Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

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

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:A_mdnen148XNQy7YnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?
Yah know, Ken, Ron, who happens to oppose my views on corporal punish to a
degree spoke up in your behalf and you ignored him.

He gave you a very large hint that you were in deep **** to argue with me
on an issue.
Oooo there's the BADASS thing again.
A kindness is seen as a threat?

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane you
stupid HUMP!
"Stupid HUMP?"
YEP!
Given that I've proven conclusively that X 'leads to' Y is not exclusive
to cause, and is used in correlation studies, you will have to wear the
hump, my boy.
Is that how you refer to the people that publicly kick your ass all over
a few newsgroups?
Like I told you, it's possible for "leads to" to refer to cause, but
there'd be supporting commentary. While "leads to" more often refers to
correlations.
Kane I have NO idea where you went to school.
Of course.

I suggest however that
your parents SUE them for incompetence. I will say this again.
Do so and make a further fool of yourself.

A STATEMENT in science that "X leads to Y" is a statement in CAUSALITY!
Yes. I have said so myself in my argument with you on this diversion you
use to keep OUT of the survey and any real discussion of its content.

It
is NOT - repeat NOT a statement of correlation!
Not according to the community of researchers in various disciplines I
just cited with links, for you in another post.

They make reference to and even give prime examples of correlation
research in both materials and non-materials social research, x and y
correlations.

They use the word, and they describe one event following another, as
analysis of their practices, in business in one instance, as a guide to
how to satisfy customers.

Interesting that across the board, from hard to soft research this x to
y model is used, for cause and for correlation.


One more time, Kane. A google search proves NOTHING. Here is from one
of those hits, when you digged deeper into them:

"But correlation, per se, does not answer the question of which variable
causes which, or even whether they are both joint outcomes of some third,
determining variable. Establishing a causal relationship is a more
difficult task, because it requires showing that x leads to y, not vice
versa and not from some third variable."

That does not argue that X leads to Y cannot be a correlation argument.

It is clear, Kane, "x leads to y" is a causal relationship.

It certainly is. I've said so. Show where I claimed it was not.

Show me
a case where "x leads to y" means correlation and not causal, Kane.

I have done so. I'm not going to be exercised by you, Doan.

And the argument is not that it is not causal, Doan. Not by me, but that
it also is used for correlation.

I have repeatedly said, as you obviously know by how, it is used in both.

Come on! I DARE YOU! I DOUDBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

That's a goodbye, Doan.

You post a lie topped by a dare?

How childish.

I'll take care of you when I've finished with Ken.

Waste your time sniping, if you wish.

Your childishness and lying are not of any consequence.

Doan


Kane

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

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:WqKdnaTwOZX6kinYnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"
You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.
Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-

No, Kane. I have followed this discussion and know that you, Kane, are
lying! Show me a link where they said "x leads to y" means correlation
and not causal!

I made no such claim. So you are lying.

You are running interference for Kendra.

Nothing more.

Doan

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

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

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:A_mdnen148XNQy7YnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?
Yah know, Ken, Ron, who happens to oppose my views on corporal punish to a
degree spoke up in your behalf and you ignored him.

He gave you a very large hint that you were in deep **** to argue with me
on an issue.
Oooo there's the BADASS thing again.
A kindness is seen as a threat?

The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane you
stupid HUMP!
"Stupid HUMP?"
YEP!
Given that I've proven conclusively that X 'leads to' Y is not exclusive
to cause, and is used in correlation studies, you will have to wear the
hump, my boy.
Is that how you refer to the people that publicly kick your ass all over
a few newsgroups?
Like I told you, it's possible for "leads to" to refer to cause, but
there'd be supporting commentary. While "leads to" more often refers to
correlations.
Kane I have NO idea where you went to school.
Of course.

I suggest however that
your parents SUE them for incompetence. I will say this again.
Do so and make a further fool of yourself.

A STATEMENT in science that "X leads to Y" is a statement in CAUSALITY!
Yes. I have said so myself in my argument with you on this diversion you
use to keep OUT of the survey and any real discussion of its content.

