spanking leads to aggressing in children" is a
statement of OUTCOME! PERIOD.

You may stomp your foot as many times as you wish, and it will not
change the fact that the logic is also used for correlation and nothing
in the article or the wording support a claim that it is a statement of
CAUSE.

Dropping in the world "Outcome," after assigning "outcome" a bogus
restricted definition to serve your interests does not make it anything
but what it is, just a sad impotent little ploy on your part easily seen
through.

No, cause and correlation are both outcomes of research. Read a few
reports. Reports are statements of outcome. And there are reports that
are used to explain correlation as they result of the study or research.

The article is not causal, does not claim to be causal and arguments
about it by YOU are avoidance attempts.

They are transparent and childish and foolish and stupid to keep
screaming at me.

I'm not impressed. Nor would I be if we were face to face.

I'm not sure if you are entertaining some delusion that ranting and
threatening frightens people into compliance or not, but it simply
doesn't work with me.

And just for the sheer pleasure of it, I'm going to prove once again,
that you and Doan are lying out your butt to butt assholes when you
claim my citations of proof for X leads to Y is used in correlation also.

At my post at -

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...d2574c4a1e7f79
http://tinyurl.com/2mmjsj,

- with the thread title "Correlation is not Causation" where I was
making the claim that correlation is a usual research outcome (R R R R)
I produced a list of studies that reported correlation, or clear
descriptions of an event being followed logically by another
precipitating event to show correlation.

One of those examples, the last, was extremely specific and prove the
use of correlation studies using the X leads to Y logic rule.

Here, child, it is: Inform Doan, when he gets his out of your ass and
yours out of his, that he is a liar, as always.

In fact krp, YOU were the bigger liar, as you were the person being
replied to as I showed you this citation this day, this morning:

http://www.bsu.edu/mcobwin/majb/?p=237

From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 10:33 am
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

.... This measure provides insight into the nature of customer problems
and the firm's effectiveness in resolving these problems. First, the
company tracks the number of problems, and the specific areas in which
these problems occur (on-time delivery, product quality, etc.), and how
well they fix the problem. This allows the company to assess how well
they solve different types of problems. The company's data show a
strong correlation between effective problem resolution and customer
loyalty. This tool is particularly relevant when web-based surveys are
implemented that have advanced skipping logic. ...

[[[ Notice the use of the term "correlation," which is very correct in
this case. Notice that "effective problem resolution"=X, and "customer
satisfaction"=Y? That is one leads to the other? In fact the opening
sentence sets up an X leads to Y postulate. X=problems Y=effective
resolution ]]]

Thus, Ken, while

"X leads to Y" = causation study
"X leads to Y"= correlation study

I'm not just saying this, the research community is saying so. ...

If you wish to protest the bonifides of the author you might like to
look at the "about" page for this source.

http://www.bsu.edu/mcobwin/majb/?page_id=17

Housed at Ball State University, (have you a degree from there?), and
supported by the following schools of business:

Ball State University
Miller College of Business
Lynne Richardson, Dean
John Horowitz, Editorial Board



Central Michigan University
College of Business Administration
D. Michael Fields, Dean
Michael J. Pisani, Editorial Board



Miami University
Richard T. Farmer School of Business
Roger Jenkins, Dean
Douglas Havelka, Editorial Board



Northern Illinois University
College of Business
Denise Schoenbachler, Dean
Bill Cummings, Editorial Board


Ohio University
College of Business
Glenn Corlett, Dean
Ashok Gupta, Editorial Board



The University of Toledo
College of Business Administration
Thomas Gutteridge, Dean
Laurence Fink, Editorial Board



Western Michigan University
Haworth College of Business
David Shields, Dean
JoAnn Atkin, Editorial Board
joann.atkin@wmi

In addition it's list of article authors include some prominent names in
business and business research, that if you wish, I'll forward your
claims that their article stating an X leads to Y correlation tool was
used, is bogus and has to always be a causal statement.

At this point, after the post I cited above in that thread, all
correspondence by you disappeared in this thread and you popped up
elsewhere screaming I had not provided proof and you and Doan proceeded
to call me stupid and a **** because I had provided proof that
discounted my claim.

Or did you just incidentally stop reading that thread. R R R RRRR R R RR

Can I expect you to run again and try the same tactic, pretending I did
not post what I did post?

Or will you continue your two man daisy chain insertion with Doan and
let your cries be muffled by your and his ****ty lies.

You have lied, and you have been caught. And the proof is on this page.

What silly tricks will you try next to attempt to dodge that you have
run from debate, lied to do it, and been caught at it?

You may have reached my capacity to deal with your simple repetition.

