Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

[Nathan A. Barclay]

For anyone who hasn't been following it, the thread "Teenagers faced with
spankings" turned to a discussion of a study by Dr. Dennis Embry regarding
spankings and children entering the street. A question arose about a
quotation from Dr. Embry, so after Kane and I couldn't find an
interpretation we could both accept as valid, I tracked down an email
address for Dr. Embry and asked if he would be willing to clarify.

In the ensuing conversation, he provided a good bit of useful information
that clarifies his views on the problem of spanking and reprimands sometimes
causing children to enter the street more often. I asked his permission to
post the messages here, and he gave his consent.

---
My first message to Dr. Embry:

Are you the same Dr. Embry who worked on the Safe Playing program to reduce
traffic accidents due to children's entering the street? If so, I have a
couple questions I'd like to ask about a letter you wrote to Children
Magazine a number of years ago. I hate to bother you with this, but I've
seen the letter used to bolster claims that I'm extremely dubious about. So
if you're willing to take the time to offer some clarification, I'll greatly
appreciate it.

In your letter, you made the claim that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and
nagging increase the rate of street entry. Were you trying to say that this
is what normally results from parents' doing such things, or just that such
unintended results sometimes occur? And if you were saying that increased
street entry is the normal result, was that belief based on scientifically
valid research? Or could it have been a result of skewed perceptions
because children who keep entering the street even though they keep getting
in trouble for it are highly visible, while situations where children try
not to enter the street because they don't want to get in trouble are far
less visible?

------
Dr. Embry's first reply:

Hello Mr. Barclay,

Research and science are mean mistresses. I assume you are willing to have
whatever hypothesis you might have proved wrong? That is how I approach
things, as a more than passing good researcher.

I assume that you might be able to entertain that spanking could be good for
some kids, not good for some kids, and even harmful. Or, it could be
completely ineffective, neither good nor bad. If you cannot entertain that
results could be mixed or negative, you will not like any science that could
be completed. There are people who still insist that the world is flat, but
I don't think you are in that category if you are willing to write me.

I see that my work from 25 years ago is continuing to create all sorts of
crazy making behavior on various list serves. This amuses me.

Here is the nutshell

I did not set out to prove anything about spanking. That's a fact. So folks
can take a chill pill. In fact, I had recommended in my column and radio
show that it was OK for running into the street.

We did really good science, and you need to know that I am an A-list
behavioral scientist.

Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct
problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of street
entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise in
developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is what we
call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it functioned as
a reinforcer, not as punishment.

And no, these observations were standardized, with two or more observers. I
am not clear what your question is about observations otherwise. We
separated kids who were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones
were most interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
quickly to the interventions.

Let me know how I can help clarify.

------
My second message to Dr. Embry

Thanks for your reply! Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the
street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in line
with what I expected would be the case.

By the way, I'm impressed with what I've seen so far about your Safe Playing
program, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate its value. But the
question of how many children react to being spanked by misbehaving more
often has ramifications regarding a much wider range of issues.

------
Dr. Embry's second reply:

The issues raised in my original study and subsequently in the whole
behavioral literature on the eitiology of conduct disorders is very
significant, and most of the missives I have seen in the various list serves
(I have serious trouble trying to go through the Google one for some
technical reason that I don't understand).

We had about twenty kids in the precision oriented observational study,
using a multiple baseline. Today there are ways to calculate the
equivalent sample size and effect sizes, compared to a randomized control
study. The effect size of the safe playing study would be very, very large
because of the clarity of the repeated measures. Group designs only
estimate standard error: single subject designs directly measure standard
error. It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding.
That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones
that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids,
post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in
today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses
are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
and socially induced predispositions.

For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion
work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both
behavioral and evolutionary theory.

By the way, it is important to note gender effects. Boys are more prone to
have oppositional defiance and conduct disorders, and it is my opinion that
this is because of evolutionary pressure. About 1/3 of boys were killed in
neolithic societies as a result of tribal and clan wars; that is the
prevailing new authority or counter authority. Oppositional defiance and
conduct disorders seem to confer a sectionist advantage. Parental, teacher
and other coercion of children disposed to these traits (which now are known
to have polygenic mechanisms, not known even 10 years ago) clearly elicits
and then solidifies such a trajectory, causing immense social and personal
costs.

Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what prevention
science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based on
the continued unfolding of child development science.

Can you direct me to these list-serves that have all this going on? I would
like to read them more directly.

-----
My third message to Dr. Embry:

Thanks again. The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet newsgroup
alt.parenting.spanking. The discussion thread's title is "Teenagers faced
with spankings," and no one ever thought to rename the thread when it very
quickly drifted off onto other subjects. The discussion there is actually a
very small one, with just me and one other person engaged in anything
resembling real debate.

That discussion led me to look for more information on the Web. The first
Google hit using the search terms "dennis embry street children" comes up
with the page http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes the
text of your letter with the caption, "'Spanking... increases the rate of
street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children
Magazine." The third Google hit on those terms points to a closely related
page, http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html which also tries to use
your letter to support a blanket denunciation of spanking. (That becomes
especially clear looking at the web site that the page is a part of.)
Unfortunately, if the study itself is available on the Web, or even good,
unbiased information about it, that information was either far enough down
in the search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google returned
that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.

I have two more questions, if you don't mind. First, what underlying
population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from? That has important
ramifications regarding what the "about a third" you refer to is about a
third of, and I don't currently have a copy of the study to check.

Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children could make
a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences in order to get attention
but not view the game as worth the cost if the consequences are more
serious, or could resist minor adverse consequences because they don't like
being told what to do but regard the cost of resisting more serious
consequences as too high. Does that fit with your understanding of
children's behavior? (I'm definitely aware that it can be dangerous to
repeatedly escalate punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger
in one extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is
somewhere in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

------
Dr. Embry's third reply interspersed his response with what I'd just written
(above). In order to post plain text, I'm reformatting to put NB> in front
of the lines of material he quoted from me. Also, he included a graph
which, unfortunately, can't be included in a post to a text newsgroup

Dr. Embry's third reply (reformatted):

Thank you for this info.? I will answer the questions further below.? I
didn't have the study available, as I was on a plane (and it is on paper
only, not PDF, etc. having been done in 1979-1981.? I could not remember all
the details.? I am going to have to scan this damn thing and put it up, or
resubmit it to JABA or some such, as it is one of the few actual
experimental studies on pedestrian safety in the world.??

On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

NB> Thanks again.? The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet
NB> newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking.??The discussion thread's
NB> title?is? "Teenagers faced with spankings," and no one ever
NB> thought to rename?the thread?when it very quickly drifted
NB> off onto other subjects.? The discussion there is actually a
NB> very small one, with just me and one other person engaged
NB> in anything resembling real debate.
NB>?
NB> That discussion led me to look for more information on the
NB> Web.? The first Google hit using the search terms "dennis
NB> embry street children" comes up with the page
NB> http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes
NB> the text of your letter with the caption,?"'Spanking... increases
NB> the rate of street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in
NB> a letter to Children Magazine."? The third Google hit on those
NB> terms points to a closely related page,
NB> http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html?which also
NB> tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB> spanking.? (That becomes especially clear looking at the web
NB> site that the page is a part of.)? Unfortunately, if the study itself
NB> is available on the Web, or even good, unbiased information
NB> about it,?that information?was either far enough down in the
NB> search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google
NB> returned?that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
NB>?
NB> I have two?more?questions, if you don't mind.??First, what
NB> underlying population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from??
NB> That has important ramifications regarding what the "about a third"
NB> you refer to is about a third of, and I don't currently have a copy
NB> of the study to check.

There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but three
enrolled in the university affiliated preschool.? The school had a mix of
children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids.? I have a
table of special characteristics, if known.? Eleven of the 33 had some
"condition, such as aggression, language delays, etc.? Out of the 33
children/families, 13 of those were intensively observed.? One of the
observed kids (S4) clearly had a "label" of what we might now call
oppositional defiance.?

Here is the graph of the "high rate entry" kids.

[Graph lost in conversion to text format]

These kids needed both the reinforcement/self-modeling AND sit-and-watch, a
variant of Time Out (but emphasizes re-engaging in the positive behavior
ASAP.? Sit and Watch interrupts the negative reinforcement for bad behavior.

The low rate kids responded to reinforcement and self-modeling alone.

NB> Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children
NB> could make a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences
NB> in order to get attention?but not view the game as worth the cost
NB> if the consequences are more serious, or could resist minor adverse
NB> consequences because they don't like being told what to do but
NB> regard the cost of resisting more serious consequences as too high
NB>.? Does that fit with your understanding of children's behavior??
NB> (I'm definitely aware that it can be?dangerous to repeatedly escalate
NB> punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger in one
NB> extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is somewhere
NB> in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the
street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate kids,
though.??

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both
the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of
regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry
Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to get
nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.? I
should scan the pages on the time relationships.

We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except
for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13.? This
child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and
never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a
serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This
would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and
highly punitive.?

If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as young
children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This is a
functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one. This effect
is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's behavior is
below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice longitudinal data on
this.? It is the frequent reliance rather than very, very rare reliance on
spanking that seems to have adverse effects. (All this follows a very nice
mathematical law, called the Matching Law.)

Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to our
other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we did
direct observations of families at home using very precise observational
codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.? About 85% of the sample
had open case files with child protective services, and our observers
routinely witnessed what can only be described as physical hitting
(spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many times per hour in about 80% of the
families (85% x 80% = 68%).? We never observed such things in the normative
families.? These families had very, very low rates of positive attention,
very high rates of negative attention and the children were singularly
awful.??

We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled, and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional.

I prefer to take a clear look at the functional relationships and build up
from that. I hope this conversation helps.
..

[Doan]

Kudos! ;-)

