The Kids just make these things up to get back at their parents ...

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
I guess you must have missed this notice:

"All content of this site is copyright Old Dominion University unless
otherwise noted."

Do you know that you are violating copyright law, STUPID?
Nope. Fair use.

I changed nothing, did not mislead as to meaning of content.

Did not pretend it was my OWN work.

Your buddy from Tx apparently did all those things.

Want to try again?

Read up on fair use.

"For permission to reprint from Old Dominion University?s Quest, contact
the Vice President for Institutional Advancement, John R. Broderick
101 Koch Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529"

So fair use? Do you know the definition of fair use?
Yep, sure do. It's part of my professional life.

http://www.ams.org/authors/permissions.html

"Fair Use.

This provision in the copyright law allows for reproduction of material
under certain guidelines without requesting specific permission to do
so. Fair Use generally suggests those circumstances in which it is
permissible to use portions of another's copyrighted work--in teaching,
scholarship, research, commentary and news reporting. It is important to
note that the determination of fair use is subjective and is a judgment
************************************************** ***********************
of the copyright holder. One should therefore exercise caution when
*************************

Do you understand English? I have even highlighted it for you! ;-)

contemplating use of another's work under these guidelines.
Four Factors in Fair Use

* The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

* The nature of the copyrighted work;

* The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole;

You copied the WHOLE copyrighted work.

* The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work."

The site explicitly
stated that you needed permission to reprint.
Yep, sure did.

And yet you did not asked for their permission to reprint?

Did you get their
permission?
Nope. They are an academic organization very familiar with "Fair Use"
and I was careful not to reduce the market value of their paper.

And in fact have advertised their site by including their full URL to
the page.

I have not used it for profit, but in fact to educate a small group of
otherwise dimwitted souls, like yourself, as to the real scope of child
abuse in the world.

Or could it be they did not want the product used for commercial gain,
or to be used to misrepresent their mission?

"One should therefore exercise caution when
contemplating use of another's work under these guidelines."

It's not your judgement, it's the judgement of the copyright holder,
STUPID!

I've done neither, of course. Surely you don't think they would support
the nitwits here that attempt to minimize child abuse, now do you?

The author, if she was inclined to post here might well ... no, would
most assuredly, argue from the same perspective I do.

In fact I know she would, but can't say why I know that, in particular.
State secret, you see. chuckle

Tell you what, if you're feelin' froggy why don't you jump and send them
my post and ask.

Why should I?

Because I didn't challenge me, you did?

I am not the one who reprinted their copyrighted work in
FULL!

But you challenged me for doing so.

Why don't you write them and asked if what you done is ok under
fair use.

Because I don't need to?

So fair use is your judgement, not the copyright holder's, right?

You have something to prove. So prove it.

Hihihi! I have already did, using your own post, STUPID!

Remember to report back to us, ok? ;-)

Since I'm under no obligation to contact them on your simple command to
do so, I'm not going to.

Hihihi! Even when they explicitly told you to ask for permission to
reprint?

Now you are either a coward, or a fool. Show us which, or run away.

That's all you've done in this newsgroup for years. Your posting history
shows it as far back as it's available.

A coward.

And you'll likely always be one.

Hahaha! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy.

Doan

Kane, While I understand that you still BELIEVE
in the cycle of violence, could you please pass the
GAO information to your friend LaVonne?

Isn't it better if you keep your own side better informed?

Perhaps it will bruise her EGO less if you tell her.

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
I guess you must have missed this notice:

"All content of this site is copyright Old Dominion University unless
otherwise noted."

Do you know that you are violating copyright law, STUPID?
Nope. Fair use.

I changed nothing, did not mislead as to meaning of content.

Did not pretend it was my OWN work.

Your buddy from Tx apparently did all those things.

Want to try again?

Read up on fair use.

"For permission to reprint from Old Dominion University?s Quest, contact
the Vice President for Institutional Advancement, John R. Broderick
101 Koch Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529"

So fair use? Do you know the definition of fair use?
Yep, sure do. It's part of my professional life.

http://www.ams.org/authors/permissions.html

"Fair Use.

