Re: LaVonne, where art thou?

[LaVonne Carlson]

Doan wrote:

> It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?

I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.

This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
certainly should have enough references by now.

LaVonne

>
>
> Doan

[Doan]

> Doan wrote:
>
> > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
>
> I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
>
Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.

> This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> certainly should have enough references by now.
>
Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)

Doan

> LaVonne
>
> >
> >
> > Doan
>
>

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> >
> > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> >
> > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> >
> Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
-------------
No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
Steve

[Doan]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > >
> > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > >
> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> -------------
> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> Steve
>
Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
the same mistake as I did! ;-)

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
even stronger than spanking!

For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!

Doan

[Fern5827]

Poorly done studies are almost CRIMINAL.

When a study purports to be scientifically based, and *peer-reviewed* one would
expect that the criteria of folks sampled by the study would be representative
of the parenting populace at large.

Straus USED TEENAGE, welfare-dependent Moms. Hardly a representative sample of
America.

Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design
classes.

She probably never read 1984, either.

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > >
> > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > >
> > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > -------------
> > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > Steve
> >
> Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> the same mistake as I did! ;-)
>
> "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
>
> [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> even stronger than spanking!
>
> For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
>
> Doan
-----------
You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
smelly ****.
Steve

[Doan]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:

> > Doan wrote:
> >
> > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> >
> > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> >
> Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
>
> > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > certainly should have enough references by now.
> >
> Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
>
> Doan
>
Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???

Doan

[LaVonne Carlson]

Doan wrote:

> Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)

Yes, let's start with that. Post the reference to the study, and evidence for
your debate issue.

LaVonne

>
>
> Doan
>
> > LaVonne
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> >

[LaVonne Carlson]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> Doan wrote:
>
> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> -------------
> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> Steve

Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
but he may have. I don't know. He just challenged me on a Straus et.al study.
I asked him to post a reference and his evidence for his claim. Let's see what
he can do!

LaVonne

[LaVonne Carlson]

Doan wrote:

> Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> the same mistake as I did! ;-)
>
> "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

And this is a perfect example of the futility of debate with you. You don't
understand this statement, you took the statement out of context, and you provide
no reference so others can refer to the passage you have posted

> [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> even stronger than spanking!

This is another garbage statement with no evidence of the sort. Did you read this
study? Please provide the reference and page no. of the journal that allowed you
to come to such a bizarre conclusion. I will not do the work for you this time.

> For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!

Read the conclusions, Doan. Read the hypothesis. Read the methodology. State
reference and page number that allowed you to draw this conclusion. What was the
purpose of the study? I have the study in front of me and I can do it for you, but
this time I will not do this. You brought up the study, you back up your claims.

LaVonne

>
> Doan

[LaVonne Carlson]

Fern5827 wrote:

> Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design
> classes.

How silly. I'll request a better experimental design, which undoubtedly you can
provide for us. Now remember, Fern, null hypothesis is what we are talking about
here. And, sample size affects outcome in many ways..which you will soon explain
to us. You will also explain to us the meaning and effect of weighted analysis
and why this would be used to correct for error. Then, you will explain the
statistical properties of your study, and include a discussion section. I'm
particularly interested in hearing you explain ANOVA, and how you think this
specific analysis could apply to research.

> She probably never read 1984, either.

I did read this book. Is this another example of your idea of research?

LaVonne

[Doan]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Doan wrote:
>
> > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
>
> Yes, let's start with that. Post the reference to the study, and evidence for
> your debate issue.
>
> LaVonne
>
Post the reference to the study??? Are you saying that you have not read
the study? Are you still clinging on the claim that the mothers are not
teenage mothers???

Doan

[Doan]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> >
> > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > -------------
> > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > Steve
>
> Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> but he may have. I don't know. He just challenged me on a Straus et.al study.
> I asked him to post a reference and his evidence for his claim. Let's see what
> he can do!
>
> LaVonne
>
Reference? How about Straus et al (1997)?