Doan

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

> For anyone who hasn't been following it, the thread "Teenagers faced with
> spankings" turned to a discussion of a study by Dr. Dennis Embry regarding
> spankings and children entering the street. A question arose about a
> quotation from Dr. Embry, so after Kane and I couldn't find an
> interpretation we could both accept as valid, I tracked down an email
> address for Dr. Embry and asked if he would be willing to clarify.
>
> In the ensuing conversation, he provided a good bit of useful information
> that clarifies his views on the problem of spanking and reprimands sometimes
> causing children to enter the street more often. I asked his permission to
> post the messages here, and he gave his consent.
>
> ---
> My first message to Dr. Embry:
>
> Are you the same Dr. Embry who worked on the Safe Playing program to reduce
> traffic accidents due to children's entering the street? If so, I have a
> couple questions I'd like to ask about a letter you wrote to Children
> Magazine a number of years ago. I hate to bother you with this, but I've
> seen the letter used to bolster claims that I'm extremely dubious about. So
> if you're willing to take the time to offer some clarification, I'll greatly
> appreciate it.
>
> In your letter, you made the claim that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and
> nagging increase the rate of street entry. Were you trying to say that this
> is what normally results from parents' doing such things, or just that such
> unintended results sometimes occur? And if you were saying that increased
> street entry is the normal result, was that belief based on scientifically
> valid research? Or could it have been a result of skewed perceptions
> because children who keep entering the street even though they keep getting
> in trouble for it are highly visible, while situations where children try
> not to enter the street because they don't want to get in trouble are far
> less visible?
>
> ------
> Dr. Embry's first reply:
>
> Hello Mr. Barclay,
>
> Research and science are mean mistresses. I assume you are willing to have
> whatever hypothesis you might have proved wrong? That is how I approach
> things, as a more than passing good researcher.
>
> I assume that you might be able to entertain that spanking could be good for
> some kids, not good for some kids, and even harmful. Or, it could be
> completely ineffective, neither good nor bad. If you cannot entertain that
> results could be mixed or negative, you will not like any science that could
> be completed. There are people who still insist that the world is flat, but
> I don't think you are in that category if you are willing to write me.
>
> I see that my work from 25 years ago is continuing to create all sorts of
> crazy making behavior on various list serves. This amuses me.
>
> Here is the nutshell
>
> I did not set out to prove anything about spanking. That's a fact. So folks
> can take a chill pill. In fact, I had recommended in my column and radio
> show that it was OK for running into the street.
>
> We did really good science, and you need to know that I am an A-list
> behavioral scientist.
>
> Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct
> problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of street
> entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise in
> developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is what we
> call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it functioned as
> a reinforcer, not as punishment.
>
> And no, these observations were standardized, with two or more observers. I
> am not clear what your question is about observations otherwise. We
> separated kids who were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones
> were most interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
> quickly to the interventions.
>
> Let me know how I can help clarify.
>
> ------
> My second message to Dr. Embry
>
> Thanks for your reply! Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
> saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
> important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the
> street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in line
> with what I expected would be the case.
>
> By the way, I'm impressed with what I've seen so far about your Safe Playing
> program, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate its value. But the
> question of how many children react to being spanked by misbehaving more
> often has ramifications regarding a much wider range of issues.
>
> ------
> Dr. Embry's second reply:
>
> The issues raised in my original study and subsequently in the whole
> behavioral literature on the eitiology of conduct disorders is very
> significant, and most of the missives I have seen in the various list serves
> (I have serious trouble trying to go through the Google one for some
> technical reason that I don't understand).
>
> We had about twenty kids in the precision oriented observational study,
> using a multiple baseline. Today there are ways to calculate the
> equivalent sample size and effect sizes, compared to a randomized control
> study. The effect size of the safe playing study would be very, very large
> because of the clarity of the repeated measures. Group designs only
> estimate standard error: single subject designs directly measure standard
> error. It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
> spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
> dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding.
> That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones
> that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids,
> post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in
> today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses
> are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
> parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
> and socially induced predispositions.
>
> For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
> punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
> consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
> multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
> Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
> colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
> Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion
> work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
> replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both
> behavioral and evolutionary theory.
>
> By the way, it is important to note gender effects. Boys are more prone to
> have oppositional defiance and conduct disorders, and it is my opinion that
> this is because of evolutionary pressure. About 1/3 of boys were killed in
> neolithic societies as a result of tribal and clan wars; that is the
> prevailing new authority or counter authority. Oppositional defiance and
> conduct disorders seem to confer a sectionist advantage. Parental, teacher
> and other coercion of children disposed to these traits (which now are known
> to have polygenic mechanisms, not known even 10 years ago) clearly elicits
> and then solidifies such a trajectory, causing immense social and personal
> costs.
>
> Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what prevention
> science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based on
> the continued unfolding of child development science.
>
> Can you direct me to these list-serves that have all this going on? I would
> like to read them more directly.
>
> -----
> My third message to Dr. Embry:
>
> Thanks again. The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet newsgroup
> alt.parenting.spanking. The discussion thread's title is "Teenagers faced
> with spankings," and no one ever thought to rename the thread when it very
> quickly drifted off onto other subjects. The discussion there is actually a
> very small one, with just me and one other person engaged in anything
> resembling real debate.
>
> That discussion led me to look for more information on the Web. The first
> Google hit using the search terms "dennis embry street children" comes up
> with the page http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes the
> text of your letter with the caption, "'Spanking... increases the rate of
> street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children
> Magazine." The third Google hit on those terms points to a closely related
> page, http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html which also tries to use
> your letter to support a blanket denunciation of spanking. (That becomes
> especially clear looking at the web site that the page is a part of.)
> Unfortunately, if the study itself is available on the Web, or even good,
> unbiased information about it, that information was either far enough down
> in the search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google returned
> that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
>
> I have two more questions, if you don't mind. First, what underlying
> population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from? That has important
> ramifications regarding what the "about a third" you refer to is about a
> third of, and I don't currently have a copy of the study to check.
>
> Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children could make
> a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences in order to get attention
> but not view the game as worth the cost if the consequences are more
> serious, or could resist minor adverse consequences because they don't like
> being told what to do but regard the cost of resisting more serious
> consequences as too high. Does that fit with your understanding of
> children's behavior? (I'm definitely aware that it can be dangerous to
> repeatedly escalate punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger
> in one extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is
> somewhere in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)
>
> ------
> Dr. Embry's third reply interspersed his response with what I'd just written
> (above). In order to post plain text, I'm reformatting to put NB> in front
> of the lines of material he quoted from me. Also, he included a graph
> which, unfortunately, can't be included in a post to a text newsgroup
>
> Dr. Embry's third reply (reformatted):
>
> Thank you for this info.? I will answer the questions further below.? I
> didn't have the study available, as I was on a plane (and it is on paper
> only, not PDF, etc. having been done in 1979-1981.? I could not remember all
> the details.? I am going to have to scan this damn thing and put it up, or
> resubmit it to JABA or some such, as it is one of the few actual
> experimental studies on pedestrian safety in the world.??
>
> On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> NB> Thanks again.? The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet
> NB> newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking.??The discussion thread's
> NB> title?is? "Teenagers faced with spankings," and no one ever
> NB> thought to rename?the thread?when it very quickly drifted
> NB> off onto other subjects.? The discussion there is actually a
> NB> very small one, with just me and one other person engaged
> NB> in anything resembling real debate.
> NB>?
> NB> That discussion led me to look for more information on the
> NB> Web.? The first Google hit using the search terms "dennis
> NB> embry street children" comes up with the page
> NB> http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes
> NB> the text of your letter with the caption,?"'Spanking... increases
> NB> the rate of street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in
> NB> a letter to Children Magazine."? The third Google hit on those
> NB> terms points to a closely related page,
> NB> http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html?which also
> NB> tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
> NB> spanking.? (That becomes especially clear looking at the web
> NB> site that the page is a part of.)? Unfortunately, if the study itself
> NB> is available on the Web, or even good, unbiased information
> NB> about it,?that information?was either far enough down in the
> NB> search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google
> NB> returned?that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
> NB>?
> NB> I have two?more?questions, if you don't mind.??First, what
> NB> underlying population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from??
> NB> That has important ramifications regarding what the "about a third"
> NB> you refer to is about a third of, and I don't currently have a copy
> NB> of the study to check.
>
> There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but three
> enrolled in the university affiliated preschool.? The school had a mix of
> children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids.? I have a
> table of special characteristics, if known.? Eleven of the 33 had some
> "condition, such as aggression, language delays, etc.? Out of the 33
> children/families, 13 of those were intensively observed.? One of the
> observed kids (S4) clearly had a "label" of what we might now call
> oppositional defiance.?
>
> Here is the graph of the "high rate entry" kids.
>
> [Graph lost in conversion to text format]
>
> These kids needed both the reinforcement/self-modeling AND sit-and-watch, a
> variant of Time Out (but emphasizes re-engaging in the positive behavior
> ASAP.? Sit and Watch interrupts the negative reinforcement for bad behavior.
>
> The low rate kids responded to reinforcement and self-modeling alone.
>
> NB> Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children
> NB> could make a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences
> NB> in order to get attention?but not view the game as worth the cost
> NB> if the consequences are more serious, or could resist minor adverse
> NB> consequences because they don't like being told what to do but
> NB> regard the cost of resisting more serious consequences as too high
> NB>.? Does that fit with your understanding of children's behavior??
> NB> (I'm definitely aware that it can be?dangerous to repeatedly escalate
> NB> punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger in one
> NB> extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is somewhere
> NB> in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)
>
> We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the
> street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
> relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate kids,
> though.??
>
> This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both
> the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of
> regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry
> Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to get
> nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.? I
> should scan the pages on the time relationships.
>
> We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except
> for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13.? This
> child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and
> never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a
> serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This
> would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and
> highly punitive.?
>
> If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
> research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as young
> children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This is a
> functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one. This effect
> is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's behavior is
> below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice longitudinal data on
> this.? It is the frequent reliance rather than very, very rare reliance on
> spanking that seems to have adverse effects. (All this follows a very nice
> mathematical law, called the Matching Law.)
>
> Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to our
> other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we did
> direct observations of families at home using very precise observational
> codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.? About 85% of the sample
> had open case files with child protective services, and our observers
> routinely witnessed what can only be described as physical hitting
> (spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many times per hour in about 80% of the
> families (85% x 80% = 68%).? We never observed such things in the normative
> families.? These families had very, very low rates of positive attention,
> very high rates of negative attention and the children were singularly
> awful.??
>
> We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and keep data.?
> We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
> positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various consequences
> such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
> effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled, and
> their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with child
> protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these skills
> without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
> low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and apply
> them at home without coaching.?
>
> You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
> fighting over their sects.? Not functional.
>
> I prefer to take a clear look at the functional relationships and build up
> from that. I hope this conversation helps.
> .
>
>
>

[0:->]

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> For anyone who hasn't been following it, the thread "Teenagers faced with
> spankings" turned to a discussion of a study by Dr. Dennis Embry regarding
> spankings and children entering the street. A question arose about a
> quotation from Dr. Embry, so after Kane and I couldn't find an
> interpretation we could both accept as valid, I tracked down an email
> address for Dr. Embry and asked if he would be willing to clarify.
>
> In the ensuing conversation, he provided a good bit of useful information
> that clarifies his views on the problem of spanking and reprimands sometimes
> causing children to enter the street more often. I asked his permission to
> post the messages here, and he gave his consent.
>
> ---
> My first message to Dr. Embry:
>
> Are you the same Dr. Embry who worked on the Safe Playing program to reduce
> traffic accidents due to children's entering the street? If so, I have a
> couple questions I'd like to ask about a letter you wrote to Children
> Magazine a number of years ago. I hate to bother you with this, but I've
> seen the letter used to bolster claims that I'm extremely dubious about. So
> if you're willing to take the time to offer some clarification, I'll greatly
> appreciate it.
>
> In your letter, you made the claim that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and
> nagging increase the rate of street entry. Were you trying to say that this
> is what normally results from parents' doing such things, or just that such
> unintended results sometimes occur? And if you were saying that increased
> street entry is the normal result, was that belief based on scientifically
> valid research? Or could it have been a result of skewed perceptions
> because children who keep entering the street even though they keep getting
> in trouble for it are highly visible, while situations where children try
> not to enter the street because they don't want to get in trouble are far
> less visible?
>
> ------
> Dr. Embry's first reply:
>
> Hello Mr. Barclay,
>
> Research and science are mean mistresses. I assume you are willing to have
> whatever hypothesis you might have proved wrong? That is how I approach
> things, as a more than passing good researcher.
>
> I assume that you might be able to entertain that spanking could be good for
> some kids, not good for some kids, and even harmful. Or, it could be
> completely ineffective, neither good nor bad. If you cannot entertain that
> results could be mixed or negative, you will not like any science that could
> be completed. There are people who still insist that the world is flat, but
> I don't think you are in that category if you are willing to write me.
>
> I see that my work from 25 years ago is continuing to create all sorts of
> crazy making behavior on various list serves. This amuses me.
>
> Here is the nutshell
>
> I did not set out to prove anything about spanking. That's a fact. So folks
> can take a chill pill. In fact, I had recommended in my column and radio
> show that it was OK for running into the street.
>
> We did really good science, and you need to know that I am an A-list
> behavioral scientist.
>
> Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct
> problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of street
> entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise in
> developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is what we
> call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it functioned as
> a reinforcer, not as punishment.
>
> And no, these observations were standardized, with two or more observers. I
> am not clear what your question is about observations otherwise. We
> separated kids who were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones
> were most interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
> quickly to the interventions.
>
> Let me know how I can help clarify.
>
> ------
> My second message to Dr. Embry
>
> Thanks for your reply! Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
> saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
> important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the
> street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in line
> with what I expected would be the case.
>
> By the way, I'm impressed with what I've seen so far about your Safe Playing
> program, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate its value. But the
> question of how many children react to being spanked by misbehaving more
> often has ramifications regarding a much wider range of issues.
>
> ------
> Dr. Embry's second reply:
>
> The issues raised in my original study and subsequently in the whole
> behavioral literature on the eitiology of conduct disorders is very
> significant, and most of the missives I have seen in the various list serves
> (I have serious trouble trying to go through the Google one for some
> technical reason that I don't understand).
>
> We had about twenty kids in the precision oriented observational study,
> using a multiple baseline. Today there are ways to calculate the
> equivalent sample size and effect sizes, compared to a randomized control
> study. The effect size of the safe playing study would be very, very large
> because of the clarity of the repeated measures. Group designs only
> estimate standard error: single subject designs directly measure standard
> error. It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
> spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
> dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding.
> That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones
> that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids,
> post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in
> today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses
> are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
> parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
> and socially induced predispositions.
>
> For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
> punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
> consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
> multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
> Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
> colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
> Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion
> work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
> replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both
> behavioral and evolutionary theory.
>
> By the way, it is important to note gender effects. Boys are more prone to
> have oppositional defiance and conduct disorders, and it is my opinion that
> this is because of evolutionary pressure. About 1/3 of boys were killed in
> neolithic societies as a result of tribal and clan wars; that is the
> prevailing new authority or counter authority. Oppositional defiance and
> conduct disorders seem to confer a sectionist advantage. Parental, teacher
> and other coercion of children disposed to these traits (which now are known
> to have polygenic mechanisms, not known even 10 years ago) clearly elicits
> and then solidifies such a trajectory, causing immense social and personal
> costs.
>
> Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what prevention
> science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based on
> the continued unfolding of child development science.
>
> Can you direct me to these list-serves that have all this going on? I would
> like to read them more directly.
>
> -----
> My third message to Dr. Embry:
>
> Thanks again. The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet newsgroup
> alt.parenting.spanking. The discussion thread's title is "Teenagers faced
> with spankings," and no one ever thought to rename the thread when it very
> quickly drifted off onto other subjects. The discussion there is actually a
> very small one, with just me and one other person engaged in anything
> resembling real debate.
>
> That discussion led me to look for more information on the Web. The first
> Google hit using the search terms "dennis embry street children" comes up
> with the page http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes the
> text of your letter with the caption, "'Spanking... increases the rate of
> street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children
> Magazine." The third Google hit on those terms points to a closely related
> page, http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html which also tries to use
> your letter to support a blanket denunciation of spanking. (That becomes
> especially clear looking at the web site that the page is a part of.)
> Unfortunately, if the study itself is available on the Web, or even good,
> unbiased information about it, that information was either far enough down
> in the search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google returned
> that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
>
> I have two more questions, if you don't mind. First, what underlying
> population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from? That has important
> ramifications regarding what the "about a third" you refer to is about a
> third of, and I don't currently have a copy of the study to check.
>
> Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children could make
> a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences in order to get attention
> but not view the game as worth the cost if the consequences are more
> serious, or could resist minor adverse consequences because they don't like
> being told what to do but regard the cost of resisting more serious
> consequences as too high. Does that fit with your understanding of
> children's behavior? (I'm definitely aware that it can be dangerous to
> repeatedly escalate punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger
> in one extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is
> somewhere in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)
>
> ------
> Dr. Embry's third reply interspersed his response with what I'd just written
> (above). In order to post plain text, I'm reformatting to put NB> in front
> of the lines of material he quoted from me. Also, he included a graph
> which, unfortunately, can't be included in a post to a text newsgroup
>
> Dr. Embry's third reply (reformatted):
>
> Thank you for this info.? I will answer the questions further below.? I
> didn't have the study available, as I was on a plane (and it is on paper
> only, not PDF, etc. having been done in 1979-1981.? I could not remember all
> the details.? I am going to have to scan this damn thing and put it up, or
> resubmit it to JABA or some such, as it is one of the few actual
> experimental studies on pedestrian safety in the world.??
>
> On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> NB> Thanks again.? The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet
> NB> newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking.??The discussion thread's
> NB> title?is? "Teenagers faced with spankings," and no one ever
> NB> thought to rename?the thread?when it very quickly drifted
> NB> off onto other subjects.? The discussion there is actually a
> NB> very small one, with just me and one other person engaged
> NB> in anything resembling real debate.
> NB>?
> NB> That discussion led me to look for more information on the
> NB> Web.? The first Google hit using the search terms "dennis
> NB> embry street children" comes up with the page
> NB> http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes
> NB> the text of your letter with the caption,?"'Spanking... increases
> NB> the rate of street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in
> NB> a letter to Children Magazine."? The third Google hit on those
> NB> terms points to a closely related page,
> NB> http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html?which also
> NB> tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
> NB> spanking.? (That becomes especially clear looking at the web
> NB> site that the page is a part of.)? Unfortunately, if the study itself
> NB> is available on the Web, or even good, unbiased information
> NB> about it,?that information?was either far enough down in the
> NB> search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google
> NB> returned?that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
> NB>?
> NB> I have two?more?questions, if you don't mind.??First, what
> NB> underlying population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from??
> NB> That has important ramifications regarding what the "about a third"
> NB> you refer to is about a third of, and I don't currently have a copy
> NB> of the study to check.
>
> There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but three
> enrolled in the university affiliated preschool.? The school had a mix of
> children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids.? I have a
> table of special characteristics, if known.? Eleven of the 33 had some
> "condition, such as aggression, language delays, etc.? Out of the 33
> children/families, 13 of those were intensively observed.? One of the
> observed kids (S4) clearly had a "label" of what we might now call
> oppositional defiance.?
>
> Here is the graph of the "high rate entry" kids.
>
> [Graph lost in conversion to text format]
>
> These kids needed both the reinforcement/self-modeling AND sit-and-watch, a
> variant of Time Out (but emphasizes re-engaging in the positive behavior
> ASAP.? Sit and Watch interrupts the negative reinforcement for bad behavior.
>
> The low rate kids responded to reinforcement and self-modeling alone.
>
> NB> Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children
> NB> could make a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences
> NB> in order to get attention?but not view the game as worth the cost
> NB> if the consequences are more serious, or could resist minor adverse
> NB> consequences because they don't like being told what to do but
> NB> regard the cost of resisting more serious consequences as too high
> NB>.? Does that fit with your understanding of children's behavior??
> NB> (I'm definitely aware that it can be?dangerous to repeatedly escalate
> NB> punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger in one
> NB> extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is somewhere
> NB> in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)
>
> We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the
> street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
> relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate kids,
> though.??
>
> This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both
> the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of
> regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry
> Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to get
> nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.? I
> should scan the pages on the time relationships.
>
> We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except
> for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13.? This
> child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and
> never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a
> serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This
> would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and
> highly punitive.?
>
> If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
> research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as young
> children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This is a
> functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one. This effect
> is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's behavior is
> below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice longitudinal data on
> this.? It is the frequent reliance rather than very, very rare reliance on
> spanking that seems to have adverse effects. (All this follows a very nice
> mathematical law, called the Matching Law.)
>
> Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to our
> other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we did
> direct observations of families at home using very precise observational
> codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.? About 85% of the sample
> had open case files with child protective services, and our observers
> routinely witnessed what can only be described as physical hitting
> (spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many times per hour in about 80% of the
> families (85% x 80% = 68%).? We never observed such things in the normative
> families.? These families had very, very low rates of positive attention,
> very high rates of negative attention and the children were singularly
> awful.??
>
> We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and keep data.?
> We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
> positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various consequences
> such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
> effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled, and
> their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with child
> protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these skills
> without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
> low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and apply
> them at home without coaching.?
>
> You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
> fighting over their sects.? Not functional.
>
> I prefer to take a clear look at the functional relationships and build up
> from that. I hope this conversation helps.
> .
It certainly does.

