Kane LIED

[Doan]

Kane wrote:
>So, did you think I was saying I was a peer reviewed publishing
>researcher?

Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did you not?
What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher", Kane? Did you just
make up that term?

Doan

[Greegor]

Kane wrote:
> So, did you think I was saying I was a peer reviewed publishing
> researcher?

Doan wrote
> Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did you not?
> What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher", Kane? Did you just
> make up that term?

Kane's vanity press doesn't offer that service for hire.

[Doan]

On 22 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

> Kane wrote:
> > So, did you think I was saying I was a peer reviewed publishing
> > researcher?
>
> Doan wrote
> > Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did you not?
> > What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher", Kane? Did you just
> > make up that term?
>
> Kane's vanity press doesn't offer that service for hire.
>
Exposing Kane's LIES is my expertise! ;-) Noticed how he tried hard to
wiggle and squirm his way out of that one by inventing the "peer reviewed
publishing researcher" term. It's funny!

Doan

[Greegor]

K > So, did you think I was saying I was a
K > peer reviewed publishing researcher?

D > Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did
D > you not? What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher",
D > Kane? Did you just make up that term?

G > Kane's vanity press doesn't offer that service for hire.

D > Exposing Kane's LIES is my expertise! ;-) Noticed how he
D > tried hard to wiggle and squirm his way out of that one by
D > inventing the "peer reviewed publishing researcher" term. It's
funny!

He didn't invent the terms.

The terms would make sense if he was researching in conjunction
with a UNIVERSITY or some professional institute.

But he is none of that.
He has to PAY people to print his dreck. That's what a vanity press
is.
Kane pays them to print his crud so that he can SAY he is published!

Peer Review is a higher standard of research where other
researchers double check the author's research.
This label gives their research more credibility.
It's usually done by a University researcher.

Courts respond more favorably to peer reviewed research.

However, certain research like the Munchausens By Proxy
groundwork by Dr Prof Sir Roy Meadows should have been
peer reviewed and when when questioned later (he got caught at
perjury!)
the HISTORICAL research was not archived in a University
Library for posterity, it had been SHREDDED!

Supposedly it was peer reviewed, yet now NOBODY has
a copy of the research, names of who peer reviewed it or
what the "peers" said.

Yet this ""research"" is used in courts around the world,
taken as truth apparently with no real basis.

It's in EVERY college Social Work textbook, almost
like a closely held RELIGION for all Social Workers.

I describe this as an example where PEER REVIEW
apparently failed to work.

Murray Strauss did have to eat his words on some
things because peer reviewers discovered major logical
problems with his ""research"".

There is a rumour that Strauss got grant money for certain
research but when the results started trickling in and the
numbers proved the opposite of his agenda, he stopped
the research and sent back the money.

Interesting behavior don't you think?

Kane doesn't do any original research, he ""researches""
by way of internet search engines. This type of ""research""
is what some flunky in a corporate, LOBBYIST or news media
organization does, also called a "fact checker". This is NOT
the same as somebody who designs and performs a
scientific, clinical or laboratory study on an issue.

Couldn't you tell by the way he got all upset when
Doug quoted a print scholarly journal that is NOT online??

For a propagandist or a LOBBYIST to do research is
questionable to be sure. Even when they HIRE IT OUT,
there should be some concern about fairness.

Universities are not without severe political bias either.

I'm curious about how many Universities in the USA
carry conservative political views.

I went to a State University, so the 10,000 person staff
was all state employees and UNIONized.

Compared to the 18-21 year old students who tended
to be left wing, and wore it on their sleeve, the bias
of the University and Professors was almost invisible.

Political bias in education has gotten a tiny bit of
attention in recent years. Some public High Schools
have banned after school interest groups that are
conservative while encouraging liberal groups.

At least one university's medical school got into some
trouble because professors outright pushed LIBERAL
political agenda in the course as if it was coursework.
Students with Conservative political views found
themselves in a very bizarre spot.

Are there enough conservative universities to
counterbalance the massive liberal bias?

Remember that I am a conservative from MN and
because MN (back then) was so one sided politically,
even some of my liberal friends actually complained
that the liberals were "politically inbred".

That "politically inbred" problem is what I'm
concerned about with peer reviewed university research.

Can anybody confirm that Strauss actually halted
research when he saw the numbers were running
in a way he didn't like?

Let's get some "peer review" on that!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> K > So, did you think I was saying I was a
> K > peer reviewed publishing researcher?
>
> D > Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did
> D > you not? What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher",
> D > Kane? Did you just make up that term?
>
> G > Kane's vanity press doesn't offer that service for hire.
>
> D > Exposing Kane's LIES is my expertise! ;-) Noticed how he
> D > tried hard to wiggle and squirm his way out of that one by
> D > inventing the "peer reviewed publishing researcher" term. It's
> funny!
>
> He didn't invent the terms.
>
> The terms would make sense if he was researching in conjunction
> with a UNIVERSITY or some professional institute.

No, my terms are not claims that I am an academic researcher, only that
i do research and that I do write and publish. I do not publish my
research publicly. But I do use the facts I find to write reports. They
are not academic. They are private sector.

> But he is none of that.

Nor have I claimed to be. Cite a source that shows I've made that claim.

> He has to PAY people to print his dreck.

I've only paid the printer.

> That's what a vanity press
> is.

Unnhhhh. Greg, we know what vanity press is. They charge you to edit a
bit and publish your story. I don't do that.

I pay the printer and distribute to prescriber's.

> Kane pays them to print his crud so that he can SAY he is published!

Nope. My customers pay me.

> Peer Review is a higher standard of research where other
> researchers double check the author's research.

Yes. So?

You won't provide citations for you writing's here, so you would not
qualify in any way as a credible author of any kind.

> This label gives their research more credibility.

Greg do you think Doan is ignorant of that?

> It's usually done by a University researcher.

Oh, really. Fascinating. I'm sure Doan appreciates your expertise in this.

> Courts respond more favorably to peer reviewed research.

Mmm...and?


I can't recall ever being called to give expert testimony. I've give
some, but not in the expert category.

> However, certain research like the Munchausens By Proxy
> groundwork by Dr Prof Sir Roy Meadows should have been
> peer reviewed and when when questioned later (he got caught at
> perjury!)

Do you think it was?

> the HISTORICAL research was not archived in a University
> Library for posterity, it had been SHREDDED!

Oh. Darn. What have his peers said about his research, other than his
detractors, that is?

Apparently the court, who you say prefers peer reviewed publication
backgrounds for those rendering expert testimony made a very serious
mistake.

> Supposedly it was peer reviewed, yet now NOBODY has
> a copy of the research, names of who peer reviewed it or
> what the "peers" said.

Then you are right and Roy Meadows is a fraud.

> Yet this ""research"" is used in courts around the world,
> taken as truth apparently with no real basis.

Is it still?

Please cite some current cases.

> It's in EVERY college Social Work textbook, almost
> like a closely held RELIGION for all Social Workers.

Is it currently? Please cites some of those textbooks.

And that it's included as useful postulates, rather than examples of
poor ones.

> I describe this as an example where PEER REVIEW
> apparently failed to work.

No, you described as as were peer review was not done.

You can't even quote yourself correctly. Absopuckeringlootely amazing.
>
> Murray Strauss did have to eat his words on some
> things because peer reviewers discovered major logical
> problems with his ""research"".

Nope. You are lying, pickup where Doan leaves off with his nonsense.

I agreed that the description of his demographic was incorrect. That's
hardly eating one's words.

> There is a rumour that Strauss got grant money for certain
> research but when the results started trickling in and the
> numbers proved the opposite of his agenda, he stopped
> the research and sent back the money.

Oh, your word and rumor is just good as gold, Greg.

Care to provide a citation for your claim?

> Interesting behavior don't you think?

It would be if it were true and not just a rumor.

As a rumor it's worth what most rumors are.
>
> Kane doesn't do any original research, he ""researches""
> by way of internet search engines.

If I do survey research, which is real research, just as Doan's favorite
dip wad Larzerelle does, it's real enough. Regardless of how I find the
information.

What would real research be as opposed to not real?

> This type of ""research""
> is what some flunky in a corporate, LOBBYIST or news media
> organization does, also called a "fact checker".

Are you suggesting fact checking isn't valid research? Possibly you
don't understand the term.

There is more than one kind of research and each has it's purpose.

What purpose do you propose for research to answer challenges and
support claims here on these newsgroups....and before you answer,
understand you are committing to do the same yourself.

Or your answer is invalid as hearsay, not committed research.

> This is NOT
> the same as somebody who designs and performs a
> scientific, clinical or laboratory study on an issue.

Yep. So very true.

And you have cited how much of this kind of research yourself to support
your claims when challenged?

And I and others have tendered the very kind of research you just defined?

> Couldn't you tell by the way he got all upset when
> Doug quoted a print scholarly journal that is NOT online??

I'm sorry if you are so out of touch with human behavior that you would
mistake my demand he provide a source in the media he is communicating
in so they we may freely check his presumptions based on that research.

> For a propagandist or a LOBBYIST to do research is
> questionable to be sure.

Much of Doug's cited research, Greg, was done when he was in charge of
public relations for an antiCPS website, or a similarly titled position.

Would you say his propaganda should have been given a pass based on your
logic above?

> Even when they HIRE IT OUT,
> there should be some concern about fairness.

Hire it out? Mmm...what are you referring to?

>
> Universities are not without severe political bias either.
>

Yep, that's why, as LaVonne pointed out to you when you claimed you were
asking about her past because you had an hypothesis, that you provide
the information as to the research study you were going to do before she
decided whether or not to volunteer.

Remember??

You badgered her for an answer, meaning you were, had you been a
researcher, likely to have come under censure by the national board of
review for ethics in research.

Subjects have the right to refuse, and you have the obligation to either
leave them after they do, or provide evidence that will convince them,
as a response.

You did neither. You continued to badger, and you refused to provide the
standard list of protocols required in human research.

In other words, you are fraud. Almost on a daily basis here. As you are
again today.

Here is the historical exchange between you and I went you had gone once
again to badgering a parent:

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message
Tree] Greegor - 28 Jul 2006 22:39 GMT
LaVonne wrote
> You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.
>
> LaVonne

Do YOU believe you were abused as a child, LaVonne?
I've got a hypothesis.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree]
0:-> - 28 Jul 2006 23:36 GMT
> LaVonne wrote
>> You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Do YOU believe you were abused as a child, LaVonne?
> I've got a hypothesis.

You have a research modality you'd like to share with us?

And of course you are aware of the ethical constraints on research
wherein you cannot do it on those who do not volunteer to be subject?

You may observe of course, and develop a hypothesis thereby.

Have you one?

Can you support it logically and with corroborating research that agrees
with your hypothesis?

Let us know the result.

I'm very curious if you can do this.

It might change my opinion of you.

Not that that matters.
.............

LaVonne politely (same thread) responds to you first by responding to an
exchange between you and I:

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Carlson LaVonne - 29 Jul
2006 21:42 GMT
>> Kane wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> However, the current ethical limits on research are fairly new, by
> historical standards.

You are correct, Kane. Ethical limits have come a long way since the
1950's, in part due to past non consensual and exploitive research using
human subjects. All proposal research from Universities involving human
subjects must be approved by a Human Subjects Committee, which is not an
easy process if any part of the research looks even slightly
questionable. Parents may give consent for minor children to
participate in approved research.

> I won't use their behaviors from the 50's to try and judge today's
> standards. Nor would that excuse you using one of us for an actual
> experiment (you did say you had a hypothesis and a question presumably
> in pursuit of research) without our volunteering. Is your question in
> the nature of research then?

