A short assignment

[mind candy]

I realize I have a sizable advantage because I work in the field, but
everybody reading this has access to the internet, so here it goes. Find one
famous violent criminal who was not spanked as a child. I know a lot of you
would like to prove the experts wrong, so do this one thing and properly
humiliate us. In all the law enforcement research involving thousands of
murderers, rapists, arsonists, bombers, child molesters, and kidnappers, I
have come across only one offender who did not receive corporal punishment
as a child. He was (not yet convicted) murderer/millionaire Robert Durst.
Find just one more reasonably famous offender who wasn’t spanked, and you
will best, not only me, but every expert in forensic psychology. Good luck.
I’ll check back later to see if anyone succeeded.

[Ron]

"mind candy" > wrote in message
news:3f528818$1_4@newsfeed...
>
> I realize I have a sizable advantage because I work in the field, but
> everybody reading this has access to the internet, so here it goes. Find
one
> famous violent criminal who was not spanked as a child. I know a lot of
you
> would like to prove the experts wrong, so do this one thing and properly
> humiliate us. In all the law enforcement research involving thousands of
> murderers, rapists, arsonists, bombers, child molesters, and kidnappers, I
> have come across only one offender who did not receive corporal punishment
> as a child. He was (not yet convicted) murderer/millionaire Robert Durst.
> Find just one more reasonably famous offender who wasn't spanked, and you
> will best, not only me, but every expert in forensic psychology. Good
luck.
> I'll check back later to see if anyone succeeded.


Hmm. Why? Just because you "work in the field", why does that give you
some advantage? I also work in the field, and I have yet to find any
correlation between CP and criminal activity. Criminals come from all walks
of life, rich, poor, spanked and unspanked. Some have even claimed to have
found a genetic reason for ciminal behavoirs.

"Born to Crime : The Genetic Causes of Criminal Behavior by Lawrence Taylor"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0313241724/categoricalgeome/103-3041864-8231830

"forensic psychology" is only so much guesswork, and more than enough of
that. A Cultural Anthropologist would be a better choice, at least they
have some empirical evidence to back their claims. But this guy is
stretching the facts just a bit, as do forensic psychologists.

Ron

[mind candy]

> Hmm. Why? Just because you "work in the field", why does that give you
> some advantage? I also work in the field, and I have yet to find any
> correlation between CP and criminal activity. Criminals come from all
walks
> of life, rich, poor, spanked and unspanked. Some have even claimed to
have
> found a genetic reason for ciminal behavoirs.
>
> "Born to Crime : The Genetic Causes of Criminal Behavior by Lawrence
Taylor"
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0313241724/categoricalgeome/103-3041864-8231830
>
> "forensic psychology" is only so much guesswork, and more than enough of
> that. A Cultural Anthropologist would be a better choice, at least they
> have some empirical evidence to back their claims. But this guy is
> stretching the facts just a bit, as do forensic psychologists.
>
> Ron
>



Forensic: Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation
and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law.
Psychology: The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.



I claim to have an advantage, because I have access to the reports that
contain information the general public usually can't access. Most newspaper
reports are not going to say something like "the suspect was spanked as a
child" just like it won't say "the suspect was known to wet the bed until
the age of 19", or "the suspect routinely drove for hours on end, with no
destination in mind".

I'm not talking about criminal profiling (I assume that is what you mean by
guesswork), although that is part of what we do. I'm simply stating that
from research data we have garnered over the years, there is a correlation
between spanking and violent crime. In my practice EVERY violent offender
came from a home in which corporal punishment was used. This may be only
incidental. I'm equally sure many rapists enjoy ice cream, and I'm not about
to call for a ban on Chubby Hubby. I'm not claiming that spanking alone will
cause anti-social behavior, but the correlation still exists. I have met
many "successful" people who were never spanked as children; just I have met
many "successful" individuals who were spanked. There may be violent
criminals who were not spanked as children, but they are so markedly rare
that no one I've known has ever seen one (aside from the earlier mentioned
Durst). If you work in the field, perhaps you can enlighten me, I just need
one more (again relatively famous, or at least interviewed by a qualified
professional) offender to cause me to reevaluate my stance, and you claim to
know "Criminals come from all walks of life, rich, poor, spanked and
unspanked." I'm not a rabid anti-spanking advocate, and I'm not interested
in a flame war. I'm just a professional who has personally interviewed
hundreds of offenders and the connection I have noticed between growing up
spanked, and committing violent crime is too big to ignore. Change my mind.

[Fern5827]

Poor Mind Candy. 94% of American citizens have been spanked once.

Study some statistics- Correlation does NOT equal causation.

You obviously have never taken a course in basic statistics or psychology.

Mind Candy scribbles:

>Subject: A short assignment
>From: "mind candy"
>Date: 9/1/2003 7:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f528818$1_4@newsfeed>
>
>
> I realize I have a sizable advantage because I work in the field, but
>everybody reading this has access to the internet, so here it goes. Find one
>famous violent criminal who was not spanked as a child. I know a lot of you
>would like to prove the experts wrong, so do this one thing and properly
>humiliate us. In all the law enforcement research involving thousands of
>murderers, rapists, arsonists, bombers, child molesters, and kidnappers, I
>have come across only one offender who did not receive corporal punishment
>as a child. He was (not yet convicted) murderer/millionaire Robert Durst.
>Find just one more reasonably famous offender who wasn’t spanked, and you
>will best, not only me, but every expert in forensic psychology. Good luck.
>I’ll check back later to see if anyone succeeded.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Doan]

On 2 Sep 2003, Fern5827 wrote:

> Poor Mind Candy. 94% of American citizens have been spanked once.
>
> Study some statistics- Correlation does NOT equal causation.
>
> You obviously have never taken a course in basic statistics or psychology.
>
Not to mention the fact that non-cp alternatives have not worked with
these individual either. Remember, our juvenile systems do not permit
corporal punishment and guess where most of them ended up! Let's turn
the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one, where the
non-cp alternatives have not been tried?

Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!

"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)."

Doan

Reference:
Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Notes:
This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of
the other variables."


"CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or more
other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they are
meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation between
CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly as the
effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To control
for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior requires a
longitudinal or experiemental study."

[mind candy]

slice..........................................dic e.........................
..................slash


> Poor Mind Candy. 94% of American citizens have been spanked once.
Spanked once? I would think that number should be considerably higher if we
are talking about a single swat to the bottom, garnered sometime in their
life. I was spanked as a child and hold no resentment to my parents or
school officials for it. I will repeat: I am NOT an anti spanking advocate.
I have never spanked my own children, but that doesn't mean I never will. I
have no ulterior motive, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. My
interest is purely academic.
>
> Study some statistics- Correlation does NOT equal causation.

I believe I already stated that when I said "This may be only
incidental. I'm equally sure many rapists enjoy ice cream, and I'm not about
to call for a ban on Chubby Hubby. I'm not claiming that spanking alone will
cause anti-social behavior, but the correlation still exists."
>
> You obviously have never taken a course in basic statistics or psychology.
>
As a rule, one must take "basic statistics and psychology courses" before
being awarded a doctorate. So, yes I've a little experience in the basic
stuff.

Snip.......................................snip... ..........................
.......................snip

[mind candy]

...............................................Sni p..........................
.............................

>Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
where the
> non-cp alternatives have not been tried?

Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I have
found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer of
both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is as
close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was never
"grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about his
behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime was
so much more extreme.
>
> Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
> equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
> found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
> alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!
>
> "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)."

I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of the
argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue. However I
feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes at
Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
"Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is never
necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we have
seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago and
I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the exact
wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long the
interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions lasted.
Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I posted
here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers post", I
have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is: Am I
correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If so
again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
appreciate it..



> Doan
>
> Reference:
> Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment
by
> Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
> Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.
>
> Notes:
> This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:
>
> 1) Talking to the child calmly
> 2) Sent the child to the room
> 3) Time-out
> 4) Removal of privileges
>
> All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any
of
> the other variables."
>
>
> "CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or more
> other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they are
> meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
between
> CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly as
the
> effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
control
> for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior requires a
> longitudinal or experiemental study."
>

[Ron]

"mind candy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
...............................................Sni p..........................
> ............................
>
> >Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
> where the
> > non-cp alternatives have not been tried?
>
> Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I have
> found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer
of
> both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is as
> close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
> paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was never
> "grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about
his
> behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
> others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime was
> so much more extreme.

So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one consequence?
Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.

> >
> > Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
> > equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
> > found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
> > alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!
> >
> > "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)."
>
> I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of the
> argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue. However
I
> feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
> retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
> Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes at
> Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
> "Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
> spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is never
> necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we have
> seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
> misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago
and
> I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
> confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the exact
> wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
> quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long the
> interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions
lasted.
> Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I posted
> here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers post",
I
> have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is: Am
I
> correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If so
> again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
> appreciate it..
>

In reference to: "Forensic: Relating to the use of science or technology in
the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of
law.Psychology: The science that deals with mental processes and behavior."

Hmmm,

Psycologists are still in the infant / testing stage of their theories.
There are many theories and studies out there, but none can say with
certainty, or anything close to it, that the methods they recommend are as
or more effective. Psychologists stumble and bumble around, trying to
understand the human mind, pronouncing findings from short term studies, as
if they actually know what they are talking about. But, when one is finally
pined down without any wiggle room, they all admit that their theories are
just that, theories. Unproven, and unproveable.

I don't really consider psycology a science as such, but more of an educated
guessing game. I had a young lady tell me today that she has a degree in
"Art Therapy". Art? Drawing? Painting? Therapy? Give me a break.

But I have to agree with you about both Strauss and the intelligence of the
posters (for the most part) in this ng. Most are quite intelligent (some
few are as dumb as stumps), and they present their arguments quite well.
But they are not about individuals. They are about the bigger picture. The
subject as a whole. You are very unlikely to find anyone able here to give
you the specific detail you ask for as most do not interact with criminals
at that level. I have, but as a law enforcement officer and not as a
psychologist. My job was to prevent additional criminal behavior
immediately, not 6 years down the road.

Good luck in your search, but you are really going to need to search
elsewhere if you want an answer.

Ron


>
> > Doan
> >
> > Reference:
> > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment
> by
> > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
> > Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.
> >
> > Notes:
> > This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:
> >
> > 1) Talking to the child calmly
> > 2) Sent the child to the room
> > 3) Time-out
> > 4) Removal of privileges
> >
> > All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than
any
> of
> > the other variables."
> >
> >
> > "CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or
more
> > other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they
are
> > meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
> between
> > CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly
as
> the
> > effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
> control
> > for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior requires
a
> > longitudinal or experiemental study."
> >
>
>

[mind candy]

-- much snippage throughout the post-------------------------------------

> So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one consequence?
> Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.

Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gave him.
(sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)

> Hmmm,
>
> Psycologists are still in the infant / testing stage of their theories.
> There are many theories and studies out there, but none can say with
> certainty, or anything close to it, that the methods they recommend are as
> or more effective. Psychologists stumble and bumble around, trying to
> understand the human mind, pronouncing findings from short term studies,
as
> if they actually know what they are talking about. But, when one is
finally
> pined down without any wiggle room, they all admit that their theories are
> just that, theories. Unproven, and unproveable.

Forensic Psychologists have no real concern with treatment, only
understanding and prediction.
For an analogy look to American football. If the offence is in a shotgun
formation, chances are they intend to pass. If the QB drops back a few
steps, the chances of a throw go up exponentially. Needless to say it could
be a trick play, but history tells us to prepare for the pass. This is the
same rough idea behind forensic psychology. To further the analogy:
Treating professionals are like the broadcaster, they analyze the game, and
try to explain what's going on.
Law enforcement is the defense, they try to stop the offence. The old
analogy comes to mind "Offence gets the glory, but defense wins the game".
The court system is like the referees, they try to make sure the rules are
followed. (And like justice, refs are all to often blind)
We are the odds makers, only our success rate is much, much higher than
Jimmy the Greek could ever have hoped for.
Also, our theories are "proven" everyday, and you know it. Every time a cop
nabs an offender who is behaving, speaking, living, dressing, and committing
crimes just like we said he would, we have validation. Due to the predictive
nature of our work we often times don't receive immediate confirmation,
but -as long as law enforcement is successful- we do get it. Remember Dr.
Brussels profile of George Metesky, the "mad bomber", probably the first
instance of applied forensic psychology the general public became aware of.
We have gotten better at what we do since then.



> I don't really consider psycology a science as such, but more of an
educated
> guessing game.

As that statement relates to Forensic Psychology, it is somewhat
understandable. But like I said before, we are astoundingly accurate in
those "guesses".

I had a young lady tell me today that she has a degree in
> "Art Therapy". Art? Drawing? Painting? Therapy? Give me a break.