Thanks Nathan, for contact Dr. Embry.

Good work.

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
conclusions.

And Dr. Embry's emphasis now on how the children most likely to be
spanked because of their behaviors in fact become oppositional is
consistent with all the training and experience I had with mentally ill
teens (that was a Federal Dollars designation and they were truly
socially dysfunctional...the ones with physiological problems were
screened out to hospital settings...psych wards).

I worked where I had full access and occasionally client contact with
younger children too, down to about 8 years old. What we called back
then, "latency age."

Again we saw the same phenomena that Dr. Embry so eloquently defines
and reveals. The more punishment the more opposition of one kind or
another.

Some shut down, some fight back, some go behind your back and burn down
the neighborhood Historical Preserveation Barn (that happened to a kid
on my caseload that our local treatment director put the screws to one
day, then walked out as the kid heated up...I was not there to
intervene, and he knocked out windows for awhile then ran off and
burned down that 150 year old landmark barn.)

Anyway, you have your answer.

If you still wish a copy, I will snail mail you but not send the
botched PDF file. It does not transmit anyway. At the other end it
always blows out as before the content will load, with a error message.


Doan of course will say I'm lying, but you can guess by now I'm not
impressed with his games.

Never tried to download a corrupted PDF file?

Even ones that should be good, like from sources that created them to
sell they blow out.

This one won't load and open. Sometimes, even for me. So I quite trying
long ago.

If Doan won't mail you his copy, just ask.

I'll even cover postage, as I did for everyone else I sent it to.

Thanks again, and sorry for doubting you, but if you've googled Doan's
history here you can understand why I don't play his games.

Kane

Kane

[Nathan A. Barclay]

Kane, did you notice what Dr. Embry wrote about how enormously more likely
children are to develop pathological conditions when there is an imbalance
that gives children a lot more negative attention than positive attention?

In my economics class back in college, one of the principles brought up was
the idea that the more of something a person has, the less value the person
will normally place on getting more of it. For example, getting a computer
when you don't have one at all is more valuable than getting a second one
when you already have one, or especially than getting a tenth one when you
already have nine.

That same principle would generally apply to children's desire for
attention. If a child gets a lot of positive attention when he is good, the
value of getting a little bit of attention in the process of being scolded
or spanked is likely to be small, and easily outweighed by how unpleasant it
is to be scolded or spanked. But if attention in the form of scoldings and
spankings is about the only attention a child is able to get, the value the
child places on getting that attention can be expected to be a whole lot
higher.

That poses a huge potential for disaster if a child's personality is
predisposed to want a lot of attention and not especially care what form the
attention takes. The child keeps (at least subconsciously) seeking out
negative attention because it's the only way he can meet his need for
attention. But because the attention is negative, it builds up over time to
more and more toxic levels. (I'll note here that many things that have
medicinal value at small levels become dangerous toxins at higher levels, so
the fact that something is toxic in large doses doesn't automatically mean
that it's dangerous in smaller doses.)

I draw two important lessons from what Dr. Embry wrote. First, positive
attention is important. Situations where children want attention so badly
that they feel a need to misbehave in order to get it should be, at most,
extremely rare.

And second, if parents spank, they need to watch carefully how their
children react after they are spanked. If there is an ongoing pattern of
their children's not reacting by behaving better, or of spanking causing
anger or resentment for more than a brief period, something is probably
wrong at a deeper level than spanking can possibly fix, and more spanking
could easily cause additional damage.

(Note that this, in turn, suggests that it is extremely dangerous if parents
create a situation where their children feel a need to mask how they feel
about getting spanked in order to avoid getting in further trouble for their
attitude. That's not to say that children should be allowed to express
their feelings in whatever manner they want, but they shouldn't be prevented
from making their feelings reasonably clear.)

But as long as parents give their children plenty of positive attention, Dr.
Embry's views indicate that such adverse reactions are atypical, not normal.
They are a danger parents need to keep an eye open for if they spank,
especially with boys. But if parents watch for the danger, they should be
able to modify their tactics long before problems threaten to spiral out of
control.

Finally, I'll ask you to think very carefully about something. Of the
troubled teenagers you worked with, how many grew up in homes where they
could pretty reliably get plenty of positive attention when they were being
good? Note the words :"pretty reliably" since some parents have
Jekyll-and-Hyde personalities that make opportunities to get positive
attention safely a hit-or-miss proposition depending on their parents'
moods. I think you're probably focusing too much on the issue of spanking
and not enough on the issue of inadequate positive attention.


"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Thanks Nathan, for contact Dr. Embry.
>
> Good work.
>
> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> matter.
>
> It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
> conclusions.
>
> And Dr. Embry's emphasis now on how the children most likely to be
> spanked because of their behaviors in fact become oppositional is
> consistent with all the training and experience I had with mentally ill
> teens (that was a Federal Dollars designation and they were truly
> socially dysfunctional...the ones with physiological problems were
> screened out to hospital settings...psych wards).
>
> I worked where I had full access and occasionally client contact with
> younger children too, down to about 8 years old. What we called back
> then, "latency age."
>
> Again we saw the same phenomena that Dr. Embry so eloquently defines
> and reveals. The more punishment the more opposition of one kind or
> another.
>
> Some shut down, some fight back, some go behind your back and burn down
> the neighborhood Historical Preserveation Barn (that happened to a kid
> on my caseload that our local treatment director put the screws to one
> day, then walked out as the kid heated up...I was not there to
> intervene, and he knocked out windows for awhile then ran off and
> burned down that 150 year old landmark barn.)
>
> Anyway, you have your answer.

[0:->]

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> Kane, did you notice what Dr. Embry wrote about how enormously more likely
> children are to develop pathological conditions when there is an imbalance
> that gives children a lot more negative attention than positive attention?

Here is what he had to say on the subject.

"Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct

problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of
street
entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise
in
developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is
what we
call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it
functioned as
a reinforcer, not as punishment."

Nathan you replied:

"Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the

street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in
line
with what I expected would be the case. "

Now Nathan correct me if I'm wrong but in fact I believe you did not
expect that result. And in fact you argued counter to that with me. Is
that not correct?

That piece of information from Embry you NOW concur with in fact
supports the argument I've made for years here and had opposition to it
for years.

I'm not intrested in making you wrong. I'm interested in clarifying
positions, the facts, and any changes we have in our views after
gaining more facts, as shared, for instance, by Dr. Embry.

You seem to me to have moved your position.

Dr. Embry went on to say:

"For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of
a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement."

"These kids," being the opposition defiant ones according to DSM-IV.

I'm not sure if I'm in conflict with Dr. Embry's view or not, but my
own observation has been that even with children not so Dx'd, there are
many that become oppositional in one way or another when
spanked...especially over time.

I have to question if some of the children Dx'd as ODD, did not start
out without it and "gained" that condition by way of spanking and other
forms of CP.

As yet I am unable to find any study that would shed light on that
possibility, yet it certainly is there as a fact in my experience. And
I'm not refering to my work with mentally ill youth.

> In my economics class back in college, one of the principles brought up was
> the idea that the more of something a person has, the less value the person
> will normally place on getting more of it. For example, getting a computer
> when you don't have one at all is more valuable than getting a second one
> when you already have one, or especially than getting a tenth one when you
> already have nine.

I have to laugh. Tell me that a rich man places less value on a dollar
in terms of desire for it than a poor man. Yes, I took economics also.
The more I took the more I valued the information. 0:-]

> That same principle would generally apply to children's desire for
> attention. If a child gets a lot of positive attention when he is good, the
> value of getting a little bit of attention in the process of being scolded
> or spanked is likely to be small, and easily outweighed by how unpleasant it
> is to be scolded or spanked.

