If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can Doan provide Alina with the Embry study? was Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
On 6 Apr 2004 08:01:47 -0700, (Alina) wrote:
(Kane) wrote in message . com... I'll be interested to see your take on the study. It's quite old, 25 years or more. But old doesn't mean outdated, does it? There is considerable material since. Survey's of the available research are around. http://tinyurl.com/2mtk8 Rather a lot of them. Well, you can always e-mail. Your copy of the study should be showing up in your mail box soon, if Doan has it to e-mail to you. Oh, but you know that isn't quite viable either :-), due to it's size. I do? I forget if I mentioned the size in the ng. Unless it were loaded with graphics a text attachment wouldn't be very large. (...) obvious physical advantage) to repress a behaviour in the child. Not to teach him, but to train him. Well, there are those that take a strictly "training" approach to child rearing. Yes, but there are different ways to "train". There's the abusive, "don't do 'cause I'll hurt you" way, and then there's the "that's a good boy, here's a treat" way (talking about animals here). Both approaches are also apllicable on children, I believe it's called negative and positive reinforcement. So why go negative when you can do positive? The arguement that amuses me the most is the one that says, "because the world is that way and the child must learn that." As though there is any shortage of negative experiences for children in their day to day life, right from birth on. Having both "trained" animals and "taught" children I found that the gentle principles of the way I taught were not only applicable to animal training that I went to gentle methods very early on with both, of course. Exaclty what I meant. Not far from my own views. So what are your own views? Open google newsgroups in your browser. Open alt.parenting.spanking. Open any message with my name on it. Click on my name in the address field, and an archive of every post of mine will come up. Basically I don't find punishment of any kind very useful. At least not deliberately applied punishment. Children know the difference between intended harm and natural human reactions. The former confuses and frightens them, the latter they are curious about, even if it might frighten them. Were you raised in a CP using family? How did you come to your present postion on this issue? Dad was a spanker, and very inconsistent. He would react in different ways to the same thing on different days, I still don't know what that depended on. Mom was a non-spanker, she talked with (not just "to) us a lot and explained, and listened a lot. She did things with us, taught us to cooperate in the house, gave us options (thing to do as opposed to things she didn't want us to do). I have much more memories of mom than I have of dad. And nicer feelings towards her, too. Who do you think you learned the most important lessons from? Also, I have a profound respect for *people*, no matter the age. Also, I have worked with children, and know first hand that they think and understand a lot more than some spankers are willing to believe. Well, not according to the spankers that have come here to "debate." Although just when they claim that they have to "teach" children they describe some motive of the child they must curb that children cannot have enough knowledge or development to even have such a motive. Also, I would hate to hurt my child :-) They don't mind doing that. They seem to think that pain is a great teacher...forgetting that life has ample random exposure to pain for we humans to suffice for all the lessons pain can teach. Instead they take areas were pain is a very poor teacher, and in fact a diversion, and apply pain to those. Kind of dumb. Have you read Dodson? If so, what do you think? Oh yes. Frankly his methods if used on an animal (which he has done without witnesses apparently) would result in an arrest and charge of animal abuse and cruelty. He has a social disease. It's the one that assumes humans are evil by nature, and their behaviors, if you don't like those behaviors, are evil by intent. Dobson's isn't much of a way to view the world, is it? Um, I think we are talking about different persons here. I meant DoDson, Dr. Fitzhugh Dodson. Oh, I missed without the first name. We have so often discuss James Dobson here that I didn't notice your spelling. That, according to Droany, constitutes a "lie" on my part. I don't know if he still lives. Was a psychologist and wrote books about parenting, mom bought me one: "How to parent". He supports non coersive parenting a lot, using techniques such as positive reinforcement, reflecting the child's feelings, providing a child secure environment, etc.. He is an oldie (mom read him while raising ME), but still very interesting. Now, Dr. Dodson says there are only 2 cases in which it's ok to spank a child: one, when you are absolutley "fed up" and loose control. He says it is just as important for an adult than it is for a child to vent and express feelings, and you can always tell the child you're sorry later. I disagree with him, while it is no doubt important to be able to express feelings, I think we as adults must have enough control on our actions (moreso if that is what we intend to teach the child to do), and if we know we don't have such control, then we should seek help in order to aquire it. The second case in which Dodson says it's ok to spank, is when you can't let natural consecuences of his actions teach him, because the child's physical integrity would be in danger. Example: to prevent him from running into the street. I would love to disagree with him on that one too, and that is where my interest on the Embry study originated. Alina, on the off chance that I'm being scammed, a common occurance when folks try to debate honestly with Doan, (he thinks "play" is debate apparently) I request you ask him for the study. If he will email it to you I have two simple questions I'd like to ask that will establish if it is the same study I have, or simply some commentary by others, or even just a summary by Embry. Would you be willing to do that? Thanks in advance. If it turns out to not be the study, or after a reasonable time he doesn't provide anything, I'll be happy then to supply you with the one I have...the complete study report on outcomes and methodology. Alina. Regards, Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Can Doan provide Alina with the Embry study? was Can Kaneprovide Jerry with the Embry study?