Doan

[Doan]

> Doan wrote:
>
> > Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> > Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> > assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> > the same mistake as I did! ;-)
> >
> > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> > interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> > this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> > or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
>
> And this is a perfect example of the futility of debate with you. You don't
> understand this statement, you took the statement out of context, and you provide
> no reference so others can refer to the passage you have posted
>
If I have taken this statement OUT OF CONTEXT, would you please put this
in the context to prove your accusation? I have been on this newsgroup
since 1998 and debating this study since. Either you are suffering from
senility or you are asking for reference just to dance around and avoiding
the issue.

> > [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> > that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> > even stronger than spanking!
>
> This is another garbage statement with no evidence of the sort. Did you read this
> study? Please provide the reference and page no. of the journal that allowed you
> to come to such a bizarre conclusion. I will not do the work for you this time.
>
I have provided the reference numerous times. Are you saying that, in
Straus & Mouradian (1998), the correlation between asb and non-cp
alternatives are not stronger than with spanking???

> > For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> > comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> > years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> > group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
>
> Read the conclusions, Doan. Read the hypothesis. Read the methodology. State
> reference and page number that allowed you to draw this conclusion. What was the
> purpose of the study? I have the study in front of me and I can do it for you, but
> this time I will not do this. You brought up the study, you back up your claims.
>
> LaVonne

Yes, LaVonne. Read the study? And and read the admission by Straus for
his "failure to to perceive the SERIOUS LIMITATION". It is in March 1998
issue, LaVonne.

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

You wanted reference, you got it. It's not new. For anyone who had
followed this newsgroup since 1998 knew that I have posted them numerous
times. Let's see how long you can dance around this! ;-)

Doan

[Jim]

LaVonne Carlson > wrote:

>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>
>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
>> -------------
>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
>> Steve
>
>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,

Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
almighty studies.

--
Jim

[Doan]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

>
>
> Fern5827 wrote:
>
> > Guess Lavonne never took any Statistics courses, nor experimental design
> > classes.
>
> How silly. I'll request a better experimental design, which undoubtedly you can
> provide for us. Now remember, Fern, null hypothesis is what we are talking about
> here. And, sample size affects outcome in many ways..which you will soon explain
> to us. You will also explain to us the meaning and effect of weighted analysis
> and why this would be used to correct for error. Then, you will explain the
> statistical properties of your study, and include a discussion section. I'm
> particularly interested in hearing you explain ANOVA, and how you think this
> specific analysis could apply to research.
>
You could also explain how the author of the study would have to admit
"failure to perceive SERIOUS LIMITATION"

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

Perhaps, Dr. LaVonne should give Straus a pointer or two. ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:

> LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
>
> >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>
> >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> >> -------------
> >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> >> Steve
> >
> >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
>
> Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> almighty studies.
>
> --
> Jim
>
Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed
"never-spanked" kid! ;-)

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
>
> > > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > >
> > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > >
> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> >
> > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > >
> > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
>
> Doan
-------------------
No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:
>
> > LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> >
> > >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > >> -------------
> > >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > >> Steve
> > >
> > >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> >
> > Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > almighty studies.
> >
> > --
> > Jim
> >
> Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed
> "never-spanked" kid! ;-)
>
> Doan
------------
Since she and I have never met, why in the world would THAT be, you
****-****ing disingenuous LIAR?
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
>
> > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> >
> > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > :>
> > :>> Doan wrote:
> > :>>
> > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > :>> -------------
> > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > :>> Steve
> > :>
> > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> >
> > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > : almighty studies.
> >
> > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > comment about other people.
> >
> > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
>
> How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> didn't you? ;-)
>
> Doan
--------------
You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > -------------
> > > > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> > > Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> > > assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> > > the same mistake as I did! ;-)
> > >
> > > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > > parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> > > interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> > > this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> > > or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
> > >
> > > [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> > > that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> > > even stronger than spanking!
> > >
> > > For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> > > comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> > > years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> > > group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
> > >
> > > Doan
> > -----------
> > You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
> > smelly ****.
> > Steve
> >
> Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-)
>
> Doan
-------------
You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Jim wrote:
>
> LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
>
> >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>
> >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> >> -------------
> >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> >> Steve
> >
> >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
>
> Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> almighty studies.
>
> --
> Jim
---------------
Your propagandizing is entirely disingenuous. You're deceitfully
implying (deceitful and disingenuous because you yourself know better)
that we're the same person, when any idiot can find out we post from
vastly different addresses and correspond to different real live people.
Steve

