A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LaVonne, where art thou?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 27th 03, 05:22 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 05:24 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:17 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:19 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:20 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:21 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:48 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:49 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:49 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 27th 03, 07:50 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.