Not only would using one nonconsensual person in pursuit of research be
illegal and unethical, but a sample size of one or two is not a research
study. A sample size of one or two would be a case study, and the
parameters would be completely different.

I'm anxious to see Greegor's reseaarch design.

LaVonne
.............

Then directly to you, Greg:

Carlson LaVonne - 29 Jul 2006 21:28 GMT
> LaVonne wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Do YOU believe you were abused as a child, LaVonne?
> I've got a hypothesis.

Then by all means, post the hypotheses. Be sure to include both the
research hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Identify how your sample
will be selected, (how the sample is selected and the appropriate sample
size is very important to the generalizability and integrity of your
results.) Describe the methodology you will use, including the
statistical analysis and why this is appropriate for the particular
research study you are proposing.

I'll keep and eye on the thread so I don't miss your research design
when you have it worked up and time to respond.

LaVonne

..................

Upon which reply instead of answering her request for information, you
begin unethical, for a researcher, that you had just declared yourself
to be, badgering again, with this:

Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Greegor - 26 Aug 2006
06:04 GMT
So LaVonne, WHY was it so hard to get you to answer that?

And you answered that you (as a child ) did not think you
were abused, but you did not answer the question about
whether NOW you look back and think you were abused.

I asked DO YOU not just DID YOU.
In case you think I didn't ask it that way, please
see the quoted text below.

I hope that you will see that the question I asked
was not if you DID think you were abused.

NO WONDER you think the answer is irrelevant!
You answered the wrong question!

DO you think you were abused as a child?

Greegor, Another question you never answered....
1 Carlson LaVonne Jul 25
Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
2 Greegor Jul 27
3 0:-> Jul 27
4 Carlson LaVonne Jul 27
5 0:-> Jul 27
DOES LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
6 Greegor Jul 28
7 Greegor Jul 28
LaVonne, Do you believe you were abused as a child?
8 Greegor Jul 28
9 0:-> Jul 28
DOES LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
10 Greegor Jul 28
LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
11 Greegor Jul 28
12 0:-> Jul 28
Does LAVONNE believe she was abused as a child?
13 Greegor Aug 1
Place a bet, folks -- will Greegor answer the question?
14 Carlson LaVonne Jul 27
Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
15 Greegor Jul 28
DOES LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
16 Greegor Jul 28
Re: Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child?
17 0:-> Jul 28
18 Greegor Aug 1
19 0:-> Aug 1

LaVonne wrote
>You have an extremely poor understanding of research, Greegor.

Greg wrote
> Do YOU believe you were abused as a child, LaVonne?
> I've got a hypothesis.

LaVonne wrote
> Then by all means, post the hypotheses. Be sure to include both the
> research hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Identify how your sample
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I'll keep and eye on the thread so I don't miss your research design
> when you have it worked up and time to respond.

FINALLY! In a different message thread!

Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services
Message Thread: LaVonne, being treated less than an animal, and abused
to boot

From: Carlson LaVonne Thurs, Aug 3 2006 5:11 pm
Okay, everyone. This is getting a little bit tedious from the very
tedious posters. I never though that I was treated less than an
animal when I was growing up. Of course, whether or not I
had that thought is totally irrelevant, but you now have your
answer. Growing up, I never thought I was abused.
So now you have your answer.

Of course, that answer is also irrelevant to what I have been posting.
So stop it, grow up, and learn to debate as adults! LaVonne

From: Doan Thurs, Aug 3 2006 5:49 pm
So the spanking you received is not abuse but any other parents who
spank their kids are abusing their kids? So, when your parents
spanked you, they did no treat you less than animals but
any other parents who spank their kids are treating their
kids less than animals? I got it now. ;-) Doan

From: Doan Mon, Aug 21 2006 1:28 pm
So the question for Lavonne is if you didn't think that you were
neither
abused or treated less than animals when your parents spanked you, why
do you
then think that other parents did when they spanked their kids? Isn't
that hypocritical of you, LaVonne? Doan ....
............