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > -------------
> > > > > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> > > > Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> > > > assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> > > > the same mistake as I did! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > > > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > > > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > > > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > > > parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> > > > interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> > > > this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> > > > or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
> > > >
> > > > [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> > > > that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> > > > even stronger than spanking!
> > > >
> > > > For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> > > > comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> > > > years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> > > > group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > -----------
> > > You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
> > > smelly ****.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> -------------
> You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot!
> Steve
>
LOL! So now it is my **** in your mouth?

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > >
> > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > >
> > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > >
> > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > >
> > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> >
> > Doan
> -------------------
> No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> Steve
>
A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:
> >
> > > LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > >> -------------
> > > >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > >> Steve
> > > >
> > > >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > >
> > > Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > almighty studies.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jim
> > >
> > Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed
> > "never-spanked" kid! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> ------------
> Since she and I have never met, why in the world would THAT be, you
> ****-****ing disingenuous LIAR?
> Steve
>
You better wipe that **** off your mouth! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > >
> > > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > :>
> > > :>> Doan wrote:
> > > :>>
> > > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > :>> -------------
> > > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > :>> Steve
> > > :>
> > > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > >
> > > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > : almighty studies.
> > >
> > > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > > comment about other people.
> > >
> > > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
> >
> > How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> > teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> > didn't you? ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> --------------
> You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
> hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
> your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
> more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
> that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
> Steve
>
Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-)

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > >
> > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > > >
> > > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > > >
> > > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> > >
> > > Doan
> > -------------------
> > No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> > with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> > as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> > and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> > Steve
> >
> A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)
>
> Doan
-------------
Damn straight, the never-spanked KNOW that YOUR kind should all be
killed!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:
> > >
> > > > LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > >> -------------
> > > > >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > >> Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > >
> > > > Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > almighty studies.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed
> > > "never-spanked" kid! ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ------------
> > Since she and I have never met, why in the world would THAT be, you
> > ****-****ing disingenuous LIAR?
> > Steve
> >
> I better wipe that **** off my mouth! ;-)
>
> Doan
-----------------
Spit or swallow, asswipe.
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
> > >
> > > > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > > > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > :>
> > > > :>> Doan wrote:
> > > > :>>
> > > > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > :>> -------------
> > > > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > :>> Steve
> > > > :>
> > > > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > >
> > > > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > : almighty studies.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > > > comment about other people.
> > > >
> > > > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > > > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
> > >
> > > How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> > > teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> > > didn't you? ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > --------------
> > You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
> > hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
> > your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
> > more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
> > that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
> > Steve
> >
> Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-)
>
> Doan
--------------------------
Did the math, you ****-****ing LIAR!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> > > > > Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> > > > > assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> > > > > the same mistake as I did! ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > > > > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > > > > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > > > > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > > > > parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> > > > > interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> > > > > this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> > > > > or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> > > > > that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> > > > > even stronger than spanking!
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> > > > > comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> > > > > years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> > > > > group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > -----------
> > > > You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
> > > > smelly ****.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > -------------
> > You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot!
> > Steve
> >
> LOL! So now it is my **** in my mouth?
>
> Doan
------------
Well it ain't mine, you diseased little whore!
Steve

