More Corporal Punishment Research

[LaVonne Carlson]

Below are studies that to my knowledge have not been discussed on
alt.parenting.spanking. I'm assuming there are individuals on this
newsgroup who are still interested in discussing this topic. Read the
studies and let's start a discussion!

Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior
problems in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(2),
251-256.

Day, R, Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of
younger and older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage
and the family, 60, 79-94.

Dietz, T., (2002) Disciplining children: Characteristics associated
with the use of corporal punishment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(2),
1529-1542.

Hashima, P. & Amato, P. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental
behavior. Child Development. 65, 394-403.

Kanoy, K., Ulku-Steiner, B., Cox, M., & Burchinal, M. (2003). Marital
relationship and individual psychological characteristics that predict
physical punishment of children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1),
20-28.

LaVonne

[Fern5827]

Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
subscribe to a plethora of journals.

Many of the titles are very expensive.

Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.

BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.

So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
loan, even at large state funded universities.

Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly articles. I can't
wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.

Slight problem of control groups, similar SES, etc.

Cheers!

http://www.fightcps. com California site where GRAND JURIES commonly
investigate CPS, DSS, DFS, DHS, etc.

[Doan]

On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:

> Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> subscribe to a plethora of journals.
>
> Many of the titles are very expensive.
>
> Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
>
> BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
>
> So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> loan, even at large state funded universities.
>
> Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly articles. I can't
> wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
>
She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she response or will she
give me the deafenning silence? ;-)

Doan

> Slight problem of control groups, similar SES, etc.
>
> Cheers!
>
> http://www.fightcps. com California site where GRAND JURIES commonly
> investigate CPS, DSS, DFS, DHS, etc.
>

[Doan]

On 4 Jul 2003, Kane wrote:

> (Fern5827) wrote in message >...
> > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
>
> And tell us, Oh Vegetative One, the relevance of this statement,
> beyond your silly attempt to now weasel out of admitting Doan was
> wrong. There is research he thought she couldn't produce.
>
LOL! Tell me where did she produce the research I asked of her? Where
is one in which any of the non-cp alternatives has stood the same
statistical scrutiny as with spanking?

> > Many of the titles are very expensive.
>
> The exisitence of such research was the issue, not the price.
>
> > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
>
> The shelves are open to anyone that wishes to read the research.
> University libraries across the land, one of which Doan has ample
> access to, have it all.
>
Of course I do. That is why I am so confident in challenging LaVonne and
your master, Chris Dunga to debate me on any of the studies she just
cited! C'mon, why are they so afraid? ;-)

> > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
>
> I do not recall this material as being relevant to the issue of
> research on the use of cp in parenting...and I believe that was the
> subject of the exchange and the demand by Doan the Diddly Bopper that
> Lavonne produce citations of research.
>
No, Kane9 the stupid dog that think traceroutes is a security tool :-),
I asked "La Moron" to produce a study in which her non-cp alternatives
stood the same statistical scrutiny that spanking has been subjected to.
In short, comparing spanking and non-spanking alternatives under the
same condition, do non-cp alternatives fare any better? Straus &
Mouradian (1998) showed that non-cp alternatives have a STRONGER
correlation to ASB than spanking. The study result was so surprising
to Straus that he had to admit:

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Now do you know why Chris Dugan and LaVonne don't dare to debate me???
Doan