Nathan, stop and think about that for a second or two.

The contrast, as you describe it would, make the interjection of a
little bit of negative attention in the midsts of generally positive or
neutral attention would make the "value" consist of more not less
desire.

You don't identify value except in terms of whether or not it's
desirable. Are you wishing to compare the EFFECTIVENESS of negative
versus positive attention in terms of outcomes? Which will produce the
desired effect in behavior?

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm completely at sea as to what your point
is.

> But if attention in the form of scoldings and
> spankings is about the only attention a child is able to get, the value the
> child places on getting that attention can be expected to be a whole lot
> higher.

So then you are saying that a child will behave according to the value
he or she places on some effect on them?

Wouldn't the value, according to your economics model, be less if he
got more of it....the abundance of scoldings and spankings? And if
value equates with performance level of a behavior, then would this
much spanked and scolded child do less of a behavior?

At least according to your argument?

The long argued desired effect of spanking is to reduce an unwanted
behavior (mostly -- though some people spank to force a wanted behavior
to appear).

The problem is, if I read you correctly, that Dr. Embry's point is, and
he's well supported not just by his clinical or research observations,
but by the literature, more spanking equates with more unwanted
behavior in such children.

Possibly I'm not understanding the model you wished to create.

> That poses a huge potential for disaster if a child's personality is
> predisposed to want a lot of attention and not especially care what form the
> attention takes.

Too much speculative material for me. I can "yes but," and "what if"
with the best of them, I suppose, but I'm much more interested in "this
is what and how it happens."

I think Embry's safe play experiment concludes something similar to
your speculation though.

The anecdotes he relates, as to the parenting style and "worst child"
shows clearly that lots of negative attention produced the most
difficult child, in terms of behavior.

Did it with none ODD children? That would be the question to explore,
and he does not.

What do none ODD children do over time when spanked? Do they always
comply? Do they have much later appearing problems? Is defiance itself
a completely bad thing? Are there other conditions that migth be worse,
such as drug use, depression, criminality, etc.?

He may have explored such things in the other papers he mentions. That
would be most interesting to me.

> The child keeps (at least subconsciously) seeking out
> negative attention because it's the only way he can meet his need for
> attention.

I'm not a Fruedian. The child can be unaware of his need intellectually
if that's what you mean. I prefer to use "unconsciously" as it fits my
observations better.

The child had an endless supply of attention getting behaviors. So
what?

Let's stay on the real topic.

Embry's study, as you recall, showed massive improvement in the top
five baseline high rate of street entry kids. During the intervention
period they got, apparently, far less negative attention than before,
only one time out per child for four of them, none for the fifth, and
quite a bit of positive attention. The times outs may not have all
been negative in fact.

I noted that some of the positive reinforcement events took place in
the time out interval (ten minute intervals remember).

I consider that very telling in terms of the power of the positive. The
time out may not have even been experienced by the child as negative. I
was not there to see, but it may have been a time out with positive
reinforcers. I refer to those at "time in." It just means positive
parent attention. Like instruction to watch the other chilren play in
the safe area, and "that's what good boys like you can do."

> But because the attention is negative, it builds up over time to
> more and more toxic levels. (I'll note here that many things that have
> medicinal value at small levels become dangerous toxins at higher levels, so
> the fact that something is toxic in large doses doesn't automatically mean
> that it's dangerous in smaller doses.)

I'm not sure where you are going or if this build up is universal. Or
what "toxic" means in terms of it's effect on the child.

I suppose you are again arguing for spanking being okay. The fact is we
have not, as a society, clearly established that it is. The best we
have done is make an observation that it seems, SEEMS, to do little or
no harm in SOME children.

The trick is to decide which children. And I fear, under what specific
circumstances.

If I were to use that term, "toxic" I would be looking at bad outcomes,
and in your model, over long periods of time. The data collected by
survey from adult subjects in studies of outcomes shows higher levels
of suicide attempts, depression, subtance abuse, in those reporting
having been spanked.

But then at one time roughly 90% of us reported having been spanked as
children.

The evolutionary trajectory studies Embry mentions are something I'm
not familiar with but likely will look at.

If there is a subset of children more disposed to ODD then the question
is, who are they? How do we identify them and apply different
techniques to parenting them, and teaching, etc.

I'd like to see Embry's papers he mentions concerning that.

"Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what
prevention
science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based
on
the continued unfolding of child development science."

This goes back to a subject I've offered again and again in this
newsgroup...how much risk should we be taking with any child, and what
is the point of 'spanking' the easier-to-parent child, as well as the
lack of studies that would show or dispell the possibility that we are
making ODD children by the use of harsher punishment models.

The latter experiment would be very tough to do, ethically, as we
cannot isolate a study group of children who lack the symptoms of ODD
and spank them and over time watch for the appearance of ODD, or not.

Control of variables might present a problem as well.

Before moving on, let me comment finally on the models you've
presented. I can see little profit in attempting to explore the
motivations of the child as per your "value" one kind of treatment or
another. I presume you mean "desirable." Does the child internalize
positive versus negative attention and place value on it? These are
interesting questions but I'm not as interested in terms of decision
making about public policy, and child rearing practice.

If using other means than spanking works, and spanking has as much risk
as Embry seems to me to indicate in a fairly large portion of the
population, then it may be time to take social action against spanking.
Sanctions that don't include harsh penalties, and provide easy access
to education and training (read the study and note how each is
defined..education, and training) as per the Swedish model need to be
considered.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with the behavioral model than all this
motives stuff.

How does the child perform in a given set of circumstances. I can't
control his motives. I have some chance with his behaviors. The same
can be said of the parents.

I can presume the motives for child rearing, sans pathology, is to
raise successful responsible citizens. Spanking is shows to not work
with some, and create the opposite.

Why risk it at all.

Am I being redundant?

> I draw two important lessons from what Dr. Embry wrote. First, positive
> attention is important. Situations where children want attention so badly
> that they feel a need to misbehave in order to get it should be, at most,
> extremely rare.

Yes. On the other hand, children do what children do, which is play
and that is their work...to explore. It may be far less about
"attention" only ONE need, and the much broader spectrum of their needs
they are reacting to when they "misbehavior." After all, such unwanted
behavior is an adult value, not a child's.

In other words, the amount of attention, positive or negative a child
needs both in intensity and time is quite small for most kids. When it
isn't we start looking for pathologies.

And it grows less as the child ages and develops autonomy. What works
for the three year old doesn't for the 8 year old.

When a child acts out with a need for attention the object should be to
give him or her positive attention instead of negative attention. It's
really not rocket science, but we have some cultural beliefs that do
get in the way. And so he get's smacked, as the Brits call it.

> And second, if parents spank, they need to watch carefully how their
> children react after they are spanked.

And what if they simply chose not to spank and use some other methods
and models?
Why work that hard on the spanking model and not on the alternatives?

The none spanking modes tend to get easier over time. Spanking? Well,
not for some of the population.

> If there is an ongoing pattern of
> their children's not reacting by behaving better, or of spanking causing
> anger or resentment for more than a brief period, something is probably
> wrong at a deeper level than spanking can possibly fix, and more spanking
> could easily cause additional damage.

Is this consistent with your past arguments?

Others here have presented a very different view than that.

Again we have the problem of 'The Line.' What behaviors are going to
indicate clearly to the busy parent who may not have time to do
interval behavior coded recording, that the child is in duress from
being spanked?

It is not hard, despite your earlier argument to the contrary, to apply
another, even non-punitive, tactic to stop a behavior. Replacement has
always been a very powerful tactic.

I refer to it as the Tupperware Tactic. Ask a mom to explain why she
keeps them for toddlers while she's trying to work in the kitchen with
knives, hot water, and other dangerous to children tools and objects.
0:-]

Why make life so hard and complex? The none CP models have been around
forever. Use them more, and drop the CP. Risk is pretty much zero.

Also just instructing, as the Safe Play program does, in the wanted
behavior. Sometimes the kid just doesn't know what is wanted, and how
to get what they want by other means than hammering Sissy over the head
to get the toy truck away from her.

> (Note that this, in turn, suggests that it is extremely dangerous if parents
> create a situation where their children feel a need to mask how they feel
> about getting spanked in order to avoid getting in further trouble for their
> attitude. That's not to say that children should be allowed to express
> their feelings in whatever manner they want, but they shouldn't be prevented
> from making their feelings reasonably clear.)

I feel like I'm being drug far away from the issues of Dr. Embry's
study and his conversation with you.

His comments, bringing up a lot of terms I'm out of touch with, is
content rich enough to explore on it's own, without diving in to what
you accused me of, falsely, psychobabble.

But in fact it would be pretty hard not to create a situation were
children mask their feelings.

After all, the one applying pain to them is the trusted parent. I don't
think spanking as an emotional-expression-freeing exercise. But that's
not relevant to the issue for me regarding our current discussion.

I'd rather explore what Embry said, and what it meant, since some of
his terms are not familiar to me.

More reading, rather than more speculation might be in order. Or we
could ask him.

I presume you reponded to his request to provide this newsgroup link?

If not please do.

If he has trouble with reading the group on google I'd be happy to help
him navigate.

He might try Agent as a better tool if he is only browser accessing the
group though. Other readers also handle threading better than google.
And the threads the thing.

> But as long as parents give their children plenty of positive attention, Dr.
> Embry's views indicate that such adverse reactions are atypical, not normal.

The masking of feelings? I don't think he went there at all.

And I don't recall him discussing "plenty of positive attention." Just
specifically applied instruction and direction. "Praise" would fall
under the attention category I suppose, and there was not "plenty" of
it, just more recorded during intervention than in baseline in the
study report.

Frankly I'm not all that sold on 'plenty of positive attention.'

Supervision, and just quietly being there when needed alway seemed to
work for me with normal kids, and even with the disturbed kids I worked
with. A lot of attention invites a lot of overbehaving, if you get my
drift. Manipulative interaction and smacks of pathology to me.

I watched a few thousand hours of video tapes in school of mothers and
babies and toddlers and the 'successful' babies, meeting developmental
milestones on time had mothers that were not interacting all that much
but attentive and present when needed.

Mothers that fawn over the child always make my skin crawl. It's like
watching a little girl play with her dolls. But then, maybe that's just
my bias, eh?

> They are a danger parents need to keep an eye open for if they spank,
> especially with boys. But if parents watch for the danger, they should be
> able to modify their tactics long before problems threaten to spiral out of
> control.

I wish that were true. It's not in real life. The very parents that
should don't.

Child protection records show something different in quite a few cases.
It would be rare for a family to present to CPS with physical abuse
allegations against them that didn't say they were just disciplining
and it got out of hand.

"Abusive" parents are rarely the few monsters we read about in the
news.

They are more often folks ignorant of what we discuss here and Embry
clarifies, if you think about it. And they do serious damage without
even being aware at the time they are doing it.

How many parents that spank really difficult children do you know that
even look for, let alone use a model like the Safe Play program?

I think the point, especially if you look at the demographics of the
study population in Embry's experiment, is that they tend to present
already in trouble, when they do present at all.

Most don't. Most end up with CPS, in a service plan, which on another
group I frequent, is supposed to be '"Evil CPS" forcing the innocent
parents to jump through hoops.'

You can see pretty easily what the mindset is of a large percent of
people about those "fuzzy headed liberal parenting method hawkers,"
right?

The very ones that should be moving from spanking to other models are
the least likely to do so.

I was converted very reluctantly to a position where I now support a
'soft' law against the use of corporal punishment. While I didn't
believe in spanking, I believed that all those reluctant folks that
need to NOT use spanking and seek other means could be won over with
reason and facts in time.

How naive I was. But that's youth for you. Always hopeful.

Part of what turned me around in my thinking was this newsgroup. But
just reading the news had even more effect. And that year with CPS as a
student in 1980-81.

The rate of child abuse in this country, while dropping, still is very
high for a civilized country.

> Finally, I'll ask you to think very carefully about something. Of the
> troubled teenagers you worked with, how many grew up in homes where they
> could pretty reliably get plenty of positive attention when they were being
> good?

First, there were a few that had parents that gave lots of both. The
more pathological ones. Mothers most often. Not that fathers couldn't
be weird.

Second, don't presume that I worked only with "troubled" teenagers.
These were mentally ill children Dx'd as such by properly applied psych
evals. Some were classicly "troubled" kids as in delinquent, some were
frightened little kids still sleeping with their toys in their bed, at
12 and 13.

I worked with regular kids in other settings during my past.

> Note the words :"pretty reliably" since some parents have
> Jekyll-and-Hyde personalities that make opportunities to get positive
> attention safely a hit-or-miss proposition depending on their parents'
> moods.

You are describing the pathological parents of the children I worked
with in treatment. Very few were 'monsters' but rather ordinary looking
and acting folks.

> I think you're probably focusing too much on the issue of spanking
> and not enough on the issue of inadequate positive attention.

Nathan, that is so presumptuous of you. And this is about the third or
fourth accusation of that against me.

What's the title of this newsgroup?

Treatment professionals don't live in the world of the mentally ill.
They have lives, raise their own kids, have extended family, likely
participate in other activities that put them in contact with families
that are not Dx'd as "troubled."