This provision in the copyright law allows for reproduction of material
under certain guidelines without requesting specific permission to do
so. Fair Use generally suggests those circumstances in which it is
permissible to use portions of another's copyrighted work--in teaching,
scholarship, research, commentary and news reporting. It is important to
note that the determination of fair use is subjective and is a judgment
************************************************** ***********************
of the copyright holder. One should therefore exercise caution when
*************************

Do you understand English? I have even highlighted it for you! ;-)

contemplating use of another's work under these guidelines.
Four Factors in Fair Use

* The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

* The nature of the copyrighted work;

* The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole;

You copied the WHOLE copyrighted work.

* The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work."

The site explicitly
stated that you needed permission to reprint.
Yep, sure did.

And yet you did not asked for their permission to reprint?

Did you get their
permission?
Nope. They are an academic organization very familiar with "Fair Use"
and I was careful not to reduce the market value of their paper.

And in fact have advertised their site by including their full URL to
the page.

I have not used it for profit, but in fact to educate a small group of
otherwise dimwitted souls, like yourself, as to the real scope of child
abuse in the world.

Or could it be they did not want the product used for commercial gain,
or to be used to misrepresent their mission?

"One should therefore exercise caution when
contemplating use of another's work under these guidelines."

It's not your judgement, it's the judgement of the copyright holder,
STUPID!

I've done neither, of course. Surely you don't think they would support
the nitwits here that attempt to minimize child abuse, now do you?

The author, if she was inclined to post here might well ... no, would
most assuredly, argue from the same perspective I do.

In fact I know she would, but can't say why I know that, in particular.
State secret, you see. chuckle

Tell you what, if you're feelin' froggy why don't you jump and send them
my post and ask.

Why should I?
Because I didn't challenge me, you did?

I am not the one who reprinted their copyrighted work in
FULL!
But you challenged me for doing so.

Why don't you write them and asked if what you done is ok under
fair use.
Because I don't need to?

So fair use is your judgement, not the copyright holder's, right?

You have something to prove. So prove it.

Hihihi! I have already did, using your own post, STUPID!

Remember to report back to us, ok? ;-)
Since I'm under no obligation to contact them on your simple command to
do so, I'm not going to.

Hihihi! Even when they explicitly told you to ask for permission to
reprint?

Now you are either a coward, or a fool. Show us which, or run away.

That's all you've done in this newsgroup for years. Your posting history
shows it as far back as it's available.

A coward.

And you'll likely always be one.

Hahaha! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy.

That I recognize a coward and bully when I see one? Sure. You got that
one right.


Doan


0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Kane, While I understand that you still BELIEVE
in the cycle of violence,

Nope. I KNOW that it is a fact. The Cycle of Violence not only is proven
scientifically but by common sense. We model the behavior we want our
children to copy. Why is that, do you suppose?

And they do copy us.

could you please pass the
GAO information to your friend LaVonne?

I daresay LaVonne is better informed than I. And we will decide if we
are "friends," Greg, not some ****-assed little insinuating liar like you.

Isn't it better if you keep your own side better informed?

Then I'd have to ask her to inform me, Greg. She is actively engaged in
her profession day to day. I have moved to other things, like the meth
problem in the use. I no longer follow child abuse issues as closely as
before.

She'd be more up to date. I'd come to the information by and by, of course.

Perhaps it will bruise her EGO less if you tell her.

You think her ego is bruised by you making your claim?

Well, I'll risk YOU bruising it even more, and request that you provide
the proof of your claim...that The Cycle of Abuse is not true.

Go ahead. Don't worry any more about her feelings than you do abused
children.

Lay The Truth on her, little Greg.

0:-
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

LaVonne wrote
The "cycle of violence" has not been disproven.

GAO is the research arm for the US Congress.
The concept is intellectually APPEALING, but there is no correlation.

And since you are so
sure that it has been, why not post references to well-done longitudinal
studies that prove your claim? Do you not have them? Do you not
understand them? Actually, you must understand them, for in a previous
post you made reference to having a hypothesis for further research.

