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
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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. 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. LaVonne Doan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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 LaVonne Doan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
Poorly done studies are almost CRIMINAL.
When a study purports to be scientifically based, and *peer-reviewed* one would expect that the criteria of folks sampled by the study would be representative of the parenting populace at large. Straus USED TEENAGE, welfare-dependent Moms. Hardly a representative sample of America. Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design classes. She probably never read 1984, either. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Doans wants to debate Straus et al 1997 was LaVonne, where art thou?
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 Doan LaVonne Doan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LaVonne, where art thou?
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 [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. 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 Doan |
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 06:55 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 |