And I had a life before and after that work, as well. Some of it with
children.

Why, given what I've posted here, other than my occasional opposition
to your arguments, would you presume I don't give enough focus to lack
of positive attention?

What has my argument been BUT that more positive methods need to be
used?

"Attention," by the way is overrated. Kids don't need more than about
20 - 30 minutes a day of direct one to one caregiver attention to be
perfectly healthy kids psychologically - devopmentally.

Who has argued from the Embry study contents as a desirable model here
for three years? His name starts with a "K."

Who, by the way, argued against it?

Now, be so kind as to go to my posts, any you wish, and point out
anything I've said that indicates I'm "probably focusing too much on
the issue of spanking and not enough on the issue of inadequate
positive attention."

And you might, in the course of mounting your argument, clarify your
terms. What do YOU call positive attention? Actual behaviors please.
I'm a little tired of "motives" and "values," when it comes to dealing
with little kids. And their parents. We already know pretty well what
those are.

If you'd like then to get back to what Dr. Embry actually said and
explore it with me, and argue it pro or con if you like, I'm right
here.

I'm curious as to terms. I welcome Dr. Embry telling us what some of
the newer research terminology means. Some I've searched for and not
found definitions as yet.

Have you?

Sometime this next week I'll be looking for material on the subject of
evolutional imperatives in child and human development. It's not an
area I've looked at before seriously. I didn't catch on to the
relationship to our discussions here. I do now. So I thank you for
contacting Dr. Embry.

Kane

>
>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Thanks Nathan, for contact Dr. Embry.
> >
> > Good work.
> >
> > I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > matter.
> >
> > It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
> > conclusions.
> >
> > And Dr. Embry's emphasis now on how the children most likely to be
> > spanked because of their behaviors in fact become oppositional is
> > consistent with all the training and experience I had with mentally ill
> > teens (that was a Federal Dollars designation and they were truly
> > socially dysfunctional...the ones with physiological problems were
> > screened out to hospital settings...psych wards).
> >
> > I worked where I had full access and occasionally client contact with
> > younger children too, down to about 8 years old. What we called back
> > then, "latency age."
> >
> > Again we saw the same phenomena that Dr. Embry so eloquently defines
> > and reveals. The more punishment the more opposition of one kind or
> > another.
> >
> > Some shut down, some fight back, some go behind your back and burn down
> > the neighborhood Historical Preserveation Barn (that happened to a kid
> > on my caseload that our local treatment director put the screws to one
> > day, then walked out as the kid heated up...I was not there to
> > intervene, and he knocked out windows for awhile then ran off and
> > burned down that 150 year old landmark barn.)
> >
> > Anyway, you have your answer.

[Doan]

Kane wrote:
>
> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> matter.
>
I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

> It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
> conclusions.
>
>
Hihihi!

> Doan of course will say I'm lying, but you can guess by now I'm not
> impressed with his games.
>
Now, why would I say you are lying? ;-)

> Never tried to download a corrupted PDF file?
>
You created a corrupted PDF file? ;-) What is the size of this file?

> Even ones that should be good, like from sources that created them to
> sell they blow out.
>
> This one won't load and open. Sometimes, even for me. So I quite trying
> long ago.
>
Yeah! Don't you just hate that? ;-)

> If Doan won't mail you his copy, just ask.
>
Couldn't he got one straight from Dr. Embry, Kane? ;-)

> I'll even cover postage, as I did for everyone else I sent it to.
>
> Thanks again, and sorry for doubting you, but if you've googled Doan's
> history here you can understand why I don't play his games.
>
Hihihi!

Doan

[Nathan A. Barclay]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> Kane wrote:
>>
>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>> matter.
>>
> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

[Greegor]

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> spanking as inherently harmful.

Isn't that why some have said that parenting involves
adaptability and even creativity?

It's commonly said that what works for one kid
will not necessarily work for another.

In one training class a woman talked up her
anti-spanking zeal and bragged that she
never had to spank her two sons.
She was a former caseworker who ended
up in prison for duct taping Logan Marr to
a High Chair in her basement, covering her
mouth and causing her death.

If she had not been such a zealot for anti-spanking
perhaps she could have had another option
short of duct taping a child to death?

But when her anti-spanking methods
failed, she turned to duct tape.

Fosters, where spanking is not allowed,
recently killed a child by making the kid
drink chili powder in water and the
salt in it poisoned the child to death.

[Doan]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kane wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> >> matter.
> >>
> > I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>
> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>
It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> more often.
>
Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> better ways to get attention.
>
Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Doan

[Doan]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kane wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > >> matter.
> > >>
> > > I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > > street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > > valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > > on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> >
> > At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> > spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> > net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> > cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> > details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> > much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >
> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> entries, I would like to see it.
>
> > The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> > special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> > Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> > children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> > more often.
> >
> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
>
> > Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> > attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> > the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> > reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> > going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> > spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> > for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> > there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> > better ways to get attention.
> >
> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> spanking alone.
>
Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

Doan

[0:->]

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kane wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> >> matter.
> >>
> > I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>
> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>
> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> more often.
>
> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> going to use spanking.

"Reasonably take in to consideration?"

What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?

How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
thinks by surface appearances?

By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
spanking would have likely presented itself.

> But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> spanking as inherently harmful.

The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.

The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.

> Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> better ways to get attention.

I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
continuing misbehavior was?

The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
(the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
behavior.

He identifed that population as being very difficult children.

My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?

That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
need to take risks by chosing to spank.

We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
using methods that did not include CP and focused on
consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.

But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
of people do.

Kane

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>
>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
>> entries, I would like to see it.
>>
>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>> more often.
>>>
>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
>>
>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>> better ways to get attention.
>>>
>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
>> spanking alone.
>>
> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
>
> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
> it."
>
> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
all five and under.

If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Are you really suggesting that a 6 year old and older cannot learn by
talking and reasoning?

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has studies on spanking 6 year
olds and older in such situations and seeing if the unwanted behavior
increased or decreased.

I've seen perfectly normal appearing (who can say really) adults that
when punished, say with traffic fines, have not reduced the unwanted
behavior but continue and even escalate.

Say young adults that drive over the speed limit and recklessly.

Maybe your first love in discipline, caning as per Singapore, would be
more effective. What do you think?

> Doan

Kane

[Doan]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Kane wrote:
> >>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> >>>>> matter.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> >>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> >>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> >>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> >>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> >>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> >>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> >>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> >>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> >>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >>>
> >> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
> >> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> >> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> >> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> >> entries, I would like to see it.
> >>
> >>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> >>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> >>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> >>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> >>> more often.
> >>>
> >> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> >> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> >> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
> >>
> >>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> >>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> >>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> >>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> >>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> >>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> >>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> >>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> >>> better ways to get attention.
> >>>
> >> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> >> spanking alone.
> >>
> > Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
> >
> > "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
> > their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
> > opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
> > it."
> >
> > If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
> > non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
>
> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
> all five and under.
>
> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
> comes into play about the 6th year.
>
> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>
> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
>
Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > >>> ...
> > >>>> Kane wrote:
> > >>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > >>>>> matter.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > >>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > >>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > >>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> > >>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> > >>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> > >>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> > >>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> > >>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> > >>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> > >>>
> > >> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
> > >> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> > >> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> > >> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> > >> entries, I would like to see it.
> > >>
> > >>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> > >>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> > >>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> > >>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> > >>> more often.
> > >>>
> > >> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> > >> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> > >> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
> > >>
> > >>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> > >>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> > >>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> > >>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> > >>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> > >>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> > >>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> > >>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> > >>> better ways to get attention.
> > >>>
> > >> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> > >> spanking alone.
> > >>
> > > Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
> > >
> > > "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
> > > their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
> > > opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
> > > it."
> > >
> > > If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
> > > non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
> >
> > To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
> > all five and under.
> >
> > If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
> > that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
> > comes into play about the 6th year.
> >
> > One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
> > olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
> >
> > If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
> >
> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.

I see.

Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?

Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
above?

You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.

>
> Doan

Kane

[Doan]

On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>>> Kane wrote:
> > > >>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > > >>>>> matter.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > > >>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > > >>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > > >>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> > > >>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> > > >>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> > > >>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> > > >>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> > > >>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> > > >>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> > > >>>
> > > >> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
> > > >> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> > > >> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> > > >> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> > > >> entries, I would like to see it.
> > > >>
> > > >>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> > > >>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> > > >>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> > > >>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> > > >>> more often.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> > > >> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> > > >> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> > > >>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> > > >>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> > > >>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> > > >>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> > > >>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> > > >>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> > > >>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> > > >>> better ways to get attention.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> > > >> spanking alone.
> > > >>
> > > > Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
> > > >
> > > > "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
> > > > their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
> > > > opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
> > > > it."
> > > >
> > > > If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
> > > > non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
> > >
> > > To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
> > > all five and under.
> > >
> > > If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
> > > that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
> > > comes into play about the 6th year.
> > >
> > > One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
> > > olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
> > >
> > > If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
> > >
> > Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
>
> In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
> still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.
>
Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?

> I see.
>
> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
>
Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?

> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
> above?
>
> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
>
I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kane wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > >> matter.
> > >>
> > > I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > > street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > > valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > > on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

You both seem to see what you wish to see instead of what's there. No
one is trying to conceal any studies from you. Dr. Embry mentioned the
following in his posts to Nathan:

....For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition
of a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is
whole
consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
colleague and the president of the society for prevention research.
Dr.
Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of
coercion
work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits
both
behavioral and evolutionary theory....

He also points out that this is basic Psych 101 stuff, something I've
known for years. Working a clinical setting if one doesn't catch on to,
usually be more professional development, these very kinds of things,
they get left behid.

We knew in 1984 when I first started working with the adolescent
mentally ill children I worked with that indeed, punishment most often
resulted in more of the undesirable behavior. We used at that time a
form of Social Awareness training with the kids that left the
punishment BS out of the picture.

Normal kids have little trouble learning social interaction skills
unless of course we interupt them. The kids I worked with were not
severly disturbed. Just socially maladjusted. And in nearly all cases,
they had been taught, as Dr Embry points out, to act as they did
because of how parents and teachers tried to deal with kids socially or
genetically predisposed to these negative behaviors.

Have you bothered to read Dr. Embry's comments to Nathan, or not, Doan?

If you can't even remember, or at least reference Nathan's recent post,
how can anyone be sure you have read and understand the Report of
Embry's study?

Your comments so far have been to quote by cherry picking something
then asking one of your assinine questions that entirely miss the point
because you have an agenda of some kind.

The answer to your question is usally, just like this one you asked
about, right there for you to read if you'll look.

What Dr. Embry said about the spanking equating with more entries for
some children was the answer to your question.

Now you have reference, and I presume still library privileges at USC
so if you really do wish to see the research, just hop over to the
library and have a gander. Tell us what you find.

If it's not consisten with Dr. Ebry's comments I'm sure you'll be good
enough to inform us.
> >
> > At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> > spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> > net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> > cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> > details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> > much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >
> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan.

The hell you aren't, Doan. That's what you have done for years here.
You lie, just as you are going to do below, by that very artifice.

> It goes the heart of the
> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> entries, I would like to see it.

You were lying not because of your claim about the study, but by your
claiming that I said the study was about spanking.

I never claimed this study was about spanking. I claimed it was about
alternatives to spanking.

This is typical "quibbling over details," just as you have always done.


You are lying again, Doan.

Any time I discussed Dr. Embry and the issue of spanking increasing
street entries I always referenced his comments in his letter to the
parenting magazine.

Why do you continue to lie?

> > The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> > special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> > Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> > children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> > more often.
> >
> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

I believe there was in fact a "reprimand" versus street entry chart
made, Doan. Why don't you look it up.

Why would we mention this false statement by Nathan? I've never said
the study as about spanking, but that Dr. Embry has said that he
observed this. He obviously has read the literature, and mentioned it,
that did research this issue.

The absense of spanking in this study is the point being made. And as
you recall in the definition of 'physical punishment," it was coded
for, and I believe there was an incident recorded.

So few that they were not significant enough to chart.

We had this same discussion a few days ago. Why continue to lie, Doan.

My best guess is that Dr. Embry is watching our posting right now,
trying to figure out just what we are up to. Keep up the good work.

> > Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> > attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> > the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> > reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> > going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> > spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> > for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> > there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> > better ways to get attention.
> >
> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> spanking alone.

Nathan made four or five points.

And my point has always been, as long as I've posted here, NOT a
blanket claim that all spanking is harmful, but that we have no way of
knowing when it does become harmful until that point is past.

Thus I continue to ask, if we have other methods that work as well or
better than spanking for long term outcomes, why use spanking with it's
inherent risk?

Convenience? The claim that we believe it does no harm won't fly in
any logical discussion.

We believe it, we don't know it. But what we do know, just like other
issues under study, is that the fact it harms some, enough to be
significant and cost a lot to society, we then need to base public
policy on that finding.

Smoking, seat belts, drinking, and street entries of small children
with injury and death, cost. So we make policy.