> Why did you bring up this subject and complain about the cost? Just
> another diversion?
>
> > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > loan, even at large state funded universities.
>
> Or have the research on their academic desktops.
>
> > Doan, I can't believe it.
>
> You mustn't masturbate him publically. He's already making a total
> fool of himself without your considerable help.
>
> > She actually cited some scholarly articles.
>
> He bluffed. She called. You divert.
>
> You do realize that you both are now just flapping your arms showing
> us all that you have nowhere to go and nothing to say, don't you,
> Plant?
>
> In other words, it's Doans turn now. Lavonne returned the serve.
>
> > I can't
> > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
>
> Sure you can, you and Doan both are diddy boppin' hoping that no one
> notices that Lavonne called his bluff and you have nothing to respond
> with but this babble.
>
> > Slight problem of control groups, similar SES, etc.
>
> Which of course makes perfect sense, now doesn't it....well, as long
> as you don't actually post the details of the "control groups", "the
> similar SES".
>
> You are talking about them, not revealing the actual content. So how
> about it?
>
> You going to put your cards on the table?
>
> > Cheers!
> >
> > http://www.fightcps. com California site where GRAND JURIES commonly
> > investigate CPS, DSS, DFS, DHS, etc.
>
> Doan then addresses the Vegetative One thusly:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:51:56 -0700, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> >
> >> Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries
> cannot
> >> subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> >>
> >> Many of the titles are very expensive.
> >>
> >> Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of
> some journals.
> >>
> >> BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very
> SUBSTANTIAL
> >> FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> >>
> >> So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have
> to had
> >> photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE,
> except thru
> >> loan, even at large state funded universities.
> >>
> >> Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly
> articles. I can't
> >> wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> >>
> >She bluffed and I called her bluff!
>
> And she then called your bluff with the requested citations...to which
> you respond by losing track of how made the last call.
>
> In other words, you are still bluffing. Turn over your cards. Let's
> see what you've got.
>
> In other words, address the research you asked her to produce and she
> produced. You see, Puppy, it's YOUR turn now.
>
> We await your brilliant response and refutation of the research
> offered.
>
> And if you recall you didn't ask her to defend the research, only to
> produce it. She did.
>
> >Let's see if she response or will she
> >give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
>
> Well, she responded with what you requested. The deafening silence you
> are experiencing is filled only with the babble of two self
> stimulating arm waving diversionary pimples on the butt of a hog: You
> and The Plant.
>
> You were so sure she couldn't produce, weren't you? r r r r r
>
> Puppy.
>
> >
> >Doan
>
> So, Doan, just lay into that research now and call Lavonne on her
> "bluff."
>
> We wait.
>
> Kane
>

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...
> On 4 Jul 2003, Kane wrote:
>
> > (Fern5827) wrote in message >...
> > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> >
> > And tell us, Oh Vegetative One, the relevance of this statement,
> > beyond your silly attempt to now weasel out of admitting Doan was
> > wrong. There is research he thought she couldn't produce.
> >
> LOL! Tell me where did she produce the research I asked of her? Where
> is one in which any of the non-cp alternatives has stood the same
> statistical scrutiny as with spanking?

She offered the citations. It's up to you to now defend your claim,
that they do not present the same statistical scrutiny as applied to
the studies that support spanking.

Well?

You going to do it or are you going to continue standing their with
your dick in your hand attempting to divert folks from the fact you
opened the debate, Lavonne responded with what you asked for, and now
you don't want to actually debate anything, but to simply proclaim, as
is your style, yourself the winner.

>
> > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> >
> > The exisitence of such research was the issue, not the price.
> >
> > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
> >
> > The shelves are open to anyone that wishes to read the research.
> > University libraries across the land, one of which Doan has ample
> > access to, have it all.
> >
> Of course I do. That is why I am so confident in challenging LaVonne and
> your master, Chris Dunga to debate me on any of the studies she just
> cited! C'mon, why are they so afraid? ;-)

Chris got, if I recall correctly, somewhat tired of you declaing
yourself the winner in the face of defeat again and again. Claiming a
study says something it doesn't say is your favorite ploy. You tried
it again in this post. You simply left out the good parts, and declare
it means something it doesn't.

Your usual line of crap.

Lavonne is not afraid. You asked for studies she posted them. Now it's
up to you to show they don't meet the criteria.

> > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> >
> > I do not recall this material as being relevant to the issue of
> > research on the use of cp in parenting...and I believe that was the
> > subject of the exchange and the demand by Doan the Diddly Bopper that
> > Lavonne produce citations of research.
> >
> No, Kane9 the stupid dog that think traceroutes is a security tool :-),

No, I didn't say that. Traceroutes simply help one track down folks. I
used them for that purpose, with the help, as I mentioned, of a number
of system admins that are friends of mine around the world. Why is it
you are once again trying that same silly ploy, declaring, without
quoting, someone else's statement was other than they said and meant?

I'll answer for you: because you are little puling pup far too
impressed with himself to know what it sees in the mirror....a lying
fool.

> I asked "La Moron" to produce a study in which her non-cp alternatives
> stood the same statistical scrutiny that spanking has been subjected to.

And she produced the studies. So tell us, and do a better job this
time than you have done in the past, on what grounds do they fail, and
provide proof by cite and qoute of those portions that you are
discussing.

> In short, comparing spanking and non-spanking alternatives under the
> same condition, do non-cp alternatives fare any better? Straus &
> Mouradian (1998) showed that non-cp alternatives have a STRONGER
> correlation to ASB than spanking. The study result was so surprising
> to Straus that he had to admit:
>
> "Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
> effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
> parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
> the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
> that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
> misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

"does not necessarily show" tends to shoot down your claim, now
doesn't it? That means that it could show it to be true that cp is
harmful. It is unresolvable under the conditions Straus is referring
to.