I figure when I've exposed you three times, that's the charm. I'm no
longer obligated ethically to continue exchanges with you.

This is your final chance to open the debate with me in SLTAC thread.

If you do not show there and engage in honest straight forward debate
providing the proofs you claim to have, you may consider that I hold you
to be a liar, and unethical, and that you have conceded the debate by
default.

I suspect others would agree with me except for the liars I have also
proven here who might wish to disagree.

Stomp your foot now and claim, falsely that I have run.

I just gave you ONE last chance.

Will you take it, or will YOU run because you know you do not have the
evidence you claim you do?

Or, can I expect silence from your posting name, krp, but a flood of
DIE! DIE! DIE! mailed letterbombing now from some other nym?

Kid, you are ****ED and you know it.

Ron gave you a kindly warning.

Pompous ass that you have fully disclosed you are, you ignored and
scorned his warning.

This exchange will fade way, as you run further and further from it,
staying just long enough in this newsgroup to try and establish, by
lying, some other reality.

But it will be in the archives, as one more proof of your lack of honor,
and your unethical behavior on Usenet.

Some may even see fit to use my posts. I give full permission to use
them on the subject of Ken Pangborn and the subjects covered in the
titles, as long as they are printed fully and I receive full credit and
a CC to me so that I can enjoy reviewing them, and you, once again in
the future.

I'm happy to have served you so well, sir.

As always, 0:-)
Kane

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:BOGdnbj8JN2lkCjYnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I
rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"
You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.
Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-
No, Kane. I have followed this discussion and know that you, Kane, are
lying! Show me a link where they said "x leads to y" means correlation
and not causal!
I made no such claim. So you are lying.

Sure you did - LOUDLY and ANGRILY!
Really? Citation please. Of my loud and angry claim.

Now that you are realizing just how
FULL OF **** you were - and you have egg all over your face you are TRYING
to say that "it's both!"
No, that is not true. I said the the statement is related to
correlation. It is, just as our claim is true. We are both correct, or
were, until you insisted that it has to be ONLY causal.

This might be over your head, Kane, but I'll try anyway: YOU CAN HAVE
CORRELATION WITHOUT CAUSALITY BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE CAUSALITY WITHOUT
CORRELATION!

Yes. Your point being, as to this study? And it's title?

You are trying to move the posts again.

You were
claimg the statement "x leads to y" can be correlation WITHOUT being
causal.

No, I simply said it could be both.

It can be causal, with of course correlation as part of it, and of
course it can be correlation without causal outcome.

This supports my claim that Ken is incorrect when he claims the formula
only applies to causal outcomes.

So the claim "Spanking leads to Aggression" is a causal
statement,

Nope. A causal outcome must be correlational as well, but a correlation
can stand alone.

Hence it is not causel based on other evidence. In fact you find this
same logic and argument in many research papers and commentary about
research and analysis.

A third variable can change the outcome from strong to weak causal
relationship.

which cannot be supported by the evidence you provided!

Nope. Your logic is flawed and I suspect you know it and are lying.

Correlation can stand alone. So the title can be either.

However the rarity of causal research in social science leads to the
conclusion it is not, and coupled with the fact it is a survey
instrument study it is even more so not meant to imply a causal outcome
was found.

Or sought.

Your reasoning if flawed, or fraudulent.

And I did provide clear proof of X leads to Y being used in
correlational studies. You simply flat out lied about that.

I included both causal and correlational to support my argument for both
using the formula for each kind of finding.

To pretend that only one kind of example that refuted my claim existed
in my whole sample is either an oversight on your part, or a lie, and
your attempt, because you know Ken will never be able to support his
claims about spanking and children with real evidence, to keep this side
issue boiling is more than obvious.

I've enjoyed watching you lie, squirm, meander, dodge, and fake and know
that most people here are intelligent and educated enough to easily spot
what you are doing.

That you obviously do not care what they think that some experience in
your childhood development disabled your conscience, and hence you
capacity for moral development.

Doan

After I stop laughing and can become more sober in thought, I always
turn, in your case, to a feeling of sadness at what you have become. And
that it's public.

Damn shame, Doan.

But you bring it on yourself.

Kane

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings around.
The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having to answer
direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by others in
support of their claims, and generally to cause as much confusion as he
can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do so honestly.

Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to BE
honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious, mislead,
misdirect, and outright lie.

By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore.

BYE don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Simple - the SAC dolls are bull****. The cite of you and Kane that Ohio
v. Brown SUPPORTS the use of the dolls while it does the EXACT OPPOSITE you
know RED HERRINGS LIKE THAT. MISDIRECTION like pointing out that your claims
are BULL****!