As shocking to our tender sensibilities, and our belief in our
infallible independence to muddle us through, we have indeed changed
public policy in the past to the better.

I believe it is time to have an American Swedish style law about the
use of CP with the same supports the Swedish government offered to
parents. No penality, just education and training.

We do it with bad drivers. We are doing it with special drug courts. So
far no harm has come of that. And some progress.

What harm would come to our society if parents that used CP were
required to attend a parenting course based on systems and programs
like Dr. Embry's and others that are similar?

> Doan

Kane

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kane wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > >> matter.
> > >>
> > > I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > > street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > > valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > > on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

You seemed to have missed this, Doan:
In Dr. Embry's third response to Nathan's questions.

.... We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go
into the
street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate
kids,
though.??

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of
both
the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in
micro-coding of
regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry

Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to
get
nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.?
I
should scan the pages on the time relationships. ...

I hope Dr. Embry is motivated to provide more of his papers regarding
the changes in behavior management that coincide with new work in child
development issues.

I'm somewhat behind in my own reading on this subject.

And you?

After all, if we are going to discuss the pros and cons of spanking and
punishment it would help to be up to date on what we know about the
mileposts in child development, and the facts that have been learned
about the process of development. Hell, it's been over 20 years since I
took a Child Development course.

So, what is it you wish to know that you could not find at the
University library, Doan?

I don't have privileges, and you do, so what's holding you up if you
wish to discuss this issue from a position of facts, as your questions
would indicate?

> Doan

Kane

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
>>>>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
>>>>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
>>>>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
>>>>>> entries, I would like to see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>>>>>> more often.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
>>>>>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
>>>>>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>>>>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>>>>>> better ways to get attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
>>>>>> spanking alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
>>>>>
>>>>> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
>>>>> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
>>>>> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
>>>>> it."
>>>>>
>>>>> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
>>>>> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
>>>> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
>>>> all five and under.
>>>>
>>>> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
>>>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
>>>> comes into play about the 6th year.
>>>>
>>>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
>>>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>>>>
>>>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
>> In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
>> still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.
>>
> Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?

Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?

That's would be new.

>> I see.
>>
>> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
>>
> Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?

I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?

>> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
>> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
>> above?
>>
>> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
>>
> I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?

I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.

> Doan

Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?

One of the hallmarks of such discussions would be to actually respond to
the relevant content. You just dodges, as usual, let me see now..one,
two, three times.

Let's just take one and see if you can actually discuss it and argue
with facts, shall we:

"If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
comes into play about the 6th year.

One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.

If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length."

So, did I understand him correctly? Do you agree or disagree?

Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't ready
for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before 6 or 7?

Or would you like to dodge again?

And given that I have done so, and Dr. Embry did so, have you anything
to say that would support your general and nonspecific claim as per your
question?

Here is where you first dodged...to me, after all these years, an
indicator you do not have an argument and you aren't about to admit it.

You asked this question: "If what you said is true about spanking, can
the same be said about other non-cp alternatives like talking and
reasoning with your children?"

I replied: "To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that
children are all five and under."

Can you show how I am mistaken, or failed to understand your question?

Thanks,
Kane

[Greegor]

Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
I punish bad PDF files.



0:-> wrote:
> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kane wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> > >> matter.
> > >>
> > > I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> > > street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> > > valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> > > on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> >
> > At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> > spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> > net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> > cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> > details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> > much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >
> > The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> > special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> > Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> > children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> > more often.
> >
> > Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> > attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> > the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> > reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> > going to use spanking.
>
> "Reasonably take in to consideration?"
>
> What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
> child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?
>
> How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
> Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
> thinks by surface appearances?
>
> By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
> the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
> they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
> spanking would have likely presented itself.
>
> > But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> > spanking as inherently harmful.
>
> The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.
>
> The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
> means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.
>
> > Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> > for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> > there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> > better ways to get attention.
>
> I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
> continuing misbehavior was?
>
> The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
> (the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
> certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
> behavior.
>
> He identifed that population as being very difficult children.
>
> My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
> applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?
>
> That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
> need to take risks by chosing to spank.
>
> We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
> moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
> behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
> using methods that did not include CP and focused on
> consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
> with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.
>
> But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
> of people do.
>
> Kane

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
> I punish bad PDF files.

You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
dealing with the topic.

You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
engage the issues.

Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
Nathan's questions?

Probably not. Wouldn't want to tax your corrupt brain.

Kane


>
>
>
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>
>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>> more often.
>>>
>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>> going to use spanking.
>> "Reasonably take in to consideration?"
>>
>> What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
>> child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?
>>
>> How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
>> Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
>> thinks by surface appearances?
>>
>> By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
>> the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
>> they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
>> spanking would have likely presented itself.
>>
>>> But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>> spanking as inherently harmful.
>> The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.
>>
>> The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
>> means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.
>>
>>> Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>> better ways to get attention.
>> I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
>> continuing misbehavior was?
>>
>> The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
>> (the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
>> certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
>> behavior.
>>
>> He identifed that population as being very difficult children.
>>
>> My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
>> applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?
>>
>> That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
>> need to take risks by chosing to spank.
>>
>> We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
>> moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
>> behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
>> using methods that did not include CP and focused on
>> consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
>> with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.
>>
>> But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
>> of people do.
>>
>> Kane
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Greegor wrote:
> > Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
> > I punish bad PDF files.
>
> You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
> dealing with the topic.
>
> You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
> bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
> engage the issues.
>
> Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
> Nathan's questions?
>
And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)

Doan

> Probably not. Wouldn't want to tax your corrupt brain.
>
> Kane
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 0:-> wrote:
> >> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Kane wrote:
> >>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> >>>>> matter.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> >>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> >>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> >>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> >>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> >>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> >>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> >>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> >>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> >>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >>>
> >>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> >>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> >>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> >>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> >>> more often.
> >>>
> >>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> >>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> >>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> >>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> >>> going to use spanking.
> >> "Reasonably take in to consideration?"
> >>
> >> What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
> >> child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?
> >>
> >> How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
> >> Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
> >> thinks by surface appearances?
> >>
> >> By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
> >> the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
> >> they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
> >> spanking would have likely presented itself.
> >>
> >>> But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> >>> spanking as inherently harmful.
> >> The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.
> >>
> >> The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
> >> means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.
> >>
> >>> Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> >>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> >>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> >>> better ways to get attention.
> >> I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
> >> continuing misbehavior was?
> >>
> >> The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
> >> (the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
> >> certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
> >> behavior.
> >>
> >> He identifed that population as being very difficult children.
> >>
> >> My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
> >> applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?
> >>
> >> That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
> >> need to take risks by chosing to spank.
> >>
> >> We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
> >> moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
> >> behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
> >> using methods that did not include CP and focused on
> >> consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
> >> with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.
> >>
> >> But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
> >> of people do.
> >>
> >> Kane
> >
>

[Doan]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> Kane wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> >>>>>>>>> matter.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> >>>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> >>>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> >>>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> >>>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> >>>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> >>>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> >>>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> >>>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> >>>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
> >>>>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> >>>>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> >>>>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> >>>>>> entries, I would like to see it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> >>>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> >>>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> >>>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> >>>>>>> more often.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> >>>>>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> >>>>>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> >>>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> >>>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> >>>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> >>>>>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> >>>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> >>>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> >>>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> >>>>>>> better ways to get attention.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> >>>>>> spanking alone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
> >>>>> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
> >>>>> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
> >>>>> it."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
> >>>>> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
> >>>> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
> >>>> all five and under.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
> >>>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
> >>>> comes into play about the 6th year.
> >>>>
> >>>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
> >>>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
> >> In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
> >> still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.
> >>
> > Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
>
> Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?
>
Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

> That's would be new.

For you.

>
> >> I see.
> >>
> >> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
> >>
> > Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
>
> I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
> tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?
>
Hihihi! When someone lied, like you, their story often just don't add up!
Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file. I do have
some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.

> >> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
> >> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
> >> above?
> >>
> >> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
> >>
> > I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
>
> I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.
>
More lies, Kane? Or are you just logically impaired? Didn't you say
that Alina was me? Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)

> > Doan
>
> Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?
>
If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?

Doan

> One of the hallmarks of such discussions would be to actually respond to
> the relevant content. You just dodges, as usual, let me see now..one,
> two, three times.
>
> Let's just take one and see if you can actually discuss it and argue
> with facts, shall we:
>
> "If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
> comes into play about the 6th year.
>
> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>
> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length."
>
> So, did I understand him correctly? Do you agree or disagree?
>
> Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't ready
> for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before 6 or 7?
>
> Or would you like to dodge again?
>
> And given that I have done so, and Dr. Embry did so, have you anything
> to say that would support your general and nonspecific claim as per your
> question?
>
> Here is where you first dodged...to me, after all these years, an
> indicator you do not have an argument and you aren't about to admit it.
>
> You asked this question: "If what you said is true about spanking, can
> the same be said about other non-cp alternatives like talking and
> reasoning with your children?"
>
> I replied: "To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that
> children are all five and under."
>
> Can you show how I am mistaken, or failed to understand your question?
>
> Thanks,
> Kane
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
>>> I punish bad PDF files.
>> You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
>> dealing with the topic.
>>
>> You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
>> bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
>> engage the issues.
>>
>> Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
>> Nathan's questions?
>>
> And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
> with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
> have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)

Why would I look bad? And remember, it was you that brought up my
mentioning a PDF file so you could use it as a dodge to keep from
engaging in any sensible discussion of the study.

You said you had it. Why would I want to send it to you?

Now, do you wish to discuss the study or not?

Or are you going to simply show that you are no more capable of reasoned
fact based argument than Greg?
>
> Doan
>
Kane


>> Probably not. Wouldn't want to tax your corrupt brain.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>> Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>>>
>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>>>> more often.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>>>> going to use spanking.
>>>> "Reasonably take in to consideration?"
>>>>
>>>> What research supports a model parents could use to judge if their
>>>> child is in a state of non-risk response if they should spank them?
>>>>
>>>> How can a parent know if the child is ill? Tired? Frightened? Confused?
>>>> Doing the behavior for entirely different reasons than the parents
>>>> thinks by surface appearances?
>>>>
>>>> By the time a parent has explored all this the moment is past, and if
>>>> the explored just the last item a great deal of the time not only would
>>>> they have clarified the child's motives but the solution, without
>>>> spanking would have likely presented itself.
>>>>
>>>>> But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful.
>>>> The same can be said for smoking tobacco. Or for drinking.
>>>>
>>>> The question, boys, is what is the risk factor and why bother if other
>>>> means are at hand that don't have the same level of risk?.
>>>>
>>>>> Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>>>> better ways to get attention.
>>>> I missed that, and can't find it. What did he say the reason for the
>>>> continuing misbehavior was?
>>>>
>>>> The only thing I caught and can find is that his and other's research
>>>> (the other being a much larger study as I recall) showed that with a
>>>> certain population of children spanking was a reinforcer of unwanted
>>>> behavior.
>>>>
>>>> He identifed that population as being very difficult children.
>>>>
>>>> My question would be, and I'm still searching for references to
>>>> applicable studies, are those difficult children born or made?
>>>>
>>>> That still would not, however, negate my contention that there is no
>>>> need to take risks by chosing to spank.
>>>>
>>>> We think it is quick. In the end it turns out only to be quick at the
>>>> moment and over time not very effective means of extinquishing a
>>>> behavior unless one is consistent. I got far better and quicker results
>>>> using methods that did not include CP and focused on
>>>> consequences..logical, or natural, and teaching. Much faster. Even
>>>> with Dx's mentally ill children. Very quick indeed with normal kids.
>>>>
>>>> But then I didn't try to control them for all the same behaviors a lot
>>>> of people do.
>>>>
>>>> Kane
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>>>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>>>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>>>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>>>>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>>>>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>>>>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>>>>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>>>>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>>>>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
>>>>>>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
>>>>>>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
>>>>>>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
>>>>>>>> entries, I would like to see it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>>>>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>>>>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>>>>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>>>>>>>> more often.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
>>>>>>>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
>>>>>>>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>>>>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>>>>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>>>>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>>>>>>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>>>>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>>>>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>>>>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>>>>>>>> better ways to get attention.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
>>>>>>>> spanking alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
>>>>>>> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
>>>>>>> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
>>>>>>> it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
>>>>>>> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
>>>>>> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
>>>>>> all five and under.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
>>>>>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
>>>>>> comes into play about the 6th year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
>>>>>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
>>>> In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
>>>> still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
>> Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?
>>
> Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
> Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
> tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)
>
>> That's would be new.
>
> For you.
>
>>>> I see.
>>>>
>>>> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
>>>>
>>> Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
>> I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
>> tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?
>>
> Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,

Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
a copy?

> their story often just don't add up!

That would be you, Doan.

> Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.

And the two are mutually exclusive how?

> I do have
> some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.

So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..

Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.
>
>>>> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
>>>> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
>>>>
>>> I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
>> I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.
>>
> More lies, Kane?

I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
better when you do.

> Or are you just logically impaired?

No. Much to your chagrin.

> Didn't you say
> that Alina was me?

Did I? Why would I do that?

> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)

Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
you would do months ago for anyone that asked.


He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
first asked about getting a copy.

Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.

>>> Doan
>> Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?
>>
> If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
> we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?

Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
asked, like were you Alina?

Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
answer now.
>
> Doan
>
You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.

You quoted Straus out of context for instance, on his remarks to the
press about Diana Baumrind's presentation at Berkeley. I thought that
particularly foul. A clear attempt to deceive.

You refused to establish you had the same study report of Embry's that I
had...yet another clear attempt to deceive, so as to not have to enter
into debate on issues you knew were going to bury you and your claims
from previous posts on the issues of parenting practices.

And you are still dodging.

Just as I predicted you would in my comments attributed below as:

"Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't
ready for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before
6 or 7?

Or would you like to dodge again?"

You just can't get honest, Doan. That's pretty clear to anyone that
reads your posting history even for a few weeks.

Kane



>> One of the hallmarks of such discussions would be to actually respond to
>> the relevant content. You just dodges, as usual, let me see now..one,
>> two, three times.
>>
>> Let's just take one and see if you can actually discuss it and argue
>> with facts, shall we:
>>
>> "If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
>> comes into play about the 6th year.
>>
>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>>
>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length."
>>
>> So, did I understand him correctly? Do you agree or disagree?
>>
>> Have I not made that point in this newsgroup, that children aren't ready
>> for more complex, that is abstract thinking and reasoning, before 6 or 7?
>>
>> Or would you like to dodge again?
>>
>> And given that I have done so, and Dr. Embry did so, have you anything
>> to say that would support your general and nonspecific claim as per your
>> question?
>>
>> Here is where you first dodged...to me, after all these years, an
>> indicator you do not have an argument and you aren't about to admit it.
>>
>> You asked this question: "If what you said is true about spanking, can
>> the same be said about other non-cp alternatives like talking and
>> reasoning with your children?"
>>
>> I replied: "To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that
>> children are all five and under."
>>
>> Can you show how I am mistaken, or failed to understand your question?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kane
>>
>>
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
> >>> I punish bad PDF files.
> >> You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
> >> dealing with the topic.
> >>
> >> You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
> >> bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
> >> engage the issues.
> >>
> >> Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
> >> Nathan's questions?
> >>
> > And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
> > with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
> > have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)
>
> Why would I look bad? And remember, it was you that brought up my
> mentioning a PDF file so you could use it as a dodge to keep from
> engaging in any sensible discussion of the study.
>
Here is your words:
"I guess I'll just have to look bad."
The reason I brought up the PDF file is to exposed your LIES, Kane. It is
simple as that. You went from: have it to don't have it, to poor PDF file
to corrupted PDF file. IT IS JUST STUPID, Kane! It is even funnier when
you brought my posting on another newsgroup, as somehow that make making
a PDF file is easy! So easy that you ended up with a corrupted PDF file.
DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOU LOOKED??? ;-)

> You said you had it. Why would I want to send it to you?
>
Huh? First, I've never claimed to have a PDF copy. Second, I did not ask
you to send it to me. Nathan asked you to send it to him. Why do you
keep on saying stupid lies like these, Kane? Is it PATHOLOGICAL?

> Now, do you wish to discuss the study or not?
>
To a proven liar like you? Or are honestly want to debate?

> Or are you going to simply show that you are no more capable of reasoned
> fact based argument than Greg?

I've always given facts, unlike you. You see, facts, unlike lies, don't
change. Your stories kept on changing from days to days. ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> Kane wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
> >>>>>>>>>>> matter.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
> >>>>>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
> >>>>>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
> >>>>>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
> >>>>>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
> >>>>>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
> >>>>>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
> >>>>>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
> >>>>>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
> >>>>>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
> >>>>>>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> >>>>>>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> >>>>>>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> >>>>>>>> entries, I would like to see it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
> >>>>>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
> >>>>>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
> >>>>>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
> >>>>>>>>> more often.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
> >>>>>>>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
> >>>>>>>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
> >>>>>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
> >>>>>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
> >>>>>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
> >>>>>>>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
> >>>>>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
> >>>>>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
> >>>>>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
> >>>>>>>>> better ways to get attention.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
> >>>>>>>> spanking alone.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
> >>>>>>> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
> >>>>>>> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
> >>>>>>> it."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
> >>>>>>> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
> >>>>>> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
> >>>>>> all five and under.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
> >>>>>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
> >>>>>> comes into play about the 6th year.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
> >>>>>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
> >>>> In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
> >>>> still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
> >> Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?
> >>
> > Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
> > Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
> > tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)

I see that you have no response to this. So do you really wanted to have
a "civil" discussion or not?

> >
> >> That's would be new.
> >
> > For you.
> >
> >>>> I see.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
> >>>>
> >>> Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
> >> I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
> >> tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?
> >>
> > Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,
>
> Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
> a copy?
>
Hihihi! Still more lies! First, I don't have a PDF copy. Second, why
don't you asked Nathan if I've offered to send him a copy or not.

> > their story often just don't add up!
>
> That would be you, Doan.
>
What story would that be, Kane? Did I ever claimed to have a PDF copy?

> > Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.
>
> And the two are mutually exclusive how?
>
Hihihi! What does "mutually exclusive" has to do with it? How do you
create a corrupted file, Kane?

> > I do have
> > some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.
>
> So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
> have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..
>
Are you this stupid? What does knowing how to make and not having the
equipment or the software has to do with it? I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE
A PDF FILE!

> Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.

Like a corrupted file? Wanna tell me how to make a corrupted file? ;-)

> >
> >>>> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
> >>>> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
> >>>> above?
> >>>>
> >>>> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
> >>>>
> >>> I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
> >> I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.
> >>
> > More lies, Kane?
>
> I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
> better when you do.
>
You don't know your own lies?

> > Or are you just logically impaired?
>
> No. Much to your chagrin.
>
That what makes you an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

> > Didn't you say
> > that Alina was me?
>
> Did I? Why would I do that?
>
Yes, you did. Did you forget? See the problem with LIES, Kane? You
can't keep your story straight! ;-)

> > Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)
>
> Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
> perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
> you would do months ago for anyone that asked.
>
Hahaha! I don't have a PDF copy, Kane! Not even a corrupted one! ;-)

>
> He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
> first asked about getting a copy.
>
Hihihi! But he didn't ask for a hard copy now, did he, Kane?

> Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.
>
You are not fooling anyone, Kane. ;-)

> >>> Doan
> >> Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?
> >>
> > If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
> > we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?
>
> Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
> asked, like were you Alina?
>
Sure. I am not Alina!

> Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
> readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
> answer now.

Go ahead, Kane. I am ready for another laugh. Can you tell me the
address that you claimed to have send a copy to Alina? I am pretty
sure that it was a lie too! ;-)

> >
> > Doan
> >
> You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.
>
Hihihi! Anyone here believes that Kane is honest and Doan is a liar,
speak up.

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Greegor wrote:
> > >>> Can I have a copy of the bad PDF Kane?
> > >>> I punish bad PDF files.
> > >> You probably need to be punished for being off topic again to avoid
> > >> dealing with the topic.
> > >>
> > >> You and Doan seem joined at the hip. You always dodge the real issues to
> > >> bring up side issues that are of no consequence when you cannot cogently
> > >> engage the issues.
> > >>
> > >> Got anything to say about the Embry study and Dr. Embry's comments to
> > >> Nathan's questions?
> > >>
> > > And what does me having access to a scanner or not have anything to do
> > > with the Embry study, Kane? After all, were you or me that claimed to
> > > have a PDF copy? Remember, it is you that looked BAD! ;-)
> >
> > Why would I look bad? And remember, it was you that brought up my
> > mentioning a PDF file so you could use it as a dodge to keep from
> > engaging in any sensible discussion of the study.
> >
> Here is your words:
> "I guess I'll just have to look bad."

Relevance? I'm pointing out that that is someone else's opinion, as
you can see by reading above.

> The reason I brought up the PDF file is to exposed your LIES, Kane. It is
> simple as that.

No, just as in the past it is a ploy to avoid the issues under
discussion, and a rather vapid attempt to discredit someone that is
opposed to spanking. You've admitted that is why you come here, Doan.

> You went from: have it to don't have it,

You mean a PDF file? I do have it.

> to poor PDF file

Yes it did not come out well.

> to corrupted PDF file.

Upon being pressured by you for more information by claiming I was
lying, I explained what about the file didn't work. It was only
partially converted to PDF and showed an error message that it would
not load further as it was corrupted. Anyone that's dealt with PDF
files much has seen this before.

> IT IS JUST STUPID, Kane!

It is must stupider to attempt to divert from the issues under
discussion by such shabby and childish means, Doan.

I asked you why you didn't send Nathan a copy of the study, either
hardcopy, or PDF since I know that you are perfectly capable of making
one, and have plenty of access to skanners, and Acrobat to do so. You
are, after all, on a university campus. The computer lab is open to
you. It's filled with such equipment and software. And you have access
to it.

Want to tell the folks what you do there?

> It is even funnier when
> you brought my posting on another newsgroup,

Evidence you have the technical expertise to make a PDF copy. Anyone
that can manage routers certainly isn't pressed technically to make a
PDF file.

> as somehow that make making
> a PDF file is easy!

Oh? How hard is it? A scan, even without Acrobat and you could make a
graphics pic of it and send that. With OCR and Acrobat you can easily
produce a PDF file.

> So easy that you ended up with a corrupted PDF file.

That had to do with old OCR software. You have access to the latest.

> DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOU LOOKED??? ;-)

Do you see how stupid you look to anyone that's ever make a PDF file,
given that you are IT trained and employed person?

> > You said you had it. Why would I want to send it to you?
> >
> Huh? First, I've never claimed to have a PDF copy.

You claimed you had a hard copy. When in corner you continually change
the subject.

> Second, I did not ask
> you to send it to me.

You claimed that I sent it to Alina knowing she was you. Stop your
silly dodging. You've no idea how unethical and stupid it makes you
appear.

> Nathan asked you to send it to him. Why do you
> keep on saying stupid lies like these, Kane? Is it PATHOLOGICAL?

What lies? I didn't say he didn't ask me. At the time he asked he was
coming across as one of your cronies. I told him, as I've told you, you
can do your own work just fine.
>
> > Now, do you wish to discuss the study or not?
> >
> To a proven liar like you?

You aren't going to answer the question, obviously.

> Or are honestly want to debate?

For better than two years I've asked you to, with minimal requirements
for doing so...simply proof that you have access to the same report I
do. Do you wish to revisit all the dodging you did instead of answer a
couple of simple idenifying questions about your copy...even after I
answered your questions about mine?

You are lying again, Doan.

> > Or are you going to simply show that you are no more capable of reasoned
> > fact based argument than Greg?
>
> I've always given facts, unlike you.

Nonsense and a bald faced lie. You have dodged continually for all the
years you've posted her and I'm witness to you continuing it with Embry
study when I asked to discuss it with you.

> You see, facts, unlike lies, don't
> change. Your stories kept on changing from days to days. ;-)

No they don't. Not have an encylclopedic response to a question or
issue all in one post does not constituted lies or changing a story.

Would you care to apply that criteria to all posters, including
yourself?

Any time you mention something and fail to expand on it then you would
be lying, Doan.

I don't hold you to that criteria because I'm not interested in your
games.

I ask you straight forward questions and you pull this same baloney you
are pulling now.

> Doan

You simply are terrified of the Embry study and it's possible impact if
it gains wider distribution. Something I cannot do independly of Dr.
Embry because it is of course his work product and his to decide how
much distribution he wishes.

I hope that Nathan contacting him will encourage him to not only make
his report on the study on street entries more available on line,
especially since it still seems to be the only study of its particular
kind, and that he will share other of his papers on child development
and it's progress over time as he mentioned.

Rather than engage in encouraging that you instead try to engage me in
diversions.

Do you wish to see the study report presented on Dr. Embry's webpage,
in full?

Or do you wish to argue with me, and lie continually by diversion, by
omission, by abuse of context, and by clever manipulation of facts?