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> > > > > > Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> > > > > > assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> > > > > > the same mistake as I did! ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > > > > > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > > > > > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > > > > > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > > > > > parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> > > > > > interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> > > > > > this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> > > > > > or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> > > > > > that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> > > > > > even stronger than spanking!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> > > > > > comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> > > > > > years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> > > > > > group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > -----------
> > > > > You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
> > > > > smelly ****.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > -------------
> > > You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > LOL! So now it is my **** in your mouth?
> >
> > Doan
> ------------
> Well it ain't mine, you diseased little whore!
> Steve
>
I know! So how did it get in your mouth? :-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > > > > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > > :>
> > > > > :>> Doan wrote:
> > > > > :>>
> > > > > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > :>> -------------
> > > > > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > :>> Steve
> > > > > :>
> > > > > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > > >
> > > > > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > > : almighty studies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > > > > comment about other people.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > > > > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
> > > >
> > > > How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> > > > teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> > > > didn't you? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > --------------
> > > You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
> > > hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
> > > your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
> > > more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
> > > that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-)
> >
> > Doan
> --------------------------
> Did the math, you ****-****ing LIAR!
> Steve
>
So you are still STUPID! Since you can't blame it on the spanking because
you are a "never-spanked" kid, you must inherited from your parents! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > >
> > > > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > > > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > -------------------
> > > No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> > > with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> > > as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> > > and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> -------------
> Damn straight, the never-spanked KNOW that YOUR kind should all be
> killed!
> Steve
>
And who would do that, you???

Doan

[Kane]

On 27 Aug 2003 02:56:13 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

sniping the long rambling nonsense we are so accustomed to from the
Couch Denter. ........................

>Dan says you rushed off to send the bone break discovery
>to various Child Protection authorities.
>Is that true and how did it go, Kane?

The postage is killin' me.

But then I did it in about 3 minutes...by having my assistant do the
actual stuffing and posting. The letter I wrote pointing to the
citations Dan supplied really only took me three minutes to write.
Just cited the sources he gave.

All 50 states were addressed.

I don't ask for feedback. I actually know what caseworkers and CPS
adminstrators do and I'm not going to waste their time with soliciting
responses.

Why don't YOU go bother them? At least it will keep you out of the
bathroom with little girls and offering them "towels" and hands on
shampooing techniques.

Kane

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > >> -------------
> > > > > > >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > >> Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > > > same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > > > really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > > > almighty studies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed
> > > > > "never-spanked" kid! ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ------------
> > > > Since she and I have never met, why in the world would THAT be, you
> > > > ****-****ing disingenuous LIAR?
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > You better wipe that **** off my mouth! ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > -----------------
> > Do you want to Spit or swallow?
> > Steve
> >
> Whatever you prefereed. :-)
>
> Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > > > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > > > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > > > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > > > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > >
> > > > > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > > > > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > -------------------
> > > > No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> > > > with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> > > > as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> > > > and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > -------------
> > Damn straight, the never-spanked KNOW that YOUR kind should all be
> > killed!
> > Steve
> >
> And who would do that, you???
>
> Doan
--------------------
Anyone who wants to is fine with me.
Steve