And while you get Moore's support as he puts my bank account info on the
net and you two CRETINS blame me for it. AMAZING!

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
ps.com...
krp wrote
Now Kane you and Ron like to PLAY newsgroup BULLIES, you "WARN"
people
of this that and the other when they don't knuckle under to you. You
can't
handle anyone who stands up to your PUNK behavior.

I love it when they use the ominous warning....
It's so ...megalomanic...

Handling kenny pangborn is not really a problem gregg. I'll tell you the
secret.

Tell the truth.

Okay Ronny when are you going to START "handling" me then?

"0:-" wrote in message
news:Ut6dnWyVVeOBESjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Yoiu mistake your own table pounding for proof. In fact your "proof"
fails totally to support your claims. TOTALLY! Just because there can
be a causal statement within a correlation article does NOT change the
FACT of what the statement IS.. Something you have a unique inability to
understand.

This is the subject of our discussion in "Spanking leads to Aggression."
I'm going to move it there. Please join me.

I doubt anyone that has read what I posted in support of my claim that
"X leads to Y," is also used in correlation buys your nonsense.

SMOKESCREEN. One can make a causal statement in an article on
correlation.

Yes they can.

BUT it does not make the statement one in CORRELATION SUMBASS! It remains a
statement of CAUSATION regardless where you put it, and I can give you some
graphic suggestions.

What would be your point concerning the study?

Surveys are NOT "studies" as such. They are SURVEYS.. Can a survey be
scientific? Yes, sort of, but they are NOT "studies" as such. When you use
the term "study" you should be referring to laboratory work.

I understood that yours was a statement in rebuttal of the title. How does
this do so?

No dummy - my objection to the article is that it FAILS to establish
causation by a mile even though the "ARTICLE" makes a claim in causation. It
FAILS to support that spanking inmdeed DOES "CAUSE" aggression in children.
Ot also REALLY fails to demonstrate valid correlation IMHO. It is a SURVEY
of mothers in various countries for their OPINIONS about the effect on their
kids. NOT the best source for factual data. Better than guessing.


AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN I have laid out to you what WOULD be
valid. I have challenged you to provide even ONE source that meets the
criteria and all we get is more banyard bull****. It is simple, the 3 groups
of kids, using scientific measures to see the REAL level of aggression in
the kids and then doing a statistical plot to see IF the spanked kids really
do fall above the mean.

I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest. THAT is why you are having problems finding courts
that accept their use. In FACT - following the fiasco in the McMartin Case,
California will throw out testimony of experts who have used them. That's
true of several other states as well. There are strong "indications" Kane
that use of the dolls may "CONTAMINATE" child interviews, see Ceci;
Clark-Stewart; Loftus et al.

That does NOT (you frigging idiot) change the nature of the STATEMENT!

I have not claimed a change at all. Only that the statement, "Spanking
leads to Aggression in Children" is, as you yourself claim the article is
about, correlation.

The article makes a stab at correlation and fails MISERABLY! The
argument is your claim that "X leads to Y" can be a statement in
correlation NOT a statement of cause WITHIN an article speaking to
correlation. But the title suggest that it established a CAUSAL LINK abd it
failes even to establish a provable correlation.

It "could" be a causal statement, but nothing in the article pretends to
be about cause. As surveys do not lend themselves at all to that research
discipline.

JUST THE TITLE - - "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION!"

Finally got you to admit it is a statement of CAUSATION!!


You see to be talking about this at the expense of examining the body of
the article.

Your p[roblem Kane is that I DID examine it and I even QUOTED from it
that defeats even the notion of correlation. Trying to explain WHY that
comment on the lower results in societies where spanking is the cultural
norm is like trying to explain the controls of a 747 to a Baboon! That
statement NEGATES the correlation. Because IF there were either a causal
relationship as the TITLE falsely proclaims or even a correlation - societal
norms would have ZERO effect on the incidence of aggression. Your problem is
that I DID read it and unlike you understood where its flaws are.

I'd like to move on to the article now, unless you truly feel the title
is misleading and meant to be so.

The title alone defeats the credibility of the article. Thhe article
pretends to establish a correlation, but the authors title the article in
CAUSATION - not a really good hope for good science within. But the article
is furhtr flawed by the entire manner in which it was done. A survey of
mothers. And then they ignore FACTS they come accross that should have
warned them they were barking up the wrong tree of conclusions. AGAIN if
there were a REAL correlation - then there would be NO effect due to
societal norms. The fact that there was a "dramatic" difference SHOULD have
alerted the authors that it wasn't the spanking itself that was leading to
the aggression but something else. Facts the suthors IGNORED. As such it
places the claims (conslusions) of the aryicle firmly in the realm of JUNK
SCIENCE in my opinion.

