To spank or not to spank?

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane


Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."

And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?

I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

.... of externalizing being found for European American children.
However, this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and
outcome variables included in the model. ...

And a prior admission of "may be."

If they found proof, it would not read, "may be." It would read at least
that they found a correlation.

You seem overcome by the word, in this report I posted, by the word,
"However." You do know that it hedges the preceding comment, right?

R R R R R R R

Maybe there is a statute somewhere that says a slave is illegal by
virtue of being a slave, but I doubt it.

And most assuredly there is not that says he or she is legal.

And where there is no specific law that an act or even an act of 'being'
is legal.

It is legal to be a slave sans a statute saying it is illegal to be one.

It is legal to spit on the street, if there is no statute against it.

You are attempting the same misrepresentation of logic and in defiance
of facts presented by the researchers, Doan.


Doan


Show were a positive correlation is defended for there BEING a proven
outcome of spanking NOT creating misbehavior in Black children, or less
than in other children, other factors being accounted for.

"may be" and "this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor
and outcome variables included in the model," doesn't cut it in research
as positive correlation to the claims made.

And you have not responded to:

"Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

For all three groups, the responses were the same, and the same
regarding low levels of emotional support.

The outcomes for spanking were not the same (behavior problems) in low
levels of support as they were in high levels of support. This held true
for all 3 groups.

How difficult is that to understand, Doan?

You have not responded to this question before, that post grows cold to
most readers of the thread, and assuredly to those that may drop in
along the way.

Is that your goal?

You did not let it cool enough. I have no trouble remembering it and
quoting it.

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:52:28 -0800
From: "0:-"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: To spank or not to spank?
Doan wrote:

And that's the post I quoted from.

There was one other question by me in that post. And I'm still waiting.

So far you have posted ONE item from a highly biased source, Doan, that
misquoted researchers to make a point the researchers said about, "may be."

Here is what you have yet have dodged from, your claim, and my challenge:

" And studies after studies
Citations, please. Plural.

Already did, it's in the "archives"!

R R RR..... sure, Doan. I posted citations for my claim.

You special are you?

have shown that spanking, at least for
African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes.
Show us these studies.

Already did!"

No, Doan, you already did no such thing. Or you would post with
citations of your posts were you provided these 'studies after studies..'

I can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive.

Let's see those studies and your prior citations of them concerning
Black children.

Valid science please, not more dodges like the one ARTICLE, not a study,
or study report, but a citation of a report that did NOT provide what
the article claimed it did.

The report authors said, "may be."

Respond cogently ( R R R R like that is likely) or show us more of your
entertaining dodges that in fact constitute lies.

Kane

"0:-" wrote in message
news:W4mdnYcE2IVzOybYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.

Yes, you could say it.

But would it be true?

It would be true enough to form a new religion based on it Kane. You
BEAT THE **** out of every BUZZ WORD you can find to make it seem like you
have a clue as to what you are talking about.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:G5OdnR5Ng79jfCbYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I did
so.

In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
person that wrote this.

IN cvan understand how a PROMINENT "professional" like YOU would take
issue.

Did he claim it was scientific.

Tell me, WHY do you keep posting BULL**** then?

Apparently you are confuse on this as you are on the claim that there is
much research proving that children who are not spanked are at risk of
developing behaviors of "sociopathy."

Right after YOU prove your point first.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane


Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."

And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?

I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)

Doan

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:W4mdnYcE2IVzOybYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.
Yes, you could say it.

But would it be true?

It would be true enough to form a new religion based on it Kane. You
BEAT THE **** out of every BUZZ WORD you can find to make it seem like you
have a clue as to what you are talking about.

You just used "BUZZ WORD," as a buzz word.

Did you pick up on that?

So what buzz words have I used so far?

Want a list of the one's you've used?

I'm losing to you on that score, Ken.

It's just frustrating the hell out of me. Can't you tell?

0\-[

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:G5OdnR5Ng79jfCbYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I did
so.

In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
person that wrote this.

IN cvan understand how a PROMINENT "professional" like YOU would take
issue.

Nowhere near as prominent as you, Ken.

Did he claim it was scientific.

Tell me, WHY do you keep posting BULL**** then?

Tell me, why do you keep dodging by posting bull****, Ken?