Your post closes with a comment by Doan, thus adding his badgering to
yours.

A perfect hand, apparently, for unethical behavior games.

And showing that LaVonne did indeed answer though not as a voluteer for
your "research."

In other words, as usual, Greg you were unethical

So, in response to your questioning of the ethics of Universities and
the controls that are set in place by research requirements that LaVonne
shared back then, you are hardly in a position to claim you have any
position other than extreme bias.

So, I ask you, without expecting an answer, because you run when you are
caught at such viciousness, do you claim you are unbiased, and should be
doing research, as you attempted on LaVonne without adhering to accepted
and demanded research models?

> I'm curious about how many Universities in the USA
> carry conservative political views.

Then look it up, rather than state an insinuation.
>
> I went to a State University, so the 10,000 person staff
> was all state employees and UNIONized.

Which would be relevant to what in your meanderings?
>
> Compared to the 18-21 year old students who tended
> to be left wing, and wore it on their sleeve, the bias
> of the University and Professors was almost invisible.

Yep...public schools tend to be that way...though considerable bias
toward the liberal position does seem to predominate, except at Cow
Colleges.

> Political bias in education has gotten a tiny bit of
> attention in recent years. Some public High Schools
> have banned after school interest groups that are
> conservative while encouraging liberal groups.

Ho, hum. I knew it would be a waste of time expecting something relevant
to come from Greg meander.

Silly Me.

> At least one university's medical school got into some
> trouble because professors outright pushed LIBERAL
> political agenda in the course as if it was coursework.
> Students with Conservative political views found
> themselves in a very bizarre spot.
>
> Are there enough conservative universities to
> counterbalance the massive liberal bias?
>
> Remember that I am a conservative from MN and
> because MN (back then) was so one sided politically,
> even some of my liberal friends actually complained
> that the liberals were "politically inbred".
>
> That "politically inbred" problem is what I'm
> concerned about with peer reviewed university research.
>
> Can anybody confirm that Strauss actually halted
> research when he saw the numbers were running
> in a way he didn't like?

Or did he simply stop when he discovered he was not meeting guidelines
for research required protocols?
>
> Let's get some "peer review" on that!
What would have been submitted for review and publication if the study
was not finished?

A problem with Baumrind's presentation in fact. The spanking advocacy
folks tried to get a lot of mileage out of it, I presume thinking it
would be reviewed and published. It has not been and at last check, and
I'm not going to look yet again, she was not even placing it on her own
website.

While Straus takes the brickbats and other silly attacks by the prospank
mob, and soldiers on, putting his research up for peer review when he
has believes he has meet the rigorous standards for research.

Yet another futile attempt to get Greg to be honest.

You'd think I'd give up, wouldn't you, Greg?

R R R RR R R R

So, it's been a very long time now, and unless you were simply harassing
LaVonne for the joy of your usual venomous treatment of parents ( I
recall you even attacking her children and her parenting of them, as I
believe, based on race issues...bigot ) are you planning on posting, as
she requested, the hypothesis you claimed you had and the motive for
asking her questions about her childhood?

0:-]

Kane

[Doan]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Greegor wrote:
> > K > So, did you think I was saying I was a
> > K > peer reviewed publishing researcher?
> >
> > D > Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did
> > D > you not? What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher",
> > D > Kane? Did you just make up that term?
> >
> > G > Kane's vanity press doesn't offer that service for hire.
> >
> > D > Exposing Kane's LIES is my expertise! ;-) Noticed how he
> > D > tried hard to wiggle and squirm his way out of that one by
> > D > inventing the "peer reviewed publishing researcher" term. It's
> > funny!
> >
> > He didn't invent the terms.
> >
> > The terms would make sense if he was researching in conjunction
> > with a UNIVERSITY or some professional institute.
>
> No, my terms are not claims that I am an academic researcher, only that
> i do research and that I do write and publish. I do not publish my
> research publicly. But I do use the facts I find to write reports. They
> are not academic. They are private sector.
>
I asked you "are you a published researcher"? I did not say anything
about academic, peer-reviewed..... YOUR ANSWER WAS YES!

