Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

"Doan" wrote in message
...

No, that is not true. I said the the statement is related to
correlation. It is, just as our claim is true. We are both correct, or
were, until you insisted that it has to be ONLY causal.

This might be over your head, Kane, but I'll try anyway: YOU CAN HAVE
CORRELATION WITHOUT CAUSALITY BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE CAUSALITY WITHOUT
CORRELATION! You are trying to move the posts again. You were
claimg the statement "x leads to y" can be correlation WITHOUT being
causal. So the claim "Spanking leads to Aggression" is a causal
statement, which cannot be supported by the evidence you provided!


He has NO IDEA what you are talking about. His ADD is a filter. To Kane you
and I sound like what the guy eating the cereal on the TV commercial hears,
only his own chewing in his ears. THAT is Kane!

I keep removing ADRU and the little prikk keeps adding it back to SUMMON his
back up troop Moore!

"0:-" wrote in message
news:zeCdne2nSbku5yjYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
freedom wrote:

http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/Attachment(1).jpg is archived on the site
because Ken e-mailed that file to me. I am not certain why. I do
concede
that it's very likely not a genuine scan of a written statement by his
ex-wife...rather, it looks as if someone typed this out in Word and then
pasted a graphic of her signature. (The word "Pangborn" is actually
underlined, as Microsoft Word will do when it finds an incorrect
spelling.)
My guess is that someone concocted this to pull Ken's chain, and he
assumed
(without proof, of course) that I was the author.

BULL****!

The marriage license was posted partially due to lies about a trip to
Cuba...and also to make the point that he spent his wedding day, and the
days following it, spamming to usenet, and therefore doesn't have much of
a
life.

Hopefully this clears things up...

Considerably I presume, but as Ken claims I'm your dog I'll take the time
to follow up and examine what you've posted and compare it to Ken's
pompous pronouncements and string of lies here.


You ARE his pooch Kane. The PROOF of the trip to Cuba can still be found at
the following LINK.

http://www.krpconsulting.net/trips_to_cuba.html



Why is this important? Because when I was in Cuba there was a torrent of
forgeries that were blamed on me BY Moore. However while I was in Cuba there
was NO internet access, not even any electricity where I was. When I let
loose in answer to Moore that I was out of the US and in a place where there
was NO access to the internet. Moore TRIED to claim that the images were
altered. One IDIOT claimed they were but admitted his ONLY basis for his
claim was NOT on any actual inspection of the actual images BUT based on his
claim that he knows some HIGH EXECUTIVE at American Airlines who told him
that there are NO flights to Cuba from the US and NONE by American Airlines.
HOWEVER - as I retorted then that claim is BULL**** and easily disproved by
showing that there ARE flights from Miami to Cuba and the charter company
uses Continental and American airlines:



http://www.abc-charters.com/



http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/travel_cuba.htm



http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp



Now IF I wanted to I could show other charters with direct flights to
Cuba from the US... Moore claims are just more of his MANY LIES! What is
amazing is that IF you ACTUALLY check HIS claims with what he has himself
you can see he's lying. LOOK at the marriage certificate. Where does it say
my wife is from?

Look at Box 8. Where does it say my wife is from??? ANTARCTICA?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:3O6dnayrN80glSjYnZ2dnUVZ_vipnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

On the question "X leads to Y," being limited to causal based research
and not being used for correlation studies, since I was called a liar
and "stupid," for claiming it is used for both types of research:
WHOA ASSHOLE! FOUL!
Let me know when your skid ends. Clean up the streak you left, then lets
discuss it.

I said that "X leads to Y" is a STATEMENT in CAUSATION. It is!

I have agreed with you every time you've made that statement.

It is NOT a correlational statement.

Here is where I disagree.

And where you go wrong.

You are incorrect. I am right. The logic can be used for either and I've
posted examples. The business one was a gem and very clear with all the
wording including your formula in exact form. X leads to Y, and the
claim their finding was correlation.

I don't see any narrative, not even a link, Kane. Come on, expose your
stupidity to us again, Kane! ;-)

Prove your claim that it isn't.

Let's start here with a wordy explanation.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...n-metaphysics/

I don't see any narrative.

I don't see yours, Kane.

Where is the quoted citation?

Where is yours, Kane?

Mmmm...where are the specific words that say X leads to Y is not used in
reporting correlation?

Where is the specific words that say "X leads to Y" can be used in either
causation or correlation WITHOU causation?

The term and condition correlation is used twice, and there is no
mention anywhere, about either cause or correlation and X and Y
connection. Though there IS a discussion of connection and correlation.

You have failed to carry you claim, again.


It isn't correlation because the statement stands for OUTCOME!!!

The statement stands for the outcome of cause. The statement is also
used to stand for the outcome of correlation.

Cause implied correlation, Kane. But you can have correlation without
cause.

"X leads
to Y!" OUTCOME is causantion NOT correlation.

No, "outcome" is either. Just as "X leads to Y" is used for both when
needed.

You've quoted nothing from the link above that supports your claim.

Where is your quotes to support your claim, Kane?

This is busy work on your part to keep me from pressing you to debate
the actual issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...ogical_fallacy)
Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in statistics to
indicate that correlation between two variables does not imply there is a
cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Its negation correlation
implies causation is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur
together are prematurely claimed to a cause-and-effect relationship. It is
also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore
because of this") and false cause.

That's an argument to point out correlation does not equal causation,
not "X lead to Y" being confined to cause logic.

And Ken, correlation is an outcome of research as referred to in the
reports generated.

If they claim cause, then it's a causal outcome. If they claim
correlation then, dear boy, it a correlation outcome.

Is English your native language?

Hihihi!

Cite some evidence not arising from your mind that is agreed on by the
research community.

I cited some that shows conclusively it is not limited to cause based
research, but is commonly used in correlational research as well.

No your cites did NOT support you as Doan and others have shown.

Others?

Who, our Boy Wizard Greg?

No, Doan does his usual "drop the context" and scream like a monkey
debating ploy. It doesn't prove a thing.

Hihihi! I proved that you are a STUPID LIAR, did I not?

He sit right there on his little monkey ass, and claim something is not
true, or is true, when the opposite is right there for people to read.

Hihihi! Taking cheap shots at me again, Kane? Have the courage to
face me, STUPID coward!

The term correlation is used with X and Y logic, and I have posted and
quoted, and linked exactly that.

No, you haven't. I have used your link to disprove that!

You are lying, and he's coming to your rescue.

You aren't man enough to tell him to butt out. I've requested that Ron
not join in the debate I keep inviting you to. And you have refused to
show up even when I conceded condition and offered to go with your
screaming and raging claim that I ran when you offered to debate by RRO.

Hihihi! I'll debate you Kane. Wanna take me on it?

Well, here I am offering to, and suddenly you have come up with yet
another ploy to dodge the debate.

And here I offering to debate you and you keep on running! ;-)


The statement that "Spanking leads to aggressing in children" is a
statement of OUTCOME! PERIOD.