I notice you aren't addressing the issue, but simply running around it
to sling some mud. Why is that I wonder?

Can't debate the issue?

Think anyone has forgotten the claim you made in the thread I titled:
"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm?"

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

Well, I've posted the evidence you claim doesn't exist, and did so while
being diverted to an issue brought up by your fellow liar, that Black
children that are spanked don't aggress at the rate white children who
are spanked do. Seems that research, from a very credible source, peer
reviewed and all, shows that to not be true. They do.

Doan couldn't find a way to dispute that so is reduced to ad hom and
other dodges.

You obviously can't because you won't address it.

And then there is that last bit you have been ducking since you claimed
it, "... There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

May we see that evidence please?

Apparently you are confuse on this as you are on the claim that there is
much research proving that children who are not spanked are at risk of
developing behaviors of "sociopathy."

Right after YOU prove your point first.

I offered my proof and you and Doan copped out.

Of course you can rush back and try to take up the argument again, but
there is none to the research offered. That conversation is now split
from this one. And it was two sentences you wrote. And two separate
claims: "... There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

Any refusal of any kind by you will be considered a cop out, Ken. That
you turned tail and ran.

Now it's your turn.

Your proof please.

By the way, you still afraid to have alt.dads-rights.unmoderated see
your posts?

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane

Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!

You are, of course, now lying.

You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.

I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
the piece you quote.

That would mean it applies to all three.

So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.

Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.

"...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
3 racial-ethnic groups."

"held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.

Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)

Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
know what it said, and you know what it meant.

You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.

If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
context of high levels of emotional support."'

Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

What pattern held, Doan?


Doan

Please don't display your propensity to lie so blatantly.

We all know you are bright enough to read and understand that simple
paragraph, which does not separate out any one of the three groups, and
the end sentence.

You cherry picked to lie. You aren't stupid.

You are just busted.

Kane

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane

Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!

You are, of course, now lying.

You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.

I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
the piece you quote.

That would mean it applies to all three.

Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
of low levels of emotional support"

So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.

I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!

Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.

"...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
3 racial-ethnic groups."

"held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.

*but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*

Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?

Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!


Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)

Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
know what it said, and you know what it meant.

Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!

You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.

To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!

If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
context of high levels of emotional support."'


Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

What pattern held, Doan?

Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems! What do you
think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane

Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
You are, of course, now lying.

You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.

I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
the piece you quote.

That would mean it applies to all three.

Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
of low levels of emotional support"

So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.

I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!

Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.

"...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
3 racial-ethnic groups."

"held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.

*but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*

Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?

Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
know what it said, and you know what it meant.

Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!

You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.

To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!

You cherry picked to show my stupidity?

How interesting.

You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.

It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.

It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
have a different reaction than white children.

If it did I'm sure you would point it out.

Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
other.

If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
context of high levels of emotional support."'


Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

What pattern held, Doan?

Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!

Yep. And for all the children, of all races.

What do you
think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?

It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.

So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
where, Doan?

Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
cherry picking dodge.


Doan

Kane

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane

Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
You are, of course, now lying.

You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.

I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
the piece you quote.

That would mean it applies to all three.

Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
of low levels of emotional support"

So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.

I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!

Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.

"...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
3 racial-ethnic groups."

"held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.

*but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*

Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?

Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
know what it said, and you know what it meant.

Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!

You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.

To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!

You cherry picked to show my stupidity?

How interesting.

You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.

I did - Which part of "NOT" don't you understand, STUPID!

It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.

It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
have a different reaction than white children.

Read the studies I've cited, e.g. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997).

If it did I'm sure you would point it out.

Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
other.

Where does it says that spanking is associated with increase in behavior
problems in the context of high levels of emotional support, Kane? That
was you claim and I pointed out was that claim is either STUPID or a LIE.
Which is it, Kane?

If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
context of high levels of emotional support."'


Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

What pattern held, Doan?

Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!

Yep. And for all the children, of all races.

NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support! Do you
understand that, STUPID?

What do you
think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?

It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.

So are you saying that the claim by you that the pattern held for both
high and low emotional support is ACCURATE? DON'T BE STUPID, Kane?

So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
where, Doan?

In the many studies I cited.

Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
cherry picking dodge.

Already did. Now are you going to answer my question of whether your
claim that the pattern held for both high and low emotional support?
I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-0

Doan