On 6 Apr 2004, Kane wrote: Alina, on the off chance that I'm being scammed, a common occurance when folks try to debate honestly with Doan, (he thinks "play" is debate apparently) I request you ask him for the study. LOL! Alina, just tell Kane that you are me and get it over with. It wouldn't be nice to "scam" Kane like this, would it? If he will email it to you I have two simple questions I'd like to ask that will establish if it is the same study I have, or simply some commentary by others, or even just a summary by Embry. LOL! Why all this trouble, Kane? Why not just send her the study when she asked for it in the first place? Would you be willing to do that? Thanks in advance. If it turns out to not be the study, or after a reasonable time he doesn't provide anything, I'll be happy then to supply you with the one I have...the complete study report on outcomes and methodology. This I like to see. Alina, please ask Kane for the study again. He can email it to you and it will be faster. You can't trust me. I am evil! I might send you a FAKE ONE! ;-) Doan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Can Doan provide Alina with the Embry study? was Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
(Kane) wrote in message om...
I do? I forget if I mentioned the size in the ng. text attachment wouldn't be very large. You did :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com The arguement that amuses me the most is the one that says, "because the world is that way and the child must learn that." Has anybody actually told you THAT? It's sick. Basically I don't find punishment of any kind very useful. At least not deliberately applied punishment. Children know the difference between intended harm and natural human reactions. So you agree with DoDson when he says it's ok if you loose control once in a while? The former confuses and frightens them, And seriously mines their initiative and self-esteem, and their sense of security. Who do you think you learned the most important lessons from? Mom. Well, not according to the spankers that have come here to "debate." Although just when they claim that they have to "teach" children they describe some motive of the child they must curb that children cannot have enough knowledge or development to even have such a motive. I guess they don't even try to *know* their children. Maybe they forget children are persons, too. They don't mind doing that. They seem to think that pain is a great teacher...forgetting that life has ample random exposure to pain for we humans to suffice for all the lessons pain can teach. Pain in the form of corporal punishment is an inhibitor, not a teacher. Alina, on the off chance that I'm being scammed, a common occurance when folks try to debate honestly with Doan, (he thinks "play" is debate apparently) I request you ask him for the study. If he will email it to you I have two simple questions I'd like to ask that will establish if it is the same study I have, or simply some commentary by others, or even just a summary by Embry. Would you be willing to do that? I don't want to be rude, but I am not interested in your ongoing online argument with Doan, or to scam either of you two. I have, however, asked him for that study. It is ME that is taking long now, because he has asked that I send an envelope so he can snail mail it back. Baby is still a little sick so I have not gone out or done much. If it helps you in any way, yes, I will let you know when I have it. Thanks in advance. No problem. If it turns out to not be the study, or after a reasonable time he doesn't provide anything, I'll be happy then to supply you with the one I have...the complete study report on outcomes and methodology. Thanks. I hope it will not be necessary. Best regards, Alina. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kane9 Kan't Kontinues... Can Doan provide Alina with the Embry
On 6 Apr 2004, Alina wrote:
(Kane) wrote in message om... I do? I forget if I mentioned the size in the ng. text attachment wouldn't be very large. You did :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com Oops! Kane0 got caught with his lies once again. ;-) Here is the quote: "I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the internet. That's a lot of graphics to send." And here are more of Kane0's lies in the past: Dec 2, 2003 "I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on his study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you are flying." Dec 5, 2003 "The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long long ago." Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! :-) Doan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kane9 Kaught lying again!
On 6 Apr 2004, Kane wrote: On 6 Apr 2004 18:59:34 -0700, (Alina) wrote: (Kane) wrote in message om... I do? I forget if I mentioned the size in the ng. text attachment wouldn't be very large. You did :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com Yep, and 80 pages in a text document, even with some simple charts would hardly be a load for an e-mail. This is a 180 degrees turn from: "I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the internet. That's a lot of graphics to send." I had made the offer to anyone he and I both knew in the ng. That's why I was questioning sending it to you. He could know you, or even be you, and intercept it and pretend all along he had it. His veracity has been questioned many times here. LOL! This is a contradiction to the claim by Kane: "My research skills are formidable, as some twits here have found out the hard way." Come on, Kane! You are either a very bad LIAR or very STUPID! ;-) Doan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kane9 Kaught lying again!