My hypothesis is that you are a person who is acting
out a CATHARSIS about perceived abuses suffered as a child.
Some people have had this CATHARTIC reaction even
where their abuse was purely a matter of PERCEPTION
and not any reality. Some people ""learned"" decades later
that they were abused through "recovered memories".
When the whole "recovered memories"" industry fell
into disrepute many such people healed the wounds
created by the quackery, but a FEW of them STILL
believe they were abused even it was discovered that
parts of the story were factually impossible.


Greg wrote
APSAC is an industry association for child protection workers.

LaVonne
You can say this as many times as you want, Greegor.
Perhaps you should start repeating over and over again
that the world is flat, that smoking is a healthy habit,
and that blood pressure and cholesterol have no
relationship to a healthy heart. If you say it enough,
I'm sure the public and the scientific community
will accept your opinion!

Well, don't take MY word for it, take APSAC's own words!

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/about/mainAbout.asp

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children is a
nonprofit national organization focused on meeting the needs of
professionals engaged in all aspects of services for maltreated
children and their families. Especially important to APSAC is the
dissemination of state-of-the-art practice in all professional
disciplines related to child abuse and neglect.
APSAC is Strongly Committed to:

Preventing child maltreatment
Eliminating the recurrence of child maltreatment
Promoting research and guidelines to inform professional
practice
Connecting professionals from the many disciplines to promote the best
response to child maltreatment
Ensuring that America's public policy concerning child maltreatment is
well informed and constructive
Educating the public about child abuse and neglect

Locations:
Our new location is in Charleston, South Carolina:
P.O. Box 30669 Charleston, SC 29417 Tel: 843-764-2905
Toll-Free: 1-877-40A-PSAC or 1-877-402-7722
Fax: 803-753-9823

Hey LaVonne, Do you think they had anything to do
with the way Iowa removed kids a THREE TIMES the
national average?

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/services/mainService.asp
Photo caption:
Student actors from USF play a role of abused children to enhance the
real-life experience of interviewing at the Forensic Interview Clinic.

Is THIS the quality of professional training for that?
No mention of epistemology investigation!
Amateurish.

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/membership/mainMember.asp
APSAC accepts new memberships year round. Individuals applying for
membership must be a professional working in the field of child
maltreatment or a related field. In applying for membership,
professionals certify compliance with the APSAC code of ethics as well
as the professional and ethical standards of and all laws and
regulations relating to their respective profession or field.
Membership in APSAC

does not certify professional competence

OF COURSE NOT!

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne wrote
The "cycle of violence" has not been disproven.

GAO is the research arm for the US Congress.
The concept is intellectually APPEALING, but there is no correlation.

And you are going to avoid posting the referenced proof, right?

And since you are so
sure that it has been, why not post references to well-done longitudinal
studies that prove your claim? Do you not have them? Do you not
understand them? Actually, you must understand them, for in a previous
post you made reference to having a hypothesis for further research.

My hypothesis is that you are a person who is acting
out a CATHARSIS about perceived abuses suffered as a child.
Some people have had this CATHARTIC reaction even
where their abuse was purely a matter of PERCEPTION
and not any reality. Some people ""learned"" decades later
that they were abused through "recovered memories".
When the whole "recovered memories"" industry fell
into disrepute many such people healed the wounds
created by the quackery, but a FEW of them STILL
believe they were abused even it was discovered that
parts of the story were factually impossible.

I thought you didn't believe in recovered memory? Now it's part of your
research modality? Interesting.

Greg wrote
APSAC is an industry association for child protection workers.

LaVonne
You can say this as many times as you want, Greegor.
Perhaps you should start repeating over and over again
that the world is flat, that smoking is a healthy habit,
and that blood pressure and cholesterol have no
relationship to a healthy heart. If you say it enough,
I'm sure the public and the scientific community
will accept your opinion!

Well, don't take MY word for it, take APSAC's own words!

