If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant

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

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.


Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no
baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether
their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were
available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can
claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple
logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data
in the study support this claim from Kane:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

You forfeited any right to a response from me some time ago on the Embry
study, Doan.

So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it.


Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL! In other words, Doan caught me LYING again so I will
avoid answering him at all cost! Damn, first he caught me with my
"mistake" on the Hutterites, then my bs on the MacMillan study and now,
my LIES on the Embry study.

Doan

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

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.
But from what I have read from both of you and on my own there is a
difference of 20 subjects between what you are quoting and what Doan
and I have found. It's suspicious.


Nothing suspicious at all. The 20 EXTRA subjects were NOT observed, no
baseline data. Thus, nothing can be drawn from these children on whether
their rate of street entries declined or increased. The data that were
available are from the sample size of 13 that were observed. No one can
claim that the sample size is anything other than 13. It's just simple
logic! The question now, and the one that Kane avoiding, is which data
in the study support this claim from Kane:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour."

You forfeited any right to a response from me some time ago on the Embry
study, Doan.

So I see no reason to answer any questions regarding it.


Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL! In other words, Doan caught me LYING again

How would you know one way or the other?

Do you get the feeling that I might have been just a step ahead of you?


R R R R

Doan, like I said. YOU challenged ME. I agreed to debate Embry with you
WHEN you proved you had the same report I did. You refused to
participate at that point, despite many offers to, if you would admit
you lied, send you the report myself. You did't follow through.

You continued to fabricate. Your posting of an abstract shows damn well
you did not have, and still do not have the study.

You haven't sent her a copy. You didn't send "Aline/Alina" a copy, but
cause that was you sock, little boy.

And, just so you can continue to dance, and play with others over the
Embry study, I'll tell you were to get it. UC Sacramento, at Davis of
course, WERE I WENT to School for a time, says they have a listing. A
copy? I do not know.

And, you can get it for 10 cents a page, (140 pages) from AAA. Look it
up. The report I have with appendixes is only about 70+ pages, but I
presume AAA includes the workbook and or other materials.

But your time with me is up. Dance monkeyboy.

so I will
avoid answering him at all cost! Damn, first he caught me with my
"mistake" on the Hutterites,

You didn't "catch me." I posted the correction myself. That's hardly
"catching."

Yer just a common liar, Doan. You used to have a least a little talent
when trying it, but you long ago reverted to monkeyboy behavior.

then my bs on the MacMillan study and now,

There was no BS on the Canadian study. Just exchanges and
clarifications.

my LIES on the Embry study.

What "LIES?"

You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the Embry
study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get
away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self,
Doan.

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.

Doan

Dance little monkeyboy. Aline wants a waltz.

R R R R R R

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."

LOL! I am more than aware of it. In fact, the study said:
"Participating families were divided into observed and non-observed
subjects on the basis of one of two factors: (a) the family had
participated in the Practical Parenting Class offered at the University,
or (b) initial baseline observations revealed a zero or near-zero rate of
entry into the street."

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

Doan

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."

LIE #2:
No punishment and reward.

(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! ;-)

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

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."

LOL! I am more than aware of it. In fact, the study said:
"Participating families were divided into observed and non-observed
subjects on the basis of one of two factors: (a) the family had
participated in the Practical Parenting Class offered at the University,
or (b) initial baseline observations revealed a zero or near-zero rate of
entry into the street."

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

"You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the
Embry
study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get
away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self,
Doan."

You ran out of time, Doan. Long ago.

Dance Monkeyboy.

Doan

Maybe next time you'll deal honestly with me, but I doubt it.

Game, set, bingo.

0:-

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

On 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."

LOL! I am more than aware of it. In fact, the study said:
"Participating families were divided into observed and non-observed
subjects on the basis of one of two factors: (a) the family had
participated in the Practical Parenting Class offered at the University,
or (b) initial baseline observations revealed a zero or near-zero rate of
entry into the street."

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

"You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the
Embry
study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get
away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self,
Doan."

You ran out of time, Doan. Long ago.

LOL! So you will only debate the Embry study with someone who haven't
read it yet, like beccafromlalaland?

BTW, can you send her a copy of this precious study so she can sneak it
to me? ;-)

Doan

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


beccafromlalaland wrote:
0:- Wrote:


Exactly as I did in the past. I told Doan that I was willing,
according
to HIS challenge to debate the Embry study, to do so if he had the
same
report I did. I offered to do so when he claimed he had it.

If this is a valid viable study there would be no difference in
research report, or study outcome, no difference in the sample size.

Embry didn't do "one" study in his professional life, becca. He's done
many. This paticular subject, twice. He even refers, in his report, to
child subjects from the "prior" study being referred to the
non-baseline-observed group precisely because they and their parents had
participated in a prior study and might influence the outcome of this
one -- now get this -- because the parents had already learned parenting
skills they might apply to this study.

In other WORDS THEY HAD ALREADY LEARNED SKILLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUSIVE
OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.


Why are you shouting? ;-)

Do you always made things up as you go along, Kane? Actually, the
"prior" study they talked about is the 1980 study titled:

"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.

With your "formidable research skills", you should have known that, Kane!
;-) And you should have known that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT! Is this another "MISTAKE", Kane? ;-)

Doan

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.

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?

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"? ;-)

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

Oh, no! You have just ruined it, Kane. Why the adhom when I have so
NICE to you? Is it your mom again? ;-)

Doan

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


Doan wrote:

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

What's suspicioius to me is that Doan, who has claimed to have "the
study" which is, with appendixes 140 pages, and is unaware of this line
from the report:
"METHOD
Subjects
Thirteen preschool-aged children and their parents participated in the
observational phase of the program, and another 20 preschool-aged
children and their parents participated in the program but where not
observed."


LOL! I am more than aware of it. In fact, the study said:
"Participating families were divided into observed and non-observed
subjects on the basis of one of two factors: (a) the family had
participated in the Practical Parenting Class offered at the University,
or (b) initial baseline observations revealed a zero or near-zero rate of
entry into the street."

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

"You can say anything you wish, and I'll not respond to you on the
Embry
study, so now you can lie to your heart's content, but you won't get
away with it. Because YOU have to live with your slimy little self,
Doan."

You ran out of time, Doan. Long ago.


LOL! So you will only debate the Embry study with someone who haven't
read it yet, like beccafromlalaland?

From what do you draw that conclusion?

BTW, can you send her a copy of this precious study so she can sneak it
to me? ;-)

Nope.

You finally have access to a copy, apparently. Up until now you've lied.
Nothing new.

And you are still lying by misleading...trying desperately to lead
people AWAY from any interest in this remarkable study that shots a huge
hole through the "spanking them to save their lives" bull**** you have
defended in this ng.

0:-


Doan


Born liar?

Darned if I can be sure, but you sure do work at it.

Kane



--
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