Don't ask me for answers, I agree with you. Maybe I'll go back to university
and major in "Checkers Therapy", I'm sure the money is good.
>
> But I have to agree with you about both Strauss and the intelligence of
the
> posters (for the most part) in this ng. Most are quite intelligent (some
> few are as dumb as stumps), and they present their arguments quite well.
> But they are not about individuals. They are about the bigger picture.
The
> subject as a whole. You are very unlikely to find anyone able here to
give
> you the specific detail you ask for as most do not interact with criminals
> at that level. I have, but as a law enforcement officer and not as a
> psychologist. My job was to prevent additional criminal behavior
> immediately, not 6 years down the road.

I have nothing but respect for law enforcement professionals, I think they
are one of the most unfairly demonized groups in our society. That said, you
made subtle jabs at my profession- so allow me to return the favor. When a
case is getting out of hand, you guys call us, not the other way around. I
don't think embattled forces would continue to plead for assistance if what
we do isn't effective. Police departments all over the world beg for our
services, they constantly ask for help. We ask you guys for help only when
somebody steals our car, or breaks into our house. Who gets the most out of
the relationship?
>
> Good luck in your search, but you are really going to need to search
> elsewhere if you want an answer.
>
> Ron

I would like to thank you all for putting up with me, and for the
intelligence and honesty most of you have displayed. I may lurk around for a
while, I do find your debates very intriguing, much better than the ones we
shrinks have between ourselves. Besides, I have kids and now I know where to
go if I ever have questions on the CP subject. God bless you all.

[Mark]

"Mind Candy" wrote:

>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>-- much snippage throughout the post-------------------------------------
>
>Also, our theories are "proven" everyday, and you know it. Every time a cop
>nabs an offender who is behaving, speaking, living, dressing, and committing
>crimes just like we said he would, we have validation. Due to the predictive
>nature of our work we often times don't receive immediate confirmation,
>but -as long as law enforcement is successful- we do get it. Remember Dr.
>Brussels profile of George Metesky, the "mad bomber", probably the first
>instance of applied forensic psychology the general public became aware of.
>We have gotten better at what we do since then.
>
>
>> I don't really consider psycology a science as such, but more of an
>> educated guessing game.
>
>As that statement relates to Forensic Psychology, it is somewhat
>understandable. But like I said before, we are astoundingly accurate in
>those "guesses".
>

"Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall, the
astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted the
killer was a white male loner.

Mark

[mind candy]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> "Mind Candy" wrote:
>
> >Message-id: >
> >

> >
>
> "Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
the
> astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
the
> killer was a white male loner.
>
> Mark
First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
craft.

[Doan]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
> ..............................................Snip ..........................
> ............................
>
> >Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
> where the
> > non-cp alternatives have not been tried?
>
> Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I have
> found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer of
> both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is as
> close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
> paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was never
> "grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about his
> behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
> others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime was
> so much more extreme.
> >
Truly amazing! So the words of a mass murderer is now the TRUTH??? ;-)

> > Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
> > equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
> > found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
> > alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!
> >
> > "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)."
>
> I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of the
> argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue. However I
> feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
> retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
> Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes at
> Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
> "Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
> spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is never
> necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we have
> seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
> misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago and
> I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
> confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the exact
> wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
> quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long the
> interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions lasted.
> Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I posted
> here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers post", I
> have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is: Am I
> correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If so
> again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
> appreciate it..
>
You are confusing between Straus' opinion and research evidence! Straus
has an agenda. His belief gets int the way of his research. When
confronted, he had to admit:

"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)

He, and perhap you also, already has his mind made that spanking is always
wrong. Any data that suppport this preconceived notion is embellished
and those that don't shall be swept under the rugs. IOW, anything to
make that square peg fit the pin-hole! :-)

Doan

>
>
> > Doan
> >
> > Reference:
> > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment
> by
> > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
> > Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.
> >
> > Notes:
> > This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:
> >
> > 1) Talking to the child calmly
> > 2) Sent the child to the room
> > 3) Time-out
> > 4) Removal of privileges
> >
> > All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any
> of
> > the other variables."
> >
> >
> > "CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or more
> > other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they are
> > meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
> between
> > CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly as
> the
> > effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
> control
> > for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior requires a
> > longitudinal or experiemental study."
> >
>
>
>

[Doan]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
> -- much snippage throughout the post-------------------------------------
>
> > So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one consequence?
> > Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.
>
> Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gave him.
> (sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)
>
And if you include that you believe every word that this mass murderer
said! Naivete, perhaps? ;-)

[snip]

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Mind Candy" wrote:
> >
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
>
> > >
> >
> > "Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
> the
> > astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
> the
> > killer was a white male loner.
> >
> > Mark
> First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
> Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
> was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
> failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
> who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
> was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
> killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
> White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
> cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
> were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
> profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
> even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
> loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
> against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
> sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
> out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
> Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
> better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
> the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
> own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
> released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
> at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
> biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
> WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
> into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
> link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
> their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
> I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
> Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
> craft.
>
>
>

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Mind Candy" wrote:
> > >
> > > >Message-id: >
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
> the
> > > astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
> the
> > > killer was a white male loner.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
> > Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
> > was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
> > failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
> > who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
> > was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
> > killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
> > White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
> > cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
> > were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
> > profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
> > even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
> > loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
> > against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
> > sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
> > out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
> > Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
> > better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
> > the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
> > own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
> > released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
> > at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
> > biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
> > WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
> > into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
> > link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
> > their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
> > I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
> > Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
> > craft.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
> think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
> this pseudoscience.

Are you suggesting that his work is "pseudoscience"?

> A teacher who has some good idea of how to
> teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
> some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
> thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.

What has this to do with forensics used to profile criminals? Are you
suggesting that cops have a better way? You'd be amazed to learn that
cops are the ones most likely to turn to forensics for answers in
crime cases.

> Or a parent
> of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
> guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
> thing," according to the experts.

Oh, I don't think they feel guilty for the rest of their lives at all.
I think they gravitate to groups such as this where they hope to find
others as misinformed as you to agree with their strange mental
gymnastics to justify their lack of skill and knowledge.

> So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
> science that isn't science.

Are you saying that crime forensics do not work? That it isn't
science? Please be more specific, if you can manage it.

> I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
> examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.

You may think what you wish. Your analogy below is deeply flawed in
that the researchers don't do what New Guinea natives did. This
thinking error of the natives had to do with lack of knowledge. They
did not try to find out more. The scientists you malign have
considerable knowledge and are always seeking more.

> In the
> South Seas there is a cargo cult of people.

In the whole world there is a spanking cult of people.

> During the war they saw
> airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
> thing to happen now.

Watching other parents parent successfully they want the same thing to
happen for them now.

> So they've arranged to imitate things like
> runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
> wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
> like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
> the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
> doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
> way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So

They arrange to make the child perform like the children of loving
caring knowledgable parents. They use the mental equivalent of
"bamboo" and "wood", force, threats, humilation, pain, and think they
are doing everything right, yet they don't get the same behavior that
the decent knowledgable parents get.

> I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
> apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation,

I call that kind of parenting cargo cult science, because they fallow
all the things they see but do not understand and lack depth of
knowledge about, and they have their own likely violent mean
upbringing they fall back on, just like the natives fell back on wood
and bamboo.

> but
> they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

But they are missing something essential, because their children still
are damaged and become criminals and otherwise less then capable human
beings.

> (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
> Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

Was he talking about the Straus study?

If so apparently he doesn't understand such thing himself and is
practicing Cargo Cult peer review.

You certainly are a product of cargo cult parenting.

Kane

[mind candy]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > -- much snippage throughout the
post-------------------------------------
> >
> > > So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one
consequence?
> > > Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.
> >
> > Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gave
him.
> > (sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)
> >
> And if you include that you believe every word that this mass murderer
> said! Naivete, perhaps? ;-)
>
> [snip]
>
> Doan
>
With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
naiveté. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
psychology, and naiveté by suggesting that we take the "word" of a criminal
over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone grows up
without human contact, or that those that have known an individual suddenly
forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you believe we
wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.

[mind candy]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> >
...............................................Sni p..........................
> > ............................
> >
> > >Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
> > where the
> > > non-cp alternatives have not been tried?
> >
> > Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I
have
> > found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer
of
> > both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is
as
> > close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
> > paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was
never
> > "grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about
his
> > behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
> > others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime
was
> > so much more extreme.
> > >
> Truly amazing! So the words of a mass murderer is now the TRUTH??? ;-)
>
> > > Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
> > > equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
> > > found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
> > > alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!
> > >
> > > "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)."
> >
> > I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of
the
> > argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue.
However I
> > feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
> > retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
> > Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes
at
> > Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
> > "Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
> > spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is
never
> > necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we
have
> > seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
> > misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago
and
> > I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
> > confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the
exact
> > wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
> > quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long
the
> > interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions
lasted.
> > Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I
posted
> > here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers
post", I
> > have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is:
Am I
> > correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If
so
> > again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
> > appreciate it..
> >
> You are confusing between Straus' opinion and research evidence! Straus
> has an agenda. His belief gets int the way of his research. When
> confronted, he had to admit:
>
> "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)
>
> He, and perhap you also, already has his mind made that spanking is always
> wrong. Any data that suppport this preconceived notion is embellished
> and those that don't shall be swept under the rugs. IOW, anything to
> make that square peg fit the pin-hole! :-)
>
> Doan
>
> >
> >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > > Reference:
> > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment
> > by
> > > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
> > > Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > > This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:
> > >
> > > 1) Talking to the child calmly
> > > 2) Sent the child to the room
> > > 3) Time-out
> > > 4) Removal of privileges
> > >
> > > All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than
any
> > of
> > > the other variables."
> > >
> > >
> > > "CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or
more
> > > other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they
are
> > > meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
> > between
> > > CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly
as
> > the
> > > effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
> > control
> > > for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior
requires a
> > > longitudinal or experiemental study."
> > >
Again, you sidestep the quote. Murray did not only say "I feel spanking is
wrong" he said "the only trend we have seen in children who are spanked when
they misbehave is an increase in misbehavior". He was saying his research
shows that spanking is not effective. Normally this would not be an issue,
except only months before he said that CP might be effective. (I should add
that the (former) quote came on the heals of not one, but two longitudinal
studies.) I've few doubts that Dr. Straus is an utterly brilliant man, but
he also talks out of both sides of his mouth, at least on this issue.

[Doan]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- much snippage throughout the
> post-------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > So, every transgression in this individuals life had only one
> consequence?
> > > > Sorry, I find that very difficult to believe.
> > >
> > > Well, not if you include the really long timeout the court system gav=
e
> him.
> > > (sorry for the snide remark, couldn't resist)
> > >
> > And if you include that you believe every word that this mass murderer
> > said! Naivete, perhaps? ;-)
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Doan
> >
> With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> naivet=E9. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> psychology, and naivet=E9 by suggesting that we take the "word" of a crim=
inal
> over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone grows=
up
> without human contact, or that those that have known an individual sudden=
ly
> forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you believe=
we
> wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.
>
Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
in the school?