Then we have "or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior". Reducing misbehavior is only a single criteria. I can
reduce misbehavior of another even more effectively with some physical
punishment. Just shoot the perp.

Straus leaves open the question of possible harm, in both statements.

> Now do you know why Chris Dugan and LaVonne don't dare to debate me???

Because you are brainless twit? Yeah, that's got to be it.

Go and get a book on semantics, and also one on simple english
composition and parse the paragraph you are quoting...and I might also
suggest that you take more of the study in than just that narrow part
you wish to use to refute Lavonne and Chris.

One can prove anything if they are willing to confine themselves to
simple erroneous interpretations, and isolated bits of sentences and
paragraphs from a larger work.

Chris went over this very thing with you and your only response was to
run off hooting and swinging from limb to limb declaring yourself the
winner.

You are disgusting in your obtuseness and ability to lie.

And why is it you did not respond to my questions below?

> Doan

No, Doan, we doan need you. Hell, the world doan need you.

Kane


>
> > Why did you bring up this subject and complain about the cost? Just
> > another diversion?
> >
> > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> >
> > Or have the research on their academic desktops.
> >
> > > Doan, I can't believe it.
> >
> > You mustn't masturbate him publically. He's already making a total
> > fool of himself without your considerable help.
> >
> > > She actually cited some scholarly articles.
> >
> > He bluffed. She called. You divert.
> >
> > You do realize that you both are now just flapping your arms showing
> > us all that you have nowhere to go and nothing to say, don't you,
> > Plant?
> >
> > In other words, it's Doans turn now. Lavonne returned the serve.
> >
> > > I can't
> > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> >
> > Sure you can, you and Doan both are diddy boppin' hoping that no one
> > notices that Lavonne called his bluff and you have nothing to respond
> > with but this babble.
> >
> > > Slight problem of control groups, similar SES, etc.
> >
> > Which of course makes perfect sense, now doesn't it....well, as long
> > as you don't actually post the details of the "control groups", "the
> > similar SES".
> >
> > You are talking about them, not revealing the actual content. So how
> > about it?
> >
> > You going to put your cards on the table?
> >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > http://www.fightcps. com California site where GRAND JURIES commonly
> > > investigate CPS, DSS, DFS, DHS, etc.
> >
> > Doan then addresses the Vegetative One thusly:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:51:56 -0700, Doan > wrote:
> >
> > >On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> > >
> > >> Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries
> cannot
> > >> subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> > >>
> > >> Many of the titles are very expensive.
> > >>
> > >> Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of
> some journals.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very
> SUBSTANTIAL
> > >> FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> > >>
> > >> So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have
> to had
> > >> photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE,
> except thru
> > >> loan, even at large state funded universities.
> > >>
> > >> Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly
> articles. I can't
> > >> wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> > >>
> > >She bluffed and I called her bluff!
> >
> > And she then called your bluff with the requested citations...to which
> > you respond by losing track of how made the last call.
> >
> > In other words, you are still bluffing. Turn over your cards. Let's
> > see what you've got.
> >
> > In other words, address the research you asked her to produce and she
> > produced. You see, Puppy, it's YOUR turn now.
> >
> > We await your brilliant response and refutation of the research
> > offered.
> >
> > And if you recall you didn't ask her to defend the research, only to
> > produce it. She did.
> >
> > >Let's see if she response or will she
> > >give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
> >
> > Well, she responded with what you requested. The deafening silence you
> > are experiencing is filled only with the babble of two self
> > stimulating arm waving diversionary pimples on the butt of a hog: You
> > and The Plant.
> >
> > You were so sure she couldn't produce, weren't you? r r r r r
> >
> > Puppy.
> >
> > >
> > >Doan
> >
> > So, Doan, just lay into that research now and call Lavonne on her
> > "bluff."
> >
> > We wait.
> >
> > Kane
> >

[Doan]

On 4 Jul 2003, Kane wrote:

> Doan > wrote in message >...
> > On 4 Jul 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> > > (Fern5827) wrote in message >...
> > > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> > >
> > > And tell us, Oh Vegetative One, the relevance of this statement,
> > > beyond your silly attempt to now weasel out of admitting Doan was
> > > wrong. There is research he thought she couldn't produce.
> > >
> > LOL! Tell me where did she produce the research I asked of her? Where
> > is one in which any of the non-cp alternatives has stood the same
> > statistical scrutiny as with spanking?
>
> She offered the citations. It's up to you to now defend your claim,
> that they do not present the same statistical scrutiny as applied to
> the studies that support spanking.
>
> Well?
>
Are you stupid enough to say that these studies compared spanking and
non-cp alternatives under the same conditions??? Go ahead, Kane.
Let's me see you stick all four feet into your mouth. :-0