It
is NOT - repeat NOT a statement of correlation!
Not according to the community of researchers in various disciplines I
just cited with links, for you in another post.

They make reference to and even give prime examples of correlation
research in both materials and non-materials social research, x and y
correlations.

They use the word, and they describe one event following another, as
analysis of their practices, in business in one instance, as a guide to
how to satisfy customers.

Interesting that across the board, from hard to soft research this x to
y model is used, for cause and for correlation.


One more time, Kane. A google search proves NOTHING. Here is from one
of those hits, when you digged deeper into them:

"But correlation, per se, does not answer the question of which variable
causes which, or even whether they are both joint outcomes of some third,
determining variable. Establishing a causal relationship is a more
difficult task, because it requires showing that x leads to y, not vice
versa and not from some third variable."

That does not argue that X leads to Y cannot be a correlation argument.

It is clear, Kane, "x leads to y" is a causal relationship.

It certainly is. I've said so. Show where I claimed it was not.

Show me
a case where "x leads to y" means correlation and not causal, Kane.

I have done so. I'm not going to be exercised by you, Doan.

Where, Kane. I have looked at the link you provided. They all implied
causal!

And the argument is not that it is not causal, Doan. Not by me, but that
it also is used for correlation.

Hihihi! It cannot be without implying causal, Kane!

I have repeatedly said, as you obviously know by how, it is used in both.

You cannot exclude causal when you said "x leads to y"!

Come on! I DARE YOU! I DOUDBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

That's a goodbye, Doan.

Hahaha! For good, Kane? Or are you looking for a way out? Run, Kane!
Run!

You post a lie topped by a dare?

How childish.

I'll take care of you when I've finished with Ken.

Hahaha! Sound like a dodge to me!

Waste your time sniping, if you wish.

It's my hobby to have fun, by exposing your lies and stupidity, Kane.

Your childishness and lying are not of any consequence.

It's you that are acting childish, Kane. When you know you are
beaten, you run... only to come back again for some more whupping!
This is not the first time. So let me guess, you are going to put
me in your "do-not-reply" list and pretending not to read my posts, right?

Doan

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

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

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:WqKdnaTwOZX6kinYnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Is Ken going to apologize for the name calling he started when I rebutted,
successfully it appears, his claim that it can only mean "cause?"
You have refuted NOTHING. NONE of your sources support your claims.
Your delusion is not my problem.

Post my citations here and show how they fail to show X leads to Y is
NOT included in correlation studies.

Or lie. That will be up to you.

Those that have followed this discussion know you are lying.

0:-

No, Kane. I have followed this discussion and know that you, Kane, are
lying! Show me a link where they said "x leads to y" means correlation
and not causal!

I made no such claim. So you are lying.

So prove you "causal" claim since you now saying that "x leads to y"
doesn't meant "not causal!"

You are running interference for Kendra.

Am I, Kane? This is a public forum and nowhere did directed these
reponses ONLY to Ken. Are you running interference for Ron when
my posts to Ron are responded by you?

Nothing more.

Exposing your lies and STUPIDITY, Kane. Nothing more!

Doan

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

One more time, Kane. A google search proves NOTHING. Here is from one
of those hits, when you digged deeper into them:

"But correlation, per se, does not answer the question of which variable
causes which, or even whether they are both joint outcomes of some third,
determining variable. Establishing a causal relationship is a more
difficult task, because it requires showing that x leads to y, not vice
versa and not from some third variable."

That does not argue that X leads to Y cannot be a correlation argument.

It is clear, Kane, "x leads to y" is a causal relationship.

It certainly is. I've said so. Show where I claimed it was not.

Wait a minute, Kane! Are you now arguing that, when you posted "Spanking
Leads to Aggression", you were talking about correlation ONLY and not
causal? Keep your story straight, Kane! Keep your story straight!

Doan

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:j_6dnY03ivyjGi7YnZ2dnUVZ_rWnnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/Attachment(1).jpg
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/kensmailorderbride.pdf
I can't help but wonder what the context of these were, if they are what
you claim. What were you talking about that he posted those.
Kane - I rest my case. Look at his page on my bankruptcy.

