Re: CHALLENGES TO KANE AND RON THEY IGNORED

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:iNqdnVkmbsxQdyHYnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you
>>>> prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>> Pick either:
>>>
>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>
>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>
>> I've made my claim.
>
>
> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.

You've been watching it in this thread.

Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
thugs, did you?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf

Journal of Marriage and Family
Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002

To cite this article: Vonnie C McLoyd, Julia Smith (2002)
Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American, European
American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator
Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (1), 40–53.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x

* Vonnie C. McLoyd11Center for Human Growth and Development,
University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
).
* Julia Smith11Center for Human Growth and Development, University
of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).
1Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan,
300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).

[[[ *** emphasis mine ]]]

Abstract

Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...

Note.

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
concerns if you have any.

They found what they found.

Claiming they didn't would constitute calling them liars unless you can
poke logical and factual holes in their research.

Can you?

The only response that Doan came up with, after claim he had many
studies saying black children have less misbehavior after spanking than
white children do, turned out to have a little comment at the end of
their conclusion. It said, 'may be' correlated.

The researchers I provided did not hedge.

They said that all groups responded the same to the same things.

Blacks did not separate out with a different response to corporal
punishment.

Note, no qualifying statements separate ANY ethnic racial group out.

Those statements are inclusive of all three.

I'll parse it for you as I did Doan:


"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time,

[[[ for all three ]]]

controlling for income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support.

[[[ for all three ]]]

Maternal emotional support moderated the link between spanking and
problem behavior.

[[[ For all three ]]]

Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support.

[[[ For all three ]]]

This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

[[[ For all three ]]]

Get the picture?


So, I've answered your question, fully, Ken.

Are you working then on providing us with all that evidence you say you
know about that shows that non-spanked children are prone to develop
behaviors "sociopathic?"

I'm not going to debate you on this issue until I see YOUR support for
YOUR claim.

And trust me, Doan, despite calling you in to repeat his lies to "work
me" on concert with him, you are not half the talented liar he is...even
if he is easy to catch.

Answer the question I've asked you so long about your claim on
non-spanked children and "sociopathy" behaviors.

0.-]

[krp]

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

>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>> Pick either:

>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>
>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>
>>> I've made my claim.
>>
>>
>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>
> You've been watching it in this thread.
>
> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> thugs, did you?
>
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>
> Journal of Marriage and Family
> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> Abstract

> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> Note.
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> concerns if you have any.

Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..

> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> Note.
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."

The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.

Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????

[Ron]

"krp" > wrote in message news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...

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

>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>> Pick either:

>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>
>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>
>>> I've made my claim.
>>
>>
>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>
> You've been watching it in this thread.
>
> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> thugs, did you?
>
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>
> Journal of Marriage and Family
> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> Abstract

> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> Note.
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> concerns if you have any.

Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..

> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> Note.
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."

The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.

Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????


He never said that dimwit. YOU did.

Ron

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:

>
> "krp" > wrote in message news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>
> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>
> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>>> Pick either:
>
> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>>
> >>> I've made my claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >
> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >
> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> > thugs, did you?
> >
> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> >
> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> > Abstract
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >
> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> > concerns if you have any.
>
> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
>
> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>
> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>
>
> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>
> Ron
>
But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support. This is an
obvious LIE or Kane is just too STUPID to understand what the study
said. Which is it, Ron?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> "krp" > wrote in message news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>> >>>> Pick either:
>>
>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've made my claim.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>> >
>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>> >
>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>> > thugs, did you?
>> >
>> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>> >
>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>> > Abstract
>>
>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>> > were 4�5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >
>> > Note.
>> >
>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>> >
>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>> > concerns if you have any.
>>
>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>>
>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>> > were 4�5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >
>> > Note.
>> >
>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>
>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>>
>>
>> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>>
>> Ron
>>
> But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
> problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support.

That's what the study said. It said where one responded to high, the
rest did. Where one responded low the rest did the same.

Do you know how I know this?

Because it never once separated out any ethnic group as it marched
through the descriptions of the circumstances and responses, and at the
end stated categorically that all three groups held to this pattern.

This pattern did not refer to a single issue. Nor is there any question
about the absolute phrase, "..all 3 racial-ethnic groups."


This is an
> obvious LIE or Kane is just too STUPID to understand what the study
> said. Which is it, Ron?

Well, since Ron was addressing this statement of Ken's:"
Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF
"CAUSES" aggression in Children????,"

And you changed the subject as though his comment was about: "But Kane
did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior problems)
held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support," Doan, you have lied by
diversion and refusal to deal with what Ron did say.

Dodging, Doan?

Didn't you just claim, after I had responded to a post, and at the end
asked you a brand knew question regarding your opinion on another
matter, that I was dodging?

0,-]




>>

>
> Doan
>
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >
> >> "krp" > wrote in message news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
> >>
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >> >>>> Pick either:
> >>
> >> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
> >> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
> >> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I've made my claim.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >> >
> >> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >> >
> >> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> >> > thugs, did you?
> >> >
> >> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> >> >
> >> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> >> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> >> > Abstract
> >>
> >> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> >> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> >> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> >> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> >> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> >> > were 4�5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> >> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> >> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> >> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> >> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> >> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> >> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> >> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> >> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> >> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> >> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> >> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >> >
> >> > Note.
> >> >
> >> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> >> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> >> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >> >
> >> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> >> > concerns if you have any.
> >>
> >> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
> >>
> >> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> >> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> >> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> >> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> >> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> >> > were 4�5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> >> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> >> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> >> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> >> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> >> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> >> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> >> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> >> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> >> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> >> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> >> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >> >
> >> > Note.
> >> >
> >> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> >> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> >> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >>
> >> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
> >>
> >> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
> >>
> >>
> >> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> > But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
> > problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support.
>
> That's what the study said. It said where one responded to high, the
> rest did. Where one responded low the rest did the same.
>
> Do you know how I know this?
>
Because YOU ARE STUPID!

