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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve 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] " [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! 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! Doan ----------- You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of smelly ****. Steve Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-) Doan ------------- You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot! Steve |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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 --------------- Your propagandizing is entirely disingenuous. You're deceitfully implying (deceitful and disingenuous because you yourself know better) that we're the same person, when any idiot can find out we post from vastly different addresses and correspond to different real live people. Steve |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Doan wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve 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] " [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! 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! Doan ----------- You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of smelly ****. Steve Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-) Doan ------------- You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot! Steve LOL! So now it is my **** in your mouth? Doan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
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 A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-) Doan |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
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 You better wipe that **** off your mouth! ;-) Doan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
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 Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-) Doan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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 A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-) Doan ------------- Damn straight, the never-spanked KNOW that YOUR kind should all be killed! Steve |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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 I better wipe that **** off my mouth! ;-) Doan ----------------- Spit or swallow, asswipe. Steve |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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 Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-) Doan -------------------------- Did the math, you ****-****ing LIAR! Steve |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Doan wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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. ------------- No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away. Steve 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] " [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! 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! Doan ----------- You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of smelly ****. Steve Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-) Doan ------------- You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot! Steve LOL! So now it is my **** in my mouth? Doan ------------ Well it ain't mine, you diseased little whore! 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 |