[Doan]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > > > > No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Usually I would wast my time responding to Steve, but this is not for
> > > > > > > > Steve. :-) This is for LaVonne, who ACCUSED me of "making erroneous
> > > > > > > > assumptions which lead to erroneous conclusions". I guess Straus make
> > > > > > > > the same mistake as I did! ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > > > > > > > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > > > > > > > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > > > > > > > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > > > > > > > parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
> > > > > > > > interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
> > > > > > > > this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
> > > > > > > > or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
> > > > > > > > that the non-cp alternatives correlated to anti-sociable behavior
> > > > > > > > even stronger than spanking!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For those who are not familiar with Straus et al (1997). The "zero-group"
> > > > > > > > comprised 56% of the sample. This group show an improvement after two
> > > > > > > > years. Straus wanted others to believe that this is a "no-spanking"
> > > > > > > > group to further his agenda... until Dr. Larzelere pointed it out to him!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > > You have distorted everything you've ever quoted, you insane piece of
> > > > > > > smelly ****.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Oops! More **** from Steve's mouth. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > -------------
> > > > > You're the only ****-mouth, you old impotent bigot!
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > LOL! So now it is my **** in your mouth?
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ------------
> > > Well it ain't mine, you diseased little whore!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > I know! So how did it get in my mouth?
> >
> > Steve
> ----------
> I bent over and sucked it outa yer butt, ****-mouth.
> Steve
>
LOL! You dad must be proud, "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > > > > > > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > > > > :>
> > > > > > > :>> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > :>>
> > > > > > > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > > :>> -------------
> > > > > > > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > > :>> Steve
> > > > > > > :>
> > > > > > > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > > > > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > > > > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > > > > : almighty studies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > > > > > > comment about other people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > > > > > > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> > > > > > teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> > > > > > didn't you? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
> > > > > hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
> > > > > your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
> > > > > more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
> > > > > that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > --------------------------
> > > Did the math, you ****-****ing LIAR!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > So you are still STUPID!
> ------------------
> I am nothing but a ****-****ing lying piece of Filth.
> Steve
>
I know, you proved it everytime you post, stupid "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > > > > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > > > > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > > > > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > > > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > > > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > > > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > > > > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > > > > > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > -------------------
> > > > > No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> > > > > with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> > > > > as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> > > > > and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > -------------
> > > Damn straight, the never-spanked KNOW that YOUR kind should all be
> > > killed!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > And who would do that, you???
> >
> > Doan
> --------------------
> Anyone who wants to is fine with me.
> Steve
>
Not only that you are stupid, you are a coward too, "never-spanked" boy!

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > > > > > > > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > > > > > :>
> > > > > > > > :>> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > :>>
> > > > > > > > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > > > :>> -------------
> > > > > > > > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > > > :>> Steve
> > > > > > > > :>
> > > > > > > > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > > > > > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > > > > > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > > > > > : almighty studies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > > > > > > > comment about other people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > > > > > > > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> > > > > > > teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> > > > > > > didn't you? ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
> > > > > > hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
> > > > > > your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
> > > > > > more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
> > > > > > that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > Did the math, you ****-****ing LIAR!
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > So you are still STUPID!
> > ------------------
> > You're nothing but a ****-****ing lying piece of Filth.
> > Steve
> >
> I know, you proved it everytime you post, stupid "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
>
> Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > >> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > > > >> -------------
> > > > > > > > >> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > > > >> Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > > > > > same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > > > > > really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > > > > > almighty studies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Jim
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe LaVonne is proud of the fact that Steve is a professed
> > > > > > > "never-spanked" kid! ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > ------------
> > > > > > Since she and I have never met, why in the world would THAT be, you
> > > > > > ****-****ing disingenuous LIAR?
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > I better wipe that **** off my mouth! ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > -----------------
> > > > Spit or swallow?
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > Whatever you prefereed. :-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> I guess I like them BOTH! ;-)
>
> Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > > > > > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > > > > > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > > > > > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > > > > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > > > > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > > > > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > > > > > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > > > > > > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > -------------------
> > > > > > No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> > > > > > with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> > > > > > as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> > > > > > and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > -------------
> > > > YOUR kind should all be killed!
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > And who would do that, you???
> > >
> > > Doan
> > --------------------
> > Anyone who wants to is fine with me.
> > Steve
> >
> Not only that you are stupid, you are a coward too,
> "never-spanked" boy!
>
> Doan
------------
Come to me, ****-breath, I'll blow a hole in your chest and **** in it.
Steve