> Because it never once separated out any ethnic group as it marched
> through the descriptions of the circumstances and responses, and at the
> end stated categorically that all three groups held to this pattern.
>
> This pattern did not refer to a single issue. Nor is there any question
> about the absolute phrase, "..all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>
Hihihi! Read it again, Kane.

"Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
of high levels of emotional support."

So were you lying or just STUPID, Kane? ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> "krp" > wrote in message news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>>>>
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>> >>>> Pick either:
>>>>
>>>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I've made my claim.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>> >
>>>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>>> > thugs, did you?
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>> >
>>>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>> > Abstract
>>>>
>>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>> > were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Note.
>>>> >
>>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>>> >
>>>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>> > concerns if you have any.
>>>>
>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>>>>
>>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>> > were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Note.
>>>> >
>>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>
>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>
>>>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>> But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
>>> problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support.
>> That's what the study said. It said where one responded to high, the
>> rest did. Where one responded low the rest did the same.
>>
>> Do you know how I know this?
>>
> Because YOU ARE STUPID!
>
>> Because it never once separated out any ethnic group as it marched
>> through the descriptions of the circumstances and responses, and at the
>> end stated categorically that all three groups held to this pattern.
>>
>> This pattern did not refer to a single issue. Nor is there any question
>> about the absolute phrase, "..all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>
> Hihihi! Read it again, Kane.
>
> "Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
> in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
> of high levels of emotional support."

For all three groups, or for one, or two?

How would that statement, "This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups." effect one ethnic group and not the others?

You do recall what the point of the argument is do you not?

That you claim black children have a different response.

And that I claim no such evidence exists that this is so.

Are you saying that black children get more emotional support than
children from other ethnic groups?

That's not what was being discussed, nor is it covered in this study.

Are you saying that that last sentence does not apply equally to all
circumstances for all children?

If so, please explain your thinking.

The paragraph would have separated out one ethnic group for comparison
to the others.

It does not.

It does compare, we must presume because it makes the claim, that those
who get more support have fewer behavior problems when spanked. And that
those that get less support have more behavior problems when spanked.

After all, it's a study on spanked children.
>
> So were you lying or just STUPID, Kane? ;-)
>

Neither.

Obviously.

So what were you doing, or are?

> Doan

0.]

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> "krp" > wrote in message news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>> >>>> Pick either:
>>
>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've made my claim.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>> >
>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>> >
>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>> > thugs, did you?
>> >
>> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>> >
>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>> > Abstract
>>
>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>> > were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >
>> > Note.
>> >
>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>> >
>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>> > concerns if you have any.
>>
>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>>
>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>> > were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >
>> > Note.
>> >
>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>
>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>>
>>
>> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>>
>> Ron
>>
> But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
> problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support. This is an
> obvious LIE or Kane is just too STUPID to understand what the study
> said. Which is it, Ron?

Since Ron's not in the game, other, apparently, than to laugh at you
clowns, let's you and I visit what you brought up trying to draw him in.

An aside: You don't think Ron is a man of his word, do you Doan?
R R R R R R R R R

Now, let's look at this issue again:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

There are only two possible interpretations of the last sentence. Either
it applies to the sentence that comes before it, or to all sentences in
the paragraph.

I cannot, by simple rules of grammar, refer only to the phrase before
it, but let's give you the advantage and entertain that.

We'll have THREE conditions then that might be in support of my being
stupid or a liar.

If the last sentence refers to the entire paragraph, my contention, then
you are wrong about my intelligence, and my honesty.

The logic would be, as stated, that all conditions are equal for all
children.

If it refers to only the last sentence, then since it did NOT separate
out any ethnic group, it applies to all equally.

Two down, one to go.

If it applies only to,"...but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support," to which group of the three
racial-ethnic groups studied would it be referring?

Let me see now, who is stupid or a liar?

> Doan

Why yes, that's who.

And unethical to boot, trying to draw someone in to debate that plainly
said he won't.

Tsk Doan, Tsk.

Now who us how that last sentence would prove YOUR contention, assuming
I'm not incorrect about what it is, that black children respond
differently to spanking than the other two groups.

Be at least as thorough as I have been, and stop relying on screaming
"STUPID LIAR."

Or "Hihihi!"

Neither does anything but show you have not supported your claim.

Nor refuted your opponent's claim.

The study shows that they found the same responses across ethnic groups.