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> ..............................................Snip ..........................
> > > ............................
> > >
> > > >Let's turn the question back and ask: can you find anyone, just one,
> > > where the
> > > > non-cp alternatives have not been tried?
> > >
> > > Brilliant question! I'm sure you will be a surprised as I was that I
> have
> > > found several. One of my most often interviewed offenders (mass murderer
> of
> > > both his own family and his next door neighbors) was raised in what is
> as
> > > close to a Norman Rockwell life as exists. Spanking, either by hand or
> > > paddle, was the only form of behavior modification utilized. He was
> never
> > > "grounded", never had privileges taken away, and the only talking about
> his
> > > behavior came when he was told why he was being spanked. There have been
> > > others I've seen, but his case is the most puzzling, because his crime
> was
> > > so much more extreme.
> > > >
> > Truly amazing! So the words of a mass murderer is now the TRUTH??? ;-)
> >
> > > > Straus realized his mistake of forgetting that "correlation does not
> > > > equal causation" when he did his Straus & Mouradian (1998) study and
> > > > found that the correlation between anti-sociable behaviors and non-cp
> > > > alternatives were even stronger than with spanking!
> > > >
> > > > "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)."
> > >
> > > I am familiar with the study, and I know many people (on both sides of
> the
> > > argument) consider Dr. Straus the Alpha and Omega on the CP issue.
> However I
> > > feel Dr. Strauss has, to put it bluntly, flip-flopped too many times to
> > > retain full credibility. only months after the release of Straus &
> > > Mouradian, Murray switched back again. In one of my colleagues classes
> at
> > > Cornell University, Straus said (I believe it was a web discussion)
> > > "Spanking is violence" , "spanking is hitting a child", "anyone saying
> > > spanking works when other things do not, is incorrect", "spanking is
> never
> > > necessary". "children should never be spanked" and "the only trend we
> have
> > > seen in children who are spanked when they misbehave is an increase in
> > > misbehavior". These may not be exact quotes, these were made 4 years ago
> and
> > > I was not in the class that heard the remarks. However, I am supremely
> > > confident that they are not misquotes, that the message- if not the
> exact
> > > wording , is what Straus said. Perhaps someone out there has the direct
> > > quotes from that Cornell class, and maybe someone can tell me how long
> the
> > > interval between his "spanking is harmful" and "maybe not" positions
> lasted.
> > > Again, I am not out to convince anyone, my interest is academic. I
> posted
> > > here because I was told APS is "where the intelligent pro-spankers
> post", I
> > > have found that statement to be true, to a degree. My only question is:
> Am I
> > > correct to assume that no one can name a unspanked violent offender? If
> so
> > > again let me thank you all for your contributions to my query, I truly
> > > appreciate it..
> > >
> > You are confusing between Straus' opinion and research evidence! Straus
> > has an agenda. His belief gets int the way of his research. When
> > confronted, he had to admit:
> >
> > "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)
> >
> > He, and perhap you also, already has his mind made that spanking is always
> > wrong. Any data that suppport this preconceived notion is embellished
> > and those that don't shall be swept under the rugs. IOW, anything to
> > make that square peg fit the pin-hole! :-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > > Reference:
> > > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
> Punishment
> > > by
> > > > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
> Behavioral
> > > > Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.
> > > >
> > > > Notes:
> > > > This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Talking to the child calmly
> > > > 2) Sent the child to the room
> > > > 3) Time-out
> > > > 4) Removal of privileges
> > > >
> > > > All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than
> any
> > > of
> > > > the other variables."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or
> more
> > > > other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they
> are
> > > > meant to correct recurs. Consequently, if a stuy finds a correlation
> > > between
> > > > CP and misbehavior, the correlation my be interpreted just a plausibly
> as
> > > the
> > > > effet of misbehavior on CP, as the effect of CP on misbehavior. To
> > > control
> > > > for the effect of prior child misbehavior on later misbehavior
> requires a
> > > > longitudinal or experiemental study."
> > > >
> Again, you sidestep the quote. Murray did not only say "I feel spanking is
> wrong" he said "the only trend we have seen in children who are spanked when
> they misbehave is an increase in misbehavior". He was saying his research
> shows that spanking is not effective. Normally this would not be an issue,
> except only months before he said that CP might be effective. (I should add
> that the (former) quote came on the heals of not one, but two longitudinal
> studies.) I've few doubts that Dr. Straus is an utterly brilliant man, but
> he also talks out of both sides of his mouth, at least on this issue.
>
Which quote? Where and when? Is it base on on opinion or backed by
research evidence? Which longitudinal studies? Did he also said
that the same correlation were even STRONGER for non-cp alternatives?

Doan

[Doan]

Kane9 is back! And barking rabidly again! ;-)

Doan

On 6 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

> Doan > wrote in message >...
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Mind Candy" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Message-id: >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Astoundingly accurate"? Who do you think you're kidding? As I recall,
> > the
> > > > astoundingly INaccurate profile of the Washington area sniper predicted
> > the
> > > > killer was a white male loner.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > First of all, no where near all of us profiled the sniper as a white loner.
> > > Also, Law Enforcement provided us with incorrect information, so the profile
> > > was based on lies to begin with. The failure of the profile was not a
> > > failure of the forensic psychologists, but of the law enforcement officials
> > > who provided false information. We were sure he was male, and confident he
> > > was a loner. Many of us (myself included) thought he was black. When a
> > > killer takes black victims and white political victims, he's likely to be
> > > White. When a sniper takes black victims and apolitical whites, it's
> > > cloudier. Because many black children were targeted, I was pretty sure we
> > > were dealing with a black offender. The media picked up on the "white loner"
> > > profile and claimed it was the consensus, when in fact it might not have
> > > even been the majority opinion. I still maintain that the sniper was a
> > > loner, even though he had a "partner". In this case the two were loners
> > > against the rest of the world, I also think there was a sexual (or at least
> > > sensual) relationship between the two. I will be quite surprised if it turns
> > > out that the relationship was not pederastic. And don't forget, after
> > > Oklahoma city- the world thought it was the work of Arab terrorists, we knew
> > > better. The same goes for the Unabomber. The public only gets to see what
> > > the media allows them to see, and we all know the media sometimes has their
> > > own motives. We do hundreds of profiles a day, and less than .01% are ever
> > > released to the general public. If the average American knew how good we are
> > > at what we do, they would be scared to go out in public. Not long ago
> > > biologists thought all fish were exothermic, and all birds were endotherms,
> > > WRONG. Not long ago the most brilliant minds in anthropology were tricked
> > > into believing a hundred year old skull and apes mandible were the "missing
> > > link", WRONG. All sciences learn from their mistakes, but some sciences have
> > > their mistakes publicized more than others. I know when I wake up tomorrow,
> > > I'll help catch a criminal. That's good enough for me.
> > > Good question though, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my
> > > craft.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
> > think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
> > this pseudoscience.
>
> Are you suggesting that his work is "pseudoscience"?
>
> > A teacher who has some good idea of how to
> > teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
> > some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
> > thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.
>
> What has this to do with forensics used to profile criminals? Are you
> suggesting that cops have a better way? You'd be amazed to learn that
> cops are the ones most likely to turn to forensics for answers in
> crime cases.
>
> > Or a parent
> > of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
> > guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
> > thing," according to the experts.
>
> Oh, I don't think they feel guilty for the rest of their lives at all.
> I think they gravitate to groups such as this where they hope to find
> others as misinformed as you to agree with their strange mental
> gymnastics to justify their lack of skill and knowledge.
>
> > So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
> > science that isn't science.
>
> Are you saying that crime forensics do not work? That it isn't
> science? Please be more specific, if you can manage it.
>
> > I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
> > examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.
>
> You may think what you wish. Your analogy below is deeply flawed in
> that the researchers don't do what New Guinea natives did. This
> thinking error of the natives had to do with lack of knowledge. They
> did not try to find out more. The scientists you malign have
> considerable knowledge and are always seeking more.
>
> > In the
> > South Seas there is a cargo cult of people.
>
> In the whole world there is a spanking cult of people.
>
> > During the war they saw
> > airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
> > thing to happen now.
>
> Watching other parents parent successfully they want the same thing to
> happen for them now.
>
> > So they've arranged to imitate things like
> > runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
> > wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
> > like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
> > the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
> > doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
> > way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
>
> They arrange to make the child perform like the children of loving
> caring knowledgable parents. They use the mental equivalent of
> "bamboo" and "wood", force, threats, humilation, pain, and think they
> are doing everything right, yet they don't get the same behavior that
> the decent knowledgable parents get.
>
> > I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
> > apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation,
>
> I call that kind of parenting cargo cult science, because they fallow
> all the things they see but do not understand and lack depth of
> knowledge about, and they have their own likely violent mean
> upbringing they fall back on, just like the natives fell back on wood
> and bamboo.
>
> > but
> > they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
>
> But they are missing something essential, because their children still
> are damaged and become criminals and otherwise less then capable human
> beings.
>
> > (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
> > Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)
>
> Was he talking about the Straus study?
>
> If so apparently he doesn't understand such thing himself and is
> practicing Cargo Cult peer review.
>
> You certainly are a product of cargo cult parenting.
>
> Kane
>

[mind candy]

-- SNIP-------------------------------------

> With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> naiveté. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> psychology, and naiveté by suggesting that we take the "word" of a
criminal
> over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone grows
up
> without human contact, or that those that have known an individual
suddenly
> forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you believe
we
> wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.
>
Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
in the school?

Doan

I'm sure there were the occasional stern looks and such, but as far as
behavior modification, yes. In his entire academic record he was never
formally punished at school (i.e.- no detentions, demerits, CP, or negative
correspondence to the home). In the home itself, both parents and the
subjects' siblings could not recall a single instance of any punishment but
spanking being utilized. The parents (the mother especially) were quite
adamant about this, saying "neither of us ever yelled at (the offender), we
didn't break his heart by taking away the things he loved, and we didn't
make the punishment go on too long like they do nowadays. A couple swats to
the rear and it was over." The siblings confirmed their homelife was
identical. The subject had never even been pulled over for speeding when he
decided to commit his crime. I would like to add that I'm not trying to pin
the murder of two families solely on the shoulders of spanking, but I was
asked to give an example and this is the most interesting case, and also the
most documented, I have available. Among certain overtly religious segments
of our population, this form of child rearing is not remarkably unusual, it
really isn't.

[mind candy]

............SNIP.................................. .............
> Which quote? Where and when? Is it base on on opinion or backed by
> research evidence? Which longitudinal studies? Did he also said
> that the same correlation were even STRONGER for non-cp alternatives?
>
> Doan
>

I have already answered most of your questions, had you taken the time to
actually read my post you would know that. I recently contacted my colleague
at Cornell, and I have a correction: It was 4 longitudinal studies (not 2)
Murray used to support his claims. He did not name the studies but used
their research to basically say spanking was violent unnecessary, and
counter productive. If you are truly interested, I am sure entering "Straus,
spanking, and Cornell" in a search engine will return mention of the
supporting text. Or one could simply skip ahead from 1999, to the next time
Dr. Straus flip flopped as I'm sure he did (or will do). You will have to
look it up yourself, because to be frank, I really don't care what he said.
I do not wish to debate the value of spanking, because as I mentioned
before, I've yet to form my own opinion on the subject. I just find it
troubling that both sides of this issue use Straus as a weapon when he
himself is (professionally) on the proverbial fence.

[Doan]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
> -- SNIP-------------------------------------
>
> > With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> > naivet=E9. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> > psychology, and naivet=E9 by suggesting that we take the "word" of a
> criminal
> > over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone gro=
ws
> up
> > without human contact, or that those that have known an individual
> suddenly
> > forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you belie=
ve
> we
> > wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> > teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.
> >
> Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
> misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
> in the school?
>
> Doan
>
> I'm sure there were the occasional stern looks and such, but as far as
> behavior modification, yes. In his entire academic record he was never
> formally punished at school (i.e.- no detentions, demerits, CP, or negati=
ve
> correspondence to the home).

So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?

>In the home itself, both parents and the
> subjects' siblings could not recall a single instance of any punishment b=
ut
> spanking being utilized. The parents (the mother especially) were quite
> adamant about this, saying "neither of us ever yelled at (the offender), =
we
> didn't break his heart by taking away the things he loved, and we didn't
> make the punishment go on too long like they do nowadays. A couple swats =
to
> the rear and it was over." The siblings confirmed their homelife was
> identical.

And the siblings are criminal too???

>The subject had never even been pulled over for speeding when he
> decided to commit his crime. I would like to add that I'm not trying to p=
in
> the murder of two families solely on the shoulders of spanking, but I was
> asked to give an example and this is the most interesting case, and also =
the
> most documented, I have available.

And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???

> Among certain overtly religious segments
> of our population, this form of child rearing is not remarkably unusual, =
it
> really isn't.
>
Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)

Doan

[mind candy]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan" >
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: A short assignment


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
> -- SNIP-------------------------------------
>
> > With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> > naiveté. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> > psychology, and naiveté by suggesting that we take the "word" of a
> criminal
> > over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone
grows
> up
> > without human contact, or that those that have known an individual
> suddenly
> > forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you
believe
> we
> > wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> > teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do.
> >
> Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
> misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
> in the school?
>
> Doan
>
> I'm sure there were the occasional stern looks and such, but as far as
> behavior modification, yes. In his entire academic record he was never
> formally punished at school (i.e.- no detentions, demerits, CP, or
negative
> correspondence to the home).

So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?

Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on), but none
of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with him. We
didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we interviewed
several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was exceptionally
well behaved and studious.

>In the home itself, both parents and the
> subjects' siblings could not recall a single instance of any punishment
but
> spanking being utilized. The parents (the mother especially) were quite
> adamant about this, saying "neither of us ever yelled at (the offender),
we
> didn't break his heart by taking away the things he loved, and we didn't
> make the punishment go on too long like they do nowadays. A couple swats
to
> the rear and it was over." The siblings confirmed their homelife was
> identical.

And the siblings are criminal too???

No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful individuals.

>The subject had never even been pulled over for speeding when he
> decided to commit his crime. I would like to add that I'm not trying to
pin
> the murder of two families solely on the shoulders of spanking, but I was
> asked to give an example and this is the most interesting case, and also
the
> most documented, I have available.

And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???

No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a criminal who
was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be coincidence,
but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent behavior?". I asked
the question here because this was the most strongly recommended group. I
mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of a criminal
who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but only one
was a mass murderer.

> Among certain overtly religious segments
> of our population, this form of child rearing is not remarkably unusual,
it
> really isn't.
>
Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)

Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is afforded the same
respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted. James has in
truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone says
something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called "pulling a
Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to Discipline,
Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more I'm too
lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar about him,
he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians- more to the
four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the Amish church.