> You going to do it or are you going to continue standing their with
> your dick in your hand attempting to divert folks from the fact you
> opened the debate, Lavonne responded with what you asked for, and now
> you don't want to actually debate anything, but to simply proclaim, as
> is your style, yourself the winner.
>
LOL! Speaking like an "never-spanked" child! ;-) Are you now speaking
for LaVonne? Is she woman enough to defend herself or is she using her
little Kane9 to do her dirty work for her? ;-)

Doan

> >
> > > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> > >
> > > The exisitence of such research was the issue, not the price.
> > >
> > > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
> > >
> > > The shelves are open to anyone that wishes to read the research.
> > > University libraries across the land, one of which Doan has ample
> > > access to, have it all.
> > >
> > Of course I do. That is why I am so confident in challenging LaVonne and
> > your master, Chris Dunga to debate me on any of the studies she just
> > cited! C'mon, why are they so afraid? ;-)
>
> Chris got, if I recall correctly, somewhat tired of you declaing
> yourself the winner in the face of defeat again and again. Claiming a
> study says something it doesn't say is your favorite ploy. You tried
> it again in this post. You simply left out the good parts, and declare
> it means something it doesn't.
>
> Your usual line of crap.
>
> Lavonne is not afraid. You asked for studies she posted them. Now it's
> up to you to show they don't meet the criteria.
>
> > > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> > >
> > > I do not recall this material as being relevant to the issue of
> > > research on the use of cp in parenting...and I believe that was the
> > > subject of the exchange and the demand by Doan the Diddly Bopper that
> > > Lavonne produce citations of research.
> > >
> > No, Kane9 the stupid dog that think traceroutes is a security tool :-),
>
> No, I didn't say that. Traceroutes simply help one track down folks. I
> used them for that purpose, with the help, as I mentioned, of a number
> of system admins that are friends of mine around the world. Why is it
> you are once again trying that same silly ploy, declaring, without
> quoting, someone else's statement was other than they said and meant?
>
> I'll answer for you: because you are little puling pup far too
> impressed with himself to know what it sees in the mirror....a lying
> fool.
>
> > I asked "La Moron" to produce a study in which her non-cp alternatives
> > stood the same statistical scrutiny that spanking has been subjected to.
>
> And she produced the studies. So tell us, and do a better job this
> time than you have done in the past, on what grounds do they fail, and
> provide proof by cite and qoute of those portions that you are
> discussing.
>
> > In short, comparing spanking and non-spanking alternatives under the
> > same condition, do non-cp alternatives fare any better? Straus &
> > Mouradian (1998) showed that non-cp alternatives have a STRONGER
> > correlation to ASB than spanking. The study result was so surprising
> > to Straus that he had to admit:
> >
> > "Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
> > effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
> > parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
> > the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
> > that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
> > misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."
>
> "does not necessarily show" tends to shoot down your claim, now
> doesn't it? That means that it could show it to be true that cp is
> harmful. It is unresolvable under the conditions Straus is referring
> to.
>
> Then we have "or even that CP is not effective in reducing
> misbehavior". Reducing misbehavior is only a single criteria. I can
> reduce misbehavior of another even more effectively with some physical
> punishment. Just shoot the perp.
>
> Straus leaves open the question of possible harm, in both statements.
>
> > Now do you know why Chris Dugan and LaVonne don't dare to debate me???
>
> Because you are brainless twit? Yeah, that's got to be it.
>
> Go and get a book on semantics, and also one on simple english
> composition and parse the paragraph you are quoting...and I might also
> suggest that you take more of the study in than just that narrow part
> you wish to use to refute Lavonne and Chris.
>
> One can prove anything if they are willing to confine themselves to
> simple erroneous interpretations, and isolated bits of sentences and
> paragraphs from a larger work.
>
> Chris went over this very thing with you and your only response was to
> run off hooting and swinging from limb to limb declaring yourself the
> winner.
>
> You are disgusting in your obtuseness and ability to lie.
>
> And why is it you did not respond to my questions below?
>
> > Doan
>
> No, Doan, we doan need you. Hell, the world doan need you.
>
> Kane
>
>
> >
> > > Why did you bring up this subject and complain about the cost? Just
> > > another diversion?
> > >
> > > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> > >
> > > Or have the research on their academic desktops.
> > >
> > > > Doan, I can't believe it.
> > >
> > > You mustn't masturbate him publically. He's already making a total
> > > fool of himself without your considerable help.
> > >
> > > > She actually cited some scholarly articles.
> > >
> > > He bluffed. She called. You divert.
> > >
> > > You do realize that you both are now just flapping your arms showing
> > > us all that you have nowhere to go and nothing to say, don't you,
> > > Plant?
> > >
> > > In other words, it's Doans turn now. Lavonne returned the serve.
> > >
> > > > I can't
> > > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> > >
> > > Sure you can, you and Doan both are diddy boppin' hoping that no one
> > > notices that Lavonne called his bluff and you have nothing to respond
> > > with but this babble.
> > >
> > > > Slight problem of control groups, similar SES, etc.
> > >
> > > Which of course makes perfect sense, now doesn't it....well, as long
> > > as you don't actually post the details of the "control groups", "the
> > > similar SES".
> > >
> > > You are talking about them, not revealing the actual content. So how
> > > about it?
> > >
> > > You going to put your cards on the table?
> > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fightcps. com California site where GRAND JURIES commonly
> > > > investigate CPS, DSS, DFS, DHS, etc.
> > >
> > > Doan then addresses the Vegetative One thusly:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:51:56 -0700, Doan > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries
> > cannot
> > > >> subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> > > >>
> > > >> Many of the titles are very expensive.
> > > >>
> > > >> Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of
> > some journals.
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very
> > SUBSTANTIAL
> > > >> FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> > > >>
> > > >> So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have
> > to had
> > > >> photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE,
> > except thru
> > > >> loan, even at large state funded universities.
> > > >>
> > > >> Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly
> > articles. I can't
> > > >> wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> > > >>
> > > >She bluffed and I called her bluff!
> > >
> > > And she then called your bluff with the requested citations...to which
> > > you respond by losing track of how made the last call.
> > >
> > > In other words, you are still bluffing. Turn over your cards. Let's
> > > see what you've got.
> > >
> > > In other words, address the research you asked her to produce and she
> > > produced. You see, Puppy, it's YOUR turn now.
> > >
> > > We await your brilliant response and refutation of the research
> > > offered.
> > >
> > > And if you recall you didn't ask her to defend the research, only to
> > > produce it. She did.
> > >
> > > >Let's see if she response or will she
> > > >give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
> > >
> > > Well, she responded with what you requested. The deafening silence you
> > > are experiencing is filled only with the babble of two self
> > > stimulating arm waving diversionary pimples on the butt of a hog: You
> > > and The Plant.
> > >
> > > You were so sure she couldn't produce, weren't you? r r r r r
> > >
> > > Puppy.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Doan
> > >
> > > So, Doan, just lay into that research now and call Lavonne on her
> > > "bluff."
> > >
> > > We wait.
> > >
> > > Kane
> > >
>