You may stomp your foot as many times as you wish, and it will not
change the fact that the logic is also used for correlation and nothing
in the article or the wording support a claim that it is a statement of
CAUSE.

It's not a statement of CAUSE! Are you STUPID?

Dropping in the world "Outcome," after assigning "outcome" a bogus
restricted definition to serve your interests does not make it anything
but what it is, just a sad impotent little ploy on your part easily seen
through.

No, cause and correlation are both outcomes of research. Read a few
reports. Reports are statements of outcome. And there are reports that
are used to explain correlation as they result of the study or research.

The article is not causal, does not claim to be causal and arguments
about it by YOU are avoidance attempts.

So now you are saying "X leads to Y" is not causal? Are you this STUPID?

They are transparent and childish and foolish and stupid to keep
screaming at me.

Hihihi! Very adult of you, Kane!

I'm not impressed. Nor would I be if we were face to face.

I'm not sure if you are entertaining some delusion that ranting and
threatening frightens people into compliance or not, but it simply
doesn't work with me.

And just for the sheer pleasure of it, I'm going to prove once again,
that you and Doan are lying out your butt to butt assholes when you
claim my citations of proof for X leads to Y is used in correlation also.

At my post at -

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...d2574c4a1e7f79
http://tinyurl.com/2mmjsj,

- with the thread title "Correlation is not Causation" where I was
making the claim that correlation is a usual research outcome (R R R R)
I produced a list of studies that reported correlation, or clear
descriptions of an event being followed logically by another
precipitating event to show correlation.

And where does it says "x leads to y" is correlation, NOT causation?

One of those examples, the last, was extremely specific and prove the
use of correlation studies using the X leads to Y logic rule.

Here, child, it is: Inform Doan, when he gets his out of your ass and
yours out of his, that he is a liar, as always.

In fact krp, YOU were the bigger liar, as you were the person being
replied to as I showed you this citation this day, this morning:

http://www.bsu.edu/mcobwin/majb/?p=237

From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 10:33 am
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

... This measure provides insight into the nature of customer problems
and the firm's effectiveness in resolving these problems. First, the
company tracks the number of problems, and the specific areas in which
these problems occur (on-time delivery, product quality, etc.), and how
well they fix the problem. This allows the company to assess how well
they solve different types of problems. The company's data show a
strong correlation between effective problem resolution and customer
loyalty. This tool is particularly relevant when web-based surveys are
implemented that have advanced skipping logic. ...

[[[ Notice the use of the term "correlation," which is very correct in
this case. Notice that "effective problem resolution"=X, and "customer
satisfaction"=Y? That is one leads to the other? In fact the opening
sentence sets up an X leads to Y postulate. X=problems Y=effective
resolution ]]]

Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane! Are you claiming that "effective
problem resolution" is not the CAUSE of "customer satisfaction"???
SEE YOUR STUPIDITY NOW?

Thus, Ken, while

"X leads to Y" = causation study
"X leads to Y"= correlation study

I'm not just saying this, the research community is saying so. ...

Hahaha! You showed your STUPIDITY again!

If you wish to protest the bonifides of the author you might like to
look at the "about" page for this source.

http://www.bsu.edu/mcobwin/majb/?page_id=17

Housed at Ball State University, (have you a degree from there?), and
supported by the following schools of business:

Ball State University
Miller College of Business
Lynne Richardson, Dean
John Horowitz, Editorial Board



Central Michigan University
College of Business Administration
D. Michael Fields, Dean
Michael J. Pisani, Editorial Board



Miami University
Richard T. Farmer School of Business
Roger Jenkins, Dean
Douglas Havelka, Editorial Board



Northern Illinois University
College of Business
Denise Schoenbachler, Dean
Bill Cummings, Editorial Board


Ohio University
College of Business
Glenn Corlett, Dean
Ashok Gupta, Editorial Board



The University of Toledo
College of Business Administration
Thomas Gutteridge, Dean
Laurence Fink, Editorial Board



Western Michigan University
Haworth College of Business
David Shields, Dean
JoAnn Atkin, Editorial Board
joann.atkin@wmi

In addition it's list of article authors include some prominent names in
business and business research, that if you wish, I'll forward your
claims that their article stating an X leads to Y correlation tool was
used, is bogus and has to always be a causal statement.

Wow! Impressive! Did you write them and tell them they have shown
that "x leads to y" is not CAUSAL???

At this point, after the post I cited above in that thread, all
correspondence by you disappeared in this thread and you popped up
elsewhere screaming I had not provided proof and you and Doan proceeded
to call me stupid and a **** because I had provided proof that
discounted my claim.

Lying again, Kane? I called STUPID! I have not called you "a ****"! ;-)

Or did you just incidentally stop reading that thread. R R R RRRR R R RR

Can I expect you to run again and try the same tactic, pretending I did
not post what I did post?

Oh you posted what you posted, Kane. It doesn't mean you understand them.

Or will you continue your two man daisy chain insertion with Doan and
let your cries be muffled by your and his ****ty lies.

More **** out of your mouth again, Kane!

You have lied, and you have been caught. And the proof is on this page.

The proven STUPID LIAR here is you, Kane!

What silly tricks will you try next to attempt to dodge that you have
run from debate, lied to do it, and been caught at it?

The one running from a debate here is you, Kane. Go ahead, dare to
debate me?

You may have reached my capacity to deal with your simple repetition.

I figure when I've exposed you three times, that's the charm. I'm no
longer obligated ethically to continue exchanges with you.

A dodge!

This is your final chance to open the debate with me in SLTAC thread.

If you do not show there and engage in honest straight forward debate
providing the proofs you claim to have, you may consider that I hold you
to be a liar, and unethical, and that you have conceded the debate by
default.

Kane is the WINNER! Kane is the WINNER! Kane is the WINNER!

I suspect others would agree with me except for the liars I have also
proven here who might wish to disagree.

You wouldn't be taking cheap shots at me now, would you Kane? ;-)

Stomp your foot now and claim, falsely that I have run.

I just gave you ONE last chance.

Will you take it, or will YOU run because you know you do not have the
evidence you claim you do?

Or, can I expect silence from your posting name, krp, but a flood of
DIE! DIE! DIE! mailed letterbombing now from some other nym?

Kid, you are ****ED and you know it.

Ron gave you a kindly warning.

Hihihi! Ron will come to your rescue, Kane. I am sure of that! ;-)

Pompous ass that you have fully disclosed you are, you ignored and
scorned his warning.

This exchange will fade way, as you run further and further from it,
staying just long enough in this newsgroup to try and establish, by
lying, some other reality.

But it will be in the archives, as one more proof of your lack of honor,
and your unethical behavior on Usenet.

Yup, Kane. The "archives' is full of your LIES!

Some may even see fit to use my posts. I give full permission to use
them on the subject of Ken Pangborn and the subjects covered in the
titles, as long as they are printed fully and I receive full credit and
a CC to me so that I can enjoy reviewing them, and you, once again in
the future.

Hihihi! You are the "published researcher, Kane!

I'm happy to have served you so well, sir.