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/about/mainAbout.asp

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children is a
nonprofit national organization focused on meeting the needs of
professionals engaged in all aspects of services for maltreated
children and their families. Especially important to APSAC is the
dissemination of state-of-the-art practice in all professional
disciplines related to child abuse and neglect.
APSAC is Strongly Committed to:

Preventing child maltreatment
Eliminating the recurrence of child maltreatment
Promoting research and guidelines to inform professional
practice
Connecting professionals from the many disciplines to promote the best
response to child maltreatment
Ensuring that America's public policy concerning child maltreatment is
well informed and constructive
Educating the public about child abuse and neglect

Locations:
Our new location is in Charleston, South Carolina:
P.O. Box 30669 Charleston, SC 29417 Tel: 843-764-2905
Toll-Free: 1-877-40A-PSAC or 1-877-402-7722
Fax: 803-753-9823

The question, child, was not about the APSAC, it was about the claims
that The Cycle of Abuse has been disproven.

You are Dougging again.

Hey LaVonne, Do you think they had anything to do
with the way Iowa removed kids a THREE TIMES the
national average?

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/services/mainService.asp
Photo caption:
Student actors from USF play a role of abused children to enhance the
real-life experience of interviewing at the Forensic Interview Clinic.

Is THIS the quality of professional training for that?
No mention of epistemology investigation!
Amateurish.

You still misuse the word. Epistemology is a formal discipline in
PHILOSOPHY. It cannot be applied as you try to the training of
investigators. They are not involved in philosophy.

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/membership/mainMember.asp
APSAC accepts new memberships year round. Individuals applying for
membership must be a professional working in the field of child
maltreatment or a related field. In applying for membership,
professionals certify compliance with the APSAC code of ethics as well
as the professional and ethical standards of and all laws and
regulations relating to their respective profession or field.
Membership in APSAC

does not certify professional competence

OF COURSE NOT!

And?

Now back to the real subject that you are Douggigying as fast as your
little pudgy finger can type.

Where is this proof that The Cycle of Abuse has been disproven as existing.

We'll not hold our breath, and we'll just assume you'll find other
subject to bring up.

Is this going to be another "use of lethal force" episode that you'll
try to stretch out as long as possible so you won't have to be
responsible for your own words.

The proof, boy, the proof.

While you are looking you scrunch up your eyes real tight, like Doug has
taught you, and avoid looking at any of these.

http://www.casanet.org/library/abuse...ycle-study.htm
"Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child
Victims Become Adult Abusers A Summary of Twenty-five Studies"

Pay special attention to ignoring the word "Inconclusive" in the above
title.

And try to keep in mind what LaVonne actually said, instead of
Douggifying it, eh?

"The "cycle of violence" has not been disproven."

My own experience with children in treatment for mental illness on the
edge of adulthood is that indeed, they WERE becoming and some actively
so, abusers of others, and they had all, without exception, been abused.

One such I wished I never met. A colder, more creepy kid I never met.

We accepted him into treatment, from a neighbor hood that had had three
small children disappear in a single year, which abruptly stopped while
he was with us, far from home territory.

I was so tempted to ask him where the bodies were hidden, but of course
that would have been professional of me.

He was a very dangerous aggressive sexual molester, even in the
treatment setting. No boy was ever left alone with him.

And all boys were taught how to cope with him groping them quickly in
passing.

Even the other boys that were themselves sexual deviants were frightened
of him.

By the way, no claim has ever been made by anyone, Greg that the
majority of people that are abused as children perpetuate that abuse as
adults.

The claim is quite different.

And simple.

And I've told you this many times. Try to work out the logic, please.

It is found that a great majority of people that are founded for abuse
of their children were themselves abused as children.

This increases, but does not call for a one to one ratio assumption, the
risk of someone that has been abused as a child becoming an abuser.

Yet you will not find in the literature, nor in the posting archives to
this newsgroup a claim that all abused people grow up to actually BE
abusers.

In fact I told about my interviews over time with a psychiatrist that
worked in a state prison hospital for sexual offenders...most against
children.