Kane

[0:->]

0:-> wrote:
> Doan wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>
>>> "krp" > wrote in message
>>> news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>>>
>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove
>>> mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>> >>>> Pick either:
>>>
>>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>> research that
>>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>> children all
>>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I've made my claim.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>> >
>>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>>> >
>>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down
>>> on you
>>> > thugs, did you?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>> > Abstract
>>>
>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>> European
>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>> Youth,
>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>> Children
>>> > were 4�5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>> 1990,
>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>> and
>>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional
>>> support of
>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part
>>> of the
>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each
>>> of the
>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the
>>> level of
>>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>> associated with
>>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>> levels
>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>> emotional
>>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>> >
>>> > Note.
>>> >
>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>> increase
>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>> income-needs
>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior.
>>> Spanking was
>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
>>> context of
>>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>> >
>>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>> > concerns if you have any.
>>>
>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the
>>> relevant parts..
>>>
>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>> European
>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>> Youth,
>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>> Children
>>> > were 4�5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>> 1990,
>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>> and
>>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional
>>> support of
>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part
>>> of the
>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each
>>> of the
>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the
>>> level of
>>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>> associated with
>>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>> levels
>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>> emotional
>>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>> >
>>> > Note.
>>> >
>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>> increase
>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>> income-needs
>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior.
>>> Spanking was
>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
>>> context of
>>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>>
>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>
>>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF
>>> ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>>>
>>>
>>> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>> But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
>> problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support.
>
> That's what the study said. It said where one responded to high, the
> rest did. Where one responded low the rest did the same.
>
> Do you know how I know this?
>
> Because it never once separated out any ethnic group as it marched
> through the descriptions of the circumstances and responses, and at the
> end stated categorically that all three groups held to this pattern.
>
> This pattern did not refer to a single issue. Nor is there any question
> about the absolute phrase, "..all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>
>
> This is an
>> obvious LIE or Kane is just too STUPID to understand what the study
>> said. Which is it, Ron?
>
> Well, since Ron was addressing this statement of Ken's:"
> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF
> "CAUSES" aggression in Children????,"
>
> And you changed the subject as though his comment was about: "But Kane
> did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior problems)
> held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support," Doan, you have lied by
> diversion and refusal to deal with what Ron did say.
>
> Dodging, Doan?
>
> Didn't you just claim, after I had responded to a post, and at the end
> asked you a brand knew question regarding your opinion on another
> matter, that I was dodging?

Oh, and as to your poor memory, other than Ron having an opinion about
Ken's methods of posting, he plainly stated he did not have a dog in
this fight.

Are you asking him to debate spanking issues?

Why?

No manners?

Sure looks like it, or you haven't read the thread, or kept up with the
contributors.

I find it hard to believe that you have missed, over all the time you've
been here, that Ron stated, as I did, that he and I were not interested
in debating each other.

Or are YOU inviting him to debate you?

On what, I wonder?

Since your support of those that support spanking is well known.

Have you decided now to prove you are neutral on this subject and will
attack both sides equally, or are you unethical and dishonest?

0,]

>> Doan
>>
>>

[0:->]

Let's start by cleaning up that lie in the subject line.

Ron has ignored nothing that you can prove. He stated he would not
debate these issues. Simple as that. So your subject is a lie. Nice way
to start a debate.

Secondly, I have ignored nothing on this subject. I have refused to
debate, at times, on YOUR terms, when they are bogus.

For instance in this post you argue something other than the subject
that originally was the issue. And something I did not argue about at all.

From it you make a claim that goes in another direction entirely. The
Segueing Strawman.

We are as yet still debating the claim of Doan that Black children have
a different response to spanking than white children. This study says
absolutely otherwise.

Let's move on.

krp wrote:
>
> "0:->" >> wrote in
> message ...
>
> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>>> Pick either:
>
> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
> research that
> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
> children all
> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>>
> >>> I've made my claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >
> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >
> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> > thugs, did you?
> >
> >
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002..00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf>
> >
> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> > Abstract
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ....
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >
> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> > concerns if you have any.
> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
> parts..
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the */_relation between spanking and behavior problems_/*.

Now instead of sticking to the subject of our argument, and to that of
this study, you will try to build into a new argument.

I will stay with the current one and ask this question of your
HIGHLIGHT. (Feel free to use caps to highlight as many readers loose the
formatting codes when going to "reply" attributions...for now your
highlights are bracketed by * *):

What has this to do with the one group, African American children and
not the others?

The end statement says that all responded the same, as in the pattern
held for all three.

> > Children
> > were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their */_children's behavior problems_/*.


Again, where is the African American group mentioned separately?

> > Maternal emotional
> > support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking */_predicted an increase in the
> > level of problem behavior over time,_/*

Do you see those first words in the paragraph?

Do you understand their relationship to the rest of the sentence and the
paragraph, this one, in which they appear?

Each, that is ALL three, groups shows that spanking resulted in an
increase in problem behavior over time...this by the way supports my
contention this was indeed a longitudinal study.

> > controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. *_Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior_*.

For AA children only, or for all three groups?

> > *_Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems
over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support._*

Which separate group mentioned is being shown to have these associations
and outcomes? Is it not all three?

If you think not, show your analysis of the statement. And where it says
or even leads one to think, African American children were different
from the others.

> > This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...

I believe you should have highlighted the above sentence, as no matter
which portion of the paragraph, the immediately preceding phrase, the
entire immediately preceding sentence, or the entire paragraph up to
that point, it does not separate out any child group by race-ethnicity.

If you understanding is that African American children showed some
different pattern, then why would the closing sentence say, "This
pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups?"

> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, */_spanking predicted an
> increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time_/*,

My same question still holds. Each of the three, Ken. meaning ALL.

> > controlling for
> > income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. */_Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior_/*.

Again my point stands as to the AA group NOT being singled out.

> */_Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support._/*

Again, where does this apply to one group and not the others out of the
set of racial-ethnic groups...the subject of the paragraph, and ....

.... the subject of the next sentence. Precisely because it says so.

> > This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."