Ah, then he didn't post your "banking records" sans any other context.

You abuse rationalization.

How does one do that?

He has repeatedly posted it to Usenet BEGGING
people to access it.

Citations for proof please. That's a given here unless you are lying and
admit to it by dodging the request to produce.

He has even (last week) BEGGED some of the Nigerian
SCAM people to use it. Which has drawn some SERIOUS interest from some
banking folks.

You are invited to produce evidence for your claim.

Maybe you'll find my speeding ticket there too.

Depends on it being related to his claims about your business practices,
doesn't it?

Jesus Christ man you are one hell of a piece of work!

Well, if there is evidence relating your driving to your business
practices, would it not follow that it might be used as evidence?

And I'm an atheist, but having been raised a Christian and having a very
soft spot in my heart for those that actually practice in His name, I
notice I felt considerable animosity when you blasphemed just now.

The SAD part is this all tells you NOTHING and all you can do is
RATIONALIZE IT! And ENDORSE IT!

I asked for clarification. I got it. Not from you, by the way, but from
Moore's post clarifying that it was not an isolated shot of your banking
records, but of your banking records (numbers) within a legal document on
your bankruptcy.

ANd posting them toi USENET????? BEGGIING people to electronic access
it????

If you made a claim that he wished to refute then I would expect him to
bring it to the forum you are in. Did you expect him to tell his pets
instead?

I take he asked them to look at your bankruptcy in relation to your
business practices. I think anyone giving legal or related advice needs
to maintain a very clean financial record or get into another line of
business.

Just a small prejudice of mine. Forgive me.

I think others are as small minded as I am about that however. 0:-

So, Ken, you tried to mislead the reader into thinking he had found
OUR
actual banking records numbers, alone, and had posted them for some
reason.

And I am curious that when you saw that, you reposted them ourself,
isolating them a bit from the bankruptcy finding.
Hmmm...just curious. And wondering why you need all these enemies.


YOU STUPID little ****!

You can provide an explanation and if I don't understand it, then you
are right to call me names. If I do not know what you posted next, and I
could not until now, then doing so demonstrates your stupidity and
****ty attitude, not mine.

The MOMENT I saw his post those accounts were
CLOSED!

Probably a good idea.

Knowing his persistent the little fukker is,

He seems to think he has a bone to pick with you. Did you in fact post
the bogus threat that he would be convicted and jailed without a trial?

Seems like a good way to gain enemies, Ken...a threat AND a lie all
rolled into one?

Did you post he'd been courtsmartialed from the Marines, and if so, did
you provide the DD214 I mentioned you could access at the Defense
Department? Oh wait, not only could you not do that without a warrant or
committing fraud, but if you have that information then it's likely
fraudulently acquired. Warrant?

I don't think so, Ken.

So, can you produce the proof he was discharged from Marine by courts
martial, or with a "less than honorable" in the "Discharge" field of his
DD214?

I moved the funds to
an entirely different bank.

That's nice. Just a bit late it seems.

Would you care to explain how I can be a stupid **** if I didn't know
that before?

Again knowing his OBSESSION I went so far as to
move them to a bank in another state.

Good caution.

But I don't think he was interested in your accounts but in the
bankruptcy. And the account numbers were on the document.

Do I have that correct?

Going further KNOWING your HERO'S

Moore is not my hero.

I have some but they aren't in the field of arguments with a dumb lying
pud like you, on Usenet groups.

So does he beat his wife? This Moore guy? If so I sure couldn't even
begin to respect him, let alone make a hero of him. Does he?

obsession the account isn't even in my name!

I am glad for you. I wouldn't want the fact you had a bankruptcy and
your personal information becoming public thereby to put your fortune at
risk.

I'm curious though. Help me out here.

Someone doing legal field consulting...especially in father's rights,
where the disposition of monies and their location are SO very critical,
how is it you did not move those accounts immediately upon the filed
bankruptcy notice?

You did know that is a matter of public record, don't you? Bankruptcies?

How would you advise a brand new client on how to care for his monies,
and sequester them, Ken?