As always, 0:-)
Kane

Hooray for Kane! The greatest one ever lived! ;-)

krp wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings around.
The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having to answer
direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by others in
support of their claims, and generally to cause as much confusion as he
can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do so honestly.

Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

Endless debating ploys are red herrings.

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to BE
honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious, mislead,
misdirect, and outright lie.

By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

It's bull**** to ask that lies, diversions, and other evasions not be
accepted as debate?

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore.

BYE don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

He'll be here long after you've run out your string here as you have
elsewhere, Kan. Laughing in retrospect at yet another ****ant that came
through loud and stupidly to and out of this newsgroup, and is just an
object of comic relief.

Simple - the SAC dolls are bull****.

Red Herring

The cite of you and Kane that Ohio
v. Brown SUPPORTS
the use of the dolls while it does the EXACT OPPOSITE you
know RED HERRINGS LIKE THAT. MISDIRECTION like pointing out that your claims
are BULL****!

The bull**** is that you claim things that are not true.

For instance that I 'support' the use of SAC dolls because I haven't
rejected them yet given the conflict over them isn't resolved to my
satisfaction.

I neither support, nor reject. I wait to see what develops. Every time
you claim I support you are lying.

You would be if you claimed I rejected them.

I do neither. And have told you repeatedly this is so. Why do you lie
about it?

And while you get Moore's support as he puts my bank account info on the
net

You still have those accounts?

and you two CRETINS blame me for it. AMAZING!

Blame you? No, I asked you why, knowing that financial information is
crucial and should be part of your consulting with and advising men
involved in father's rights issues, you failed to protect yourself after
an event you should, as a professional, know puts your banking
information in the public domain.

As yet you have not answered my question, or admitted it was an error on
your part, correctly ONLY after Moore brought it to your attention.

I note you DID then do as you should have right after the bankruptcy
papers were filed......because only YOU can file for bankruptcy, Ken.

No one did anything at all TO you. YOU precipitated by filing for
bankruptcy and it's YOUR responsibility do your OWN self protection.
Moore is under no obligation to protect you.

If what he did resulted, directly in some criminal attack on your
treasure by way of that account ID information you'd have an argument.

All he did actually, was the favor of reminding you (incidental to his
actual purpose) you had forgotten an important money management issue.

Stop whining, and leave off the lying and excuse making.

Your crown of thorns is slipping.

0:-]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

krp wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings around.
The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having to answer
direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by others in
support of their claims, and generally to cause as much confusion as he
can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do so honestly.

Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

Endless debating ploys are red herrings.

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to BE
honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious, mislead,
misdirect, and outright lie.

By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

It's bull**** to ask that lies, diversions, and other evasions not be
accepted as debate?

Then why are you using them, Kane?

Doan

"krp" wrote in message
news:uIkth.5161$df3.4726@trnddc04...
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings around.
The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having to answer
direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by others in
support of their claims, and generally to cause as much confusion as he
can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do so honestly.

Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to BE
honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious,
mislead, misdirect, and outright lie.

By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore.

BYE don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Simple - the SAC dolls are bull****. The cite of you and Kane that Ohio
v. Brown SUPPORTS the use of the dolls while it does the EXACT OPPOSITE
you know RED HERRINGS LIKE THAT. MISDIRECTION like pointing out that your
claims are BULL****!


And while you get Moore's support as he puts my bank account info on
the net and you two CRETINS blame me for it. AMAZING!

I have never said anything about your banking accounts kenny. Not one word.
Another lie from you.

Facts are facts kenny, you can ignore them, but they dont go away.

Ron

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Ut6dnWyVVeOBESjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Yoiu mistake your own table pounding for proof. In fact your "proof"
fails totally to support your claims. TOTALLY! Just because there can
be a causal statement within a correlation article does NOT change the
FACT of what the statement IS.. Something you have a unique inability to
understand.

This is the subject of our discussion in "Spanking leads to Aggression."
I'm going to move it there. Please join me.

I doubt anyone that has read what I posted in support of my claim that
"X leads to Y," is also used in correlation buys your nonsense.
SMOKESCREEN. One can make a causal statement in an article on
correlation.
Yes they can.

BUT it does not make the statement one in CORRELATION SUMBASS!

No claim by me was made to that definition.

The establishment of whether or not a title meant to claim causation is
answered by the article it titles.

If you ask me if I have a Dalmatian, and I answer, "I have a dog" you
have to look at the dog or ask me another question.

If a title is used that can be defined as either referring to cause, or
correlation, and that one was, you have to ask another question to
determine which.

IN this case you ask the question of the content of the article titled.

Do you find any support for the title meaning "cause," Ken, or would you
like to keep milking this for all the diversion possible to avoid
answering the challenge to debate the article?

And answer with proof of our claim that there is research that supports
a "X lead to Y" in your statement, "Non-spanked children leads to those
children developing sociopathy behaviors"


If in fact X leads to Y is cause related only, then you made a claim
that there is research that shows causal outcomes.

You seem terrible confused as to language, both common and scientific.

It remains a
statement of CAUSATION regardless where you put it, and I can give you some
graphic suggestions.

No, the title remains, standing alone, not decipherable at all either
way. It must be one or the other, but you cannot find that without
reading the article.

If the article support cause intended outcomes from the hypotheses to
the conclusion, then of course the title must have been saying "cause."
If the article supports only correlation intended research methods then
the title meant to convey "correlation."

This is not rocket science, but it is, on your part, evasion, Ken.

What would be your point concerning the study?

Surveys are NOT "studies" as such.

Yes, they are studies, Ken. By use of a particular instrument rather
than another instrument for collection and measure.

They are SURVEYS.. Can a survey be
scientific? Yes, sort of, but they are NOT "studies" as such. When you use
the term "study" you should be referring to laboratory work.

No, that's more properly called experimentation. A different modality
than survey.

Both are scientific.

Do you know the definition of scientific?

You may wish to claim you don't accept causal outcomes from "survey,"
but it would be erroneous to claim you did so because they are not
scientific.

A survey can be unscientific of course, and we can laugh at them.
Polling is one of those. Easy to bias.

Surveys for peer reviewed publication are not conducted by polling.

The demographic targets must conform to controls, for instance, that are
not present in polling as a rule.

A well known and frequently practiced survey method is to survey the
available literature on a subject. And do so within scientific
determined definitions, and draw conclusions ... most usually
correlative but even surveying cause based research published material.

You would be doing a scientific survey and could submit to being
reviewed for publication and make it, in fact.

Your knowledge on these and related subject, Ken, I suspect is something
you quickly do a search on to attempt to sound knowledgeable and
erudite. You miss the mark badly.

You do understand, do you not, that the article content in question is
drawn from a report from a peer reviewed journal, right?

Hence we can assume the study, survey, passed the rigorous test for
being a recognized scientific model.

I understood that yours was a statement in rebuttal of the title. How does
this do so?

Since you obviously are not going to debate the content of the article,
Ken, because you cannot, being a stupid pud, and you are dishonest, I
find that arguing in this fashion, over definitions, most engaging and
fulfilling, intellectually.

I could wish for a tougher correspondent, but hey, in Usenet you get
what you get. 0:-

No dummy - my objection to the article is that it FAILS to establish
causation by a mile even though the "ARTICLE" makes a claim in causation.

Please point to that part of the article...not the title, as have lost
your claim there long ago, if anyone has followed us here.

Point to the part of the article where it shows the study was one
conducted as a causal study with cause claimed in the outcome.

It
FAILS to support that spanking inmdeed DOES "CAUSE" aggression in children.

It doesn't try to claim cause.

It simply reports that they found, by survey, information that shows
what we would normally call a correlation. Children who were spanked,
regardless of the culture's level of acceptance of CP, as reported by
the mother, and apparently the child as well, claimed more aggression
than children who were less spanked.

If you have a problem with the language of the article, then you need to
read to report and the research notes, and use them to rebut the article.

Or you can use logic and factual information regarding what it actually
says, and show that it cannot be accurate.

Or, in the end, simply agree that it claims what it claims and runs
counter to your opinion.

In any case, you have refused actual debate on the actual content, so
you have no where to go but to continue to rant a falsehood....that X
leads to Y is confined solely to defining causal outcomes and is not
used for outcomes that are based on correlation.

That is simply not true. I've posted from reports of research that
indeed USE the X to Y model and state clearly they are finding
correlation outcomes.

Ot also REALLY fails to demonstrate valid correlation IMHO.

And you draw this conclusion based on what?

If you wish to claim that, you need to find some support. Possibly in
reading the report in it's original rather than in the article.

Personally I'm not that interested in debate on the article per se but
on the report it is drawn from.

We seem to be a very long way from there so far. Have you read the
actual report out of the research by it's authors?

I have not. That is why I'm open to debate...or was until you began with
error and compounded your error with egregious lies, repeatedly.

It is a SURVEY
of mothers in various countries for their OPINIONS about the effect on their
kids.

Well that deserves two answers to cover our paradoxical claim.

No, it did not ask for opinions. I suspect it asked about the child's
behavior, and the interviewer scored how many times aggressive behavior
was reported by the mother as being SEEN. A science based interview
method would work in that fashion, normally.

And ...

Yes, the conclusions are based on that in
formation gathered in that way. Have you done any work with survey
instruments?

It's possible to abuse the scientific method with them, and conversely
to be in compliance with them (as peer reviewed publication is supposed
to protect) and have a set of questions that tend strongly to weed out
misinformation and false positives, as well as false negatives.

An example might be, "How long after you've spanked your child (here NOT
having even asked IF they spank) does he or she show any aggression
toward his or her toys, pets, siblings or other children, or adults?"

Your question presumes aggression.

The respondent would have to answer with a negative to show useful
information. A "hot" answer for a non-spanking parent would be, "I don't
spank."

A hot answer for a spanking parent would be to not even mention IF they
do or not but give ANY time interval answer at all.

You can see how this could be, if the interviewer were trained to give
signals as to desired answers, abused as a method. But then about all
scientific method CAN be abused.

That's what peer review is about.

NOT the best source for factual data. Better than guessing.

Actually it's far far better than guessing if it's design and
application is scientific. That's why it has value and is used.


AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN I have laid out to you what WOULD be
valid.

No, you gave one example only, though it might appear in attributions
multiple times. But that's not moot.

I have challenged you to provide even ONE source that meets the
criteria and all we get is more banyard bull****.

I challenged you to provide rebuttal in the form of the article's
content, or better if you wish. You are still debating the form and not
producing contrary results...what I asked for. And what my challenge
consisted of.

Setting up unreachable goals for the opposition in debate is clever, but
seen easily as an evasion to provide YOUR proof.

Where is this model of yours used that showed outcomes that confound the
claim of Spanking leads to aggression in Children?

Do you have a spanking does NOT lead to aggression study tucked away
somewhere and if so why have you danced around and not produced it in
rebuttal of the article I posted?

Why continue to debate the definitions when the product would carry your
argument?

I'm perfectly comfortable with YOU producing an outcome based on YOUR
model to challenge the report article. You simply haven't produced it yet.

That it CAN overturn my claim and the article is very possible.

Please produce the study that does so.

It is simple, the 3 groups
of kids, using scientific measures to see the REAL level of aggression in
the kids and then doing a statistical plot to see IF the spanked kids really
do fall above the mean.

Okay, where is it?

Opps! You are doing that nasty little thingie you do below that is not
on topic.

Your example does not address aggression, it attacks a model of argument.

I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.

I find this SOOOO amusing. You do not see the possibility to change the
correlation test to then us LOW positive responses as an indicator of
ACTUAL ABUSE?

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, say X, and
all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that
the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X.

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to sex doll use
interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.

Do you have a link to this information as prime source?
Or even a scientific or professional periodical (I'm not even insisting
on the peer reviewed research itself)?

While I put this argument aside some time ago, you have piqued my
interest by bringing it up again. I've not seen this test.

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to have
a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.

Now we know, if we accept your description, that in such tests the
molested kids show fewer responses. HOT DAMN, Ken, you could be
instrumental in children that have been molested being helped, and real
molesters caught and dealt with by the law. Or a therapeutic regimen.

If this turns out to be true and will replicate, you could be named as a
contributor....I'm going to put this in a separate thread, just to
highlight it.

I sooo want you to have some success, and lay down that crown of thorns,
and climb down off that cross.


THAT is why you are having problems finding courts
that accept their use.

I wasn't aware I was attempting to.

That would make you correct, but only as a non sequitur ploy.

In FACT - following the fiasco in the McMartin Case,
California will throw out testimony of experts who have used them. That's
true of several other states as well. There are strong "indications" Kane
that use of the dolls may "CONTAMINATE" child interviews, see Ceci;
Clark-Stewart; Loftus et al.

The word "may" carries your claim away from affirmation completely.

As I said, Ken, and you just proved by use of that qualifier, the issue
of the use of the dolls is unresolved scientifically and in the field.

That does NOT (you frigging idiot) change the nature of the STATEMENT!

I have not claimed a change at all. Only that the statement, "Spanking
leads to Aggression in Children" is, as you yourself claim the article is
about, correlation.

The article makes a stab at correlation and fails MISERABLY!

What particular things in the article would you be referring to?

The
argument is your claim that "X leads to Y" can be a statement in
correlation NOT a statement of cause WITHIN an article speaking to
correlation.

So you aren't arguing that the article fails to support the claim of
correlation, but instead my statement concerning cause?

I did not claim cause. I claimed correlation only. Nothing in the
article suggest a claim of causal outcome. Hence I'm consistent and you
seem not to be.

But the title suggest that it established a CAUSAL LINK abd it
failes even to establish a provable correlation.

No, the title makes no claim either way. The formula, a good example of
yours by the way, is used in both research outcome models, cause and
correlation. Hence one has to read the article to discover which.

We can begin with a probability, roughly, that survey instrument based
research on human subjects, especially concerning behavior after an
event (X leads to Y) is highly unlikely to be postulated as cause.