> The article suggests there is a "*/relation/*" between spanking and
> *BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS* -

I most certainly does. For which group? Is it not all, just as the
words "each of the three" denotes?

> BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
> emotional support from parents.

Do you have a problem with that not identifying any one of the three
from the full set is singled out?

> *As usual the significance of that
> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.*

And the significance to the issue under discussion until you replaced it
with straw, of one group differing in response to the others, spanked AA
children being less prone to misbehave than say "white" children would be?

Read the paragraph for understanding, not with the intent to cherry pick
and start a debate on an issue not in debate on this subject.

> **
> * Now back to the /PROOF/ that spanking IN AND _EXCLUSIVELY OF
> ITSELF_ "/_CAUSES_/" aggression in Children????*

So you are saying this paragraph you just highlighted in some way
disproves that spanking increases misbehavior?

It doesn't say that.

And in fact, at this point I'm wondering just what you were trying to argue?

Doan's claim as to there being studies that shows AA children do respond
differently, or that spanking isn't followed by more aggression in the
tested populations?

Do AA children (putting aside racial-ethnic comparisons) exhibit a
reduction in aggression when they are spanked?

Are unspanked AA children shown to exhibit aggression more if they are
not spanked?

Do they, if non-spanked, develop sociopathy?

No questions have been answered here except ONE. And it's the one I did
not, as you lie in your subject field, ignore.

That AA children respond differently to the children of other races is
not proven.

Now if you'd like to move on to some of those many studies Doan has and
discuss the actual subject, hey, I'm right here.

This study says differently.

It says that all the groups studied, under the same conditions, increase
misbehavior.

Damn simple, eh?

Do you, or Doan, know of a current study that refutes this?

From at least as academically qualified a source as this one. And you
can remind Doan, if he misses that, that Lazyboyrecliner is a highly
biased source, exhibited by his past associations and his being trounced
by a much more responsible and better placed researcher.

I wouldn't buy gold at half price from him if I tested it myself.

I'm not going to by his "survey of the literature" either.

Same level as this study under the same research guidelines and protocols.

They may address comparisons, if you can find those "many" or they may
address AA children as the demographic.

You takes your pick you gets what you gets.

By the way, were did I say, ".. /PROOF/ that spanking IN AND
_EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF_ "/_CAUSES_/" aggression in Children????*"

That was YOUR lying claim about what I actually said. Not my words, nor
even my claims by even the best stretch of imagination.

Your statement moves over to the happy land of delusion.

NO study on this subject that claims to have PROOF that spanking alone
was examined without factoring in other variables would be worth the
paper it was written.

I wouldn't submit it to support my argument.


Creating improbable premise for study, Ken, is nothing but a sorry
excuse for a fallacious debating tactic....because it amounts to a much
larger attempt to mislead, and is plainly a lie because you appear to be
ascribing it to me, and a lie in itself.

Now spout some more.

[AnneF->]