And I told about his response to my question about numbers of inmates
that claimed, as a way to rationalize their abuse of others, they had
been abused as children.

And I pointed out his amusing and his comment that it was easy to see
that they were in fact busy looking to gain sympathy, as he, and, I, and
everyone in related fields knows perfectly well that about 80% of the
people that are sexually abuse do NOT grow up to molest others.

Now have you got this sorted out yet?

All abuse do not become abusers.

Many, even most, that abuse, were themselves abused as children.

No claim that The Cycle of Abuse means all abused will turn into abusers.

A claim that it does raise the risk factor.

Now, Greg. Do you have some personal investment here?

Were you sexually abused as a child and worry about yourself and your urges?

Don't worry, if that's so, and know that the odds are in your favor for
NOT being a sexual molester of children.

And no, I was not asking you answer me in the newsgroup. The questions
were rhetorical to make the point that you should not worry, but if you
are and I haven't helped alleviate your concernes, go get an evaluation.

It's not as hard as you might think to turn around some thinking errors
that might make one prone to reacting sexually to the presence of children.

0:-








--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne wrote
The "cycle of violence" has not been disproven.

GAO is the research arm for the US Congress.
The concept is intellectually APPEALING, but there is no correlation.

No "correlation" is claimed.

If you actually read what GAO reported you will see they plainly state
that correlation has NOT been disproved.

That was, apparently, their mandated task. To disprove a correlation
with ALL victims of abuse being potential perpetrators.

They cannot do that, obviously, by the rules of logic if nothing else,
but what is known is exactly what I've told you repeatedly:

There is a high incidence of those founded for abuse having been victims
of abuse themselves as children.

These are the matters of actuarial study for estimating the probability
of a cause and effect relationship. Enough data gathered, enough
analysis of it based on events followed by actions and probability
theory applications become more productive.

Would you care to claim that those that abuse have a higher incidence of
NOT having been abused as children? And provide us with a logical
argument, if you cannot produce proof?

And since you are so
sure that it has been, why not post references to well-done longitudinal
studies that prove your claim? Do you not have them? Do you not
understand them? Actually, you must understand them, for in a previous
post you made reference to having a hypothesis for further research.

My hypothesis is that you are a person who is acting
out a CATHARSIS about perceived abuses suffered as a child.
Some people have had this CATHARTIC reaction even
where their abuse was purely a matter of PERCEPTION
and not any reality. Some people ""learned"" decades later
that they were abused through "recovered memories".
When the whole "recovered memories"" industry fell
into disrepute many such people healed the wounds
created by the quackery, but a FEW of them STILL
believe they were abused even it was discovered that
parts of the story were factually impossible.

A sample of one? Interesting research methodology, perfesser.[sic]

Especially since you are going to use a premise that you yourself had
discounted and denied in previous posts over the years.

Do you actually now believe in recovered memory syndrome?

R R R R R R R R


Greg wrote
APSAC is an industry association for child protection workers.

LaVonne
You can say this as many times as you want, Greegor.
Perhaps you should start repeating over and over again
that the world is flat, that smoking is a healthy habit,
and that blood pressure and cholesterol have no
relationship to a healthy heart. If you say it enough,
I'm sure the public and the scientific community
will accept your opinion!

Well, don't take MY word for it, take APSAC's own words!

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/about/mainAbout.asp

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children is a
nonprofit national organization focused on meeting the needs of
professionals engaged in all aspects of services for maltreated
children and their families. Especially important to APSAC is the
dissemination of state-of-the-art practice in all professional
disciplines related to child abuse and neglect.
APSAC is Strongly Committed to:

Preventing child maltreatment
Eliminating the recurrence of child maltreatment
Promoting research and guidelines to inform professional
practice
Connecting professionals from the many disciplines to promote the best
response to child maltreatment
Ensuring that America's public policy concerning child maltreatment is
well informed and constructive
Educating the public about child abuse and neglect

Locations:
Our new location is in Charleston, South Carolina:
P.O. Box 30669 Charleston, SC 29417 Tel: 843-764-2905
Toll-Free: 1-877-40A-PSAC or 1-877-402-7722
Fax: 803-753-9823

Hey LaVonne, Do you think they had anything to do
with the way Iowa removed kids a THREE TIMES the
national average?