Or would these questions be, according to you, a "Jesus Christ man you
are one hell of a piece of work!" kind of questions?

I was served notice of divorce when I was just a kid, about 21 as I
recall. In the military. Overseas at that.

Want to guess what the first thing I did was?

You are a TWIT Kane.

Is that how you would explain to your clients your own failure to secure
your bank accounts from appearing in a public record of bankruptcy?

You'd call them a twit....after you had their fee, I hope?

So, not sequestering your money until Moore reminded you would make me a
Twit and you not....

I see.

0:-]

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newsoGdncQahORv7C7YnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/Attachment(1).jpg

http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/kensmailorderbride.pdf

I can't help but wonder what the context of these were, if they are what
you claim. What were you talking about that he posted those.

Kane - I rest my case. Look at his page on my bankruptcy. Maybe you'll
find my speeding ticket there too. The SAD part is this all tells you
NOTHING and all you can do is RATIONALIZE IT! And ENDORSE IT!

I must be losing my memory.

I can't remember endorsing it.

I can remember, though, having said I am considering and examining. I
have, by the way, sent mail to Moore asking him to explain what I think
are lacks of proof on the site.

I have to wait for his answer, or after a reasonable time, presume you
have some argument against him.

And as I've sigh repeatedly told you and you ignore as you just did,
and lied again about me, I am more, much more, influenced to question
your credibility, and other concerns about you, based on your posting
here and its content.

Will you lie again about what I did or didn't say in this matter?

I have every reason to believe that you will.

I cannot stop your lying but I do have choices about how I respond.

And so far, I don't trust that you are telling the truth.

Sorry, just my little "stupid ****" way.

0:-

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

PHYSICIAN: http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/kensmailorderbride.pdf

You and Kane are now IRRETRIEVABLY LINKED TO DAVID MOORE! You are now
official ASSOCIATES of his and you sink or swim on the Internet
because of your CLOSE association with him. So you had better think
up good rationalizations for EVERYTHING he does!

I wouldn't suggest that you get so buddy buddy with mr pangborn, he
is a low life scum bag with absolutely no credibility here or in any
news group he posts to. But hey, maybe you don't care if some of
his slime rubs off.
I have more, now, Ron than YOU DO!
You apparently have a long history of accusing others of being Moore's
associates and or accomplices. All without proof, I might add.
Quite often they are mere fignments of Moore. But he does have 3 or
4 associates.
Some of them appear to me to have exactly the spelling and typo
malfunction we find in your writings. Quite the coincidence, eh?
Are you THAT stupid Kane? Sorry - that was a rhetorical question, we
already know the answer.
It's stupid to point out, when I have come under attack coincidental to my
exposing you as a liar, and ignorant where you claim expertise, that some
of the writings of posts that Moore claims came from you under forged nym
are coincidentally like your known typos and spelling errors?

I guess I don't agree.

It would be impossible for someone to garner as much support as you
claim Moore has.
BULL**** you nutbar! NUTS travel together on the Almond Joy
railroad! JUST LIKE YOU DUMBASS!
Even the ones your forged posts from?
Is that your excuse for forging? That they are nuts while you are sane?
You are a stupid ****. Your HERO is the one useing the rermailer the
forgeries are FROM you JACKASS! You can't even get it. I post ONLY from a
legitimate ISP. HE posts from the SAME anonymous remailer the forgeries
come from and YOU don't get it!
You were caught doing exactly as he claimed and provided proof for.

It's very possible, because anything is, that you are telling the truth
about Moore. It is equally possible you are lying about him, and you are
lying about yourself and your actions.

Man I have seen smarter cockroaches than you!

The ones crawling out your ass, and up your nose possibly?

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Ic6dnT70i_56dCnYnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?
The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane
you
stupid HUMP!
Hahaha! Kane EXPOSED his STUPIDITY again. Yet, he had the nerver to
claim that he is a "published researcher".


Kane and Ronnie are proclaiming themselves to be the VICTORS...

No, Ron seems to think I am. I leave it up to the reader, but I will say
that I don't count as a "victory" exposing liars and cheats, Ken.

Bull**** you are patting each other on the back.