On Jan 30, 12:44 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
> Let's start by cleaning up that lie in the subject line.
>
> Ron has ignored nothing that you can prove. He stated he would not
> debate these issues. Simple as that. So your subject is a lie. Nice way
> to start a debate.
>
> Secondly, I have ignored nothing on this subject. I have refused to
> debate, at times, on YOUR terms, when they are bogus.
>
> For instance in this post you argue something other than the subject
> that originally was the issue. And something I did not argue about at all.
>
> From it you make a claim that goes in another direction entirely. The
> Segueing Strawman.
>
> We are as yet still debating the claim of Doan that Black children have
> a different response to spanking than white children. This study says
> absolutely otherwise.
>
> Let's move on.
>
>
>
>
>
> krp wrote:
>
> > "0:->" >> wrote in
> > ...
>
> > >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
> > till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> > >>>> Pick either:
>
> > >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>
> > >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> > >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
> > research that
> > >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
> > children all
> > >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>
> > >>> I've made my claim.
>
> > >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>
> > > You've been watching it in this thread.
>
> > > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> > > thugs, did you?
>
> >http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.000...
> > <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002..00....>
>
> > > Journal of Marriage and Family
> > > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> > > Abstract
>
> > > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ....
>
> > > Note.
>
> > > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > > racial-ethnic groups."
>
> > > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> > > concerns if you have any.
> > Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
> > parts..
>
> > > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > > moderates the */_relation between spanking and behavior problems_/*.
>
> Now instead of sticking to the subject of our argument, and to that of
> this study, you will try to build into a new argument.
>
> I will stay with the current one and ask this question of your
> HIGHLIGHT. (Feel free to use caps to highlight as many readers loose the
> formatting codes when going to "reply" attributions...for now your
> highlights are bracketed by * *):
>
> What has this to do with the one group, African American children and
> not the others?
>
> The end statement says that all responded the same, as in the pattern
> held for all three.
>
> > > Children
> > > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > > rated their */_children's behavior problems_/*.
>
> Again, where is the African American group mentioned separately?
>
> > > Maternal emotional
>
> > > support of
> > > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking */_predicted an increase in the
> > > level of problem behavior over time,_/*
>
> Do you see those first words in the paragraph?
>
> Do you understand their relationship to the rest of the sentence and the
> paragraph, this one, in which they appear?
>
> Each, that is ALL three, groups shows that spanking resulted in an
> increase in problem behavior over time...this by the way supports my
> contention this was indeed a longitudinal study.
>
> > > controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > > maternal emotional support. *_Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > > link between spanking and problem behavior_*.
>
> For AA children only, or for all three groups?
>
> > > *_Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems
> over time in the context of low levels
>
> > > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > > support._*
>
> Which separate group mentioned is being shown to have these associations
> and outcomes? Is it not all three?
>
> If you think not, show your analysis of the statement. And where it says
> or even leads one to think, African American children were different
> from the others.
>
> > > This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> I believe you should have highlighted the above sentence, as no matter
> which portion of the paragraph, the immediately preceding phrase, the
> entire immediately preceding sentence, or the entire paragraph up to
> that point, it does not separate out any child group by race-ethnicity.
>
> If you understanding is that African American children showed some
> different pattern, then why would the closing sentence say, "This
> pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups?"
>
> > > Note.
>
> > > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, */_spanking predicted an
> > increase
> > > in the level of problem behavior over time_/*,
>
> My same question still holds. Each of the three, Ken. meaning ALL.
>
> > > controlling for
>
> > > income-needs
> > > ratio and maternal emotional support. */_Maternal emotional support
> > > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior_/*.
>
> Again my point stands as to the AA group NOT being singled out.
>
> > */_Spanking was
> > > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > > high levels of emotional support._/*
>
> Again, where does this apply to one group and not the others out of the
> set of racial-ethnic groups...the subject of the paragraph, and ....
>
> ... the subject of the next sentence. Precisely because it says so.
>
> > > This pattern held for all 3
> > > racial-ethnic groups."
> > The article suggests there is a "*/relation/*" between spanking and
> > *BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS* -
>
> I most certainly does. For which group? Is it not all, just as the
> words "each of the three" denotes?
>
> > BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>
> > emotional support from parents.
>
> Do you have a problem with that not identifying any one of the three
> from the full set is singled out?
>
> > *As usual the significance of that
>
> > factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.*
>
> And the significance to the issue under discussion until you replaced it
> with straw, of one group differing in response to the others, spanked AA
> children being less prone to misbehave than say "white" children would be?
>
> Read the paragraph for understanding, not with the intent to cherry pick
> and start a debate on an issue not in debate on this subject.
>
> > **
> > * Now back to the /PROOF/ that spanking IN AND _EXCLUSIVELY OF
> > ITSELF_ "/_CAUSES_/" aggression in Children????*
>
> So you are saying this paragraph you just highlighted in some way
> disproves that spanking increases misbehavior?
>
> It doesn't say that.
>
> And in fact, at this point I'm wondering just what you were trying to argue?
>
> Doan's claim as to there being studies that shows AA children do respond
> differently, or that spanking isn't followed by more aggression in the
> tested populations?
>
> Do AA children (putting aside racial-ethnic comparisons) exhibit a
> reduction in aggression when they are spanked?
>
> Are unspanked AA children shown to exhibit aggression more if they are
> not spanked?
>
> Do they, if non-spanked, develop sociopathy?
>
> No questions have been answered here except ONE. And it's the one I did
> not, as you lie in your subject field, ignore.
>
> That AA children respond differently to the children of other races is
> not proven.
>
> Now if you'd like to move on to some of those many studies Doan has and
> discuss the actual subject, hey, I'm right here.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL!

AF

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

>
> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>
> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>>> Pick either:
>
> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>>
> >>> I've made my claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >
> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >
> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> > thugs, did you?
> >
> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> >
> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> > Abstract
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >
> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> > concerns if you have any.
>
> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
>
> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>
But Kane said it's BOTH:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
emotion support."

Doan

> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>
>
>
>
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>
>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>> thugs, did you?
>>>
>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>
>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>> Abstract
>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>
>>> Note.
>>>
>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>
>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>> concerns if you have any.
>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>>
>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>
>>> Note.
>>>
>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>
> But Kane said it's BOTH:
> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>
> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
> emotion support."

Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.

Show where it didn't.

Go back and take a high school writing course. They will tell you that
the last sentence in a paragraph supports and explains the paragraph, in
good writing.

The writing was good. The statement that, "This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups," also applies to "Spanking was associated with
an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
support."

Isolating one phrase and claiming the conclusion applied only to it is
contextual corruption, and since I'm sure you know better, I have to
concluded you are deliberately misleading...that's lying.

Show how it would not.

Kane


>
> Doan
>
>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????

[krp]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...

> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till
> >>>>> you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>>> Pick either:
>
> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research
> >>> that
> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children
> >>> all
> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>>
> >>> I've made my claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >
> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >
> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> > thugs, did you?
> >
> > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> >
> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> > Abstract
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >
> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> > concerns if you have any.
>
> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
> parts..
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
>
> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional
> support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches
> escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>

But Kane said it's BOTH: "The pattern held, high or low emotional
support, for all 3, Doan."

When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
emotion support."

Well one day Kane claims it is both. On another post it's correlation,
and yet in another is is causation. Trying to get him to be consistent is
more difficult than nailing jello to the cieling.


> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF
> "CAUSES" aggression in Children????

He still doesn't understand why his sources fail.

[krp]

"Ron" > wrote in message ...

>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>> Pick either:

>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>
>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>
>>> I've made my claim.
>>
>>
>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>
> You've been watching it in this thread.
>
> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> thugs, did you?
>
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>
> Journal of Marriage and Family
> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> Abstract

> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> Note.
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> concerns if you have any.

Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..

> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> Note.
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."

The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.

Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????


He never said that dimwit. YOU did.


Ron - "SPANKING LEADS TO AGGRESSION" is a statement that it CAUSES the aggression. If he wasn't TRYING (and failing) to make that claim, why use the source?

[0:->]

Funny how those newsgroup addies will slip away from yah, idnit?
0;}

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.000...
>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>> Abstract
>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>> Youth,
>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>> were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>> the
>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>> the
>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>> with
>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>> emotional
>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>> Note.
>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>> income-needs
>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>> parts..
>> Okay.
>>
>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>> Youth,
>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>> were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>> the
>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>> the
>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>> with
>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>> emotional
>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>> Note.
>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>> income-needs
>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>> I don't see those parts highlighted that you mentioned you were going
>> to do.
>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -
>> Okay. Did you note me making other claims?
>
> <GROAN>

Ask for help when you've fallen, Ken.

> The issue is "SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS" or it is THE cause
> for "BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS" in kids.

Really? The study wasn't about that. And we are looking at that study
together. It said that they found that children that were spanked showed
more aggression.

I thought the issue was, until you moved the goal posts, the issue of
those children that are spanked showing more aggression regardless of
the cultural acceptance level of their culture.

To which, I believe, Doan contributed that he knew of many studies that
shows Black children that are spanked do not.

So far, he's come up with one he actually couldn't defend because the
article
citing a study misrepresented the study, leaving out their caveat (which
is most decidedly NOT in this study) that they found "may be" there was
a connect to black children having 'less' aggression compared to white
children.

Do you understand the significance of that?

Comparisons showing more aggression but NOT as MUCH as another group,
incidentally happens to prove my point. They all found an increase in
aggression..

Just less for black children in that one study with a "may be" qualifier.

This study said that all conditions being the same for the entire
demographic, race differences the only one, the pattern was consistent
whatever the same conditions were.

Even when they were different they were different for all.

It's in the first sentence where they establish that all are subjected
to the same conditions:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support."

Pretty plain isn't it?

See anything there Doan or you can hang your hats on? Something that
proves AA children have either less, or no increase right along with the
other kids?

And in the last sentence.

The piece about the , but not in the context....IS FOR ALL THE CHILDREN,
not just AA children.

Is that not right Ken?

You seem to want proof.

Tell you what, you can take YOUR standards of proof, OR MINE, and apply
them to your claim and show us the outcomes you have claimed.

I'm still waiting and your surreptitious snipping of my repeated request
doesn't go unnoticed by other posters. They are laughing at you, but
rather than add any MORE handicap by appearing to attack you, I've asked
them to withhold comments until this is over.

I have a hunch you will now be motivated to even greater heights of lies
and other folderol to put off that ending.

It's like putting off going to the dentist, AND EATING TOO HOT AN TOO
COLD foods and drink, Ken.

The sooner you get it over with, the less pain, and sooner and end to pain.

You both have fallen on your asses.

Or are you afraid to be seen walking away?

It's not the end of the world you know.

And I'll forget you soon enough and stop laughing at you publicly...and
frankly, as others know that have seen it happen, when an opponent of
mine, unlike Doan does with his gloating over admission of a mistake,
owns up to his mistake I am very generous and uncritical..but not if he
won't own up.

Doan's an unethical thug. I'm not.

You have to decide what you are.

Or you can run from that too.

This study finds that all three ethnicities of children have the same
response to spanking. The all, whether up or down, respond to spanking
by increasing misbehavior, unless emotional support is high.

They all, when spanked, go down, or do not go up in misbehavior with
high emotional support, and they all, when spanked, go UP in misbehavior
with the lack of of that support.

You have failed to show otherwise.

And you have both now resorted to Doan's oldest ploy, your opponent is
"stupid" because he doesn't see something..something YOU have failed to
prove the study says.

That's the old, "Case closed, I won" child in the school yard who just
struck out, ploy.

And you both look silly as hell trying to pull that off.

And worse, both of you against ONE of me, trying to claim victory, both
of you, that is not yours.

Damned humorous.

Learn a little humility, Ken.

Even knowing that Doan will milk an error with claims of lies for years
and years, I still own mine when I see I have made them.

While you two assholes don't respect that, I'm sure those I respect here
to respect me for it.

That makes YOU, Ken, and Doan, cowards.

How sad for you. 0,[

[0:->]