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/services/mainService.asp
Photo caption:
Student actors from USF play a role of abused children to enhance the
real-life experience of interviewing at the Forensic Interview Clinic.

Is THIS the quality of professional training for that?
No mention of epistemology investigation!
Amateurish.

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/membership/mainMember.asp
APSAC accepts new memberships year round. Individuals applying for
membership must be a professional working in the field of child
maltreatment or a related field. In applying for membership,
professionals certify compliance with the APSAC code of ethics as well
as the professional and ethical standards of and all laws and
regulations relating to their respective profession or field.
Membership in APSAC

does not certify professional competence

OF COURSE NOT!



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
I guess you must have missed this notice:

"All content of this site is copyright Old Dominion University unless
otherwise noted."

Do you know that you are violating copyright law, STUPID?
Nope. Fair use.

I changed nothing, did not mislead as to meaning of content.

Did not pretend it was my OWN work.

Your buddy from Tx apparently did all those things.

Want to try again?

Read up on fair use.

"For permission to reprint from Old Dominion University?s Quest, contact
the Vice President for Institutional Advancement, John R. Broderick
101 Koch Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529"

So fair use? Do you know the definition of fair use?
Yep, sure do. It's part of my professional life.

http://www.ams.org/authors/permissions.html

"Fair Use.

This provision in the copyright law allows for reproduction of material
under certain guidelines without requesting specific permission to do
so. Fair Use generally suggests those circumstances in which it is
permissible to use portions of another's copyrighted work--in teaching,
scholarship, research, commentary and news reporting. It is important to
note that the determination of fair use is subjective and is a judgment
************************************************** ***********************
of the copyright holder. One should therefore exercise caution when
*************************

Do you understand English? I have even highlighted it for you! ;-)

contemplating use of another's work under these guidelines.
Four Factors in Fair Use

* The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

* The nature of the copyrighted work;

* The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole;

You copied the WHOLE copyrighted work.

* The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work."

The site explicitly
stated that you needed permission to reprint.
Yep, sure did.

And yet you did not asked for their permission to reprint?

Did you get their
permission?
Nope. They are an academic organization very familiar with "Fair Use"
and I was careful not to reduce the market value of their paper.

And in fact have advertised their site by including their full URL to
the page.

I have not used it for profit, but in fact to educate a small group of
otherwise dimwitted souls, like yourself, as to the real scope of child
abuse in the world.

Or could it be they did not want the product used for commercial gain,
or to be used to misrepresent their mission?

"One should therefore exercise caution when
contemplating use of another's work under these guidelines."

It's not your judgement, it's the judgement of the copyright holder,
STUPID!

I've done neither, of course. Surely you don't think they would support
the nitwits here that attempt to minimize child abuse, now do you?

The author, if she was inclined to post here might well ... no, would
most assuredly, argue from the same perspective I do.

In fact I know she would, but can't say why I know that, in particular.
State secret, you see. chuckle

Tell you what, if you're feelin' froggy why don't you jump and send them
my post and ask.

Why should I?

Because I didn't challenge me, you did?

You posted their magazine article in FULL, stupid! Their site explicitly
said to ask for permission before reprinting it. Are you so stupid to
see that you are infringing their copyright.

I am not the one who reprinted their copyrighted work in
FULL!

But you challenged me for doing so.

Yup! So prove me wrong, STUPID!

Why don't you write them and asked if what you done is ok under
fair use.

Because I don't need to?

According to your judgement or theirs?

You have something to prove. So prove it.

I already did, STUPID. I posted their copyright notice for you and
everyone to see.

Remember to report back to us, ok? ;-)

Since I'm under no obligation to contact them on your simple command to
do so, I'm not going to.

You reprinted their article in FULL and you feel that you have no
obligation to them???

Now you are either a coward, or a fool. Show us which, or run away.