Doan:
Did you notice that time months ago when Doug caught Kane in a LIE about something, and Kane acknowledged his own deviousness by saying (yes but they don't know that!)? He has no qualms about playing games of misdirection and sophistry. He's like a therapist using LIES to manipulate somebody, with no ethical qualms. What do you think the target feels like when they realize he duped them? Kane actually seems to think he is superior to everybody, except the few ""experts"" he is a groupie of. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kane9 Kaught lying again!
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kane9 Kaught lying again!
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:43:24 -0700, Doan wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004, Alina wrote: (Kane) wrote in message om... I do? I forget if I mentioned the size in the ng. text attachment wouldn't be very large. You did :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com Oops! Kane0 got caught with his lies once again. ;-) Here is the quote: All I said was I forgot if I mentioned the size, not that I didn't mention the size. Forgetting and stating one has forgotten is now lying? YOu need language lessons again. You are assigned, on penalty if you do not, as being recognized as the liar YOU are, to look up "lie," "lying," and "liar" and provide us with any authority that supports your claim that fogetting and saying so constitutes in itself, lying. "I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the internet. That's a lot of graphics to send." Yep, and I forgot I said that. That IS why I said I forgot IF I said anything about the size. Now show us were I lied again. And here are more of Kane0's lies in the past: Dec 2, 2003 "I never stated that I had read it. Yep, I never stated I read it. That doesn't say I read it or not. Notice the date. Have you a reference to a date prior to Dec 2, 03 where I said I had read it? I've only quoted the article on his study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. No lie there, and plenty of evidence I and others have quoted the magazine article, not the study. You want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you are flying." And certainly no lie there, or if there is please point it out to me. Dec 5, 2003 "The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long long ago." Yep. Had it for ages. But I never said so on this ng, which of course would make it obvious I never said I read it either. I simply said I'd only quoted the magazine who quoted Embry. Let me see now. Dec 5 comes after Dec 2. Having and "stating" I had it are two different things, now aren't they? Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! :-) You need to sit in pail of water little boy. Show me where I lied. R R R R R R I never said I had the study or read it before we had that conversation you site. How could I possibly be lying saying I never said I had it? All you need to do is find someplace prior to Dec 2nd where I said I had it or READ it to make me a liar. Want to try again? The same old Droaning lies. While calling others liars. I find you absolutely fascinating to watch in your public exhibitions. Doan Silly boy. Stop spanking your monkey in public. Kane |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kane9 Kan't Kontinues... Can Doan provide Alina with the Embry study? was Can Kane provide Jerry with the Embry study?
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:43:24 -0700, Doan wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004, Alina wrote: (Kane) wrote in message om... I do? I forget if I mentioned the size in the ng. text attachment wouldn't be very large. You did :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com Oops! Kane0 got caught with his lies once again. ;-) Here is the quote: Let me see now. I say I forgot, and Alina shows me where I did say it, and that makes me a liar? Hmmmm...interesting take on the language there. Did you see me at any point deny I had mentioned the size of the study? Forgetting isn't lying, even when you do it, or don't you forget anything? When you do, remember, according to your view, you are lying. "I hope Gerald and "Alina" have a high speed connection to the internet. That's a lot of graphics to send." Yep, I said that and I remember it upon seeing it. Forgetting I said it isn't a lie, unless you wish to conclude that when you forget something it's automatically a lie. And here are more of Kane0's lies in the past: Dec 2, 2003 "I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on his study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you are flying." Dec 5, 2003 "The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long long ago." Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! :-) You still can't read english. Here, I'll help. Let's parse together: From above. "I never stated that I had read it." Show me where I ever said I had read it? I may have read it, but I never stated I had. (Of course I had) Still, if you are going to call my saying I never stated that I had read it you are going to have to show where I DID say I had read it prior to the time you are referencing, no? So? "I've only quoted the article on his study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. Which is exactly true. Notice there is no mention of me having read the study or not? "You want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you are flying." Now if you wish to suggest an ad hom, a funny visual one, is a lie, you go right ahead, then we'll crank up some of your posts. Doan You are still lying, you sad pathetic little boy. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kids should work... | Doan | Spanking | 33 | December 10th 03 08:05 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |