Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems

[Doan]

PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 5 May 2004, pp. 1321-1330


Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective
Study of Infants and Young Toddlers
Eric P. Slade, PhD and Lawrence S. Wissow, MD

From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of
Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland

Objective. To explore the relationship of spanking frequency before age 2
with behavior problems near time of entry into school.

Methods. Children who were younger than 2 years were followed up 4 years
later, after they had entered school. The likelihood of significant
behavior problems at follow-up was estimated in multivariate analyses that
controlled for baseline spanking frequency and other characteristics.
Participants were mothers from a large-scale national study and their
children. Statistical analysis included an ethnically diverse sample of
1966 children aged 0 to 23 months at baseline. Two dichotomous indicators
of behavior problems were used. The first indicated that maternal rating
of child behavior problems exceeded a threshold. The second indicated that
a mother met with a school administrator to discuss her child's behavior
problems.

Results. White non-Hispanic children who were spanked more frequently
before age 2 were substantially more likely to have behavior problems
after entry into school, controlling for other factors. For Hispanic and
black children, associations between spanking frequency and behavior
problems were not statistically significant and were not consistent across
outcome measures.

Conclusion. Among white non-Hispanic children but not among black and
Hispanic children, spanking frequency before age 2 is significantly and
positively associated with child behavior problems at school age. These
findings are consistent with those reported in studies of children older
than 2 years but extend these findings to children who are spanked
beginning at a relatively early age.

Doan

[Ron]

Link?

Ron

"Doan" > wrote in message
...

PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 5 May 2004, pp. 1321-1330


Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective
Study of Infants and Young Toddlers
Eric P. Slade, PhD and Lawrence S. Wissow, MD

From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of
Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland

Objective. To explore the relationship of spanking frequency before age 2
with behavior problems near time of entry into school.

Methods. Children who were younger than 2 years were followed up 4 years
later, after they had entered school. The likelihood of significant
behavior problems at follow-up was estimated in multivariate analyses that
controlled for baseline spanking frequency and other characteristics.
Participants were mothers from a large-scale national study and their
children. Statistical analysis included an ethnically diverse sample of
1966 children aged 0 to 23 months at baseline. Two dichotomous indicators
of behavior problems were used. The first indicated that maternal rating
of child behavior problems exceeded a threshold. The second indicated that
a mother met with a school administrator to discuss her child's behavior
problems.

Results. White non-Hispanic children who were spanked more frequently
before age 2 were substantially more likely to have behavior problems
after entry into school, controlling for other factors. For Hispanic and
black children, associations between spanking frequency and behavior
problems were not statistically significant and were not consistent across
outcome measures.

Conclusion. Among white non-Hispanic children but not among black and
Hispanic children, spanking frequency before age 2 is significantly and
positively associated with child behavior problems at school age. These
findings are consistent with those reported in studies of children older
than 2 years but extend these findings to children who are spanked
beginning at a relatively early age.

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:

> Link?
>
> Ron
>
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321

Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?

Doan

[Ron]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> Link?
>>
>> Ron
>>
> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
>
> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
>
> Doan

Sure, happy to.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786

Post # 27 in the thread.

"No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
gregg,
I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
disagreement in this thread. "

Ron

[0:-]]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
> wrote:

>
>"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>
>>> Link?
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
>>
>> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
>> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
>>
>> Doan
>
>Sure, happy to.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
>
>Post # 27 in the thread.
>
>"No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
>gregg,
>I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
>same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>disagreement in this thread. "
>
>Ron

Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
good family name.

He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
an error.

NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
ACCUSATION.

This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.

Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
and behaving dishonorably.

Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.

Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
here.

Kane

[Doan]

Getting desperate, Kane? Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?
Hihihi!

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>> Link?
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
> >>
> >> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
> >> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
> >>
> >> Doan
> >
> >Sure, happy to.
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
> >
> >Post # 27 in the thread.
> >
> >"No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
> >gregg,
> >I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
> >same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
> >disagreement in this thread. "
> >
> >Ron
>
> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
> good family name.
>
> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
> an error.
>
> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
> ACCUSATION.
>
> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
>
No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!

> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
> and behaving dishonorably.
>
Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!

> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
>
> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
> here.
>
And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"! You
sure make your mom proud, Kane!

> Kane
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> Getting desperate, Kane?

Do I look desperate to you?

Funny, I don't feel the least desperate...just showing what an unethical
liar you are.

> Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?

Now why would he need to do that.

I'm not having the least difficulty in remember most of the lying
deceitful posts you've put here.

> Hihihi!

Yes, I see that once again you choked.

Let's read on.

>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
>>>>
>>>> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
>>>> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
>>>>
>>>> Doan
>>> Sure, happy to.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
>>>
>>> Post # 27 in the thread.
>>>
>>> "No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
>>> gregg,
>>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
>>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>>> disagreement in this thread. "
>>>
>>> Ron
>> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
>> good family name.

Doan?

>>
>> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
>> an error.

Doan?

>> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
>> ACCUSATION.

Doan?

>>
>> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
>>
> No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
> your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!

Really? Where did he say that, and about what?

Feel free to run again, like we all know you will.

Or that you'll post out of context.

>> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
>> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
>> and behaving dishonorably.
>>
> Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!

I have no confusion about which of us is which, Doan.

You seem to though.

>> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.

Doan? Do you share with your family, as I do share with mine, and my
friends, your posts, and my own?

Bet you can't do it.

>>
>> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
>> here.
>>
> And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"!

After reading Fern's posts? Yes, she certainly did. And even I was
shocked at HER response to Fern's vicious attack against children and
families.

> You
> sure make your mom proud, Kane!

Well, both my mother's are dead now, Doan, but yes, they were proud of
me...and the one that spoke out about Fern, especially so.

I'm just sorry I can't show her some of your drivel.

Have you shared with your mom yet, Doan?

Tell us what she said. How would she have responded to someone that
defended a church pastor whipping children bloody and being proud of it
and defying the law claiming he'd do it again?

Fern was busy defending his 'constitutional rights..' which of course
ignored the rights of the child.

Fern didn't speak up ONCE about the rights of the children to not be
whipped, Doan.

Do you approve? What did YOU call Fern? Would you defend the pastor and
not the children? What would YOUR mom say, and your dad, for that matter?

I believe they'd be deeply shamed by your behavior here, Doan.

I doubt they would appreciate your "cleverness" in deceit.

Unless they are like you.

>> Kane

Kane

[Ron]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Getting desperate, Kane? Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?
> Hihihi!

I don't engage in these conversations Doan. But to a point he is correct,
you did fail to acknowledge that I admitted a mistake. Publicly.

I honestly don't know if you have ever done the same, if you have I'd like
to see the link to it. If not.... would you be saying that you don't make
mistakes, or just don't admit to them?

Ron


> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Doan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Link?
>> >>>
>> >>> Ron
>> >>>
>> >> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
>> >>
>> >> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
>> >> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
>> >>
>> >> Doan
>> >
>> >Sure, happy to.
>> >
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
>> >
>> >Post # 27 in the thread.
>> >
>> >"No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
>> >gregg,
>> >I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make
>> >the
>> >same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>> >disagreement in this thread. "
>> >
>> >Ron
>>
>> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
>> good family name.
>>
>> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
>> an error.
>>
>> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
>> ACCUSATION.
>>
>> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
>>
> No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
> your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!
>
>> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
>> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
>> and behaving dishonorably.
>>
> Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!
>
>> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
>>
>> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
>> here.
>>
> And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"! You
> sure make your mom proud, Kane!
>
>> Kane
>>
>>
>

[Doan]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Getting desperate, Kane? Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?
> > Hihihi!
>
> I don't engage in these conversations Doan. But to a point he is correct,
> you did fail to acknowledge that I admitted a mistake. Publicly.
>
No, Ron. You've never admitted that you quoted out of context!