Social scientists no better, especially of this caliber, than to attempt
it or claim it.

It is a simple matter of congruence. It would be "silly" science to
begin with a causal premise in the hypothesis in such a research model.

Then one has to look, if they have decided that it's silly science and
claiming causal outcomes, for claims that would support that argument.

Upon finding none, then they can easily and confidently presume that the
title means "correlated to" as in, X is correlated to Y. Exactly what is
claimed.

It "could" be a causal statement, but nothing in the article pretends to
be about cause. As surveys do not lend themselves at all to that research
discipline.

JUST THE TITLE - - "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION!"

Finally got you to admit it is a statement of CAUSATION!!

I didn't say that. I said, that it can be either cause or correlation.

And that is a fact. I have proven it with recent citations with links to
the material. You and Doan have lied and said the evidence offered
proves the opposite. That x leads to y must be only causal. It does not.

The lie of Doan and you was done by contextual abortion to further your
own benefit on the issue. You refuse to read and report those instances
where in fact, correlation was linked to X leads to Y.

You see to be talking about this at the expense of examining the body of
the article.

Your p[roblem Kane is that I DID examine it and I even QUOTED from it
that defeats even the notion of correlation.

Your logic did not hold for a couple of reasons. The most obvious is
what has gone from error to compounded and complex lying about what the
logical formula X leads to Y means.

As long as you hold to that lie any further claims by you related to it,
cause OR correlation are suspect to say the least, and highly likely to
be nothing more than building with sand upon a sand foundation.

Begin with a lie, and your house falls pretty quickly, Ken, as yours has.

Everyone can see that you have lied. Doan is lying to try and prop up
your sand house. That is on public display as well.

Both of you have failed miserably.

Go back, correct your error, and see if you can proceed from there.

It is plain that One - X leads to Y can be and is used for correlation
outcomes. It is not exclusive to cause.

Two - nothing then, in the body of the article is effected by the title
unless it claims cause.

From there you can proceed to show what you claim...that it fails to
adequately support a correlation of X leads to Y, Spanking Leads to
Aggression in Children.

Saying it doesn't support he premise is a claim that is unfinished, as
in "unsupported by evidence."

You could start even at the relatively low level of a science periodical
reporting on a scientific report from peer reviewed research that shows
otherwise.

I have asked you to even match the article in this way and you have not.
You simply keep repeating claims founded on an error in defining the
title and its relation to the article.

Then you compounded your error by lying about it, even accepting support
from a known habitual determined liar himself, who lied for you. And now
you continue, in the face of irrefutable evidence quoted and linked for
fact checking, that says clearly X leads to Y was used by them for their
study that produced a correlation outcome.

To continue to insist you have not erred, and that X leads to Y MUST be
and can ONLY be causal is foolish. And childish.

You remind me of little Billy. Upon hearing a crash from the kitchen mom
runs in and find billy standing with one hand behind his back, cookie
crumbs down the front of his Mickey t-shirt, a broken cookie jar on the
floor, cookies broken and crumbled scattered about and mom yells at him,
'Did you do that!!!"

Ken's rep...opps, Billy's reply? "No," in a tiny little voice, delivered
while looking at the floor. "Then who DID!?" yells mom.

"The kitty did it." replies K...., sorry, Billy.

"Billy, we don't HAVE A KITTY. Where IS this kitty?"

"He went out the window," whispers Billy.

"BILLY THE WINDOW ISN'T OPEN," exclaims mom.

Can you guess Billy's next lie?

"CAUSE HE CLOSED IT BEHIND HIM."

Billy is trying to sell cause, when the closest he could possibly come
to the truth would be correlation, and he'd have to point to some cat
fur even to get started.

Ken, you are Billy.

You have been caught repeatedly in your lies, and you simply keep
dreaming up yet another dodge, including lying about what you said, what
I said, and sadly, the sorriest one of all, "But you MEANT I COULD HAVE
A COOKIE."

No child. I did not claim that X leads to Y can only be used to denote
correlation.

Nor did I say that X leads to Y can't be causal inference.

Nor did I claim that correlation does not exist within causal studies.

These are all lies, in the Red Herring fallacious argument attempt
style, to divert from the central issues....my challenge to you to
produce, Ken, not blather, but to produce at least the same level of
claims and their support this article provides that would refute this
article.

And from you so far...nothing on that order whatsoever.

I also asked, and you keep carefully stepping around repeated requests,
that you back your claim that non spanking of children results in
'sociopathy'behaviors in those children.

You will lie, you will ignore, and you will run and bluster, screaming
accusations but you will NOT produce.

Trying to explain WHY that
comment on the lower results in societies where spanking is the cultural
norm is like trying to explain the controls of a 747 to a Baboon!

I don't find your opinion a matter of logical debate.

That
statement NEGATES the correlation.

Excuse me? YOUR claim was that this article was an attempt, failed, to
show CAUSE, based on your definition of the title meaning.

Can I presume you now agree that you erred and that this is indeed an
attempt to show correlated outcomes?

Because IF there were either a causal
relationship as the TITLE falsely proclaims or even a correlation -

I'm sorry, but I cannot debate to a lie. I have shown you were
incorrect, and that Doan is lying for you, and that you are compounding
your error by lying yet again.

societal
norms would have ZERO effect on the incidence of aggression.

Then why did they report that in fact it did have the correlation of an
effect...that Spanking(X) leads to (correlates to) Aggression in
Children(Y)?

Are you saying they lied? That they have no information to support their
statement of finding that across all the cultures, the parents reported
more aggression when children were spanked than when not?

Your problem is
that I DID read it and unlike you understood where its flaws are.

I am waiting for something other than your opinion on those supposed flaws.

Since they made no causal presumptions, you are off to a bad start.

And since you have not shown their methods or hypothesis to be
unscientific you are further behind in your support of your claims that
they fail to show correlation by way of failed methods.

They simply reported what they found.

Your task, to rebut, that you seem to be attempting, would be to show
both how their methods or hypothesis are wrong for the claims, and if
you wish, to put forward another International study that refutes theirs.

Or, and I'd be even more interested, putting forward a rebuttal by a
peer with his or her argument confounding their claims.

I do NOT consider you a peer of theirs, nor have you produced anything
that a scientific reviewer would present. Not a responsible one at any
rate.

I'd like to move on to the article now, unless you truly feel the title
is misleading and meant to be so.

The title alone defeats the credibility of the article.

Since it can be correlation I fail to see, nor do I accept, your
position on this matter.

Thhe article
pretends

You been taking lessons at the Greg School of Syntax, have you?

to establish a correlation,

It either does or it doesn't attempt to establish. You can't "pretend"
or you have negated your claim immediately, as valid. They attempted, sir.

but the authors title the article in
CAUSATION - not a really good hope for good science within.

Sorry. Lies are not accepted as argumentation in my book.

No such presumption of the title can be or has been supported by you and
my definition of the title's possible one of correlation has been proven
in citation from highly authoritative sources...scientists themselves
using the title formula in correlation research.

But the article
is furhtr flawed by the entire manner in which it was done.

Oh, this should be good.

A survey of
mothers.

Error alert. They interview mothers and children.

And then they ignore FACTS they come accross that should have
warned them they were barking up the wrong tree of conclusions.

Which facts would that be?

And how can they be ignoring them if the have come across them and
recorded them for you to note?

Do you mean they assign a meaning to them you do not agree with, as in
your opinion?

AGAIN if
there were a REAL correlation - then there would be NO effect due to
societal norms.

The point, Ken, is that they FOUND such after accounting for societal
norms. The POINT was to test the effect the varying norms had on the use
of spanking(X) and it's outcome, aggression(Y) with Z being the
variables that were supposed to confound the claim that because
different cultures have different views on the acceptableness of the use
of CP, they would be correlated to a constant rate of aggression in
children to those norms.

It turns out they claim they found that indeed the linking did follow to
some degree, but confounded the idea that aggression would not remain
constant in relation to the acceptance(Z), but resulted in children
being spanked producing aggression no matter where in what culture it
occurred, thus, the claim or finding of correlation of X leading Y,
despite a supposed constant within a culture, and a variable Z from
culture to culture being considered.

The fact that there was a "dramatic" difference SHOULD have
alerted the authors that it wasn't the spanking itself that was leading to
the aggression but something else.

You assume they did not adjust for this?

Have you ever taken and extensive survey as interviewee?

Notice the questions that don't make much sense to you? Some of those do
not...they are fog. Some are key to establishing a matrix to work out
accounting for those 'something else' effecting the outcome.

Facts the suthors IGNORED.

You are speculating. Going outside the article to speculate on content,
would normally require you find the source and report what you found
that supports the claim the the "suthors IGNORED."[sic]

Have you found something I haven't seen? If we are fact finding as
proof, as we no doubt would come to when we've exhausted the article
itself, and possibly a similar article tendered by you in rebuttal, we
would be obliged to precede to the source notes, and reports by the
authors.

I'm not as yet prepared to, nor feel the requirement, to go there. for
one it costs, and I'm not going to invest in more research (I have a lot
already and it's costly) on this new subject as long as my opponent
relies on lying and silly science and his opinion based in illogic and a
paucity of language skills.

It would be wasted.

As such it
places the claims (conslusions) of the aryicle firmly in the realm of JUNK
SCIENCE in my opinion.

Ah, of course. Your opinion.

I have many of those. They are important to me, because I know what I
base them on. They are not as important to others, until we have had
sufficient exchange and I've provided enough logic, facts, and been
scrupulous about honesty of claims, for my opinion to matter.

You fail that test.

I do not accept your opinion as yet. That is an EARNED right. Not a
required one by demand.

It hardly seems likely the Scientific periodical meant to mislead, and
most certainly the researchers did not, so the point is moot.

God dammmmmittt! "Science daily" is HARDLY a "Scientific" periodical as
such, not when one thinks of Scientific Journals, it's like Psychology
Today, pop psychology for latrine attendants. Some stuff is very good, some
stuff is raving bull****. Like - er - SEX ADDICTION for one.

You claimed it was Parade Magazine.

Scientific journals with peer reviewed articles don't print any on Sex
addiction pro or con?

If the articles they print do not come from peer reviewed sources being,
well, reviewed by them, then I can judge the merits as less than when
they do cite, and link which I appreciate, peer reviewed material.

This article wasn't on SA, nor pop psychology.

And all periodicals that rely on income from advertising must have
lighter weight material included to attract more readers...thus
increasing fees for advertising.

It's only fair to alert you to the fact this is one area of professional
expertise for me.

The research report itself is the issue, not the title.

IT IS NOT BFUKLKKKKKKKKING "RESEARCH" as such.

I said "research report." Your quickness to blow out emotionally must
have overcome your reading comprehension for a bit. Back up, read again.
And thanks.

IT WAS A DAMNB SURVEY OF
MOTHERS ON THEIR OPINIONS!

That is was, peer reviewed and published elsewhere in an appropriate
journal for the profession.

It meet the standards of scientific scrutiny, or it would not be there.

The periodical wrote from their report...the researchers.

Does this make sense yet, to you, or are you still back at, "...
BFUKLKKKKKKKKING?"

Ah then, here is your answer to my question above. You are.

Gof I feel like I want to take you by the neck
and beat your head against a cement wall till you get it!

I find this odd, as I myself described this from early in the thread,
SLTAC, as a survey of mothers and children, across cultures. The article
says so. Trust me, I went to the trouble of reading it.....smile

And I'd like to include the other claim you made along with
consideration of this report on spanking and aggression in children.

The claim is that SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION in Children. NO PROOF!

No it is not. Your claim fails on your lack of proof from either the
content or the title. I have proven, by citing and linking to,
scientists using X leads to Y, for correlation outcomes, in their own
words, Ken, even using YOUR logic formula of X leads to Y.

You are becoming increasingly tiresome in your yelling foot stomping
demands that I accept an error and falsehood you are promulgating here.

The
article FAILS to prove it.

It does not attempt to establish "cause," Ken, only correlation. That is
the nature of survey on humans research.

Damn it Kane in "debate" when you offer your
claim and state your support for it - if your support fails the debate is
OVER.

Yours then was over upon your first post to the SLTAC thread.

You made claims. You failed to support the first one, by lying erring on
the title meaning, then compounded the error by lying about it and
allowing another lie to lie about it in your defense.

You have gone on to completely ignore my challenge to the second
sentence in your paragraph, "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."

When I know there is no credible scientific research to support an
opinion of mine and I challenge you, we get to have a war of words and
minds (you being excused from the latter) that hopefully would rest on
honesty, if not politeness (I don't require that from opponents that are
not debating me).

When we start using words such as "debate" I expect what you demanded of
me, though it was not my turn.

I gave evidence. So I expect only evidence at or above the level I
submitted.

You have provided neither. You have, as you admitted earlier in this
post, to stating your opinion, and CLAIMING you had evidence but not
being willing to SUBMIT IT.

I submitted the article. You give me your opinion of the article.

That's nice, but not debate in the strictest sense.

ILLUSTRATION for this debate:

KANE: SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN - Article offered as proof.

KP: Article FAILS do prove the claim.

Neither I nor the article has said, (my emphasis) that Spanking CAUSES
Aggression in Children. Surveys do not lend themselves to claims of
outcomes that are causal. This one did not make such a claim.

Have you caught your tail yet?

DEBATE OVER - YOU LOSE!

Your left foot must be getting sore. I recommend orthopedic shoes and
shifting to your right for a few hundred stomps.

In a formal debate when I came back and showed how your source failed to
support the original claim,

You erred as to the original claim, and have even gone to misquoting me
about it, and misquoting the article as well.

I cannot debate a lie nor the liar the lies them.

an "independent judge" woult then look at the
article and my point in rebuttal.

Got one?

If I am right the debate is OVER and I
win.

I take it this is a declaration then you are going to find an
independent judge.

IF I am wrong - then the burden would shift to me to put forth support
for my position that there no vausal link between the two.

Strawman, Red Herring, and error/lie all rolled up into a dog **** taco.

Okay, let's see you eat it now.

BUT in a case
like this we never get that far.

Yep. Lying stops all semblance of "debate."

We are just having a war of wits and half wits. I hold first position so
far.

You want SPECIAL RULES for yourself where
YOU have ZERO burden and I have ALL the burden.

I have at no point assigned YOU burdens that I do not have.

The imbalance you feel has nothing to do with the burdens, but with the
lack of strength to carry them.

If you are disabled I will discuss being handicapped to further level
the field.

What handicap would you propose to make our respective burdens have
equal effect on us, you the weakling, and I the athlete. 0:-]

All I needed to do was show
that the article failed the original proposition - that being that
"SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS."

That would be a great start.

Show where the original postulate (more properly) was "SPANKING CAUSES
AGGRESSION IN KIDS."

It is a glorious shouting Strawman, but not my argument.

I said, as the title does, 'leads to.'

Leads to can be, and is supported by the article itself as, a
correlation. Typical of human interview survey studies.

Not only did I do THAT - I also

Yes, I saw the wonderful energy you put into reducing it to a large pile
of straw. So?

establishged that even a correlation is on extremely shakey ground.

No, that you failed utterly to do. You even gave up that you were
voicing your opinion, as I recall.

You provided no logic to support that it was a weak correlation.

That would be a claim that would have to go outside the article and
examine the source report, and possibly go on to the research notes
themselves.

Since you are spending so much time lying I will not call this a debate
until YOU have paid for a copy of the research yourself for both of us.

You've slightly annoyed me, Ken. And I don't respond well to people
claiming to be debating and instead lying repeatedly. And failing to
admit and clarify error.

And Ken, I DO decide my terms for how, and under what conditions I'll
accept an argument by another as "debate."

YOU are not required to follow them, of course. But I am not obliged to
pretend myself, and to adhere to, rules of debate unless you fully
participate as I expect myself to.

Stop the lies, stop the declarations of winning when so obviously you
have not.

Admit error when presented with authoritative evidence from outside
sources, and debate on the new for you definitions that have been proven.

Damned simple for honest people to do, Ken.

Honest people aren't afraid of losing, or being proven wrong.

You appear to have a pathological reaction to even the slightest chance
of it.

It seems so closely linked, for if children truly are at risk of
developing 'sociopathy' behaviors as a result of not being spanked, than
any children participating with their parents in this survey would be
poor subjects and it might nullify the research all together. So I'm
anxious to see your scientific proof, and put the report to the test.

First of all UNLIKE YOU I didn't make that kind of claim.

Ah, we ARE going to move on to this subject? Did you then find a
probable tool for dodging?

I love a mystery. Don't tell me let me guess.....My bet is you'll quote
something else to do a goal post shift and won't support your original
claim, thus being able to call ME unfairly placing a burden on you but
not on myself...or something like that..

Ah, yes, right again as I see after paging up and reading the narrative
below.

I said there
were "indicators that sociopathy has incresaed in the population in almost
direct proportion to the disfavor for spanking" in children.

Yes, you said that, and I did not challenge that. Yet another Strawman?
Hell, Ken, you live to argue out of quick searches on google, incomplete
as they are. Why not look up logical fallacies and learn some new more
elegant and sophisticated ones and pitch them.

I'd love a real challenge. It helps keep my aging brain sharp. Don't
ever believe that aging brains need to be failing brains.

My theory is that misused brains fail....like relying on lies to further
arguments, and failing to thoroughly research the issues in a claim
before making that claim.

UNLIKE YOU I
made NO causal claims.

Unlike you I would not lie and claim you made a causal claim when you
had not.

On the other hand, you did as to the definition of X leads to Y being
only Causal.

Game, set, match.

Don't you get tired of calling "do overs" after ten or so defeats on a
subject?

I also was cautious of stating a factual COREALATION.

You were more 'cautious' about supporting your attack of the
"COREALATION"[sic] that you had previously claimed was not there, but
was in fact an attempt at a causal outcome claim.

If you can't sort out your own words, and claims, Ken, how am I expected
to think you can sort out mine, without lies and errors?

To say there are indicators or even "strong indicators" is NOT making a
statement of cause or even a direct relationship.

You just pretended to claim to exclaim to prove to pretend....RR R R R R
that you were about to attack "COREALATION"[sic] but now are back to
the "it ain't a cause based study as they are claiming" strawman ploy?

And you are wrong. Attempting, so clumsily, to hide "correlation" behind
the phrase, "direct relationship" is laughable.

Yes, Ken, a claim of "indicators or even "strong indicators" by the
authors if they said that, does indeed to go to a 'direct relationship'
read "correlation."

However I think they are
related.

Can you also dance the Hokey Pokey?

I also made clear that such research, being EXTREMELY politically
incorrect, has NOT been done to prove any link.

I don't recall that. Can you run this by us again, and explain, clarify,
what you mean by such research, and politically correct?

Are you suggesting that academics of the obvious caliber I am going to
paste here in a moment, are all simply lying to further a political cause?

And if so that that is a bad thing politically?

You do realize what shaky ground that puts spanking proponents on, and
none are of this caliber of researcher, or from such prestigious schools.

It passed peer review, least you forget.

That tends very strongly to discourage bias slipping into the
conclusions and even the methods.

Do you understand how research is proposed? And the rigorous examination
by the sponsors (universities usually) before a responsible researcher
sets out to the the university's money to conduct the research?

Do you know what a disciplined review consists of?

Do you KNOW that in academia people come to BLOWS and long rancorous
conflict for years, sometimes for life, over those reviews?

It's a given that one's peers will beat the hell out of one, by pounding
the research into a pulp, and God help you if they find political bias.

And I'm an atheist and still shudder at the thought of peer review.

Ron, once again I will point out to you, since you seem to like straw so
much, you are in over your head, badly, and you are drowning and those
bits of straw are NOT going to float you.

I leave to YOPU to make
ABSOLUTE and DOGMATIC claims. I just ventilate your bull****.

In fact I make claims with a great many hedges included if I make them
in debate. I will kick out the jams in sharing my opinion, just like
you, but if someone wishes to switch to debate, and does shift to lying
as you have, I'm quite happy to leave opinion behind for the duration.

As to ventilating anyone's bull****, you have no gun. What are you
using, your nose?

Are you done with that dog**** taco yet?

I guess we could presume that the less children are spanked the MORE
likely they are of developing those unwanted behaviors you spoke of.

Let's look, shall we, in full context of my comment, Ken. No blame, just
compensating for the natural problem in the "call and response" style of
posting, where meanings can be lost by remoteness of the last comment.

Here is what I said, and I'm going to trust you did not snip anything in
between:

It seems so closely linked, for if children truly are at risk of
developing 'sociopathy' behaviors as a result of not being spanked,
than
any children participating with their parents in this survey would be
poor subjects and it might nullify the research all together. So I'm
anxious to see your scientific proof, and put the report to the test.
[[[ adding my last statement in order ]]]
I guess we could presume that the less children are spanked the MORE
likely they are of developing those unwanted behaviors you spoke of.