AnneF-> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 12:44 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
>> Let's start by cleaning up that lie in the subject line.
>>
>> Ron has ignored nothing that you can prove. He stated he would not
>> debate these issues. Simple as that. So your subject is a lie. Nice way
>> to start a debate.
>>
>> Secondly, I have ignored nothing on this subject. I have refused to
>> debate, at times, on YOUR terms, when they are bogus.
>>
>> For instance in this post you argue something other than the subject
>> that originally was the issue. And something I did not argue about at all.
>>
>> From it you make a claim that goes in another direction entirely. The
>> Segueing Strawman.
>>
>> We are as yet still debating the claim of Doan that Black children have
>> a different response to spanking than white children. This study says
>> absolutely otherwise.
>>
>> Let's move on.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> krp wrote:
>>
>>> "0:->" >> wrote in
>>> ...
>>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>> >>>> Pick either:
>>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>> research that
>>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>> children all
>>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>> >>> I've made my claim.
>>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>> > thugs, did you?
>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.000...
>>> <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002..00....>
>>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>> > Abstract
>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ....
>>> > Note.
>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>> > concerns if you have any.
>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>> parts..
>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>> > moderates the */_relation between spanking and behavior problems_/*.
>> Now instead of sticking to the subject of our argument, and to that of
>> this study, you will try to build into a new argument.
>>
>> I will stay with the current one and ask this question of your
>> HIGHLIGHT. (Feel free to use caps to highlight as many readers loose the
>> formatting codes when going to "reply" attributions...for now your
>> highlights are bracketed by * *):
>>
>> What has this to do with the one group, African American children and
>> not the others?
>>
>> The end statement says that all responded the same, as in the pattern
>> held for all three.
>>
>>> > Children
>>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>> > rated their */_children's behavior problems_/*.
>> Again, where is the African American group mentioned separately?
>>
>> > > Maternal emotional
>>
>>>> support of
>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking */_predicted an increase in the
>>>> level of problem behavior over time,_/*
>> Do you see those first words in the paragraph?
>>
>> Do you understand their relationship to the rest of the sentence and the
>> paragraph, this one, in which they appear?
>>
>> Each, that is ALL three, groups shows that spanking resulted in an
>> increase in problem behavior over time...this by the way supports my
>> contention this was indeed a longitudinal study.
>>
>>>> controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>> > maternal emotional support. *_Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior_*.
>> For AA children only, or for all three groups?
>>
>> > > *_Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems
>> over time in the context of low levels
>>
>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>> > support._*
>> Which separate group mentioned is being shown to have these associations
>> and outcomes? Is it not all three?
>>
>> If you think not, show your analysis of the statement. And where it says
>> or even leads one to think, African American children were different
>> from the others.
>>
>> > > This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>
>> I believe you should have highlighted the above sentence, as no matter
>> which portion of the paragraph, the immediately preceding phrase, the
>> entire immediately preceding sentence, or the entire paragraph up to
>> that point, it does not separate out any child group by race-ethnicity.
>>
>> If you understanding is that African American children showed some
>> different pattern, then why would the closing sentence say, "This
>> pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups?"
>>
>>> > Note.
>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, */_spanking predicted an
>>> increase
>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time_/*,
>> My same question still holds. Each of the three, Ken. meaning ALL.
>>
>> > > controlling for
>>
>>>> income-needs
>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. */_Maternal emotional support
>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior_/*.
>> Again my point stands as to the AA group NOT being singled out.
>>
>>> */_Spanking was
>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>> > high levels of emotional support._/*
>> Again, where does this apply to one group and not the others out of the
>> set of racial-ethnic groups...the subject of the paragraph, and ....
>>
>> ... the subject of the next sentence. Precisely because it says so.
>>
>>> > This pattern held for all 3
>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>> The article suggests there is a "*/relation/*" between spanking and
>>> *BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS* -
>> I most certainly does. For which group? Is it not all, just as the
>> words "each of the three" denotes?
>>
>> > BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>
>>> emotional support from parents.
>> Do you have a problem with that not identifying any one of the three
>> from the full set is singled out?
>>
>> > *As usual the significance of that
>>
>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.*
>> And the significance to the issue under discussion until you replaced it
>> with straw, of one group differing in response to the others, spanked AA
>> children being less prone to misbehave than say "white" children would be?
>>
>> Read the paragraph for understanding, not with the intent to cherry pick
>> and start a debate on an issue not in debate on this subject.
>>
>>> **
>>> * Now back to the /PROOF/ that spanking IN AND _EXCLUSIVELY OF
>>> ITSELF_ "/_CAUSES_/" aggression in Children????*
>> So you are saying this paragraph you just highlighted in some way
>> disproves that spanking increases misbehavior?
>>
>> It doesn't say that.
>>
>> And in fact, at this point I'm wondering just what you were trying to argue?
>>
>> Doan's claim as to there being studies that shows AA children do respond
>> differently, or that spanking isn't followed by more aggression in the
>> tested populations?
>>
>> Do AA children (putting aside racial-ethnic comparisons) exhibit a
>> reduction in aggression when they are spanked?
>>
>> Are unspanked AA children shown to exhibit aggression more if they are
>> not spanked?
>>
>> Do they, if non-spanked, develop sociopathy?
>>
>> No questions have been answered here except ONE. And it's the one I did
>> not, as you lie in your subject field, ignore.
>>
>> That AA children respond differently to the children of other races is
>> not proven.
>>
>> Now if you'd like to move on to some of those many studies Doan has and
>> discuss the actual subject, hey, I'm right here.
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL!
>
> AF

In other words, you lost.

Are you now threating Ann Fisher, Don Fisher's wife?

[Doan]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
> >
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>>>>> Pick either:
> >>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
> >>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
> >>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've made my claim.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >>> You've been watching it in this thread.
> >>>
> >>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> >>> thugs, did you?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> >>>
> >>> Journal of Marriage and Family
> >>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> >>> Abstract
> >>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> >>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> >>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> >>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> >>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> >>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> >>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> >>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> >>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> >>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> >>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> >>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> >>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> >>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> >>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> >>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> >>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >>>
> >>> Note.
> >>>
> >>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> >>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> >>> racial-ethnic groups."
> >>>
> >>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> >>> concerns if you have any.
> >> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
> >>
> >>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> >>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> >>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> >>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> >>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> >>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> >>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> >>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> >>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> >>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> >>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> >>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> >>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> >>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> >>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> >>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> >>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >>>
> >>> Note.
> >>>
> >>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> >>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> >>> racial-ethnic groups."
> >> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
> >>
> > But Kane said it's BOTH:
> > "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
> >
> > When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
> > emotion support."
>
> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>
What pattern, Kane?

> Show where it didn't.
>
The place where it said *NOT*.

