Re: Teenagers faced with spankings

[Doan]

Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.

His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.

This has gone on for years between us.

Try reading the truth:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/274284f9c230d568?hl=en&

This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
spanking.

Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
observers.

Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.

This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:

Doan wrote:

Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
himself.

Doan

[[[ My response ]]]

From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
seventh) observers.

Item 11.

Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].

I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV

So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
......

Get it yet, Doan?

You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.

Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
lying then, thus lying now.

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/messag...

He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
nothing but monkeyboy tricks.

0:-> ... end of extract from post ...

Unless of course, if Doan wants to play the spanking is not hitting game
again.

The observers and the researcher would have to, likely as mandatory
reporters, report any "hitting" that did not qualify as "spanking" or
our more common term here, CP.

He lies at every turn.

One makes a mistake and admits it, even providing proof of his own
error, (ask him about the Hutterites) and Doan continues to claim the
original error was a lie.

That itself is a lie.

Best wishes, Kane

[Doan]

> Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.
>
Hihihi! People who are regulars on this newsgroup knows who the liar is.

> His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.
>
Yes. Why don't you post the data on spanking, Kane? I DARE YOU! I
DOUBLE DARE YOU? It is simple to prove if I am lying or not, Kane. Just
post the data on spanking from the study, if you can.

Doan

> This has gone on for years between us.
>
> Try reading the truth:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/274284f9c230d568?hl=en&
>
> This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
> spanking.
>
> Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
> observers.
>
> Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.
>
> This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:
>
> Doan wrote:
>
> Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
> spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
> He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
> himself.
>
> Doan
>
> [[[ My response ]]]
>
> From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
> seventh) observers.
>
> Item 11.
>
> Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
> squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
> child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
> observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].
>
> I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV
>
> So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
> .....
>
> Get it yet, Doan?
>
> You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.
>
> Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
> is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
> lying then, thus lying now.
>
> http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/messag...
>
> He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
> Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
> nothing but monkeyboy tricks.
>
> 0:-> ... end of extract from post ...
>
> Unless of course, if Doan wants to play the spanking is not hitting game
> again.
>
> The observers and the researcher would have to, likely as mandatory
> reporters, report any "hitting" that did not qualify as "spanking" or
> our more common term here, CP.
>
> He lies at every turn.
>
> One makes a mistake and admits it, even providing proof of his own
> error, (ask him about the Hutterites) and Doan continues to claim the
> original error was a lie.
>
> That itself is a lie.
>
> Best wishes, Kane
>
>
>

[Doan]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

>
> Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.
>
> His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.
>
> This has gone on for years between us.
>
> Try reading the truth:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/274284f9c230d568?hl=en&
>
> This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
> spanking.
>
> Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
> observers.
>
> Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.
>
> This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:
>
> Doan wrote:
>
> Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
> spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
> He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
> himself.
>
> Doan
>
> [[[ My response ]]]
>
> From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
> seventh) observers.
>
> Item 11.
>
> Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
> squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
> child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
> observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].
>
> I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV
>
> So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
> .....
>
> Get it yet, Doan?
>
> You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.
>
Hihihi! You are exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane. You once again
proved that you are incapable of reading and understanding a simple chart,
let alone the whole study. Let me explain it to you in simple term, IT IS
an ITEM. GOT IT? So if there aren't any data under this ITEM, or not
enough date under this ITEM, the item is not going to be use in the
analysis part of the study. GOT IT NOW, STUPID???

The analysis regarding street entries was done with "reprimands"

"Figure 7 shows the probability of observed children receiving a reprimand
from parents six intervals preceding or following an entry into the
street. ... Thus, reprimand met the criterion for a reinforcer during
baseline BUT NOT DURING INTERVENTION."

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
>> Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.
>>
> Hihihi! People who are regulars on this newsgroup knows who the liar is.

Sure they do. It's Doan and has been for years.

>> His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.
>>
> Yes. Why don't you post the data on spanking, Kane? I DARE YOU! I
> DOUBLE DARE YOU? It is simple to prove if I am lying or not, Kane. Just
> post the data on spanking from the study, if you can.

The description of the Item, Punishment, includes "hitting." What about
hitting would you say is not CP, Doan?

Punishment was coded for observation recording, and in fact was tracked.

Non-CP was tracked as "Reprimands," Doan.

Learn to read a simple report.

And try to argue without lying.

All Nathan, or anyone has to do is read the quoted post material below
to see how you lied.

0:-]


>
> Doan
>
> > This has gone on for years between us.
>> Try reading the truth:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/274284f9c230d568?hl=en&
>>
>> This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
>> spanking.
>>
>> Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
>> observers.
>>
>> Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.
>>
>> This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:
>>
>> Doan wrote:
>>
>> Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
>> spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
>> He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
>> himself.
>>
>> Doan
>>
>> [[[ My response ]]]
>>
>> From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
>> seventh) observers.
>>
>> Item 11.
>>
>> Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
>> squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
>> child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
>> observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].
>>
>> I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV
>>
>> So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
>> .....
>>
>> Get it yet, Doan?
>>
>> You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.
>>
>> Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
>> is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
>> lying then, thus lying now.
>>
>> http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/messag...
>>
>> He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
>> Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
>> nothing but monkeyboy tricks.
>>
>> 0:-> ... end of extract from post ...
>>
>> Unless of course, if Doan wants to play the spanking is not hitting game
>> again.
>>
>> The observers and the researcher would have to, likely as mandatory
>> reporters, report any "hitting" that did not qualify as "spanking" or
>> our more common term here, CP.
>>
>> He lies at every turn.
>>
>> One makes a mistake and admits it, even providing proof of his own
>> error, (ask him about the Hutterites) and Doan continues to claim the
>> original error was a lie.
>>
>> That itself is a lie.
>>
>> Best wishes, Kane
>>
>>
>>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
>
>> Nathan, an aside, since Doan has gone to lying to you, by lying about me.
>>
>> His claim is that the Embry study is not about spanking.
>>
>> This has gone on for years between us.
>>
>> Try reading the truth:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/274284f9c230d568?hl=en&
>>
>> This post clarifies exactly what is in the Embry report on this issue of
>> spanking.
>>
>> Embry did indeed refer to it and code for it in the instructions to his
>> observers.
>>
>> Doan is a stone liar of some considerable skill.
>>
>> This is an extract straight out of the post I've given the link to above:
>>
>> Doan wrote:
>>
>> Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
>> spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
>> He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
>> himself.
>>
>> Doan
>>
>> [[[ My response ]]]
>>
>> From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
>> seventh) observers.
>>
>> Item 11.
>>
>> Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
>> squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
>> child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
>> observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].
>>
>> I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV
>>
>> So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
>> .....
>>
>> Get it yet, Doan?
>>
>> You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.
>>

Now watch Doan go into FWM. (Full Weasel Mode).

> Hihihi! You are exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane. You once again
> proved that you are incapable of reading and understanding a simple chart,
> let alone the whole study. Let me explain it to you in simple term, IT IS
> an ITEM. GOT IT?

Sure. You are mislabeling.

It is described as one of a list of 'behaviors.' Not an item.

Behaviors are tracked by the study. Punishment is the item, and the
description is of the behaviors classified by Embry as "Punishment." One
of those is "hitting."

> So if there aren't any data under this ITEM, or not
> enough date under this ITEM, the item is not going to be use in the
> analysis part of the study. GOT IT NOW, STUPID???

It was tracked, recorded, and reported as "Punishment." It was used so
little (2 times recorded) that there is no comparison being made, nor
was this a "comparison" study, Doan.

Still having language problems?

> The analysis regarding street entries was done with "reprimands"

The analysis was also done with punishment, according to YOU, stupid.

Or have you now decided that....<snort>....Time Out Instruction is not
Punishment....you know, the Sit and Watch "punishment?" R R R R R R

The reason there are no charts tracking "Punishment," stupid, is exactly
what you claim....there was not enough OF it to show that it effected
the behavior of the child visa vis Street Entries.

Thus, the LACK OF PUNISHMENT and the use of positive methods were being
compared. One factored OUT the other. Just as I have claimed since this
discussion began.

Punishment was tracked. It was used less because of the training in
non-punitive methods that were applied.

Your original question was for one of us non-spanking advocates to
provide proof that non-punitive methods worked as well or better than
spanking, CP.

Well?

QED.

> "Figure 7 shows the probability of observed children receiving a reprimand
> from parents six intervals preceding or following an entry into the
> street. ... Thus, reprimand met the criterion for a reinforcer during
> baseline BUT NOT DURING INTERVENTION."
>
> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPANKING!

Because spanking was shown to not work.

It wasn't a study to COMPARE, and that's not what you asked for originally.

Show us a spanking study, Doan, that has similar or better results than
this study where spanking apparently was not used by many parents...as
only two incidences are mentioned.

That would be, at best, if it was not just one parent, only 10% of the
demographic.

> Doan

Where is that spanking study, Doan?

Or try weaseling some more. It's fun watching you dodge back and forth
trying desperately to avoid exposure as a liar and fool.

0:-]