Doan

[Doan]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doan" >
> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: A short assignment
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> > -- SNIP-------------------------------------
> >
> > > With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> > > naivet=E9. Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> > > psychology, and naivet=E9 by suggesting that we take the "word" of a
> > criminal
> > > over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone
> grows
> > up
> > > without human contact, or that those that have known an individual
> > suddenly
> > > forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you
> believe
> > we
> > > wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> > > teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do=
=2E
> > >
> > Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
> > misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
> > in the school?
> >
> > Doan
> >
> > I'm sure there were the occasional stern looks and such, but as far as
> > behavior modification, yes. In his entire academic record he was never
> > formally punished at school (i.e.- no detentions, demerits, CP, or
> negative
> > correspondence to the home).
>
> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?
>
> Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on), but non=
e
> of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with him. We
> didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we interviewed
> several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was exceptiona=
lly
> well behaved and studious.
>
And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other people
memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

> >In the home itself, both parents and the
> > subjects' siblings could not recall a single instance of any punishment
> but
> > spanking being utilized. The parents (the mother especially) were quite
> > adamant about this, saying "neither of us ever yelled at (the offender)=
,
> we
> > didn't break his heart by taking away the things he loved, and we didn'=
t
> > make the punishment go on too long like they do nowadays. A couple swat=
s
> to
> > the rear and it was over." The siblings confirmed their homelife was
> > identical.
>
> And the siblings are criminal too???
>
> No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful individuals=
=2E
>
And this is becasue they were spanked???

> >The subject had never even been pulled over for speeding when he
> > decided to commit his crime. I would like to add that I'm not trying to
> pin
> > the murder of two families solely on the shoulders of spanking, but I w=
as
> > asked to give an example and this is the most interesting case, and als=
o
> the
> > most documented, I have available.
>
> And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
>
> No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a criminal =
who
> was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be coincidence=
,
> but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent behavior?". I ask=
ed
> the question here because this was the most strongly recommended group. I
> mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of a crimin=
al
> who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but only on=
e
> was a mass murderer.
>
Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked a child
neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation! And the
3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious - for
the reason I stated above.

> > Among certain overtly religious segments
> > of our population, this form of child rearing is not remarkably unusual=
,
> it
> > really isn't.
> >
> Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
>
> Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is afforded the sa=
me
> respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted. James has=
in
> truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone says
> something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called "pulling=
a
> Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to Discipline,
> Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more I'm too
> lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar about him,
> he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
> I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians- more to =
the
> four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the Amish church=
=2E
>
Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?

Doan

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doan" >
> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: A short assignment
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > -- SNIP-------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> > > > naivet . Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> > > > psychology, and naivet by suggesting that we take the "word" of a
> criminal
> > > > over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone
> grows
> up
> > > > without human contact, or that those that have known an individual
> suddenly
> > > > forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you
> believe
> we
> > > > wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> > > > teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do
> .
> > > >
> > > Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
> > > misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
> > > in the school?

That was not the issue. He has cited the circumstances and information
he has, not what he hasn't, and he is curious about exploring it.
Instead of exploring you wish to fight with him.

Well, not unusual for a spanked child when he grows up.

At what point did he offer to debate you?

> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > > I'm sure there were the occasional stern looks and such, but as far as
> > > behavior modification, yes. In his entire academic record he was never
> > > formally punished at school (i.e.- no detentions, demerits, CP, or
> negative
> > > correspondence to the home).
> >
> > So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?
> >
> > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on), but non
> e
> > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with him. We
> > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we interviewed
> > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was exceptiona
> lly
> > well behaved and studious.
> >
> And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other people
> memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
> memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

Confucius said "He who refuses to listen is lying."

> > >In the home itself, both parents and the
> > > subjects' siblings could not recall a single instance of any punishment
> but
> > > spanking being utilized. The parents (the mother especially) were quite
> > > adamant about this, saying "neither of us ever yelled at (the offender)
> ,
> we
> > > didn't break his heart by taking away the things he loved, and we didn'
> t
> > > make the punishment go on too long like they do nowadays. A couple swat
> s
> to
> > > the rear and it was over." The siblings confirmed their homelife was
> > > identical.
> >
> > And the siblings are criminal too???
> >
> > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful individuals
> .
> >
> And this is becasue they were spanked???

He is stating information, not opinion. Unlike you.

> > >The subject had never even been pulled over for speeding when he
> > > decided to commit his crime. I would like to add that I'm not trying to
> pin
> > > the murder of two families solely on the shoulders of spanking, but I w
> as
> > > asked to give an example and this is the most interesting case, and als
> o
> the
> > > most documented, I have available.
> >
> > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
> >
> > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a criminal
> who
> > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be coincidence
> ,
> > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent behavior?". I ask
> ed
> > the question here because this was the most strongly recommended group. I
> > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of a crimin
> al
> > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but only on
> e
> > was a mass murderer.
> >
> Your logic is faulty!

R R R R, oh, good one, good one.

> I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked a child
> neither.

I have, frequently. You must not get out much.

A boy named Alfred, who faired poorly under the Prussian public school
model in German of his time (and the foundation for our public school
system by the way) was taken from Gymnasium (highschool) and sent to
visit relatives in Italy.

He spent the days wandering the byways on his bicycle, and there,
unburderdend by over zealous use of the switch and paddle, happened on
an event that has changed human life profoundly, for good or ill, we
do not know yet. But profoundly.

He didn't do that because he was spanked.

> But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!

Where is the poster you are replying to claiming correlation? You
project badly, very. We've mentioned it to you before. In your frantic
effort to defend your parents, who obviously spanked you, you'll do
almost anything to mount an argument, including make it up as you go
along.

The poster is stating information, to him factual, and asking for
expansion and opinions and I presume even facts from others.

So far you haven't responded in kind.

> And the
> 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious - for
> the reason I stated above.

Of course you would be. You apparently have zero knowledge of his
field. You've never learned how to investigate human behavior and
analyze it. You just guess and babble. And claim OTHERS don't know
what they are talking about.

> > > Among certain overtly religious segments
> > > of our population, this form of child rearing is not remarkably unusual
> ,
> it
> > > really isn't.
> > >
> > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
> >
> > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is afforded the sa
> me
> > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted. James has
> in
> > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone says
> > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called "pulling
> a
> > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to Discipline,
> > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more I'm too
> > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar about him,
> > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
> > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians- more to
> the
> > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the Amish church
> .
> >
> Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases?

Do serial killers kill everyone they come in contact with?

Jimmy recommends it often enough and in such extremes to nearly
helpless small children that your question of the poster is the height
of foolishness.

And that same poster wasn't referring to CP, he was referring to
Dobson's argument for cp. And Dobson does recommend CP for every case
he deems resistance on the part of the child. Rather a fool, as you
are.

> Can you tell me who does?

That would be zero. Asking for what you know is ridiculous on its face
simply makes you out the fool. The use of the Strawman isn't the
hallmark of honest debate.

And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.

You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.

> Doan

If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
fit with your neurotic denial and defense.

It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........

Kane

[mind candy]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doan" >
> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: A short assignment
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> > -- Snips on down-------------------------------------
> >
> >> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?
>
> Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on), but none
> of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with him. We
> didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we interviewed
> several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
exceptionally
> well behaved and studious.
>
And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other people
memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it? Interviews
are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.

>
> And the siblings are criminal too???
>
> No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful individuals.
>
And this is becasue they were spanked???

I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe it is
because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note: The siblings
have all converted to churches other than that in which they were reared.)

> And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
>
> No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a criminal
who
> was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be coincidence,
> but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent behavior?". I
asked
> the question here because this was the most strongly recommended group. I
> mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of a
criminal
> who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but only one
> was a mass murderer.
>
Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked a child
neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation! And the
3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious - for
the reason I stated above.

I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not spanked. I've met
geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were spanked, but I
have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not spanked. We are
going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are suspicious. I'm
not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not forensics or
criminology expert.


> >
> Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
>
> Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is afforded the
same
> respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted. James has
in
> truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone says
> something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called "pulling
a
> Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to Discipline,
> Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more I'm too
> lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar about him,
> he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
> I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians- more to
the
> four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the Amish church.
>
Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?

No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before, there are some
overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and African American
communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline endorsed by God,
and therefore the only one that should be utilized.

on a personal note:
Do you attack everything you don't understand? Or just the things you don't
understand and don't agree with? I did not come here for a debate, I came
here for an answer. I was politely told that I would have to look elsewhere,
but I continue to read the posts because I find them interesting from a
professional perspective. You are the only writer who continues to bait me.
You asked some good questions to begin with, but now you are simply
repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. Everyone in this NG has been
very polite, informative, thoughtful, and honest. Everyone but you. I think
you have raised some very good points in other threads, so I don't want to
killfile you. If you have any new questions for me I would be more than
happy to answer them as best I can, but please stop the needless baiting. It
reflects poorly on you and your cause.

[mind candy]

--
> > > >
> > > > -- SNIP-------------------------------------
> > > >
..
>
> And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
> questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.
>
> You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
> like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
> what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.
>
>
> If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
> his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
> spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
> this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
> fit with your neurotic denial and defense.
>
> It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........
>
> Kane

Thank you, sir- for defending both me and the truth. I fear it won't help
but I appreciate your efforts. Individuals like you, Ron, LaVonne and a few
others (you know who you are) are prime examples of why this newsgroup has
been so respected- on both sides of the issue.

[Doan]

On 13 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

> Doan > wrote in message >...
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Doan" >
> > > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: A short assignment
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -- SNIP-------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > > With all due respect sir, you are the one demonstrating ignorance and
> > > > > naivet . Ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of forensic
> > > > > psychology, and naivet by suggesting that we take the "word" of a
> > criminal
> > > > > over an extensive background search. Do you honestly believe anyone
> > grows
> > up
> > > > > without human contact, or that those that have known an individual
> > suddenly
> > > > > forget everything when that individual commits a crime? Or do you
> > believe
> > we
> > > > > wouldn't want to talk to his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers,
> > > > > teachers, neighbors, et al? No wonder you don't understand what we do
> > .
> > > > >
> > > > Well, do you expect me to believe that the only consequence to
> > > > misbehaviors that this criminal experience is spanking??? In the home,
> > > > in the school?
>
> That was not the issue. He has cited the circumstances and information
> he has, not what he hasn't, and he is curious about exploring it.
> Instead of exploring you wish to fight with him.
>
And that is the problem! Just like you, no common-sense! ;-)

> Well, not unusual for a spanked child when he grows up.
>
How would you know? You were "never-spanked"! :-)

> At what point did he offer to debate you?
>
At what point did he offer you? BTW, did you notice that LaVonne
still running away from debating me? ;-)

> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure there were the occasional stern looks and such, but as far as
> > > > behavior modification, yes. In his entire academic record he was never
> > > > formally punished at school (i.e.- no detentions, demerits, CP, or
> > negative
> > > > correspondence to the home).
> > >
> > > So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?
> > >
> > > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on), but non
> > e
> > > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with him. We
> > > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we interviewed
> > > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was exceptiona
> > lly
> > > well behaved and studious.
> > >
> > And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other people
> > memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
> > memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)
>
> Confucius said "He who refuses to listen is lying."
>
Did you listen to me? :-)

> > > >In the home itself, both parents and the
> > > > subjects' siblings could not recall a single instance of any punishment
> > but
> > > > spanking being utilized. The parents (the mother especially) were quite
> > > > adamant about this, saying "neither of us ever yelled at (the offender)
> > ,
> > we
> > > > didn't break his heart by taking away the things he loved, and we didn'
> > t
> > > > make the punishment go on too long like they do nowadays. A couple swat
> > s
> > to
> > > > the rear and it was over." The siblings confirmed their homelife was
> > > > identical.
> > >
> > > And the siblings are criminal too???
> > >
> > > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful individuals
> > .
> > >
> > And this is becasue they were spanked???
>
> He is stating information, not opinion. Unlike you.
>
Dubious information! Just a few questions brought that to light. :-)

> > > >The subject had never even been pulled over for speeding when he
> > > > decided to commit his crime. I would like to add that I'm not trying to
> > pin
> > > > the murder of two families solely on the shoulders of spanking, but I w
> > as
> > > > asked to give an example and this is the most interesting case, and als
> > o
> > the
> > > > most documented, I have available.
> > >
> > > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
> > >
> > > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a criminal
> > who
> > > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be coincidence
> > ,
> > > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent behavior?". I ask
> > ed
> > > the question here because this was the most strongly recommended group. I
> > > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of a crimin
> > al
> > > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but only on
> > e
> > > was a mass murderer.
> > >
> > Your logic is faulty!
>
> R R R R, oh, good one, good one.
>
> > I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked a child
> > neither.
>
> I have, frequently. You must not get out much.
>
> A boy named Alfred, who faired poorly under the Prussian public school
> model in German of his time (and the foundation for our public school
> system by the way) was taken from Gymnasium (highschool) and sent to
> visit relatives in Italy.
>
> He spent the days wandering the byways on his bicycle, and there,
> unburderdend by over zealous use of the switch and paddle, happened on
> an event that has changed human life profoundly, for good or ill, we
> do not know yet. But profoundly.
>
> He didn't do that because he was spanked.
>
But he was spanked???

> > But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
>
> Where is the poster you are replying to claiming correlation? You
> project badly, very. We've mentioned it to you before. In your frantic
> effort to defend your parents, who obviously spanked you, you'll do
> almost anything to mount an argument, including make it up as you go
> along.
>
Please the poster's first and second post on this thread, "never-spanked"
Kane9! ;-)

> The poster is stating information, to him factual, and asking for
> expansion and opinions and I presume even facts from others.
>
> So far you haven't responded in kind.
>
And you are a perfect example of somone who responed in kind??? ;-)
You and Steve are perfect example of being "never-spanekd"!

> > And the
> > 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious - for
> > the reason I stated above.
>
> Of course you would be. You apparently have zero knowledge of his
> field. You've never learned how to investigate human behavior and
> analyze it. You just guess and babble. And claim OTHERS don't know
> what they are talking about.
>
Unlike you, I just use common sense. This exposed your foolishness and
you don't seem to like it! ;-)

> > > > Among certain overtly religious segments
> > > > of our population, this form of child rearing is not remarkably unusual
> > ,
> > it
> > > > really isn't.
> > > >
> > > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
> > >
> > > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is afforded the sa
> > me
> > > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted. James has
> > in
> > > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone says
> > > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called "pulling
> > a
> > > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to Discipline,
> > > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more I'm too
> > > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar about him,
> > > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
> > > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians- more to
> > the
> > > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the Amish church
> > .
> > >
> > Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases?
>
> Do serial killers kill everyone they come in contact with?
>
> Jimmy recommends it often enough and in such extremes to nearly
> helpless small children that your question of the poster is the height
> of foolishness.
>
> And that same poster wasn't referring to CP, he was referring to
> Dobson's argument for cp. And Dobson does recommend CP for every case
> he deems resistance on the part of the child. Rather a fool, as you
> are.
>
> > Can you tell me who does?
>
> That would be zero. Asking for what you know is ridiculous on its face
> simply makes you out the fool. The use of the Strawman isn't the
> hallmark of honest debate.
>
Exactly, and the poster claimed to have found 3 subjects who ONLY
experienced CP and NOTHING else! Can you believe such nonsense?

> And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
> questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.
>
And I only asked questions back. :-) What have you got agaisnt debate?
Because you are so bad at it? ;-)

> You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
> like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
> what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.
>
And you and Steve are examples of someone who were "never-spanked"???

> > Doan
>
> If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
> his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
> spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
> this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
> fit with your neurotic denial and defense.
>
LOL! I am in denial? Yeah! Like I was never-spanked!

> It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........
>
Maybe one day you have some common-sense? :-)

Doan

> Kane
>

[Doan]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doan" >
> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: A short assignment
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > -- Snips on down-------------------------------------
> > >
> > >> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the teachers?
> >
> > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on), but none
> > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with him. We
> > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we interviewed
> > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
> exceptionally
> > well behaved and studious.
> >
> And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other people
> memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
> memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)
>
> So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it? Interviews
> are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.
>
But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the teachers
to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold and on
every child?

> >
> > And the siblings are criminal too???
> >
> > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful individuals.
> >
> And this is becasue they were spanked???
>
> I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe it is
> because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note: The siblings
> have all converted to churches other than that in which they were reared.)
>
> > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
> >
> > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a criminal
> who
> > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be coincidence,
> > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent behavior?". I
> asked
> > the question here because this was the most strongly recommended group. I
> > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of a
> criminal
> > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but only one
> > was a mass murderer.
> >
> Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked a child
> neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation! And the
> 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious - for
> the reason I stated above.
>
> I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not spanked. I've met
> geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were spanked, but I
> have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not spanked. We are
> going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are suspicious. I'm
> not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not forensics or
> criminology expert.
>
Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant anything.)
You missed my point. I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.
I said nothing about you!
>
> > >
> > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
> >
> > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is afforded the
> same
> > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted. James has
> in
> > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone says
> > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called "pulling
> a
> > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to Discipline,
> > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more I'm too
> > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar about him,
> > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
> > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians- more to
> the
> > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the Amish church.
> >
> Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?
>
> No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before, there are some
> overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and African American
> communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline endorsed by God,
> and therefore the only one that should be utilized.
>
I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?

> on a personal note:
> Do you attack everything you don't understand? Or just the things you don't
> understand and don't agree with? I

Nope! I ASKED QUESTIONS when I don't understand. Why do you take as an
attack?

> I did not come here for a debate, I came
> here for an answer. I was politely told that I would have to look elsewhere,
> but I continue to read the posts because I find them interesting from a
> professional perspective. You are the only writer who continues to bait me.
> You asked some good questions to begin with, but now you are simply
> repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. Everyone in this NG has been
> very polite, informative, thoughtful, and honest. Everyone but you. I think
> you have raised some very good points in other threads, so I don't want to
> killfile you. If you have any new questions for me I would be more than
> happy to answer them as best I can, but please stop the needless baiting. It
> reflects poorly on you and your cause.
>
You came to this newsgroup for an answer??? You are right, you are not
naive! ;-) BTW, I don't have a cause. I have stated in the past and
continued to repeat it very so often. Everyone should use common-sense
and make up their own mind.

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:

>
>
> --
> > > > >
> > > > > -- SNIP-------------------------------------
> > > > >
> .
> >
> > And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
> > questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.
> >
> > You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
> > like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
> > what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.
> >
> >
> > If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
> > his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
> > spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
> > this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
> > fit with your neurotic denial and defense.
> >
> > It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........
> >
> > Kane
>
> Thank you, sir- for defending both me and the truth. I fear it won't help
> but I appreciate your efforts. Individuals like you, Ron, LaVonne and a few
> others (you know who you are) are prime examples of why this newsgroup has
> been so respected- on both sides of the issue.
>
Hey! You forget Steve! :-)

Doan

[Kane]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan > wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Doan" >
>> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
>> > Subject: Re: A short assignment
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > -- Snips on down-------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the
teachers?
>> >
>> > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on),
but none
>> > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
him. We
>> > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
interviewed
>> > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
>> exceptionally
>> > well behaved and studious.
>> >
>> And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
people
>> memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
>> memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)
>>
>> So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
Interviews
>> are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.
>>
>But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
teachers
>to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold and
on
>every child?

So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one must
have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of every
detail of the subject's life, eh?

No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the subject,
to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data that
has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.

Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of 10
chances.

That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't arrest
you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you. And
if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
one's we come looking for first.

Pretty simple eh?

>> >
>> > And the siblings are criminal too???
>> >
>> > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
individuals.
>> >
>> And this is becasue they were spanked???
>>
>> I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe it
is
>> because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note: The
siblings
>> have all converted to churches other than that in which they were
reared.)
>>
>> > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
>> >
>> > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a
criminal
>> who
>> > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
coincidence,
>> > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
behavior?". I
>> asked
>> > the question here because this was the most strongly recommended
group. I
>> > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of
a
>> criminal
>> > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but
only one
>> > was a mass murderer.
>> >
>> Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked
a child
>> neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
And the
>> 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious
- for
>> the reason I stated above.
>>
>> I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not spanked.
I've met
>> geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
spanked, but I
>> have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not spanked.
We are
>> going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
suspicious. I'm
>> not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not forensics
or
>> criminology expert.
>>
>Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
anything.)

Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
your own?

I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it shows.

>You missed my point.

He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a **** how
many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.

>I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.

I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in experience
from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
harmful?

>I said nothing about you!

But you did.

"Are you sure you are in MENSA???"

You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling the
truth about MENSA?

Are you in MENSA?

And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores tatooed
on their foreheads.

So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I think
it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.

>>
>> > >
>> > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
>> >
>> > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
afforded the
>> same
>> > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted.
James has
>> in
>> > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone
says
>> > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called
"pulling
>> a
>> > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
Discipline,
>> > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more
I'm too
>> > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
about him,
>> > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
>> > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians-
more to
>> the
>> > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
Amish church.
>> >
>> Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?
>>
>> No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before, there
are some
>> overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and African
American
>> communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
endorsed by God,
>> and therefore the only one that should be utilized.
>>
>I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?

Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence of
what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
recall the number of times there have been citations of church groups
using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some common
african american names in the list of preachers and church members?

Here I'll give you one of those common references. There are hundreds,
possibly thousands of small, to large, groups that hold such beliefs.

http://www.homeschooldigest.com/index.htm

Sadly this magazine is connected, as you can see, with homeschooling,
a generally superior method of educating children, but in this case
perverted. This magazine has a fair sized subscription list...I used
to receive it as a matter of professional connections.

But if you check out who they serve and what they serve up you'll get
the idea your poster is quite correct.

One of their ads in this magazine is one of those to focus on. There
is currectly an effort by NON fundie Christians to stop this ad..they
aren't succeeding, sadly:




We appreciate your support of these companies as they support and work
with us.

-- P A R E N T I N G R E S O U R C E S --

Slide's Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 506
Checotah, OK 74426
The Rod –Flexible nylon rod, 22" inches, with cushioned vinyl grip,
safety tip. Designed for the purpose of Biblical training. $6.50 per
rod, includes S&H.

___HOME___
___Return To Advertiser's Page___
Copyright 2002-2003 Wisdom's Gate.


This is the kind of sickness you support by your little "let everyone
make up their own mind" nonsense.

That is the same mindset that created an isolationist attitude before
two world wars that turned them into the murderous nightmares they
became.

>> on a personal note:
>> Do you attack everything you don't understand? Or just the things
you don't
>> understand and don't agree with? I
>
>Nope!

I think the poster has you pegged. Attack has been your style for as
long as you have posted here. I've responded in kind because you
haven't a real debate in your entire empty head, though you certainly
fancy yourself as one.

>I ASKED QUESTIONS when I don't understand.

Oh come now. A simple google on your addy will show clearly that
attack is just about all you know. Most every time you post you run
through two or three logical fallacies.

>Why do you take as an
>attack?

How about your "I don't believe you" to the simpliest of the posters
statements.

And demands to prove the obvioius that would require citations in the
hundreds to satisfy you. .. and even then you only do it to try and
find a diverting nitpick.

Try providing proof of YOUR position.

>> I did not come here for a debate, I came
>> here for an answer. I was politely told that I would have to look
elsewhere,
>> but I continue to read the posts because I find them interesting
from a
>> professional perspective. You are the only writer who continues to
bait me.
>> You asked some good questions to begin with, but now you are simply
>> repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. Everyone in this NG
has been
>> very polite, informative, thoughtful, and honest. Everyone but you.
I think
>> you have raised some very good points in other threads, so I don't
want to
>> killfile you. If you have any new questions for me I would be more
than
>> happy to answer them as best I can, but please stop the needless
baiting. It
>> reflects poorly on you and your cause.
>>
>You came to this newsgroup for an answer??? You are right, you are
not
>naive! ;-) BTW, I don't have a cause. I have stated in the past and
>continued to repeat it very so often. Everyone should use
common-sense
>and make up their own mind.

Your statements of position are nonsense. Common sense, like those
nice lead plates and cooking utensils pretty well wiped out the Roman
Empire.

The whole point of examining the use of cp in parenting is to shine
some light on "common sense" and how it so often can fail us.

This poster is attempting to find some factual information, not
"common sense" that is so often nonsensicle on its face.

If cp isn't a factor in the creation of social misfits then let's see
what YOU have to support that?

The poster hasn't found any Unspanked in the ranks of the violent
criminal, except one.

If we accept the premise he is a forensic psychologist with experience
then the assumption would be that he has seen or examine many such
violent criminals.

That may be of no value to you, but to me it brings up the same
questions I have from my own experience with violent juveniles...not a
one that wasn't spanked at least. Not one.

I have seen random behavior that included acts we might call violent
in children with fairly severe psychiatric conditions that I calculate
would likely have been present had they not been spanked, but I never
had examples to prove that.

All I did see had been spanked, with or without diagnosed mental
illness, and were violent.

You have no experience, unless you want to claim otherwise, to make
valid assumptions. You can quess all you want but when professionals
tell you what they have seen why do you insist on claiming they are
unlikely to be telling you the truth?

>
>Doan
>

You aren't going to be taken seriously until you take the subject
seriously. And citing people like Dobson is not going to be one of
those critical pieces that make you appear knowledgable.

And your calling up the much debated Straus is pointless. The poster
isn't asking for studies. He's asking if other's experience, like or
unlike his, might shed some light on his questions.

Unless you have some experience what is your point?

Or, better, what is your experience?

Have you worked with violent criminal populations, or adjudicated or
mental health referred youth and children?

Have you anything other than your own personal family experience? Do
you assume that you can look at people or talk with them and make an
accurate assessment of whether or not they are geniuses?

By the way, how DO you know they were, and that they were unspanked?
You a MENSA member? I have access to membership lists and you know by
now that I know your full name.

You aren't listed.

So you must have some kind of special access to geniuses and their
private life. Care to share how you came by knowing the ones you met
were unspanked? Or were there actually any at all that you met?

Oh, and by the way. Why would you bring up the issue of "genius" as an
arguement. The poster is talking about violent forensic subjects and
the incidence of spanking thereto. As far as I've seen only a few
geniuses are violent to the point of criminality.

But they do exist, so if your premise, that geniuses are also spanked
how does that support your contention, so often voiced here, that
spanking isn't an issue worthy of more attention than "everyone use
common sense and make up their own mind?"

Kane

[Doan]

On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Doan" >
> >> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: A short assignment
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Snips on down-------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > >> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the
> teachers?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on),
> but none
> >> > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
> him. We
> >> > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
> interviewed
> >> > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
> >> exceptionally
> >> > well behaved and studious.
> >> >
> >> And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
> people
> >> memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
> >> memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)
> >>
> >> So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
> Interviews
> >> are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.
> >>
> >But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
> teachers
> >to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold and
> on
> >every child?
>
> So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one must
> have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of every
> detail of the subject's life, eh?
>
Yep! That is the only way to be sure.

> No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
> knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the subject,
> to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data that
> has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.
>
And that is the difference between hard science and soft science!

> Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
> growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of 10
> chances.
>
So now I am a creep? Thank you, "never-spanked" boy. ;-)

> That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't arrest
> you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you. And
> if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
> one's we come looking for first.
>
LOL!

> Pretty simple eh?
>
Yup! For simple-minded "never-spanked" boy like you! ;-)

> >> >
> >> > And the siblings are criminal too???
> >> >
> >> > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
> individuals.
> >> >
> >> And this is becasue they were spanked???
> >>
> >> I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe it
> is
> >> because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note: The
> siblings
> >> have all converted to churches other than that in which they were
> reared.)
> >>
> >> > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
> >> >
> >> > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a
> criminal
> >> who
> >> > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
> coincidence,
> >> > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
> behavior?". I
> >> asked
> >> > the question here because this was the most strongly recommended
> group. I
> >> > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of
> a
> >> criminal
> >> > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but
> only one
> >> > was a mass murderer.
> >> >
> >> Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked
> a child
> >> neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
> And the
> >> 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious
> - for
> >> the reason I stated above.
> >>
> >> I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not spanked.
> I've met
> >> geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
> spanked, but I
> >> have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not spanked.
> We are
> >> going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
> suspicious. I'm
> >> not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not forensics
> or
> >> criminology expert.
> >>
> >Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
> anything.)
>
> Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
> your own?
>
Because I am just a little boy that like to point out that the emperor
has no clothes! ;-)

> I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it shows.
>
I have never claimed any expertise; I do no not "teach at a college
level"; I do not hold a Ph. D; and I am no member of MENSA! :-0

> >You missed my point.
>
> He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.
>
How do you know it's a he? Did you look between his/her legs? ;-)

> He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a **** how
> many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
> relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
> yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.
>
Exactly! Now replace genius with criminal! See my point? :-)

> >I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.
>
> I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in experience
> from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
> you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
> harmful?
>
Two? Very scientific, Kane9. You "cargo-cult" mentality is showing. ;-)

> >I said nothing about you!
>
> But you did.
>
> "Are you sure you are in MENSA???"
>
That is a question, not a declarative statement!

> You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
> discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling the
> truth about MENSA?
>
And what does MENSA have to do with the discussion?

> Are you in MENSA?
>
I have never claimed so. Would it changed your mind if I said I am? ;-)

> And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
> and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores tatooed
> on their foreheads.
>
Then it is funny for you, and the poster, to say that you have known many!

> So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I think
> it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.
>
I never claimed to be a genius nor "teach a a college level" nor have
a Ph. D! ;=3D_

> >>
> >> > >
> >> > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
> afforded the
> >> same
> >> > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted.
> James has
> >> in
> >> > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone
> says
> >> > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called
> "pulling
> >> a
> >> > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
> Discipline,
> >> > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more
> I'm too
> >> > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
> about him,
> >> > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
> >> > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians-
> more to
> >> the
> >> > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
> Amish church.
> >> >
> >> Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?
> >>
> >> No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before, there
> are some
> >> overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and African
> American
> >> communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
> endorsed by God,
> >> and therefore the only one that should be utilized.
> >>
> >I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?
>
> Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
> observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence of
> what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
> recall the number of times there have been citations of church groups
> using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some common
> african american names in the list of preachers and church members?
>
Do you understand using CP and using it EXCLUSIVELY??? Do you like
making a fool of yourself in public??? ;-)

Doan

> Here I'll give you one of those common references. There are hundreds,
> possibly thousands of small, to large, groups that hold such beliefs.
>
> http://www.homeschooldigest.com/index.htm
>
> Sadly this magazine is connected, as you can see, with homeschooling,
> a generally superior method of educating children, but in this case
> perverted. This magazine has a fair sized subscription list...I used
> to receive it as a matter of professional connections.
>
> But if you check out who they serve and what they serve up you'll get
> the idea your poster is quite correct.
>
> One of their ads in this magazine is one of those to focus on. There
> is currectly an effort by NON fundie Christians to stop this ad..they
> aren't succeeding, sadly:
>
>
>
>
> We appreciate your support of these companies as they support and work
> with us.
>
> -- P A R E N T I N G R E S O U R C E S --
>
> Slide's Manufacturing Company
> P.O. Box 506
> Checotah, OK 74426
> The Rod =96Flexible nylon rod, 22" inches, with cushioned vinyl grip,
> safety tip. Designed for the purpose of Biblical training. $6.50 per
> rod, includes S&H.
>
> ___HOME___
> ___Return To Advertiser's Page___
> Copyright 2002-2003 Wisdom's Gate.
>
>
> This is the kind of sickness you support by your little "let everyone
> make up their own mind" nonsense.
>
> That is the same mindset that created an isolationist attitude before
> two world wars that turned them into the murderous nightmares they
> became.
>
> >> on a personal note:
> >> Do you attack everything you don't understand? Or just the things
> you don't
> >> understand and don't agree with? I
> >
> >Nope!
>
> I think the poster has you pegged. Attack has been your style for as
> long as you have posted here. I've responded in kind because you
> haven't a real debate in your entire empty head, though you certainly
> fancy yourself as one.
>
> >I ASKED QUESTIONS when I don't understand.
>
> Oh come now. A simple google on your addy will show clearly that
> attack is just about all you know. Most every time you post you run
> through two or three logical fallacies.
>
> >Why do you take as an
> >attack?
>
> How about your "I don't believe you" to the simpliest of the posters
> statements.
>
> And demands to prove the obvioius that would require citations in the
> hundreds to satisfy you. .. and even then you only do it to try and
> find a diverting nitpick.
>
> Try providing proof of YOUR position.
>
> >> I did not come here for a debate, I came
> >> here for an answer. I was politely told that I would have to look
> elsewhere,
> >> but I continue to read the posts because I find them interesting
> from a
> >> professional perspective. You are the only writer who continues to
> bait me.
> >> You asked some good questions to begin with, but now you are simply
> >> repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. Everyone in this NG
> has been
> >> very polite, informative, thoughtful, and honest. Everyone but you.
> I think
> >> you have raised some very good points in other threads, so I don't
> want to
> >> killfile you. If you have any new questions for me I would be more
> than
> >> happy to answer them as best I can, but please stop the needless
> baiting. It
> >> reflects poorly on you and your cause.
> >>
> >You came to this newsgroup for an answer??? You are right, you are
> not
> >naive! ;-) BTW, I don't have a cause. I have stated in the past and
> >continued to repeat it very so often. Everyone should use
> common-sense
> >and make up their own mind.
>
> Your statements of position are nonsense. Common sense, like those
> nice lead plates and cooking utensils pretty well wiped out the Roman
> Empire.
>
> The whole point of examining the use of cp in parenting is to shine
> some light on "common sense" and how it so often can fail us.
>
> This poster is attempting to find some factual information, not
> "common sense" that is so often nonsensicle on its face.
>
> If cp isn't a factor in the creation of social misfits then let's see
> what YOU have to support that?
>
> The poster hasn't found any Unspanked in the ranks of the violent
> criminal, except one.
>
> If we accept the premise he is a forensic psychologist with experience
> then the assumption would be that he has seen or examine many such
> violent criminals.
>
> That may be of no value to you, but to me it brings up the same
> questions I have from my own experience with violent juveniles...not a
> one that wasn't spanked at least. Not one.
>
> I have seen random behavior that included acts we might call violent
> in children with fairly severe psychiatric conditions that I calculate
> would likely have been present had they not been spanked, but I never
> had examples to prove that.
>
> All I did see had been spanked, with or without diagnosed mental
> illness, and were violent.
>
> You have no experience, unless you want to claim otherwise, to make
> valid assumptions. You can quess all you want but when professionals
> tell you what they have seen why do you insist on claiming they are
> unlikely to be telling you the truth?
>
> >
> >Doan
> >
>
> You aren't going to be taken seriously until you take the subject
> seriously. And citing people like Dobson is not going to be one of
> those critical pieces that make you appear knowledgable.
>
> And your calling up the much debated Straus is pointless. The poster
> isn't asking for studies. He's asking if other's experience, like or
> unlike his, might shed some light on his questions.
>
> Unless you have some experience what is your point?
>
> Or, better, what is your experience?
>
> Have you worked with violent criminal populations, or adjudicated or
> mental health referred youth and children?
>
> Have you anything other than your own personal family experience? Do
> you assume that you can look at people or talk with them and make an
> accurate assessment of whether or not they are geniuses?
>
> By the way, how DO you know they were, and that they were unspanked?
> You a MENSA member? I have access to membership lists and you know by
> now that I know your full name.
>
> You aren't listed.
>
> So you must have some kind of special access to geniuses and their
> private life. Care to share how you came by knowing the ones you met
> were unspanked? Or were there actually any at all that you met?
>
> Oh, and by the way. Why would you bring up the issue of "genius" as an
> arguement. The poster is talking about violent forensic subjects and
> the incidence of spanking thereto. As far as I've seen only a few
> geniuses are violent to the point of criminality.
>
> But they do exist, so if your premise, that geniuses are also spanked
> how does that support your contention, so often voiced here, that
> spanking isn't an issue worthy of more attention than "everyone use
> common sense and make up their own mind?"
>
> Kane
>

[Kane]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:02:20 -0700, Doan > wrote:

>On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Doan" >
>> >> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
>> >> > Subject: Re: A short assignment
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -- Snips on down-------------------------------------
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed
the
>> teachers?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed
on),
>> but none
>> >> > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
>> him. We
>> >> > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
>> interviewed
>> >> > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
>> >> exceptionally
>> >> > well behaved and studious.
>> >> >
>> >> And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
>> people
>> >> memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the
best
>> >> memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
>> Interviews
>> >> are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.
>> >>
>> >But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
>> teachers
>> >to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold
and
>> on
>> >every child?
>>
>> So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one
must
>> have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of
every
>> detail of the subject's life, eh?
>>
>Yep! That is the only way to be sure.

Now we have, by your own admission, a clear understanding of your
reality. Waaaay out of touch.

Should we rely on your methods to determine courses of action, like
turning on the lights, or scheduling traffic flow, or controlling
nuclear reactions, we must not...because we don't have that minute a
record of events to examine.

>> No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
>> knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the
subject,
>> to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data
that
>> has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.
>>
>And that is the difference between hard science and soft science!

Yes........? And............?

Are you then claiming that hard science is the only valid science we
should use for decision making?

You will have to stay indoors under your bed then.

You make decisions based on "soft science."

Your decision making is in itself, "soft science" personafied.

Wait! I could be wrong. Maybe you don't operate in the same world the
rest of us do.

>
>> Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
>> growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of
10
>> chances.
>>
>So now I am a creep?

Did you have doubts?

> Thank you, "never-spanked" boy. ;-)

And on what body of precise minute by minute second by second
research, scientific, do you base the assumption that I am spanked or
unspanked? Or "never-spanked" and am a "boy?."

>> That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't
arrest
>> you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you.
And
>> if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
>> one's we come looking for first.
>>
>LOL!

The nervous laughter of a useless twit. But one who knows he's
something of a menage to society.

>> Pretty simple eh?
>>
>Yup! For simple-minded "never-spanked" boy like you! ;-)

Yup! Sure is.

>> >> >
>> >> > And the siblings are criminal too???
>> >> >
>> >> > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
>> individuals.
>> >> >
>> >> And this is becasue they were spanked???
>> >>
>> >> I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe
it
>> is
>> >> because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note:
The
>> siblings
>> >> have all converted to churches other than that in which they
were
>> reared.)
>> >>
>> >> > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met
a
>> criminal
>> >> who
>> >> > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
>> coincidence,
>> >> > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
>> behavior?". I
>> >> asked
>> >> > the question here because this was the most strongly
recommended
>> group. I
>> >> > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases
of
>> a
>> >> criminal
>> >> > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3,
but
>> only one
>> >> > was a mass murderer.
>> >> >
>> >> Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not
spanked
>> a child
>> >> neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
>> And the
>> >> 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very
suspicious
>> - for
>> >> the reason I stated above.
>> >>
>> >> I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not
spanked.
>> I've met
>> >> geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
>> spanked, but I
>> >> have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not
spanked.
>> We are
>> >> going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
>> suspicious. I'm
>> >> not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not
forensics
>> or
>> >> criminology expert.
>> >>
>> >Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
>> anything.)
>>
>> Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
>> your own?
>>
>Because I am just a little boy that like to point out that the
emperor
>has no clothes! ;-)

And which of the poster's clothes are you prepared to prove he has
none of, little boy?