Kane

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>>>>>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>>>>>>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>>>>>>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>>>>>>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>>>>>>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>>>>>>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>>>>>>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
>>>>>>>>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
>>>>>>>>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
>>>>>>>>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
>>>>>>>>>> entries, I would like to see it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>>>>>>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>>>>>>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>>>>>>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>>>>>>>>>> more often.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
>>>>>>>>>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
>>>>>>>>>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>>>>>>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>>>>>>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>>>>>>>>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>>>>>>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>>>>>>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>>>>>>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>>>>>>>>>> better ways to get attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
>>>>>>>>>> spanking alone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
>>>>>>>>> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
>>>>>>>>> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
>>>>>>>>> it."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
>>>>>>>>> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?
>>>>>>>> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
>>>>>>>> all five and under.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
>>>>>>>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
>>>>>>>> comes into play about the 6th year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
>>>>>>>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)
>>>>>> In other words, when challenged on your comments on a subject, you are
>>>>>> still unwilling to have a civil and normal discussion or argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
>>>> Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?
>>>>
>>> Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
>>> Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
>>> tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)
>
> I see that you have no response to this. So do you really wanted to have
> a "civil" discussion or not?
>
>>>> That's would be new.
>>> For you.
>>>
>>>>>> I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
>>>> I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
>>>> tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,
>> Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
>> a copy?
>>
> Hihihi! Still more lies! First, I don't have a PDF copy. Second, why
> don't you asked Nathan if I've offered to send him a copy or not.
>
>> > their story often just don't add up!
>>
>> That would be you, Doan.
>>
> What story would that be, Kane? Did I ever claimed to have a PDF copy?
>
>>> Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.
>> And the two are mutually exclusive how?
>>
> Hihihi! What does "mutually exclusive" has to do with it? How do you
> create a corrupted file, Kane?
>
>> > I do have
>>> some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.
>> So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
>> have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..
>>
> Are you this stupid? What does knowing how to make and not having the
> equipment or the software has to do with it? I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE
> A PDF FILE!
>
>> Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.
>
> Like a corrupted file? Wanna tell me how to make a corrupted file? ;-)
>
>>>>>> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
>>>>>> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
>>>>>> above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
>>>> I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.
>>>>
>>> More lies, Kane?
>> I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
>> better when you do.
>>
> You don't know your own lies?
>
>>> Or are you just logically impaired?
>> No. Much to your chagrin.
>>
> That what makes you an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)
>
>> > Didn't you say
>>> that Alina was me?
>> Did I? Why would I do that?
>>
> Yes, you did. Did you forget? See the problem with LIES, Kane? You
> can't keep your story straight! ;-)
>
>>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)
>> Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
>> perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
>> you would do months ago for anyone that asked.
>>
> Hahaha! I don't have a PDF copy, Kane! Not even a corrupted one! ;-)
>
>> He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
>> first asked about getting a copy.
>>
> Hihihi! But he didn't ask for a hard copy now, did he, Kane?
>
>> Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.
>>
> You are not fooling anyone, Kane. ;-)
>
>>>>> Doan
>>>> Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?
>>>>
>>> If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
>>> we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?
>> Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
>> asked, like were you Alina?
>>
> Sure. I am not Alina!
>
>> Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
>> readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
>> answer now.
>
> Go ahead, Kane. I am ready for another laugh. Can you tell me the
> address that you claimed to have send a copy to Alina?

Nope. But it was in Mexico. Where she claimed to live. If by chance you
are telling the truth I'm not going to hand out her address publicly or
privately. Would you?

> I am pretty
> sure that it was a lie too! ;-)

I'm pretty sure you are bluffing. Notice you are still avoiding
discussing the study, something you managed to do for two years, Doan.

>
>>> Doan
>>>
>> You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.
>>
> Hihihi! Anyone here believes that Kane is honest and Doan is a liar,
> speak up.

Your rants are becoming more and more bizarre, Doan.

Why would anyone want to engage you? Your record here as a most
unethical debater are well known to all. You've driven a dozen or so
people away from this ng with your stupid attacks just like this one.

You refuse to debate the issues, and turn to whatever you can find to
dodge with.

You make outrageous claims about providing the facts, when you in fact
quote out of context, and when challenged you immediately turn to this
kind of garbage posting.

> Doan

Kane

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
....a perfect example of how he refuses to debate the actual issues, and
dodges when challenged, then calls the other person a liar to create a
dysfunction trap.

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Kane wrote:
>>>>>>> I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
>>>>>> street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
>>>>>> valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
>>>>>> on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."
>>>>> At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
>>>>> spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
>>>>> net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
>>>>> cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
>>>>> details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
>>>>> much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.
>>>>>
>>>> It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
>>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
>>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
>>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
>>>> entries, I would like to see it.
>>>>
>>>>> The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
>>>>> special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
>>>>> Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
>>>>> children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
>>>>> more often.
>>>>>
>>>> Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
>>>> when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
>>>> Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
>>>>> attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
>>>>> the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
>>>>> reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
>>>>> going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
>>>>> spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
>>>>> for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
>>>>> there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
>>>>> better ways to get attention.
>>>>>
>>>> Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
>>>> spanking alone.
>>>>

Nathan says:

>>> Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:
>>>
>>> "... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
>>> their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
>>> opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
>>> it."

Doan responds:

>>> If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
>>> non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

Kane challenges Doan:

>> To make that implied argument, you'd have to presume that children are
>> all five and under.
>>
>> If you recall, he also said that older children process differently,
>> that very point I've made many times about the reasoning factor that
>> comes into play about the 6th year.
>>
>> One can teach safe street entry, crossing procedures, to most 6 year
>> olds and older. Attempting to do so with younger children is going to fail.
>>
>> If you've read his report #2, you know that he discussed this at length.

Doan responds to three points brought up by Kane, One, presumption of
static age; Two, developmental discussion by Embry concerning changes in
capacity to process information and act on it; Three, referring to
Embry's comments as I understood them to mean.

And here we have Doan's usual dodge when cornered and unable to argue.
Never admitting his comments could have missed the point, he comes up
with a crab walk comment:

> Hihihi! Must be in yours "poor" and then "corrupted" PDF version. ;-)

And as usual, calculated to incite a response from the other poster on
something not related to the issue under discussion.

A clear attempt to deceive by omission, which in many dictionaries
amounts to a lie.

> Doan

Would you care to discuss the issue I brought up in response to your,
"If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about
other non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?"

Kane

[Doan]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> >>>>> Hihihi! "civil"??? Come on, Kane! Who are you kidding?
> >>>> Then you are willing to have a civil normal discussion?
> >>>>
> >>> Having a civil doesn't mean calling people "smelly-****", "asshole"....,
> >>> Kane? When you stop doing that than get back to me. And please don't
> >>> tell me that your mom is proud of that! ;-)
> >
> > I see that you have no response to this. So do you really wanted to have
> > a "civil" discussion or not?
> >
Still no answer from you, Kane?

> >>>> That's would be new.
> >>> For you.
> >>>
> >>>>>> I see.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can we assume then you could not deal with the challenge?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Can we assume that the PDF claim is a LIE?
> >>>> I suppose you can assume anything you wish. Why would I lie about having
> >>>> tried to make a PDF file and having it come out corrupted?
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! When someone lied, like you,
> >> Why would I lie? I simply asked you why you didn't offer to send Nathan
> >> a copy?
> >>
> > Hihihi! Still more lies! First, I don't have a PDF copy. Second, why
> > don't you asked Nathan if I've offered to send him a copy or not.
> >
> >> > their story often just don't add up!
> >>
> >> That would be you, Doan.
> >>
> > What story would that be, Kane? Did I ever claimed to have a PDF copy?
> >
No response here neither?
> >>> Your story went from a "poor" PDF version to a corrupted file.
> >> And the two are mutually exclusive how?
> >>
> > Hihihi! What does "mutually exclusive" has to do with it? How do you
> > create a corrupted file, Kane?
> >
No response here neither?

> >> > I do have
> >>> some experience in this field to see through you BS, Kane.
> >> So you know how to make a PDF file but you've been pretending you don't
> >> have the equipment or the software. Hmmmm..
> >>
> > Are you this stupid? What does knowing how to make and not having the
> > equipment or the software has to do with it? I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE
> > A PDF FILE!
> >
> >> Yes, now that really adds up, Doan.
> >
> > Like a corrupted file? Wanna tell me how to make a corrupted file? ;-)
> >
No response here neither?

> >>>>>> Or are you saying that the copy you claim to have from the University
> >>>>>> library did not include anything on the subject as I described it
> >>>>>> above?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You would not have a full copy of report #2 then.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I thought you said you already sent one to me. Or is that a lie too?
> >>>> I sent one to Alina. Are you Alina? I never said I sent one to you.
> >>>>
> >>> More lies, Kane?
> >> I don't know. You haven't answered my question yet. We'll be able to see
> >> better when you do.
> >>
> > You don't know your own lies?
> >
No response here neither?

> >>> Or are you just logically impaired?
> >> No. Much to your chagrin.
> >>
> > That what makes you an anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)
> >
> >> > Didn't you say
> >>> that Alina was me?
> >> Did I? Why would I do that?
> >>
> > Yes, you did. Did you forget? See the problem with LIES, Kane? You
> > can't keep your story straight! ;-)
> >
No response here neither?

> >>> Oh, what a tangled web we weaved.... ;-)
> >> Yes, I notice you have neither offered Nathan a copy, though you are
> >> perfectly capable of creating a PDF, nor even putting, as you promised
> >> you would do months ago for anyone that asked.
> >>
> > Hahaha! I don't have a PDF copy, Kane! Not even a corrupted one! ;-)
> >
> >> He could have one by now easily if you had sent him a hard copy when he
> >> first asked about getting a copy.
> >>
> > Hihihi! But he didn't ask for a hard copy now, did he, Kane?
> >
> >> Yes, you do weave a tangled web, Doan, as you always have in this ng.
> >>
> > You are not fooling anyone, Kane. ;-)
> >
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>> Let's go back to civil and normal, shall we?
> >>>>
> >>> If you promise to stop using profanity like "smelly-****", "asshole"...
> >>> we start anew. Do I have that promise from you?
> >> Sure. And from you? Do I have a promise you'll answer questions as
> >> asked, like were you Alina?
> >>
> > Sure. I am not Alina!
> >
> >> Trust me, I'll post our complete exchange during that time and let the
> >> readers decide for themselves, just as I did before, based on your
> >> answer now.
> >
> > Go ahead, Kane. I am ready for another laugh. Can you tell me the
> > address that you claimed to have send a copy to Alina?
>
> Nope. But it was in Mexico. Where she claimed to live. If by chance you
> are telling the truth I'm not going to hand out her address publicly or
> privately. Would you?
>
So that proved that she was me???

> > I am pretty
> > sure that it was a lie too! ;-)
>
> I'm pretty sure you are bluffing. Notice you are still avoiding
> discussing the study, something you managed to do for two years, Doan.
>
Hihihi! Is anyone here believe your LIES, Kane?

> >
> >>> Doan
> >>>
> >> You are a liar, Doan. It's been proven again and again.
> >>
> > Hihihi! Anyone here believes that Kane is honest and Doan is a liar,
> > speak up.
>
> Your rants are becoming more and more bizarre, Doan.
>
Hihihi! Have you looked at your rants and lies, Kane?

> Why would anyone want to engage you? Your record here as a most
> unethical debater are well known to all. You've driven a dozen or so
> people away from this ng with your stupid attacks just like this one.
>
Hahaha! It's you that driven people away with your harassment and
profanity, not me!

> You refuse to debate the issues, and turn to whatever you can find to
> dodge with.
>
Exposing your lies is what I did Kane!

> You make outrageous claims about providing the facts, when you in fact
> quote out of context, and when challenged you immediately turn to this
> kind of garbage posting.
>
Who makes the outrage claim that Alina is me, Kane? ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> > It goes the heart of the
> > accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
> > when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
> > if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
> > entries, I would like to see it.
>
> You were lying not because of your claim about the study, but by your
> claiming that I said the study was about spanking.
>
> I never claimed this study was about spanking. I claimed it was about
> alternatives to spanking.
>
> This is typical "quibbling over details," just as you have always done.
>
Exhibition A:

Dec 11, 2006 Kane 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/274284f9c23...
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. "

In less than a week, you have turned 180 degree and say the complete
opposite. The proof is right there, Kane. You are pathological liar!
Now, if Nathan wants to waste his time with you, he can go ahead. I will
continue to expose your lies so that newcomers like Nathan will see you
for what you are, Kane - a STUPID LIAR!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>>> It goes the heart of the
>>> accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
>>> when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
>>> if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
>>> entries, I would like to see it.
>> You were lying not because of your claim about the study, but by your
>> claiming that I said the study was about spanking.
>>
>> I never claimed this study was about spanking. I claimed it was about
>> alternatives to spanking.
>>
>> This is typical "quibbling over details," just as you have always done.
>>
> Exhibition A:
>
> Dec 11, 2006 Kane 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/274284f9c23...
> 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. "
>
> In less than a week, you have turned 180 degree and say the complete
> opposite.




The proof is right there, Kane. You are pathological liar!
> Now, if Nathan wants to waste his time with you, he can go ahead. I will
> continue to expose your lies so that newcomers like Nathan will see you
> for what you are, Kane - a STUPID LIAR!

Doan, we have agreed the study is not, even as Dr. Embry says, is
"about" spanking.

In fact YOU noted if I remember correctly, "physical punishment" did not
show up on a chart anywhere.

I pointed out that indeed it was coded for, and I included a quote from
the instructions to the observers defining physical punishment that
included "hitting."

Would you call hitting corporal punishment or not?

From my remarks at the opening of this post, in attributions:

"I never claimed this study was about spanking. I claimed it was about
alternatives to spanking.

You have once again split hairs, changed meanings, even changed context
to lie, Doan. Why do you do that? "

You wish to create a situation where exploring a subject and bring up
new issues amounts to a lie. That, sir, is in itself, lying.

Do you really think that Nathan and others are stupid and buy your bs?

Hell, you are even pulling the same bull**** on him with your personal
agenda framed questions.

> Doan

Grow up, child.

Kane