> I honestly don't know if you have ever done the same, if you have I'd like
> to see the link to it. If not.... would you be saying that you don't make
> mistakes, or just don't admit to them?
>
I have, Ron. I have made an offer to you that if can show me where you
admitted to quoting out of context then I will publicly apologize for
accusing you of not having done so. So far, all I have gotten is a
run around. My offer still stands, Ron.

Doan

> Ron
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Doan" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Link?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ron
> >> >>>
> >> >> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
> >> >> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
> >> >>
> >> >> Doan
> >> >
> >> >Sure, happy to.
> >> >
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
> >> >
> >> >Post # 27 in the thread.
> >> >
> >> >"No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
> >> >gregg,
> >> >I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make
> >> >the
> >> >same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
> >> >disagreement in this thread. "
> >> >
> >> >Ron
> >>
> >> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
> >> good family name.
> >>
> >> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
> >> an error.
> >>
> >> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
> >> ACCUSATION.
> >>
> >> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
> >>
> > No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
> > your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!
> >
> >> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
> >> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
> >> and behaving dishonorably.
> >>
> > Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!
> >
> >> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
> >>
> >> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
> >> here.
> >>
> > And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"! You
> > sure make your mom proud, Kane!
> >
> >> Kane
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

[Greegor]

Ronald VanDyne wrote
> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
> disagreement in this thread. "

Ron, When did you patch things up with Kane and completely
reverse your position on SPANKING to match Kane's?

I just LOVE this pack behavior stuff!

[Doan]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > Getting desperate, Kane?
>
> Do I look desperate to you?
>
Yup! And you look STUPID too! ;-)

> Funny, I don't feel the least desperate...just showing what an unethical
> liar you are.
>
No. You are just EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY, as usual!

> > Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?
>
> Now why would he need to do that.
>
To help you out, of course!

> I'm not having the least difficulty in remember most of the lying
> deceitful posts you've put here.
>
The proven liar here is YOU!

> > Hihihi!
>
> Yes, I see that once again you choked.
>
And you, once again. EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY!

> Let's read on.
>
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Link?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ron
> >>>>>
> >>>> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
> >>>> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Doan
> >>> Sure, happy to.
> >>>
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
> >>>
> >>> Post # 27 in the thread.
> >>>
> >>> "No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
> >>> gregg,
> >>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
> >>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
> >>> disagreement in this thread. "
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
> >> good family name.
>
> Doan?
>
> >>
> >> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
> >> an error.
>
> Doan?
>
> >> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
> >> ACCUSATION.
>
> Doan?
>
> >>
> >> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
> >>
> > No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
> > your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!
>
> Really? Where did he say that, and about what?
>
He called you STUPID, STUPID!

> Feel free to run again, like we all know you will.
>
Feel free to declare yourself the victor, STUPID!

> Or that you'll post out of context.
>
> >> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
> >> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
> >> and behaving dishonorably.
> >>
> > Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!
>
> I have no confusion about which of us is which, Doan.
>
The LIAR and STUPID one is you, Kane! Hihihi!

> You seem to though.
>
> >> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
>
> Doan? Do you share with your family, as I do share with mine, and my
> friends, your posts, and my own?
>
No. I don't run to mom like you, Kane! Hihihi!

> Bet you can't do it.
>
> >>
> >> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
> >> here.
> >>
> > And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"!
>
> After reading Fern's posts? Yes, she certainly did. And even I was
> shocked at HER response to Fern's vicious attack against children and
> families.
>
What a mom!

> > You
> > sure make your mom proud, Kane!
>
> Well, both my mother's are dead now, Doan, but yes, they were proud of
> me...and the one that spoke out about Fern, especially so.
>
Hihihi! Your mom taught you well, "never-spanked" boy!

> I'm just sorry I can't show her some of your drivel.
>
So you don't have your mom to run to? ;-)

> Have you shared with your mom yet, Doan?
>
> Tell us what she said. How would she have responded to someone that
> defended a church pastor whipping children bloody and being proud of it
> and defying the law claiming he'd do it again?
>
More lying from you.

> Fern was busy defending his 'constitutional rights..' which of course
> ignored the rights of the child.
>
Seem that you can't debate without resorting to ad hom. You lost!

> Fern didn't speak up ONCE about the rights of the children to not be
> whipped, Doan.
>
So you called her a "smelly-****"?

> Do you approve? What did YOU call Fern? Would you defend the pastor and
> not the children? What would YOUR mom say, and your dad, for that matter?
>
> I believe they'd be deeply shamed by your behavior here, Doan.
>
> I doubt they would appreciate your "cleverness" in deceit.
>
> Unless they are like you.
>
Hihihi! And you just exposed your STUPIDITY again, Kane.

> >> Kane
>
> Kane
>

[Doan]

On 26 Feb 2007, Greegor wrote:

> Ronald VanDyne wrote
> > I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
> > same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
> > disagreement in this thread. "
>
> Ron, When did you patch things up with Kane and completely
> reverse your position on SPANKING to match Kane's?
>
Well, I accused Ron of quoting out of context and provided proof of such.
On the other hand, Ron accused me of quoting out of context with no proof.
I have not seen and admission of error with regard to this. All I have
seen is a run around. If anyone can show me where Ron actually admitted
to quoting out of context as I claimed he has not, I will publicly eat
the "humble pie" that Ron preserved for me.

Doan

> I just LOVE this pack behavior stuff!
>
>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Ronald VanDyne wrote
>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>> disagreement in this thread. "
>
> Ron, When did you patch things up with Kane and completely
> reverse your position on SPANKING to match Kane's?

He didn't. We had a mutual respect during and after our engagement over
spanking. We still do, and we still disagree.
>
> I just LOVE this pack behavior stuff!
>
You are lying about Ken and I suddenly agreeing on spanking issues, so
you obviously aren't to be trusted when you claim pack behavior.

What has happened is that Doan has alienated yet another person by his
attacks, more sly than yours, but nevertheless, attacks on others out of
his own thuggery and unethical behavior.

He doesn't debate.

He weasel dodges.

Nothing more...and you admire that ability and wish you were as good at
it, not noticing that he really doesn't get away with it.

Even those on the spanking side of the argument get what he is.

0;]

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> Getting desperate, Kane?
>> Do I look desperate to you?
>>
> Yup! And you look STUPID too! ;-)

Getting desperate?
>
>> Funny, I don't feel the least desperate...just showing what an unethical
>> liar you are.
>>
> No. You are just EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY, as usual!

No, anyone can see you have been lying for nearly your entire posting
history. All they have to do is look.

>>> Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?
>> Now why would he need to do that.
>>
> To help you out, of course!

He hasn't needed to give me any help in the past. Why would he need to now?

You aren't the difficult to expose, or debate. You are a lying fool,
that's all.
>
>> I'm not having the least difficulty in remember most of the lying
>> deceitful posts you've put here.
>>
> The proven liar here is YOU!

The proven liar here is you.

>>> Hihihi!
>> Yes, I see that once again you choked.
>>
> And you, once again. EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY!

I exposed yet another of your unethical lies.

Do you think you are this dangerous?

>> Let's read on.
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
>>>>>> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan
>>>>> Sure, happy to.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
>>>>>
>>>>> Post # 27 in the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> "No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
>>>>> gregg,
>>>>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
>>>>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>>>>> disagreement in this thread. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
>>>> good family name.
>> Doan?
>>
>>>> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
>>>> an error.
>> Doan?
>>
>>>> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
>>>> ACCUSATION.
>> Doan?
>>
>>>> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
>>>>
>>> No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
>>> your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!
>> Really? Where did he say that, and about what?
>>
> He called you STUPID, STUPID!

Then you admit he didn't mention what you claim, "your tactics," but
simply disagreed with me?

I know you won't, but why don't you post the actual exchange, that will
show that we had a political difference, Doan?

Nothing to do with spanking or my tactics on the subject of spanking. He
was off topic. We differed on our beliefs politically.

>
>> Feel free to run again, like we all know you will.
>>
> Feel free to declare yourself the victor, STUPID!

I am, as long as you keep making accusations and refusing to provide the
proof to support them that I ask you for.

You are doing it again, of course.
>
>> Or that you'll post out of context.
>>
>>>> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
>>>> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
>>>> and behaving dishonorably.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!
>> I have no confusion about which of us is which, Doan.
>>
> The LIAR and STUPID one is you, Kane! Hihihi!
>
>> You seem to though.
>>
>>>> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
>> Doan? Do you share with your family, as I do share with mine, and my
>> friends, your posts, and my own?
>>
> No. I don't run to mom like you, Kane! Hihihi!

I don't run to my mom, and never did. I shared my thoughts and life with
her where appropriate.

You are just ducking the question, Doan. As usual. Unethical liar.

>> Bet you can't do it.
>>
>>>> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>> And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"!
>> After reading Fern's posts? Yes, she certainly did. And even I was
>> shocked at HER response to Fern's vicious attack against children and
>> families.
>>
> What a mom!

I am very proud of her. Are you proud of Fern, or is it Fern that you
are calling "what a mom?"

>>> You
>>> sure make your mom proud, Kane!
>> Well, both my mother's are dead now, Doan, but yes, they were proud of
>> me...and the one that spoke out about Fern, especially so.
>>
> Hihihi! Your mom taught you well, "never-spanked" boy!

Yes, they did.

>> I'm just sorry I can't show her some of your drivel.
>>
> So you don't have your mom to run to? ;-)

Never did have.

>> Have you shared with your mom yet, Doan?
>>
>> Tell us what she said. How would she have responded to someone that
>> defended a church pastor whipping children bloody and being proud of it
>> and defying the law claiming he'd do it again?
>>
> More lying from you.

Prove it. I proved, when challenged on this by Greg, the posts where
Fern did in fact defend the preacher and ignored the plight of the
abused beaten children.

>> Fern was busy defending his 'constitutional rights..' which of course
>> ignored the rights of the child.
>>
> Seem that you can't debate without resorting to ad hom. You lost!

Lost what? Fern did what Fern did.

>> Fern didn't speak up ONCE about the rights of the children to not be
>> whipped, Doan.
>>
> So you called her a "smelly-****"?

Absolutely. That was tame compared to what the children suffered that
she ignored the rights of.

>> Do you approve? What did YOU call Fern? Would you defend the pastor and
>> not the children? What would YOUR mom say, and your dad, for that matter?
>>
>> I believe they'd be deeply shamed by your behavior here, Doan.
>>
>> I doubt they would appreciate your "cleverness" in deceit.
>>
>> Unless they are like you.
>>
> Hihihi! And you just exposed your STUPIDITY again, Kane.

Gee, what more "'cleverness' in deceit," could I ask for as an example.

Kane


>
>>>> Kane
>> Kane
>>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007, Greegor wrote:
>
>> Ronald VanDyne wrote
>>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
>>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>>> disagreement in this thread. "

So, Doan. You have never answered this and you keep changing the subject
back to a claim of 'quoting out of context.' Yet you offer no proof.

>> Ron, When did you patch things up with Kane and completely
>> reverse your position on SPANKING to match Kane's?
>>
> Well, I accused Ron of quoting out of context and provided proof of such.

Let's see that proof again.

> On the other hand, Ron accused me of quoting out of context with no proof.

Oh?

Doan, you quote out of context as a matter of common debating tactic.
It's a constant.

To ask for 'proof' would be to ask for the sun to rise. It simply rises.
YOU simply lie and do so nearly every day you post by making claims
without proof and without context.

> I have not seen and admission of error with regard to this.

What "this?" The one you haven't provided proof for?

> All I have
> seen is a run around.

That's your own ass you are chasing.

> If anyone can show me where Ron actually admitted
> to quoting out of context as I claimed he has not, I will publicly eat
> the "humble pie" that Ron preserved for me.

You are re framing the debate, unethically, as usual.

You have not provided the proof you claim to have provided.

Let's see it.

Doan and Greg, two little liars lying the mud.