Nope. He warned you. You ignored him, and started a campaign of lies and
error proliferation encouraged and supported by the most notorious of
blatant liars on alt.parenting.spanking, and by a little thug using you
to cover up his own malfeasance and torturous and venomous attacks on
parents coming to ascps.

You continue to underestimate me, and vastly over estimate ourself.

Live with it. It would be true regardless of what Ron may post.

You have been
confronted with your nonsense repeatedly.

Mine is supported by citation from research publications I've linked to
for you to read.

And by logical argument that in fact is unassailable.

The statement in SCIENCE" X leads to Y" is a statement of CAUSATION! It is
NOT a statement of correlation as you claim.

I have agreed that the former is true...and many times now, Ken. To
continue to point to it and insinuate that I don't agree, pokes huge
holes in your argument and your credibility.

Your second statement has been met, and refuted with evidence from
others, not just my logical claim.

Thus, we can conclude that T x e-l = L(times you have lied and refuse
to acknowledge the evidence, error leads to lying shows the result, "you
are Liar, Ken)

As you TRY so desperately to support by citing correlational studies that
use CAUSATIVE statements within them to PROVE
that causation and correlation are the same thing,

Whoa! Time for ME to call a foul, Ken.

Where did THAT come from?

I've not tried to prove they are the same thing. But that the X leads to
Y logical formula that you claim is only used for causal studies,
applies also to correlation.

or that a causative
statement can also be a correlational statement. NONSENSE!

I've not said that when one applies to the formula the other must apply
as well.

It is possible though. If one is considering the third constant, or
possibly variable, "z".

In fact that was, as I recall mentioned in the research on business
practices.

If you change Z it's possible the result can be only correlation's when
prior to change it was causal.

Good researchers are careful to point that out.

Social science ones especially. Say in "spanking leads to aggression."

Should we include culture as the Z variable, it may be that in one
culture the change in aggression is related to the culture's acceptance
of CP in parenting.

In fact that seems to be what the survey was about...determining both
how each culture's view differed in this matter of CP use.

X being spanking and Y being child aggression, it appears that even when
Z changed (culture), children who were spanked exhibited more aggression
than those that were not.

So, the premise that spanking across cultures showed that children had
more aggression IF they were spanked.

That's called a correlation.

They may be wrong.

As I've mentioned a number of times about a number of issues, I don't
feel the need to take a defensive stance about it.

I am open to argument that is presented with facts, or counter
information that is at least as well cited as I did the article. ...
quote, and link to source.

I have a personal opinion. Of course. I would call it even a bias.

It comes from a lot of years experience both as a parent, working with
parents...a lot of them, about 3,000 in all as best as I can recall the
numbers

I saw with my own eyes, and recorded some, behaviors that followed the
use of spanking and non-spanking parenting. Just college assignments
mostly, but then also professional work in the field.

That's why these studies so fascinate me. They tend to show what I
believe I saw.

I worked across cultures as well, but no Internationally to any great
degree.

How you coming in that claim that there is evidence that children who
are not spanked thereby have a risk of developing behaviors that are
"sociopathy?"

Find enough time to work on that yet?

Kane

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

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Ic6dnT70i_56dCnYnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually
about?
The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane
you
stupid HUMP!
Hahaha! Kane EXPOSED his STUPIDITY again. Yet, he had the nerver to
claim that he is a "published researcher".


Kane and Ronnie are proclaiming themselves to be the VICTORS...

No, Ron seems to think I am. I leave it up to the reader, but I will say
that I don't count as a "victory" exposing liars and cheats, Ken.

Bull**** you are patting each other on the back.

Nope. He warned you. You ignored him, and started a campaign of lies and
error proliferation encouraged and supported by the most notorious of
blatant liars on alt.parenting.spanking, and by a little thug using you
to cover up his own malfeasance and torturous and venomous attacks on
parents coming to ascps.

You continue to underestimate me, and vastly over estimate ourself.

Live with it. It would be true regardless of what Ron may post.

Hihihi! You got caught lying and you hoping that Ron bail you out.
He can't! ;-)

You have been
confronted with your nonsense repeatedly.