[Doan]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:

> On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
>
> > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> >
> > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> >
> > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
> >
> > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> >
> > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> >
> > Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly articles. I can't
> > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> >
> She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she response or will she
> give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
>
> Doan
>
Well, LaVonne, it has been five days already. You said you read the
research. Are you going to debate against me on the research studies
you posted???

Doan

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...

sni..............p the nonsense.

> It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
> why she is so afraid to debate me.

Because you don't debate?

And you give yourself far more importance than you warrant.

You are little more than a a bit of comic relief on this ng.

If she's afraid of anything it would be of breaking a rib from
laughter.

Personally I only read about 1 in 8 of your post they are so useless.
But when I'm bored it does give me a chuckle to watch your eager
little self congratulating bits of nonsense....and then
<yaaaaaaaaaawn>

> Doan

Kane

[Doan]

I looks like LaVonne let Kane9 do the dirty work for her. What a pity!

Doan

On 19 Jul 2003, Kane wrote:

> Doan > wrote in message >...
>
> sni..............p the nonsense.
>
> > It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
> > why she is so afraid to debate me.
>
> Because you don't debate?
>
> And you give yourself far more importance than you warrant.
>
> You are little more than a a bit of comic relief on this ng.
>
> If she's afraid of anything it would be of breaking a rib from
> laughter.
>
> Personally I only read about 1 in 8 of your post they are so useless.
> But when I'm bored it does give me a chuckle to watch your eager
> little self congratulating bits of nonsense....and then
> <yaaaaaaaaaawn>
>
> > Doan
>
> Kane
>

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > > > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > > > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > > > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > > > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly articles. I can't
> > > > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> > > > >
> > > > She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she response or will she
> > > > give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > Well, LaVonne, it has been five days already. You said you read the
> > > research. Are you going to debate against me on the research studies
> > > you posted???
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > Still no response to my post from LaVonne. It has been over a week
> > already. I wonder why the deafenning silence! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
> why she is so afraid to debate me.
>
> Doan
-------------
Nobody's afraid of you, you stupid whore, you're simply tiresome and
non-responsive.
Steve

