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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Fern enlightens us with her knowledge of research metholodocy LaVonne, where art thou?
Fern5827 wrote: Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design classes. How silly. I'll request a better experimental design, which undoubtedly you can provide for us. Now remember, Fern, null hypothesis is what we are talking about here. And, sample size affects outcome in many ways..which you will soon explain to us. You will also explain to us the meaning and effect of weighted analysis and why this would be used to correct for error. Then, you will explain the statistical properties of your study, and include a discussion section. I'm particularly interested in hearing you explain ANOVA, and how you think this specific analysis could apply to research. She probably never read 1984, either. I did read this book. Is this another example of your idea of research? LaVonne |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Doans wants to debate Straus et al 1997 was LaVonne, whereart thou?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote: Doan wrote: Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-) Yes, let's start with that. Post the reference to the study, and evidence for your debate issue. LaVonne Post the reference to the study??? Are you saying that you have not read the study? Are you still clinging on the claim that the mothers are not teenage mothers??? Doan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Doan wrote: Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated, but he may have. I don't know. He just challenged me on a Straus et.al study. I asked him to post a reference and his evidence for his claim. Let's see what he can do! LaVonne Reference? How about Straus et al (1997)? Doan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Doan's post to LaVonne LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make the same mistake as I did! ;-) "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months," or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] " And this is a perfect example of the futility of debate with you. You don't understand this statement, you took the statement out of context, and you provide no reference so others can refer to the passage you have posted If I have taken this statement OUT OF CONTEXT, would you please put this in the context to prove your accusation? I have been on this newsgroup since 1998 and debating this study since. Either you are suffering from senility or you are asking for reference just to dance around and avoiding the issue. [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior even stronger than spanking! This is another garbage statement with no evidence of the sort. Did you read this study? Please provide the reference and page no. of the journal that allowed you to come to such a bizarre conclusion. I will not do the work for you this time. I have provided the reference numerous times. Are you saying that, in Straus & Mouradian (1998), the correlation between asb and non-cp alternatives are not stronger than with spanking??? For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group" comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking" group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him! Read the conclusions, Doan. Read the hypothesis. Read the methodology. State reference and page number that allowed you to draw this conclusion. What was the purpose of the study? I have the study in front of me and I can do it for you, but this time I will not do this. You brought up the study, you back up your claims. LaVonne Yes, LaVonne. Read the study? And and read the admission by Straus for his "failure to to perceive the SERIOUS LIMITATION". It is in March 1998 issue, LaVonne. "Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998) You wanted reference, you got it. It's not new. For anyone who had followed this newsgroup since 1998 knew that I have posted them numerous times. Let's see how long you can dance around this! ;-) Doan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Doan wrote: Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated, Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the almighty studies. -- Jim |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Fern enlightens us with her knowledge of research metholodocy
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
Fern5827 wrote: Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design classes. How silly. I'll request a better experimental design, which undoubtedly you can provide for us. Now remember, Fern, null hypothesis is what we are talking about here. And, sample size affects outcome in many ways..which you will soon explain to us. You will also explain to us the meaning and effect of weighted analysis and why this would be used to correct for error. Then, you will explain the statistical properties of your study, and include a discussion section. I'm particularly interested in hearing you explain ANOVA, and how you think this specific analysis could apply to research. You could also explain how the author of the study would have to admit "failure to perceive SERIOUS LIMITATION" "Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998) Perhaps, Dr. LaVonne should give Straus a pointer or two. ;-) Doan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:
LaVonne Carlson wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Doan wrote: Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated, Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the almighty studies. -- Jim Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed "never-spanked" kid! ;-) Doan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote: Doan wrote: It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on? I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail. Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up. This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You certainly should have enough references by now. Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-) Doan Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered??? Doan ------------------- No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so! Steve |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote: LaVonne Carlson wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Doan wrote: Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated, Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the almighty studies. -- Jim Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed "never-spanked" kid! ;-) Doan ------------ Since she and I have never met, why in the world would THAT be, you ****-****ing disingenuous LIAR? Steve |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote: In alt.parenting.spanking Jim wrote: : LaVonne Carlson wrote: :"R. Steve Walz" wrote: : : Doan wrote: : : Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My : conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. : ------------- : No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. : Steve : :Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated, : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the : almighty studies. I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide comment about other people. How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited? Chris LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"??? How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level", didn't you? ;-) Doan -------------- You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T! Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LaVonne | Doan | General | 0 | April 15th 04 08:06 AM |
Another child killed in kincare | Kane | General | 39 | February 12th 04 07:55 PM |
LaVonne, where art thou? | [email protected] | General | 68 | October 25th 03 04:59 AM |
What IS the Connection? | Kane | General | 11 | October 3rd 03 10:21 PM |
LaVonne, where art thou? | [email protected] | Spanking | 14 | September 3rd 03 12:39 PM |