Mine is supported by citation from research publications I've linked to
for you to read.

And I told you none of them support you claim!

And by logical argument that in fact is unassailable.

It has already been refuted!


The statement in SCIENCE" X leads to Y" is a statement of CAUSATION! It is
NOT a statement of correlation as you claim.

I have agreed that the former is true...and many times now, Ken. To
continue to point to it and insinuate that I don't agree, pokes huge
holes in your argument and your credibility.

But you were claiming "spanking leads to aggression" is NOT a causal
statement. Make up your mind and keep your story straight!

Your second statement has been met, and refuted with evidence from
others, not just my logical claim.

Thus, we can conclude that T x e-l = L(times you have lied and refuse
to acknowledge the evidence, error leads to lying shows the result, "you
are Liar, Ken)

The proven liar here is YOU, Kane!

As you TRY so desperately to support by citing correlational studies that
use CAUSATIVE statements within them to PROVE
that causation and correlation are the same thing,

Whoa! Time for ME to call a foul, Ken.

Where did THAT come from?

The google search you provided as evident, Kane! It's STUPID!

I've not tried to prove they are the same thing. But that the X leads to
Y logical formula that you claim is only used for causal studies,
applies also to correlation.

No, Kane. You CANNOT say "x leads y" WITHOUT implying causation!

or that a causative
statement can also be a correlational statement. NONSENSE!

I've not said that when one applies to the formula the other must apply
as well.

And that is where you EXPOSED YOUR STUPIDITY! When you said "x correlates
to y" is when you can have correlation without causation. But when you
said "x leads to y", it ALWAYS implied causation! Thus when you claim
"spanking leads to aggression" you cannot say I mean correlation, NOT
causation! Understand it now, STUPID!

It is possible though. If one is considering the third constant, or
possibly variable, "z".

No, STUPID! A third constant are other variables must be controlled for;
otherwise you have cofounding factors and your results are meaningless!

In fact that was, as I recall mentioned in the research on business
practices.

If you change Z it's possible the result can be only correlation's when
prior to change it was causal.

You are talking nonsense, Kane!

Good researchers are careful to point that out.

Social science ones especially. Say in "spanking leads to aggression."

Should we include culture as the Z variable, it may be that in one
culture the change in aggression is related to the culture's acceptance
of CP in parenting.

They controlled for that factor!

In fact that seems to be what the survey was about...determining both
how each culture's view differed in this matter of CP use.

X being spanking and Y being child aggression, it appears that even when
Z changed (culture), children who were spanked exhibited more aggression
than those that were not.

That is called controlling for cofounding factors, Kane. Don't be STUPID!

So, the premise that spanking across cultures showed that children had
more aggression IF they were spanked.

Or that they were spanked more because they have more aggression!

That's called a correlation.

Yup! But you cannot conclude that "spanking leads to aggression" because
that would imply causation!

They may be wrong.

That is beside the point! It's not about being right or wrong, it's
about whether one can make causality from a correlational study! One
CANNOT!

As I've mentioned a number of times about a number of issues, I don't
feel the need to take a defensive stance about it.

I am open to argument that is presented with facts, or counter
information that is at least as well cited as I did the article. ...
quote, and link to source.

There are plenty of research studies out there, if you only open
your mind and read!

I have a personal opinion. Of course. I would call it even a bias.

Personal opion is fine; being STUPID about it is NOT!

It comes from a lot of years experience both as a parent, working with
parents...a lot of them, about 3,000 in all as best as I can recall the
numbers

Here come the BS! ;-)

I saw with my own eyes, and recorded some, behaviors that followed the
use of spanking and non-spanking parenting. Just college assignments
mostly, but then also professional work in the field.

That's why these studies so fascinate me. They tend to show what I
believe I saw.

I worked across cultures as well, but no Internationally to any great
degree.

How you coming in that claim that there is evidence that children who
are not spanked thereby have a risk of developing behaviors that are
"sociopathy?"

Find enough time to work on that yet?

I told you so! So how is it you are so STUPID to understand the concepts
of causation and correlations?

Doan

Kane