That's all you've done in this newsgroup for years. Your posting history
shows it as far back as it's available.

A coward.

And you'll likely always be one.

Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. It's so typical of you. Like I said,
your character is like a jelly-fish, everyone can see right throught you.
;-)

Doan

Greegor wrote:

LaVonne wrote

The "cycle of violence" has not been disproven.


GAO is the research arm for the US Congress.
The concept is intellectually APPEALING, but there is no correlation.

No correlation between what? GAO and research? If that is what you
meant, this seems like an absurd statement. You seem to be claiming
that there is no correlation between GAO and research, yet this
"research arm for the US Congress" has proven that the "cycle of
violence" doesn't exist.


And since you are so
sure that it has been, why not post references to well-done longitudinal
studies that prove your claim? Do you not have them? Do you not
understand them? Actually, you must understand them, for in a previous
post you made reference to having a hypothesis for further research.

So where are the references I asked for. Oh yes, there is no
correlation between the research arm for the US Congress and research
(grin)!


My hypothesis is that you are a person who is acting
out a CATHARSIS about perceived abuses suffered as a child.
Some people have had this CATHARTIC reaction even
where their abuse was purely a matter of PERCEPTION
and not any reality. Some people ""learned"" decades later
that they were abused through "recovered memories".
When the whole "recovered memories"" industry fell
into disrepute many such people healed the wounds
created by the quackery, but a FEW of them STILL
believe they were abused even it was discovered that
parts of the story were factually impossible.

This is not a hypothesis. I asked you to post your research hypothesis
and null hypothesis. I'm waiting. You might want to enroll in Research
101, though. Even my undergraduate students know how to write a
hypothesis for a literature review that doesn't include original
research. You don't appear to have a clue how to do either.

LaVonne


Greg wrote

APSAC is an industry association for child protection workers.


LaVonne

You can say this as many times as you want, Greegor.
Perhaps you should start repeating over and over again
that the world is flat, that smoking is a healthy habit,
and that blood pressure and cholesterol have no
relationship to a healthy heart. If you say it enough,
I'm sure the public and the scientific community
will accept your opinion!


Well, don't take MY word for it, take APSAC's own words!

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/about/mainAbout.asp

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children is a
nonprofit national organization focused on meeting the needs of
professionals engaged in all aspects of services for maltreated
children and their families. Especially important to APSAC is the
dissemination of state-of-the-art practice in all professional
disciplines related to child abuse and neglect.
APSAC is Strongly Committed to:

Preventing child maltreatment
Eliminating the recurrence of child maltreatment
Promoting research and guidelines to inform professional
practice
Connecting professionals from the many disciplines to promote the best
response to child maltreatment
Ensuring that America's public policy concerning child maltreatment is
well informed and constructive
Educating the public about child abuse and neglect

Locations:
Our new location is in Charleston, South Carolina:
P.O. Box 30669 Charleston, SC 29417 Tel: 843-764-2905
Toll-Free: 1-877-40A-PSAC or 1-877-402-7722
Fax: 803-753-9823

Hey LaVonne, Do you think they had anything to do
with the way Iowa removed kids a THREE TIMES the
national average?

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/services/mainService.asp
Photo caption:
Student actors from USF play a role of abused children to enhance the
real-life experience of interviewing at the Forensic Interview Clinic.

Is THIS the quality of professional training for that?
No mention of epistemology investigation!
Amateurish.

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/membership/mainMember.asp
APSAC accepts new memberships year round. Individuals applying for
membership must be a professional working in the field of child
maltreatment or a related field. In applying for membership,
professionals certify compliance with the APSAC code of ethics as well
as the professional and ethical standards of and all laws and
regulations relating to their respective profession or field.
Membership in APSAC

does not certify professional competence

OF COURSE NOT!

0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:

LaVonne wrote

The "cycle of violence" has not been disproven.


GAO is the research arm for the US Congress.
The concept is intellectually APPEALING, but there is no correlation.


No "correlation" is claimed.

If you actually read what GAO reported you will see they plainly state
that correlation has NOT been disproved.