Let's NOT "presume" or "suppose" let's try to deal with FACTS.

I am, of course, responding to you "sociopathy" claim withe exactly
that, a fact based argument, and pointing out the possible logic
presented by YOU, that survey methods might not work in proving YOUR
claim of non-spanked children developing such behaviors thereby.

Are you not then claiming in your non-spanked child comment that
children who are spanked are less likely to present with "sociopathy"
behaviors?

I was actually hoping you'd clarify.

So, what ARE the facts, about your comment, and have I mistaken your
meaning by my comment about less spanking the more sociopathy?

And if you are opening this subject now to debate, please keep in mind
it ends with the very first lie you tell.

Errors of course won't stop a debate, but refusal in the face of
authoritative accessible (Links please) evidence to the contrary will
turn it right back into an opinion battle.

Any time you wish to do a weasel hole dive you can keep that in mind.

You have the power to stop ME from debating, just by that simple
maneuver. Lie, or refuse to admit obvious error upon proof, and I'm
stymied.

Does if feel good to have such power?

Kane

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:zeCdne2nSbku5yjYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
freedom wrote:

http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/Attachment(1).jpg is archived on the site
because Ken e-mailed that file to me. I am not certain why. I do
concede
that it's very likely not a genuine scan of a written statement by his
ex-wife...rather, it looks as if someone typed this out in Word and then
pasted a graphic of her signature. (The word "Pangborn" is actually
underlined, as Microsoft Word will do when it finds an incorrect
spelling.)
My guess is that someone concocted this to pull Ken's chain, and he
assumed
(without proof, of course) that I was the author.

BULL****!

The marriage license was posted partially due to lies about a trip to
Cuba...and also to make the point that he spent his wedding day, and the
days following it, spamming to usenet, and therefore doesn't have much of
a
life.

Hopefully this clears things up...

Considerably I presume, but as Ken claims I'm your dog I'll take the time
to follow up and examine what you've posted and compare it to Ken's
pompous pronouncements and string of lies here.


You ARE his pooch Kane.

I've asked nothing of you I haven't of him. Simply post what you have
for proof of a claim.

How does that then make me his pooch and not yours? Because I question
YOU, the mighty Kendra rather than simply take your word?

Tough ****.

The PROOF of the trip to Cuba can still be found at
the following LINK.

http://www.krpconsulting.net/trips_to_cuba.html

Post the proof HERE. I don't visit certain websites.

Why is this important? Because when I was in Cuba there was a torrent of
forgeries that were blamed on me BY Moore.

Post the dates, with proof, of both his claims and your trip.

Moore, I expect you to do the same, especially if Ken dodges and won't,
and simply make more claims with out posting supporting evidence.

However while I was in Cuba there
was NO internet access, not even any electricity where I was.

Ken, I won't insult even your limited intelligence by asking you to
prove you were in a position were you had no electricity or could not go
to some place in Cuba where you could get it and could get a hookup to
use AOL.

When I let
loose in answer to Moore that I was out of the US and in a place where there
was NO access to the internet.

No matter where you were, there is no proof you can offer, nor will I
ask for it, that you could not get access.

You have a null argument. Not a negative, just null.

Sorry, discounted and all argument related to it because neither of us
can prove or disprove your claimed Internet inaccessibility.

Moore TRIED to claim that the images were
altered.

One doesn't try to claim, Ken, one claims or they don't. You mean, if I
understand you correctly, that he claimed something you disagree with
and say if false.

One IDIOT claimed they were but admitted his ONLY basis for his
claim was NOT on any actual inspection of the actual images BUT based on his
claim that he knows some HIGH EXECUTIVE at American Airlines who told him
that there are NO flights to Cuba from the US and NONE by American Airlines.

All this is hearsay a this point I believe. And the evidence available
at this point is lacking from you and in place from Moore. I still have
questions for Moore to authenticate, but where I have asked, he has
willingly discounted his evidence (Nulled it out) for lack of a way to
authentic.

You have not even produced the evidence to be examined.

I don't follow links to websites, to allow harvesting information about
me, Ken.

I expect the claimant to post the evidence HERE, and if there is some
off his website to point to it. If not, I'll consider the evidence in
isolation on its own merits.

Same goes for Moore. Though somehow I feel much safer with him. Can't
imagine why, given your treatment of my, my words, and argument on
another matter in these newsgroups.

HOWEVER - as I retorted then that claim is BULL**** and easily disproved by
showing that there ARE flights from Miami to Cuba and the charter company
uses Continental and American airlines:

Did Moore make the claim there were not flights?

I find it irrelevant in fact, for this argument now, because the claim
you make that you could not access the Internet has no proof we can
examine.

I'm not saying you could or couldn't but only that you have no proof you
couldn't.

Were you in Oriente'


http://www.abc-charters.com/



http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/travel_cuba.htm



http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp


I'm not arguing you couldn't have gone to Cuba and I haven't seen Moore
argue it, though you are free to quote him, and it still will not prove
you were out of range of the Internet.

You could create a series of posts, climb aboard El guagua and motor
into a city, walk or taxi to a source, link up, post, and begone. It
could double as a shopping trip.

Use anonymous proxie and or re-mailers and you are all set.

I'm not saying you did, I'm saying your claim does not support it being
impossible.

Who knows the trouble you might go to. Examples of energetic convoluted,
if clumsy, attempts to deceive are all over these newsgroups.

Now IF I wanted to I could show other charters with direct flights to
Cuba from the US... Moore claims are just more of his MANY LIES! What is
amazing is that IF you ACTUALLY check HIS claims with what he has himself
you can see he's lying. LOOK at the marriage certificate. Where does it say
my wife is from?

You said someone claimed the no flights to Cuba. Was that someone Moore
then? Not using his name on that claim, where everywhere else you did,
seems rather odd, don't you think?

Look at Box 8. Where does it say my wife is from??? ANTARCTICA?

I know she is from Cooo-Bah but this does not say you could not find a
way to use the Internet from there.

They had it even back then.

I'll continue to watch, but I have to admit to your former claim, though
false then, have been realized. You have convinced ME by YOUR behavior,
and lack of evidence to the contrary, you are not to be trusted.

But I'll still read any defense you wish to make.

Frankly, outside of being attacked by you, I can't think of any reason
to be interested in the Moore Pangborn conflict.

But you have provided me directly enough evidence of your character to
be wary of possible attacks from you.

All by your little old self, Ken.

Nice work.

You are going to get a lot of allies to help you with Moore by treating
them as you have me.

You put me in your opposition group by declaration, then by your
behavior right from the start.

You are a master-baiter at making friends and influencing people. It
must pay a lot.

0:-]

R R R R R R R R

Stop displaying your impotence publicly. It's bad enough when it makes
your dog growl as you sneak upon her.

Too bad. You had our chance, and blew it. Now let the lady monkey go and
wipe yourself off.