[Kane]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:14:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" >
wrote:

>Doan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic
libraries cannot
>> > > > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes
abstracts of some journals.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my
very SUBSTANTIAL
>> > > > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles
would have to had
>> > > > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be
AVAILABLE, except thru
>> > > > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some
scholarly articles. I can't
>> > > > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
>> > > > >
>> > > > She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she
response or will she
>> > > > give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Doan
>> > > >
>> > > Well, LaVonne, it has been five days already. You said you
read the
>> > > research. Are you going to debate against me on the research
studies
>> > > you posted???
>> > >
>> > > Doan
>> > >
>> > Still no response to my post from LaVonne. It has been over a
week
>> > already. I wonder why the deafenning silence! ;-)
>> >
>> > Doan
>> >
>> It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I
wonder
>> why she is so afraid to debate me.
>>
>> Doan
>-------------
>Nobody's afraid of you, you stupid whore, you're simply tiresome and
>non-responsive.
>Steve

As Jack Benny used to say, "Now cut that out Rochester" r r r r

Right again, Steve. You are wearing me down, bit by bit.

I could end up on your side one day...r r r r

Kane

[Doan]

On 19 Jul 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:14:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" >
> wrote:
>
> >Doan wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic
> libraries cannot
> >> > > > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes
> abstracts of some journals.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my
> very SUBSTANTIAL
> >> > > > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles
> would have to had
> >> > > > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be
> AVAILABLE, except thru
> >> > > > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some
> scholarly articles. I can't
> >> > > > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she
> response or will she
> >> > > > give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Doan
> >> > > >
> >> > > Well, LaVonne, it has been five days already. You said you
> read the
> >> > > research. Are you going to debate against me on the research
> studies
> >> > > you posted???
> >> > >
> >> > > Doan
> >> > >
> >> > Still no response to my post from LaVonne. It has been over a
> week
> >> > already. I wonder why the deafenning silence! ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Doan
> >> >
> >> It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I
> wonder
> >> why she is so afraid to debate me.
> >>
> >> Doan
> >-------------
> >Nobody's afraid of you, you stupid whore, you're simply tiresome and
> >non-responsive.
> >Steve
>
> As Jack Benny used to say, "Now cut that out Rochester" r r r r
>
> Right again, Steve. You are wearing me down, bit by bit.
>
> I could end up on your side one day...r r r r
>
> Kane
>
It looked like Kane9 smelled Steve's butt and approved! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > > > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > > > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > > > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > > > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly articles. I can't
> > > > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> > > > >
> > > > She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she response or will she
> > > > give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > Well, LaVonne, it has been five days already. You said you read the
> > > research. Are you going to debate against me on the research studies
> > > you posted???
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > Still no response to my post from LaVonne. It has been over a week
> > already. I wonder why the deafenning silence! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
> why she is so afraid to debate me.
>
> Doan
>
It is now THREE WEEKS and still no response from LaVonne.

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2 Jul 2003, Fern5827 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lavonne, you probably don't KNOW this, but even academic libraries cannot
> > > > > subscribe to a plethora of journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of the titles are very expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Medline occasionally (very) occasionally publishes abstracts of some journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, Child Abuse and Neglect, which ASFAIK, is funded by my very SUBSTANTIAL
> > > > > FEDERAL AND STATE taxes is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the only folks debating the content of these articles would have to had
> > > > > photocopied THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES, which may not be AVAILABLE, except thru
> > > > > loan, even at large state funded universities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan, I can't believe it. She actually cited some scholarly articles. I can't
> > > > > wait for the design of these experiments to be debated.
> > > > >
> > > > She bluffed and I called her bluff! Let's see if she response or will she
> > > > give me the deafenning silence? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > Well, LaVonne, it has been five days already. You said you read the
> > > research. Are you going to debate against me on the research studies
> > > you posted???
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > Still no response to my post from LaVonne. It has been over a week
> > already. I wonder why the deafenning silence! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> It is now over two weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
> why she is so afraid to debate me.
>
> Doan

It is now over four weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
why she is so afraid to debate me.