What is fascinating is the way Greegor stated the what he did above.
GAO is the "research arm for the US Congress" but there is no
correlation. His slash job of my post may have backfired. I read this
as there was no correlation between GAO and research. What a hoot.

That was, apparently, their mandated task. To disprove a correlation
with ALL victims of abuse being potential perpetrators.

They cannot do that, obviously, by the rules of logic if nothing else,
but what is known is exactly what I've told you repeatedly:

There is a high incidence of those founded for abuse having been victims
of abuse themselves as children.

And this is called a correlation. This correlation has been identified
though numerous studies spanning several decades. There is a very
strong statistically significant relationship between being abused as a
child and as an adult being either a perpetrator or victim of abuse.

These are the matters of actuarial study for estimating the probability
of a cause and effect relationship. Enough data gathered, enough
analysis of it based on events followed by actions and probability
theory applications become more productive.

Would you care to claim that those that abuse have a higher incidence of
NOT having been abused as children? And provide us with a logical
argument, if you cannot produce proof?

Yes, Greegor, Yes!!! This is the data I want to see!

LaVonne

And since you are so
sure that it has been, why not post references to well-done longitudinal
studies that prove your claim? Do you not have them? Do you not
understand them? Actually, you must understand them, for in a previous
post you made reference to having a hypothesis for further research.


My hypothesis is that you are a person who is acting
out a CATHARSIS about perceived abuses suffered as a child.
Some people have had this CATHARTIC reaction even
where their abuse was purely a matter of PERCEPTION
and not any reality. Some people ""learned"" decades later
that they were abused through "recovered memories".
When the whole "recovered memories"" industry fell
into disrepute many such people healed the wounds
created by the quackery, but a FEW of them STILL
believe they were abused even it was discovered that
parts of the story were factually impossible.


A sample of one? Interesting research methodology, perfesser.[sic]

Especially since you are going to use a premise that you yourself had
discounted and denied in previous posts over the years.

Do you actually now believe in recovered memory syndrome?

R R R R R R R R



Greg wrote

APSAC is an industry association for child protection workers.


LaVonne

You can say this as many times as you want, Greegor.
Perhaps you should start repeating over and over again
that the world is flat, that smoking is a healthy habit,
and that blood pressure and cholesterol have no
relationship to a healthy heart. If you say it enough,
I'm sure the public and the scientific community
will accept your opinion!


Well, don't take MY word for it, take APSAC's own words!

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/about/mainAbout.asp

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children is a
nonprofit national organization focused on meeting the needs of
professionals engaged in all aspects of services for maltreated
children and their families. Especially important to APSAC is the
dissemination of state-of-the-art practice in all professional
disciplines related to child abuse and neglect.
APSAC is Strongly Committed to:

Preventing child maltreatment
Eliminating the recurrence of child maltreatment
Promoting research and guidelines to inform professional
practice
Connecting professionals from the many disciplines to promote the best
response to child maltreatment
Ensuring that America's public policy concerning child maltreatment is
well informed and constructive
Educating the public about child abuse and neglect

Locations:
Our new location is in Charleston, South Carolina:
P.O. Box 30669 Charleston, SC 29417 Tel: 843-764-2905
Toll-Free: 1-877-40A-PSAC or 1-877-402-7722
Fax: 803-753-9823

Hey LaVonne, Do you think they had anything to do
with the way Iowa removed kids a THREE TIMES the
national average?

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/services/mainService.asp
Photo caption:
Student actors from USF play a role of abused children to enhance the
real-life experience of interviewing at the Forensic Interview Clinic.

Is THIS the quality of professional training for that?
No mention of epistemology investigation!
Amateurish.

http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/membership/mainMember.asp
APSAC accepts new memberships year round. Individuals applying for
membership must be a professional working in the field of child
maltreatment or a related field. In applying for membership,
professionals certify compliance with the APSAC code of ethics as well
as the professional and ethical standards of and all laws and
regulations relating to their respective profession or field.
Membership in APSAC

does not certify professional competence

OF COURSE NOT!