Kane



>
> Doan
>
>> I just LOVE this pack behavior stuff!
>>
>>
>

[0:->]

0:-> wrote:
> Doan wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>> Ronald VanDyne wrote
>>>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to
>>>> make the
>>>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>>>> disagreement in this thread. "
>
> So, Doan. You have never answered this and you keep changing the subject
> back to a claim of 'quoting out of context.' Yet you offer no proof.
>
>>> Ron, When did you patch things up with Kane and completely
>>> reverse your position on SPANKING to match Kane's?
>>>
>> Well, I accused Ron of quoting out of context and provided proof of such.
>
> Let's see that proof again.
>
>> On the other hand, Ron accused me of quoting out of context with no
>> proof.
>
> Oh?
>
> Doan, you quote out of context as a matter of common debating tactic.
> It's a constant.
>
> To ask for 'proof' would be to ask for the sun to rise. It simply rises.
> YOU simply lie and do so nearly every day you post by making claims
> without proof and without context.
>
>> I have not seen and admission of error with regard to this.
>
> What "this?" The one you haven't provided proof for?
>
>> All I have
>> seen is a run around.
>
> That's your own ass you are chasing.
>
> > If anyone can show me where Ron actually admitted
>> to quoting out of context as I claimed he has not, I will publicly eat
>> the "humble pie" that Ron preserved for me.
>
> You are re framing the debate, unethically, as usual.
>
> You have not provided the proof you claim to have provided.
>
> Let's see it.
>
> Doan and Greg, two little liars lying the mud.
>
> Kane
>
>
>
>>
>> Doan
>>
>>> I just LOVE this pack behavior stuff!
>>>
>>>
>>

If Doan will provide the material he refers to I will point out as I did
before, that "context" was not relevant to the argument.

What Ron posted did not in any way change the meaning of the thread or
anyone else's content.

He spoke of an isolated issue, and did so honestly without guile, unlike
Doan and Greg who both post an almost continuous string of guile
infested garbage.

So, Doan, BRING UP THAT CONVERSATION, and let's have a look at it AGAIN.

Someone made a point. Ron posted something related.

Because he did not print the WHOLE article YOU tried to claim "context"
misquoting. His material made NO difference to the issue another (you,
as I recall) were attempting to make.

Come on, Doan.

Produce this "proof" you claim to have.

Linked, so we can run your little lying sorry ass to ground and pin you
down, again.

0:]

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Getting desperate, Kane? Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ASS?
>>> Hihihi!
>> I don't engage in these conversations Doan. But to a point he is correct,
>> you did fail to acknowledge that I admitted a mistake. Publicly.
>>
> No, Ron. You've never admitted that you quoted out of context!

Not what he said, Greg.

He's also never admitted to kicking your ass, though he has done exactly
that.

You made the claim he quoted out of context. And then you asked him for
the link to his having admitted TO A MISTAKE. He gave you that.

You never provided proof that he made a contextually deliberate attempt
to deceive by failing to fully quote.

What you did was go OUT of his quote, pick up something that was NOT
relevant to his quote, and claim it was. That's all. YOU simply lied.

You attempted to deceive.

I asked you to show the contextual error or intent to deceive (something
that one must do to show "quoting out of context" as being meaningful.
You have NEVER been able to do that.

Now do it, or just plant your head back up your backside where you keep it.

>
>> I honestly don't know if you have ever done the same, if you have I'd like
>> to see the link to it. If not.... would you be saying that you don't make
>> mistakes, or just don't admit to them?
>>
> I have, Ron. I have made an offer to you that if can show me where you
> admitted to quoting out of context

Why would you demand he admit to quoting out of context, when in fact
you cannot prove that he did anything other than NOT include some
portion UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE of a longer piece of material?

He gave the link so he could be checked (something YOU rarely do, even
when requested, in fact almost ALWAYS when requested) and you simply
picked a few lines and claimed they were "left out."

They did NOT relate.

You are lying again, Doan.

> then I will publicly apologize for
> accusing you of not having done so.

First you have to PROVE that his remarks left something RELEVANT out,
Doan. That is the criteria for proving accusations of "quoting out of
context."

That means the CONTEXT MUST BE RELATED AND MEANINGFUL.