It hardly seems likely the Scientific periodical meant to mislead, and
most certainly the researchers did not, so the point is moot.

God dammmmmittt! "Science daily" is HARDLY a "Scientific" periodical as
such, not when one thinks of Scientific Journals, it's like Psychology
Today, pop psychology for latrine attendants. Some stuff is very good, some
stuff is raving bull****. Like - er - SEX ADDICTION for one.

The research report itself is the issue, not the title.

IT IS NOT BFUKLKKKKKKKKING "RESEARCH" as such. IT WAS A DAMNB SURVEY OF
MOTHERS ON THEIR OPINIONS! Gof I feel like I want to take you by the neck
and beat your head against a cement wall till you get it!

And I'd like to include the other claim you made along with
consideration of this report on spanking and aggression in children.

The claim is that SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION in Children. NO PROOF! The
article FAILS to prove it. Damn it Kane in "debate" when you offer your
claim and state your support for it - if your support fails the debate is
OVER.

ILLUSTRATION for this debate:

KANE: SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN - Article offered as proof.

KP: Article FAILS do prove the claim.

DEBATE OVER - YOU LOSE!

In a formal debate when I came back and showed how your source failed to
support the original claim, an "independent judge" woult then look at the
article and my point in rebuttal. If I am right the debate is OVER and I
win. IF I am wrong - then the burden would shift to me to put forth support
for my position that there no vausal link between the two. BUT in a case
like this we never get that far. You want SPECIAL RULES for yourself where
YOU have ZERO burden and I have ALL the burden. All I needed to do was show
that the article failed the original proposition - that being that
"SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS." Not only did I do THAT - I also
establishged that even a correlation is on extremely shakey ground.

It seems so closely linked, for if children truly are at risk of
developing 'sociopathy' behaviors as a result of not being spanked, than
any children participating with their parents in this survey would be
poor subjects and it might nullify the research all together. So I'm
anxious to see your scientific proof, and put the report to the test.

First of all UNLIKE YOU I didn't make that kind of claim. I said there
were "indicators that sociopathy has incresaed in the population in almost
direct proportion to the disfavor for spanking" in children. UNLIKE YOU I
made NO causal claims. I also was cautious of stating a factual COREALATION.
To say there are indicators or even "strong indicators" is NOT making a
statement of cause or even a direct relationship. However I think they are
related. I also made clear that such research, being EXTREMELY politically
incorrect, has NOT been done to prove any link. I leave to YOPU to make
ABSOLUTE and DOGMATIC claims. I just ventilate your bull****.

I guess we could presume that the less children are spanked the MORE
likely they are of developing those unwanted behaviors you spoke of.

Let's NOT "presume" or "suppose" let's try to deal with FACTS.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:TPWdnX2KxPzoEijYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Haven't you seen Kane's method of debate? When he is backed into a
corner he will find a dozen cites where the word he wants is used and
drop them as his PROOF.

Nope. I provide the argument and the link to the citation for anyone to
also see if my quote is contextually compatible.

Kane EVERY one of your cites - EVERY ONE fails to support your
claims. Not most of them - ALL of them on this subject.

Please show you work.

And move it to the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread where
we started this discussion.

I'll be happy to take your claims up there.

Like the Ohio v. Boston case. He was pounding the table that it
PROVED that the SAC Dolls were THE scientific assessment tool ACCEPTED
by courts all over.

I didn't make the claim.

Ron did BUT you argued it.

I contributed what I fully acknowledged as an opinion. That the issue is
far from resolution. You seem to now want to respond to that but instead
insist I was arguing in favor. I was not.

The POINT is that the case does NOT support the dolls it does the
OPPOSITE... But Kane your understanding is so **** poor that you don't and
CANNOT understand that.

Again I am faced with trying to teach a Baboon to fly a 747..


In law, depending on what state you are in there are TWO (no hair splitting
here ala Kelly-Frye) standards for the acceptance of scientific evidence.

1. The original FRYE test.

2. The More recent "DAUBERT" test. (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals)

ONE of the standards in BOTH tests is that any given "scientific"
evidence must be "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" within the scientific community. Which
is WHY evidence such as DNA passes and the SAC Dolls do NOT! What you are
UNABLE to understand, INCAPABLE of understanding is what the import of what
you read was. When the court acknowledged that there was "substantial
disagreement' it means they are DOOMED for acceptance. The court in Ohio v.
Boston tap danced around the issue and said we'll pretend it wasn't there,
but IF it was it's BULL****! Your ignorance is showing.