Doan

[Doan]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > It is now over four weeks and still no response from LaVonne. I wonder
> > why she is so afraid to debate me.
> >
> > Doan
> ------------
> She's ignoring you because you're a lying distorting piece of
> rightist trash who won't respond fairly no matter what anyone
> says, you stupid ****-****ing piece of lying Filth!1
> Steve
>
Thanks, Steve! Always nice to have you on the other side. ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> Below are studies that to my knowledge have not been discussed on
> alt.parenting.spanking. I'm assuming there are individuals on this
> newsgroup who are still interested in discussing this topic. Read the
> studies and let's start a discussion!
>
> Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior
> problems in young children. /Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159/(2),
> 251-256.
>
> Day, R, Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of
> younger and older children by mothers and fathers. /Journal of Marriage
> and the family, 60, / 79-94.
>
> Dietz, T., (2002) Disciplining children: Characteristics associated
> with the use of corporal punishment. /Child Abuse and Neglect, 24/(2),
> 1529-1542.
>
> Hashima, P. & Amato, P. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental
> behavior. /Child Development. 65,/ 394-403.
>
> Kanoy, K., Ulku-Steiner, B., Cox, M., & Burchinal, M. (2003). Marital
> relationship and individual psychological characteristics that predict
> physical punishment of children. /Journal of Family Psychology, 17/(1),
> 20-28.
>
> LaVonne

But, LaVonne, this cannot be. According to a certain screeching little
monkeyboy you have not posted references to studies on spanking.

Oh well. Must be an illusion.

R R R R R

0:->



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

[Doan]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > Below are studies that to my knowledge have not been discussed on
> > alt.parenting.spanking. I'm assuming there are individuals on this
> > newsgroup who are still interested in discussing this topic. Read the
> > studies and let's start a discussion!
> >
> > Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior
> > problems in young children. /Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159/(2),
> > 251-256.
> >
> > Day, R, Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of
> > younger and older children by mothers and fathers. /Journal of Marriage
> > and the family, 60, / 79-94.
> >
> > Dietz, T., (2002) Disciplining children: Characteristics associated
> > with the use of corporal punishment. /Child Abuse and Neglect, 24/(2),
> > 1529-1542.
> >
> > Hashima, P. & Amato, P. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental
> > behavior. /Child Development. 65,/ 394-403.
> >
> > Kanoy, K., Ulku-Steiner, B., Cox, M., & Burchinal, M. (2003). Marital
> > relationship and individual psychological characteristics that predict
> > physical punishment of children. /Journal of Family Psychology, 17/(1),
> > 20-28.
> >
> > LaVonne
>
> But, LaVonne, this cannot be. According to a certain screeching little
> monkeyboy you have not posted references to studies on spanking.
>
The pathological liar, aka Kane0, is at it again. He his hoping that
someone will be stupid enough to believe him. Now everyone here knows
that I have been asking for studies that compare spanking and non-cp
alternatives under the same condition.

> Oh well. Must be an illusion.
>
Oh, well! At least he has proven himself to be deceitfully stupid again!
;-)

AF

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>>> Below are studies that to my knowledge have not been discussed on
>>> alt.parenting.spanking. I'm assuming there are individuals on this
>>> newsgroup who are still interested in discussing this topic. Read the
>>> studies and let's start a discussion!
>>>
>>> Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior
>>> problems in young children. /Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159/(2),
>>> 251-256.
>>>
>>> Day, R, Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of
>>> younger and older children by mothers and fathers. /Journal of Marriage
>>> and the family, 60, / 79-94.
>>>
>>> Dietz, T., (2002) Disciplining children: Characteristics associated
>>> with the use of corporal punishment. /Child Abuse and Neglect, 24/(2),
>>> 1529-1542.
>>>
>>> Hashima, P. & Amato, P. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental
>>> behavior. /Child Development. 65,/ 394-403.
>>>
>>> Kanoy, K., Ulku-Steiner, B., Cox, M., & Burchinal, M. (2003). Marital
>>> relationship and individual psychological characteristics that predict
>>> physical punishment of children. /Journal of Family Psychology, 17/(1),
>>> 20-28.
>>>
>>> LaVonne
>> But, LaVonne, this cannot be. According to a certain screeching little
>> monkeyboy you have not posted references to studies on spanking.
>>
> The pathological liar, aka Kane0, is at it again. He his hoping that
> someone will be stupid enough to believe him. Now everyone here knows
> that I have been asking for studies that compare spanking and non-cp
> alternatives under the same condition.

Please prove none of these do.

0:->

And when have you seen comparative opposing studies in any social
science field, and most others, insist on the exact same conditions for
two opposing methods?

No, monkeyboy, it's just your hysterical way of debating.

I notice you have not responded to the simple logic that says that one
does not have to prove something works if it's not DISPROVED.

And that something here has been disproved, and it's your agenda for
spanking.

Spanking does not work, Doan.