According to you he cannot make worthwhile judgements about criminals
based on forensic psychology, yet he and his collegues do so, and are
sought after energetically by law enforcement. You think they want
"hard science" as you describe it before they'll believe its
effectiveness?

Or is it that you want him to prove he is a member of MENSA, or that
geniuses have no worth, intellectually, that isn't held by mentaly
disabled folks?

You really need to settle down to something here, Doan, before you
embarrass yourself to the extreme.

>> I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it
shows.
>>
>I have never claimed any expertise;

What a relief. It sure looked like you were quite happy to challenge
those that do as though you were their peer, expertwise.

>I do no not "teach at a college
>level";

I can't begin to express my thankfulness.

>I do not hold a Ph. D; and I am no member of MENSA! :-0

Did you think we would have trouble figuring that out for ourselves?
[:-}

>
>> >You missed my point.
>>
>> He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.
>>
>How do you know it's a he? Did you look between his/her legs? ;-)

I have decided to use the masculine based on the rythym and syntax of
his posts and replies. I surely could be wrong, but I am clumsy with
the nuetered constructs and saying they when I mean an individual

It is a convenience I'll assume, unless the poster says otherwise, I
am free to use.

Are you curious about what is between his legs? I'm not.

>> He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
how
>> many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
>> relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
>> yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.
>>
>Exactly! Now replace genius with criminal! See my point? :-)

Okay, let's try that.

>> He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
how
>> many CRIMINALS you've met that have or haven't been spanked.

SEE?

The difference is you have admitted you have no expertise in either
case. He does. When you have trained and practiced as a forensic
psychologist and therefor have all that minute detail you demand for
scientific validity, come back and use it to refute his claims or
questions.

>> >I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.
>>
>> I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in
experience
>> from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
>> you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
>> harmful?
>>
>Two? Very scientific, Kane9. You "cargo-cult" mentality is showing.
;-)

All I said was that two of use differ in experience from you. YOUR
instence that you have a valid opposing opinion (especially when the
poster is quite reluctant to declare any position at all) shows who
has the "cargo cult" mentality.

You are making assumptions on little or no knowledge. If he is to be
believed, he is making his on his professional training and
experience, and I know I am.

So...what do you bring to the table to support your assumptions and
claims? That you were spanked, as you have admitted?

I've always thought a doctor that is too fresh from his own disease is
suspect for treating mine. I'd rather he had lots of distance from say
his own broken leg before he sets mine. Better perspective.

So how long has it been since your Bo or Me whipped your little smart
ass butt, eh?

>> >I said nothing about you!
>>
>> But you did.
>>
>> "Are you sure you are in MENSA???"
>>
>That is a question, not a declarative statement!

I didn't say it was "declarative."

I only stated that you said something about him.

And it is disengenuous of you to think we can't get the nuance of
putting the word "sure" into a sentence to imply the poster is
possibly lying or in some other way impaired or questionable on his
MENSA status.

In other words, you are calling him a liar. And your response to my
question was a lie on your part. Very interesting.

But this is your attempt, as we are accustomed to, to appear erudite
when in fact you are simply a liar.

>> You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
>> discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling
the
>> truth about MENSA?
>>
>And what does MENSA have to do with the discussion?

YOU brought up genius, and that fact you had met none that had not
been spanked. Do you frequently introduce a point but not want a reply
in kind?

Oh, wait...of course. You do it all the time.

>> Are you in MENSA?
>>
>I have never claimed so. Would it changed your mind if I said I am?
;-)

Not in the least. I know rather a lot of folks that are members of
MENSA, and some are stupid and some are rude, and some kind,
thoughtful, considerate and smart. Rather like the general run of the
mill folks.

But we weren't arguing the relative merits of MENSANs but rather how
many genius you know and how many the poster knows. And the spanking
rate amongst them.

And you brought it up, genius.

>> And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
>> and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores
tatooed
>> on their foreheads.
>>
>Then it is funny for you, and the poster, to say that you have known
many!

Well, the poster pointed out his MENSA membership. I would conclude
either you don't know what MENSA is, or you are being stupid again. He
would, if he attends gettogethers with MENSANs, hard put to NOT meet a
lot of geniuses, by test. But then that is how it's established.

Now if you want to claim you have met intelligent people that were
spanked that might change things, but you said "geniuses" and that
puts the ball in your court to show how you know they were geniuses,
as I asked you to do.

I notice you avoided responding to the question and instead posed a
diversion.

For my part, I have lots of ways of knowning when I meet or have met a
genius. I ask. Usually the other person asks me. Want to guess why?

>> So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I
think
>> it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.
>>
>I never claimed to be a genius nor "teach a a college level" nor have
>a Ph. D! ;=3D_

And I've congratulated you on saving humankind.

Now that you have thoroughly, and once again, backed yourself into a
corner that you can't get out of and have reverted to your usual smart
ass remarks, shall we assume you have nothing to contribute to the
posters questions?

>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
>> afforded the
>> >> same
>> >> > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are
granted.
>> James has
>> >> in
>> >> > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime
someone
>> says
>> >> > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is
called
>> "pulling
>> >> a
>> >> > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
>> Discipline,
>> >> > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple
more
>> I'm too
>> >> > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
>> about him,
>> >> > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously
so.
>> >> > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream
Christians-
>> more to
>> >> the
>> >> > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
>> Amish church.
>> >> >
>> >> Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?
>> >>
>> >> No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before,
there
>> are some
>> >> overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and
African
>> American
>> >> communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
>> endorsed by God,
>> >> and therefore the only one that should be utilized.
>> >>
>> >I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?
>>
>> Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
>> observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence
of
>> what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
>> recall the number of times there have been citations of church
groups
>> using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some
common
>> african american names in the list of preachers and church members?
>>
>Do you understand using CP and using it EXCLUSIVELY???

Yes, I understand the using of CP.

It is impossible to use it exclusively and so it is not a valid
response to the posters inquiry here.

It's just another of your diversions where you think yourself clever
to have slipped out of answering to the question posed.

>Do you like
>making a fool of yourself in public??? ;-)

When did you stop beating your wife?.

As for fool, I think we'll let your question stand as is. It is a
perfect demonstration of your childishness.
>
>Doan

snipping yet another series of questions and points made that Doan
does not answer or respond too, for fear of showing himself for what
he is.

And we now prepare ourselves for an onslaught of further foolishness
to cover up his lack of knowledge and wit, by the Genius at
Tomfoolery, Doan the Devious...a title he is in love with, given his
performance.

bingo bango bongo.

r r r r

Stoneman

[Kane]

"mind candy" > wrote in message news:<3f528818$1_4@newsfeed>...
> I realize I have a sizable advantage because I work in the field, but
> everybody reading this has access to the internet, so here it goes. Find one
> famous violent criminal who was not spanked as a child. I know a lot of you
> would like to prove the experts wrong, so do this one thing and properly
> humiliate us. In all the law enforcement research involving thousands of
> murderers, rapists, arsonists, bombers, child molesters, and kidnappers, I
> have come across only one offender who did not receive corporal punishment
> as a child. He was (not yet convicted) murderer/millionaire Robert Durst.
> Find just one more reasonably famous offender who wasn?t spanked, and you
> will best, not only me, but every expert in forensic psychology. Good luck.
> I?ll check back later to see if anyone succeeded.

So let's start again....<smile>

My work has put me in close contact with families and children since
about 1976. That in itself isn't unusual, but it's been both
adjudicated and/or diagnosed youth and children (and their families)
and those that are not.

In other words, dyfunctional and those that are not shown to be...for
what that might be worth.

My experience has been that among those that dysfunctional I have been
hard pressed to find any that have not been spanked. In fact in all
those instances I reviewed the information available, including by
interview of the subject and those familiar with the subject, I found
NONE that were unspanked and worse along with spanking.

Among the not shown by evaluation to be dysfunctional I found a mix.
Some where spanked, some not. Invariably I found though that those
that were NOT spanked dysfunction was missing or very low, and yet I
could not determine that they were truly not spanked.

Investigation can go only so far, after all.

Another point I noticed was that even among those reporting
non-spanking those with some with, to my view, slight dysfunction the
parents used some other punishments that were in place that the child
was reactive to. Usually it was humiliation of some kind: name
calling, and predicting failure most often.

One might find the Durst question answered by this punishment model.
Can't say as I surely don't know the case well.

My conclusion was and is that spanking (and other punishments) has a
risk of producing dysfunction that exceeds the risk of non spanking
and nonpunishing parenting methods.

An over-simplistic conclusion on my part: why use spanking or even
punishement at all if one has other tools for parenting?

It worked for me and my children.

(Note: I do not include natural consequence, if not imposed by
another, as punishment, but some children might experience them as
such...the very sensative child for instance).

Best wishes, Kane

[Doan]

On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:02:20 -0700, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> > From: "Doan" >
> >> >> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: A short assignment
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -- Snips on down-------------------------------------
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed
> the
> >> teachers?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed
> on),
> >> but none
> >> >> > of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
> >> him. We
> >> >> > didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
> >> interviewed
> >> >> > several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
> >> >> exceptionally
> >> >> > well behaved and studious.
> >> >> >
> >> >> And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
> >> people
> >> >> memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the
> best
> >> >> memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
> >> Interviews
> >> >> are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.
> >> >>
> >> >But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
> >> teachers
> >> >to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold
> and
> >> on
> >> >every child?
> >>
> >> So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one
> must
> >> have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of
> every
> >> detail of the subject's life, eh?
> >>
> >Yep! That is the only way to be sure.
>
> Now we have, by your own admission, a clear understanding of your
> reality. Waaaay out of touch.
>
And so much for your understanding of the scientific method. :-)

> Should we rely on your methods to determine courses of action, like
> turning on the lights, or scheduling traffic flow, or controlling
> nuclear reactions, we must not...because we don't have that minute a
> record of events to examine.
>
No. Of course not. We just asked the night watchman what he saw. :-)

> >> No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
> >> knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the
> subject,
> >> to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data
> that
> >> has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.
> >>
> >And that is the difference between hard science and soft science!
>
> Yes........? And............?
>
> Are you then claiming that hard science is the only valid science we
> should use for decision making?
>
Never said that. We should use common-sense.

> You will have to stay indoors under your bed then.
>
Why?

> You make decisions based on "soft science."
>
Really?

> Your decision making is in itself, "soft science" personafied.
>
Nope!

> Wait! I could be wrong. Maybe you don't operate in the same world the
> rest of us do.
>
Who are we? The 94%+ that spanked? ;-)

> >
> >> Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
> >> growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of
> 10
> >> chances.
> >>
> >So now I am a creep?
>
> Did you have doubts?
>
About you? NOPE! ;-)

> > Thank you, "never-spanked" boy. ;-)
>
> And on what body of precise minute by minute second by second
> research, scientific, do you base the assumption that I am spanked or
> unspanked? Or "never-spanked" and am a "boy?."
>
You are either "never-spanked" nor not. ;-) Your chance to say something
about your mom again. Go ahead! ;-)

> >> That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't
> arrest
> >> you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you.
> And
> >> if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
> >> one's we come looking for first.
> >>
> >LOL!
>
> The nervous laughter of a useless twit. But one who knows he's
> something of a menage to society.
>
That's just a laught in your face, Kane9!

> >> Pretty simple eh?
> >>
> >Yup! For simple-minded "never-spanked" boy like you! ;-)
>
> Yup! Sure is.
>
I know, simple-minded "never-spanked" boy! :-)

> >> >> >
> >> >> > And the siblings are criminal too???
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
> >> individuals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> And this is becasue they were spanked???
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe
> it
> >> is
> >> >> because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note:
> The
> >> siblings
> >> >> have all converted to churches other than that in which they
> were
> >> reared.)
> >> >>
> >> >> > And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met
> a
> >> criminal
> >> >> who
> >> >> > was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
> >> coincidence,
> >> >> > but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
> >> behavior?". I
> >> >> asked
> >> >> > the question here because this was the most strongly
> recommended
> >> group. I
> >> >> > mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases
> of
> >> a
> >> >> criminal
> >> >> > who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3,
> but
> >> only one
> >> >> > was a mass murderer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not
> spanked
> >> a child
> >> >> neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
> >> And the
> >> >> 3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very
> suspicious
> >> - for
> >> >> the reason I stated above.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not
> spanked.
> >> I've met
> >> >> geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
> >> spanked, but I
> >> >> have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not
> spanked.
> >> We are
> >> >> going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
> >> suspicious. I'm
> >> >> not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not
> forensics
> >> or
> >> >> criminology expert.
> >> >>
> >> >Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
> >> anything.)
> >>
> >> Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
> >> your own?
> >>
> >Because I am just a little boy that like to point out that the
> emperor
> >has no clothes! ;-)
>
> And which of the poster's clothes are you prepared to prove he has
> none of, little boy?
>
It's a figure of speech, Kane9. You might want to ask your master (or is
it ex-master, Chris. :-)

> According to you he cannot make worthwhile judgements about criminals
> based on forensic psychology, yet he and his collegues do so, and are
> sought after energetically by law enforcement. You think they want
> "hard science" as you describe it before they'll believe its
> effectiveness?
>
LOL! And if they sought psychics, I must believe in psychics too?
Hey, Kane9, your "cargo-cult' mentality is showing. :-)

> Or is it that you want him to prove he is a member of MENSA, or that
> geniuses have no worth, intellectually, that isn't held by mentaly
> disabled folks?
>
Huh?