Go for it, stupid.

> So far, all I have gotten is a
> run around. My offer still stands, Ron.

And mine that you provide the actual material he is accused of quoting
out of context, with links to support your claim that WE can check, Doan.

Can't do it, can you, stupid?

Won't do it because you are a liar. And every time you get caught it's
one of your "Hihihi" or "You are the proven liar," bull****.

You are a sneak and a liar and unethical and a shame to your family.

>
> Doan
>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
>>>>>> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan
>>>>> Sure, happy to.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/c130debd106a6786?lnk=st&q=&rnum=32&hl=en#c130debd106a6786
>>>>>
>>>>> Post # 27 in the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> "No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
>>>>> gregg,
>>>>> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make
>>>>> the
>>>>> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
>>>>> disagreement in this thread. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>> Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his
>>>> good family name.
>>>>
>>>> He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to
>>>> an error.
>>>>
>>>> NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE
>>>> ACCUSATION.
>>>>
>>>> This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
>>>>
>>> No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on
>>> your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!
>>>
>>>> Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
>>>> Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying
>>>> and behaving dishonorably.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!
>>>
>>>> Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
>>>>
>>>> Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>> And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-****"! You
>>> sure make your mom proud, Kane!
>>>
>>>> Kane
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

[0:->]

Kane would draw your attention to the following: see *** and ****



Doan wrote:
> PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 5 May 2004, pp. 1321-1330
>
>
> Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective
> Study of Infants and Young Toddlers
> Eric P. Slade, PhD and Lawrence S. Wissow, MD
>
> From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of
> Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland
>
> Objective. To explore the relationship of spanking frequency before age 2
> with behavior problems near time of entry into school.
>
> Methods. Children who were younger than 2 years were followed up 4 years
> later, after they had entered school. The likelihood of significant
> behavior problems at follow-up was estimated in multivariate analyses that
> controlled for baseline spanking frequency and other characteristics.
> ***Participants were mothers from a large-scale national study and their
> children. Statistical analysis included an ethnically diverse sample of
> 1966 children aged 0 to 23 months at baseline. Two dichotomous indicators
> of behavior problems were used. The first indicated that *** maternal rating
> of child behavior problems exceeded a threshold. The second indicated that
> a mother met with a school administrator to discuss her child's behavior
> problems.
>
> Results. White non-Hispanic children who were spanked more frequently
> before age 2 were substantially more likely to have behavior problems
> after entry into school, controlling for other factors. For Hispanic and
> black children, associations between spanking frequency and behavior
> problems were not statistically significant and were not consistent across
> outcome measures.
>
> Conclusion. Among white non-Hispanic children but not among black and
> Hispanic children, spanking frequency before age 2 is significantly and
> positively associated with child behavior problems at school age. These
> findings are consistent with those reported in studies of children older
> than 2 years but extend these findings to children who are spanked
> beginning at a relatively early age.

Was the difference in behavior values between the three groups
adjusted for?

Was any "mother's" 'confidence' scale developed? In other words, just
how consistently accurate was the rating by the mothers across the
ethnic groups?

This was not an observational study, Doan and company.

It was simply a survey.

**** NO children participated, or were observed.

As such the study has a value, but not the one you are trying
for....that black children do indeed behave better with the same
spanking experience as white or other children.

Nice try, no cigar, as usual.

Kane


>
> Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
.....in response to Ron's simple request for a link...

.... that Doan had somehow managed to forget with his quote of the
abstract he hopes to support his claim of black children being different
than white children when it comes to CP.

And when he did give the link, he attempted, as you can see below, to
divert to another topic...

This little red flag, along with a link that requires the trouble of a
cut an paste, instead of including enough to create a live link in the
post, suggested to me that I go look.

Doan wanted to hide something, as usual.


> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> Link?
>>
>> Ron
>>
> pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321

Had Doan been honest, he would have posted a live link...like this:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321

Now comes the "diversion," one of Doan's common weasel tactics when he's
trying to hide something. This issue was a dead issue but created by him
to divert, rather than debate.

> Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed"
> instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?

Why would he change the subject, instead of offer to engage in debate
concerning the quoted abstract?

Well, let's go look, shall we:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321

Once there, go to the bottom of the article where you will see listings
of other articles that cited this one.

There's the key and the deception attempt by Doan the Clever.

Here's what exists at one of the links..this one in fact, and it is in
opposition to the one Doan quoted:

http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/283

Child Maltreatment, Vol. 10, No. 3, 283-292 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1077559505277803
© 2005 SAGE Publications
Corporal Punishment and the Growth Trajectory of Children’s Antisocial
Behavior
Andrew Grogan-Kaylor

University of Michigan

Despite considerable research, the relationship between corporal
punishment and antisocial behavior is unclear. This analysis examined
(a) the functional form of this relationship, (b) the correlation of
initial antisocial behavior and changes in antisocial behavior, (c)
differences in the relationship of corporal punishment and antisocial
behavior by race, and (d) whether this relationship could be accounted
for by unmeasured characteristics of children and their families. Data
from 6,912 children in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth were
analyzed using hierarchical linear models. Findings suggested that
corporal punishment has a relationship with children’s initial
antisocial behavior and with changes in antisocial behavior. No evidence
was found for differences in the effect of corporal punishment across
racial groups. The relationship between corporal punishment and
antisocial behavior persists even when accounting for unmeasured time
invariant characteristics of children and families. The findings suggest
that corporal punishment is not a preferable technique for disciplining
children.

Key Words: antisocial behavior • corporal punishment • growth trajectory
• hierarchical linear models
...........

In fact, folks, if you follow the trail from abstract to abstract and
article to article, you will find a great deal of research similar to
the above...that clearly states: "No evidence was found for differences
in the effect of corporal punishment across racial groups. The
relationship between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior
persists even when accounting for unmeasured time invariant
characteristics of children and families." or words to that effect.

One can not also, if they keep digging along this track, as I suggest,
even more information about this particular study. Though it draws a
similar conclusion about the effects of spanking with black and Hispanic
children vs white children a couple of confounding factors pop up not
mentioned in the originally Doan quoted citation.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/0-f
....Children were excluded from analysis for a large number of reasonable
exceptions, leaving a group that was 28% black, 20% Hispanic, and 52%
non-Hispanic white. Forty per cent of the mothers in the sample had at
least 13 years of education, and the average family income was $38 400
(in 1996 dollars), though lowest in the black subgroup ($26 300).
Because of the design of the database, this study specifically excluded
"economically disadvantaged white" children. ...

They excluded similar demographic and created a dissimilar white group
from the Hispanic and black group? Why? what's with this "design of a
database?"

What about it would make leaving out one subset of children necessary?
Come ON folks.

Think about the implications.

What would the conclusions have been had this economically
disadvantaged, (as the black and likely the Hispanic populations were)
group of white children have been included?

High income denotes a number of things. One might be how often they were
called to school, and responded, and reported to the interviewers, as
compared to other groups.

What we also don't know is what took place, CP-wise, from age 2 (the
spanking portion cutoff age) to age five when children start school?

Was spanking increased in any group...decreased? Stopped altogether?

This kinds of unanswered questions bring the validity of the study into
serious question.

What Doan and others fail to note, quite often, is that 'peer reviewed'
does NOT mean PEER ACCEPTED.

It's important to READ the peer reviews, like this one. And the one before.

Here's the conclusion to the review: "Bottom line In white non-Hispanic
children who were not economically disadvantaged, spanking before the
age of 2 years is associated with significant behaviour problems on
entry to school at age 6. This relation is present after controlling for
other factors, but is not seen in black or Hispanic children."


Note that it does in fact, but without making it clear, compare NON
economically disadvantaged White children with economically
DISADVANTAGED African American and Hispanic children.

Any bias possible there?

By Doan, possibly?

R R R R RR R R R R R

Now do you understand why Doan tried to divert Ron from the actual article?

Doan thinks such tactics are clever, no doubt.

Kane






>
> Doan
>
>