> > But he is none of that.
>
> Nor have I claimed to be. Cite a source that shows I've made that claim.
>
You never claimed that you are a "published researcher"???

Doan

[Doan]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Doan wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > K > So, did you think I was saying I was a
> > > K > peer reviewed publishing researcher?
> > >
> > > D > Hihihi. You said that you were a published researcher. Did
> > > D > you not? What is a "peer reviewed publishing researcher",
> > > D > Kane? Did you just make up that term?
> > >
> > > G > Kane's vanity press doesn't offer that service for hire.
> > >
> > > D > Exposing Kane's LIES is my expertise! ;-) Noticed how he
> > > D > tried hard to wiggle and squirm his way out of that one by
> > > D > inventing the "peer reviewed publishing researcher" term. It's
> > > funny!
> > >
> > > He didn't invent the terms.
> > >
> > > The terms would make sense if he was researching in conjunction
> > > with a UNIVERSITY or some professional institute.
> >
> > No, my terms are not claims that I am an academic researcher, only that
> > i do research and that I do write and publish. I do not publish my
> > research publicly. But I do use the facts I find to write reports. They
> > are not academic. They are private sector.
> >
> I asked you "are you a published researcher"? I did not say anything
> about academic, peer-reviewed..... YOUR ANSWER WAS YES!
>
> > > But he is none of that.
> >
> > Nor have I claimed to be. Cite a source that shows I've made that claim.
> >
> You never claimed that you are a "published researcher"???
>
> Doan
>
Here is the exchange between me and Kane:

Doan:
And you are a published researcher


Kane:
Yes.

Here is the link:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/browse_frm/thread/a91bb243cd05250c/11d9efc212467fa2?lnk=st&q=&rnum=5&hl=en#11d9efc212467fa2

Post #3

Now Kane is claiming that I lied. I have just proved, again, that the
LIAR is Kane! Q.E.D.

Doan

[Greegor]

What PRIVATE PURPOSE would be served by such research?
What does Kane research, the tensile strength of aviation rivits?

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> I pay the printer and distribute to prescriber's.

Prescribers?

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:

> Courts respond more favorably to peer reviewed research.
>
> However, certain research like the Munchausens By Proxy
> groundwork by Dr Prof Sir Roy Meadows should have been
> peer reviewed and when when questioned later (he got caught at
> perjury!)

Perjury?

I don't think so.

Citations, please, dingleberry.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> What PRIVATE PURPOSE would be served by such research?

It's a really big world out there in business. I'd have assumed you'd
have enough work experience to kno.....opps. Pardon.


> What does Kane research, the tensile strength of aviation rivits?

Are you asking me?

Or someone else you seem to be addressing?

Or is it a question to the gallery in rhetorical form to insinuate again
that I don't write and publish?

As for "aviation rivits"[sic] no, and I pray you do not work in the
field of airframe maintenance Greg.

If your special brand of studied ignorance were to spill over into your
work....well, on the off chance that wasn't a random comment by you, I
think I'll start looking at train schedules for my next trip to the west
coast.

Kane

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> I pay the printer and distribute to prescriber's.
>
> Prescribers?

Thanks for the heads up.

I meant to say, "subscribers."

Funny what comes out of one's head and makes it to the keyboard, sometimes.

Do you think people that make such mistakes are developing mental
problems of cognition?

Or I could work in the medical field, and had one of those word syllable
transferences, plus mixing subjects.

Or I could be in the building trades, and was thinking about pre-marking
wood for mass cutting jigs.

By the way, I could go on for a long time in this ... R R R R R ... vein.

Whatever it is that I do, Greg, you can be sure I just love the fun of
word and phrase construction.

You have a nice time, and enjoy your time off from being asked those
embarrassing questions about why you treat families here as though you
were the "CPS Devil Worker," you claim works all over out there.

Kane