> You really need to settle down to something here, Doan, before you
> embarrass yourself to the extreme.
>
No. You should look at yourself first. :-)

> >> I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it
> shows.
> >>
> >I have never claimed any expertise;
>
> What a relief. It sure looked like you were quite happy to challenge
> those that do as though you were their peer, expertwise.
>
Sure, I will challenge anyone. You see, unlike you, I learn to think
for myself. ;-)

> >I do no not "teach at a college
> >level";
>
> I can't begin to express my thankfulness.
>
> >I do not hold a Ph. D; and I am no member of MENSA! :-0
>
> Did you think we would have trouble figuring that out for ourselves?
> [:-}
>
And that makes it much more fun when I kicked your butt! ;-)
Remember how you claimed to be a security "expert"??? ;-)

> >
> >> >You missed my point.
> >>
> >> He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.
> >>
> >How do you know it's a he? Did you look between his/her legs? ;-)
>
> I have decided to use the masculine based on the rythym and syntax of
> his posts and replies. I surely could be wrong, but I am clumsy with
> the nuetered constructs and saying they when I mean an individual
>
So you are admitting that you are stupid? ;-)

> It is a convenience I'll assume, unless the poster says otherwise, I
> am free to use.
>
And you came up looking like an ass! ;-)

> Are you curious about what is between his legs? I'm not.
>
I didn't make any assumption, YOU DID! ;-)

> >> He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
> how
> >> many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
> >> relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
> >> yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.
> >>
> >Exactly! Now replace genius with criminal! See my point? :-)
>
> Okay, let's try that.
>
> >> He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
> how
> >> many CRIMINALS you've met that have or haven't been spanked.
>
> SEE?
>
Yes! Are you stat stupid? He(?) did asked in his first post if anyone
know of any criminals who weren't spanked!!!

> The difference is you have admitted you have no expertise in either
> case. He does. When you have trained and practiced as a forensic
> psychologist and therefor have all that minute detail you demand for
> scientific validity, come back and use it to refute his claims or
> questions.
>
And how do you know that he (again?) has any expertise? You just admitted
that you don't even know if he has a dick between his legs! Are you this
stupid or are you just pretending to be this stupid? ;-)

> >> >I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.
> >>
> >> I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in
> experience
> >> from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
> >> you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
> >> harmful?
> >>
> >Two? Very scientific, Kane9. You "cargo-cult" mentality is showing.
> ;-)
>
> All I said was that two of use differ in experience from you. YOUR
> instence that you have a valid opposing opinion (especially when the
> poster is quite reluctant to declare any position at all) shows who
> has the "cargo cult" mentality.
>
Huh? Two of you said spanking is harmful and that is scientific?
What logic! :-)

> You are making assumptions on little or no knowledge. If he is to be
> believed, he is making his on his professional training and
> experience, and I know I am.
>
I asked questions that he (again?) cannot answered.! This is the
interrnet and one can claim anything. One can even claim to "teach math
at a college level" with just a M.A in Biology!!! Do you know how to
think for yourself, Kane9? Or you just too happy to be a little dog
obeying the commands of your master? ;-)

> So...what do you bring to the table to support your assumptions and
> claims? That you were spanked, as you have admitted?
>
Yup! I have admitted that. :-)

> I've always thought a doctor that is too fresh from his own disease is
> suspect for treating mine. I'd rather he had lots of distance from say
> his own broken leg before he sets mine. Better perspective.
>
And you are willing to take diagnostics from a doctor over the internet,
right, Kane9? ;-)

> So how long has it been since your Bo or Me whipped your little smart
> ass butt, eh?
>
Who? You gonna whip my ass or I'll whip yours - like so many times before.
:-)

> >> >I said nothing about you!
> >>
> >> But you did.
> >>
> >> "Are you sure you are in MENSA???"
> >>
> >That is a question, not a declarative statement!
>
> I didn't say it was "declarative."
>
But you said I did. That is a declarative sentence! Are you playing
stupid again? ;-)

> I only stated that you said something about him.
>
LOL! If I "said something about him" then I made a declarative statement,
you fool! ;-)

> And it is disengenuous of you to think we can't get the nuance of
> putting the word "sure" into a sentence to imply the poster is
> possibly lying or in some other way impaired or questionable on his
> MENSA status.
>
I asked him a question!

> In other words, you are calling him a liar. And your response to my
> question was a lie on your part. Very interesting.
>
No where did I said he is liar, you stupid Kane9! ;-)

> But this is your attempt, as we are accustomed to, to appear erudite
> when in fact you are simply a liar.
>
LOL! Now you're calling a liar. You can do better than that,
"never-spanked" boy! ;-)

> >> You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
> >> discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling
> the
> >> truth about MENSA?
> >>
> >And what does MENSA have to do with the discussion?
>
> YOU brought up genius, and that fact you had met none that had not
> been spanked. Do you frequently introduce a point but not want a reply
> in kind?
>
> Oh, wait...of course. You do it all the time.
>
Yup! To point out the irrelevance or illogical of the poster. You don't
get it. ;-)

> >> Are you in MENSA?
> >>
> >I have never claimed so. Would it changed your mind if I said I am?
> ;-)
>
> Not in the least. I know rather a lot of folks that are members of
> MENSA, and some are stupid and some are rude, and some kind,
> thoughtful, considerate and smart. Rather like the general run of the
> mill folks.
>
Which point that MENSA is relevant to the discussion??? ;-)

> But we weren't arguing the relative merits of MENSANs but rather how
> many genius you know and how many the poster knows. And the spanking
> rate amongst them.
>
So members of MENSA are geniuses???

> And you brought it up, genius.
>
Did I said I was?

> >> And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
> >> and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores
> tatooed
> >> on their foreheads.
> >>
> >Then it is funny for you, and the poster, to say that you have known
> many!
>
> Well, the poster pointed out his MENSA membership. I would conclude
> either you don't know what MENSA is, or you are being stupid again. He
> would, if he attends gettogethers with MENSANs, hard put to NOT meet a
> lot of geniuses, by test. But then that is how it's established.
>
You might want to re-read your discription of MENSA above. You will see
that the stupid one is Y-O-U! ;-)

> Now if you want to claim you have met intelligent people that were
> spanked that might change things, but you said "geniuses" and that
> puts the ball in your court to show how you know they were geniuses,
> as I asked you to do.
>
Irrelevant! Remember, you said some members of MENSA are stupid! ;-)

> I notice you avoided responding to the question and instead posed a
> diversion.
>
> For my part, I have lots of ways of knowning when I meet or have met a
> genius. I ask. Usually the other person asks me. Want to guess why?
>
Because you are a genius! OF COURSE! ;-)

> >> So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I
> think
> >> it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.
> >>
> >I never claimed to be a genius nor "teach a a college level" nor have
> >a Ph. D! ;=3D_
>
> And I've congratulated you on saving humankind.
>
How's that? I thought you are the one that out to save humankind from
spankers! ;-)

> Now that you have thoroughly, and once again, backed yourself into a
> corner that you can't get out of and have reverted to your usual smart
> ass remarks, shall we assume you have nothing to contribute to the
> posters questions?
>
And the poster is a he? LOL! A genius, a member of MENSA, who came to
alt.parenting.spanking looking for answer??? Yeah, Kane. Look who is
the fool - which no clothes! :-)

> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
> >> afforded the
> >> >> same
> >> >> > respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are
> granted.
> >> James has
> >> >> in
> >> >> > truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime
> someone
> >> says
> >> >> > something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is
> called
> >> "pulling
> >> >> a
> >> >> > Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
> >> Discipline,
> >> >> > Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple
> more
> >> I'm too
> >> >> > lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
> >> about him,
> >> >> > he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously
> so.
> >> >> > I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream
> Christians-
> >> more to
> >> >> the
> >> >> > four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
> >> Amish church.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?
> >> >>
> >> >> No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before,
> there
> >> are some
> >> >> overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and
> African
> >> American
> >> >> communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
> >> endorsed by God,
> >> >> and therefore the only one that should be utilized.
> >> >>
> >> >I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?
> >>
> >> Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
> >> observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence
> of
> >> what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
> >> recall the number of times there have been citations of church
> groups
> >> using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some
> common
> >> african american names in the list of preachers and church members?
> >>
> >Do you understand using CP and using it EXCLUSIVELY???
>
> Yes, I understand the using of CP.
>
> It is impossible to use it exclusively and so it is not a valid
> response to the posters inquiry here.
>
> It's just another of your diversions where you think yourself clever
> to have slipped out of answering to the question posed.
>
> >Do you like
> >making a fool of yourself in public??? ;-)
>
> When did you stop beating your wife?.
>
> As for fool, I think we'll let your question stand as is. It is a
> perfect demonstration of your childishness.
> >
> >Doan
>
> snipping yet another series of questions and points made that Doan
> does not answer or respond too, for fear of showing himself for what
> he is.
>
What? You can't stand your own post, Kane9?

> And we now prepare ourselves for an onslaught of further foolishness
> to cover up his lack of knowledge and wit, by the Genius at
> Tomfoolery, Doan the Devious...a title he is in love with, given his
> performance.
>
And a perfect ending of someone who claimed to be "neverr-spanked"! ;-)

Doan

[Kane]

<Yawn>....

Try pulling back just a little further.

..............( * )..............

I'm sure you'll enjoy the view.

And you'll finally find yourself, yourself.


r r r r r

Stoneman the K-9....r r r r

[Ron]

"mind candy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> --
> > > > >
> > > > > -- SNIP-------------------------------------
> > > > >
> .
> >
> > And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
> > questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.
> >
> > You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
> > like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
> > what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.
> >
> >
> > If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
> > his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
> > spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
> > this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
> > fit with your neurotic denial and defense.
> >
> > It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........
> >
> > Kane
>
> Thank you, sir- for defending both me and the truth. I fear it won't help
> but I appreciate your efforts. Individuals like you, Ron, LaVonne and a
few
> others (you know who you are) are prime examples of why this newsgroup has
> been so respected- on both sides of the issue.


Oh no, please do not include me in that. I usually avoid this ng as it is
so full of BS and untruth. I use my own common sense and the rules under
which I live to make my decisions in this area.

I suppose I "could" respect participants in this ng, if they could cut the
lies to only once per post. Then again the ng would only have very short
posts.

Ron

[Doan]

LOL! The little Kane9 is running with his tail between his legs! :-)

Doan

On 16 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

> <Yawn>....
>
> Try pulling back just a little further.
>
> .............( * )..............
>
> I'm sure you'll enjoy the view.
>
> And you'll finally find yourself, yourself.
>
>
> r r r r r
>
> Stoneman the K-9....r r r r
>

[LaVonne Carlson]

Here's a great example of Doan's thinking and Doan's ability to articulate.

Ordinary people are intimidated by pseudoscience? Who are ordinary people, Doan,
and what do you consider to be pseudoscience?

Teachers who have good ideas? Force of the school system? Where did the
knowledge base go, doan? What is a good teacher idea and what makes this a good
idea? And on what is the school system basing their curriculum? ciI realize
that you abhor experts, doan, but uninformed opinions are a dime a dozen. Truly
informed opinions are very rare, and individuals who live by uninformed decisions
find experts that contradict this opinion a puzzle.

I loved this statement, though -- "Or a parentof bad boys, after disciplining
them in one way or another, feelsguilty for the rest of her life because she
didn't do "the rightthing," according to the experts.

A parent of of bad boys? Who are the "bad boys?" Why not "a parent of bad
girls?" Are only boys bad? Whatever is your logic here, Doan?

What is the right thing for "bad boys?" Is this also the same for "bad girls?"

Good grief, Doan.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

>
> Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
> think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
> this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
> teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
> some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
> thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.




>
>
> So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
> science that isn't science.
>
> I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
> examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
> South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
> airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
> thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
> runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
> wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
> like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
> the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
> doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
> way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
> I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
> apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
> they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
>
> (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
> Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)