There are many reasons children "behave," Doan but spanking is the least
powerful when it comes to compliance. Long term, predictable,
reproducible, without side effects willing compliance.

>
>> Oh well. Must be an illusion.
>>
> Oh, well! At least he has proven himself to be deceitfully stupid again!
> ;-)

Nope. I just flushed you out. 0:-> Next it will be down.

>
> AF
>

0:->



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

[Doan]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >>> Below are studies that to my knowledge have not been discussed on
> >>> alt.parenting.spanking. I'm assuming there are individuals on this
> >>> newsgroup who are still interested in discussing this topic. Read the
> >>> studies and let's start a discussion!
> >>>
> >>> Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior
> >>> problems in young children. /Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159/(2),
> >>> 251-256.
> >>>
> >>> Day, R, Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of
> >>> younger and older children by mothers and fathers. /Journal of Marriage
> >>> and the family, 60, / 79-94.
> >>>
> >>> Dietz, T., (2002) Disciplining children: Characteristics associated
> >>> with the use of corporal punishment. /Child Abuse and Neglect, 24/(2),
> >>> 1529-1542.
> >>>
> >>> Hashima, P. & Amato, P. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental
> >>> behavior. /Child Development. 65,/ 394-403.
> >>>
> >>> Kanoy, K., Ulku-Steiner, B., Cox, M., & Burchinal, M. (2003). Marital
> >>> relationship and individual psychological characteristics that predict
> >>> physical punishment of children. /Journal of Family Psychology, 17/(1),
> >>> 20-28.
> >>>
> >>> LaVonne
> >> But, LaVonne, this cannot be. According to a certain screeching little
> >> monkeyboy you have not posted references to studies on spanking.
> >>
> > The pathological liar, aka Kane0, is at it again. He his hoping that
> > someone will be stupid enough to believe him. Now everyone here knows
> > that I have been asking for studies that compare spanking and non-cp
> > alternatives under the same condition.
>
> Please prove none of these do.
>
It is not for to prove a negative, STUPID!

AF

> 0:->
>
> And when have you seen comparative opposing studies in any social
> science field, and most others, insist on the exact same conditions for
> two opposing methods?
>
ARE YOU THIS STUPID???

> No, monkeyboy, it's just your hysterical way of debating.
>
THEN YOU REALLY THIS STUPID! This is what Gershoff has to be
say about this subject

"it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

You know who Gershoff is, don't you?

> I notice you have not responded to the simple logic that says that one
> does not have to prove something works if it's not DISPROVED.
>
Hahaha! ARE YOU THIS STUPID? Never mind, you have already demonstrated
that you are!

> And that something here has been disproved, and it's your agenda for
> spanking.
>
> Spanking does not work, Doan.
>
Tell that to the billions of parents throughout history, across cultures,
religions, races, Kane.

> There are many reasons children "behave," Doan but spanking is the least
> powerful when it comes to compliance. Long term, predictable,
> reproducible, without side effects willing compliance.
>
Then just show an alternative that has proven to be better than spanking
under the same condition. Come on, Kane! ;-)

> >
> >> Oh well. Must be an illusion.
> >>
> > Oh, well! At least he has proven himself to be deceitfully stupid again!
> > ;-)
>
> Nope. I just flushed you out. 0:-> Next it will be down.
>
Down your mouth? ;-)

AF

[Doan]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > Below are studies that to my knowledge have not been discussed on
> > alt.parenting.spanking. I'm assuming there are individuals on this
> > newsgroup who are still interested in discussing this topic. Read the
> > studies and let's start a discussion!
> >
> > Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior
> > problems in young children. /Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159/(2),
> > 251-256.
> >
> > Day, R, Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of
> > younger and older children by mothers and fathers. /Journal of Marriage
> > and the family, 60, / 79-94.
> >
> > Dietz, T., (2002) Disciplining children: Characteristics associated
> > with the use of corporal punishment. /Child Abuse and Neglect, 24/(2),
> > 1529-1542.
> >
> > Hashima, P. & Amato, P. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental
> > behavior. /Child Development. 65,/ 394-403.
> >
> > Kanoy, K., Ulku-Steiner, B., Cox, M., & Burchinal, M. (2003). Marital
> > relationship and individual psychological characteristics that predict
> > physical punishment of children. /Journal of Family Psychology, 17/(1),
> > 20-28.
> >
> > LaVonne
>
> But, LaVonne, this cannot be. According to a certain screeching little
> monkeyboy you have not posted references to studies on spanking.
>
> Oh well. Must be an illusion.
>
> R R R R R
>
> 0:->
>
Do you have URL links to these studies?

Doan