[Doan]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 26 Aug 2003, Chris wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In alt.parenting.spanking Jim > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > : LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > :>
> > > > > > > > > :>> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > :>>
> > > > > > > > > :>> > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > > :>> > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves.
> > > > > > > > > :>> -------------
> > > > > > > > > :>> No it isn't, you liar. Just go the **** away.
> > > > > > > > > :>> Steve
> > > > > > > > > :>
> > > > > > > > > :>Like you, Steve, I have major doubts that Doan has read the studies he's debated,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > : Beautiful. It's great to check in and see Steve and LaVonne on the
> > > > > > > > > : same team. . . . With the exception of language used there are
> > > > > > > > > : really quite similar in their response to valid questioning of the
> > > > > > > > > : almighty studies.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't see any "valid questioning" in your note, just a snide
> > > > > > > > > comment about other people.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How about raising a valid question about a study you have actually
> > > > > > > > > read and which antispankers on this newsgroup have cited?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LOL! So Steve, the "never-spanked" kid, raised a "valid questioning"???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about you admitting that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) were
> > > > > > > > teenage mothers? You did say you taught math at the "college level",
> > > > > > > > didn't you? ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > You fail to mention that this argument and your cite were blown to
> > > > > > > hell last time you fleshed it out, which is why you coyly post only
> > > > > > > your vague reference, you simply want to drag out your demise one
> > > > > > > more time in hopes of deceiving a bunch of folks in the mean time
> > > > > > > that you actually might have an argument, which you actually DON'T!
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Do the math, "never-spanked" boy! :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > > Did the math, you ****-****ing LIAR!
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > So you are still STUPID!
> > > ------------------
> > > You're nothing but a ****-****ing lying piece of Filth.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > I know, you proved it everytime you post, stupid "never-spanked" boy! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
>
Still no response, Steve? What a stupid fool you are! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It has been over seven weeks now since LaVonne posted "studies that have
> > > > > > > > > > > not been discussed in this newsgroup". I challenged her to debate me
> > > > > > > > > > > on these so-called studies. Why is she so afraid to take me on?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've debated you on studies more times than I can count. Some of the time
> > > > > > > > > > it appears you have read the studies, other times it is apparent that you
> > > > > > > > > > have not. Your debate history has included making erroneous assumptions
> > > > > > > > > > which lead to erroneous conclusions, and then continuing to repeat your
> > > > > > > > > > error after the statistical methodology was explained in detail.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Trust me, I have always read the studies that I've debated on. My
> > > > > > > > > conclusion is backed up by admission of the authors themselves. You made
> > > > > > > > > the accusiations, now let's see if you can back them. Show me my
> > > > > > > > > 'erroneous assumption" and I will show you where the authors said the
> > > > > > > > > same thing as I did. C'mon, LaVonne! Put up or shut up.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is not debate, Doan. This is a waste of my time, your time, and the
> > > > > > > > > > time of everyone else reading the ng's that you post and cross-post to. If
> > > > > > > > > > you want to debate a study, post the study and your comments. You
> > > > > > > > > > certainly should have enough references by now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's start with Straus et al (1997) where you and Chris said the mothers
> > > > > > > > > are not teenage mothers. Your move! :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Typical of LaVonne, she made accusations against me and then ran away when
> > > > > > > > confronted. Is this all that the anti-spanking zealotS can mustered???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > -------------------
> > > > > > > No, you ****ing liar, we simply grow tired of repeating everything
> > > > > > > with you, since you seek to deceive others by reposting every argument
> > > > > > > as if it were new from the beginning and pretending that your reasoning
> > > > > > > and lies were never demolished the LAST time we did so!
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > A perfect respond from a "never spanked" kid. Need I say more? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > -------------
> > > > > YOUR kind should all be killed!
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > And who would do that, you???
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > --------------------
> > > Anyone who wants to is fine with me.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > Not only that you are stupid, you are a coward too,
> > "never-spanked" boy!
> >
> > Doan
> ------------
> Come to me, ****-breath, I'll blow a hole in your chest and **** in it.
> Steve
>
There you go, Steve. That's more like it! Are you threatenning me?

Doan