Doan

> Go back and take a high school writing course. They will tell you that
> the last sentence in a paragraph supports and explains the paragraph, in
> good writing.
>
> The writing was good. The statement that, "This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups," also applies to "Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support."
>
> Isolating one phrase and claiming the conclusion applied only to it is
> contextual corruption, and since I'm sure you know better, I have to
> concluded you are deliberately misleading...that's lying.
>
> Show how it would not.
>
> Kane
>
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
> >> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>>
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>
>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>> Abstract
>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>>>>
>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>
>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>
>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>> emotion support."
>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>
> What pattern, Kane?

All reactions to spanking, whether more or less misbehavior, whether
more or less emotional support. Including where the outcomes were not in
the context of high levels of emotional support.

That's an item in the pattern.

In fact, you a take any part of the paragraph and apply it the same way.

>> Show where it didn't.
>>
> The place where it said *NOT*.

Why would the sentence right afterward say that "this pattern" which
would include the not in the context of high emotional support
statement, not apply to it?

The "not" statement applies to the pattern that held.

What wording indicates that the NOT doesn't apply as part of the pattern?

And were would it apply or not apply to only one of the set, the African
American children, and not the others?

Be specific please. Your answer was not an explanation. Explain how you
come to the conclusion that any part or the whole would support your
claim that AA children either don't increase aggression with spanking or
don't increase it as much and the other children DO.

Your claim is, is it not, that the cultural difference makes the AA
children respond differently than other race-ethic groups of children?

Or are you saying that now you wish to abandon your claim and try for
something else?

Here is your claim, quoted in full:

"And studies after studies have shown that spanking, at least for
African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes."

The study we are looking at shows that the outcomes, good or bad, are
the same for all three ethnic groups in the targeted demographic.

And I've looked at your postings of 'studies after studies" and not only
are no plurality of them to speak of they are based mostly on others
work, not original work.

Here's an interesting draft of commentary by Straus on his review of
research, and I draw your attention to Figure 7, a chart of African
American children and Euro American children that confounds your claim
of what Gunnoe and Marriner actually DID find.

Straus' comment one why it appeared that AA children showed a drop in
misbehavior after spanking turns out to be a drop comparatively, as
there are NO minus findings on the aggression line at all, for either
group.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP47.pdf

He comment that accompanies the chart in figure 7:

Figure 7. Change in antisocial behavior from 1988 TO 1990 by spanking in
1988 (children 6-9)
Gunnoe and Mariner’s findings on the relation of CP to Antisocial
Behavior show that the more CP experienced by in Year 1, the higher the
level of Antisocial Behavior five years later. Moreover, they found that
the harmful effect of CP applies to all the categories of children they
studied - that is, to children in each age group, to all races, and to
both boys and girls.

Thus, both of these major long term prospective studies resuited[sic] in
evidence that, although CP may work in the short run, in the long run it
tends to boomerang and make things worse.

>
> Doan

Yes, you are that.




>
>> Go back and take a high school writing course. They will tell you that
>> the last sentence in a paragraph supports and explains the paragraph, in
>> good writing.
>>
>> The writing was good. The statement that, "This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups," also applies to "Spanking was associated with
>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> support."
>>
>> Isolating one phrase and claiming the conclusion applied only to it is
>> contextual corruption, and since I'm sure you know better, I have to
>> concluded you are deliberately misleading...that's lying.
>>
>> Show how it would not.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:f8OdnePrG5osZCLYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...

> Funny how those newsgroup addies will slip away from yah, idnit?
> 0;}

Huh?

QUOTE AND EMPHASIS SNIPPED
>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>>> parts..
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>> European
>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>> Youth,
>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>> Children
>>>>> were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>> 1990,
>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> of
>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>> the
>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>> with
>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>> levels
>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>> emotional
>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>> Note.
>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>> increase
>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>> income-needs
>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>> I don't see those parts highlighted that you mentioned you were going
>>> to do.
>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -
>>> Okay. Did you note me making other claims?
>>
>> <GROAN>

> Ask for help when you've fallen, Ken.

Oh ****, is this the "CORELATIUON AND CAUSATION" are the same thing
argument again Kane?

>> The issue is "SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS" or it is THE cause
>> for "BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS" in kids.

> Really? The study wasn't about that. And we are looking at that study
> together. It said that they found that children that were spanked showed
> more aggression.

Kane the ORIGINAL claim was that SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS!
That was the SUBJECT HEADER!
Now it isn't. I find it interesting trying to figure out just exactly WHAT
the hell you are claiming. It keeps changing. EVERY DAY!

Kane you remind me of the little groundhog game in the Chuckee Cheese
pizza places. You put your quarter in and take the padded mallet and when
the groundhog sticks his head up you whack it down and then it pops up in
another hole, and this goes on until your quarter is used up. I have LOVED
the debate with you on both spanking and the SAC Dolls. You have managed to
take EVERY frigging side of both issues more than once and some sides I
didn't know existed.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to resolve any debate with you because you will NEVER keep
the same side for two posts in a row. That's your debate style.

Either the SAC Dolls are accurate indicators of abuse or they are not. I
say not. You say they are, they aren't, and they MIGHT be but the jury is
out etc etc etc etc.. On Spanking you have NO clue as to what correlation is
or causation. You have a unique inability to understand that the statement
"Spanking LEADS TO aggression in Children" is a declarative sentence ONLY in
causation. It means "spanking CAUSES aggression in children." It is NOT and
not matter how you beat the walls mean it is a correlative statement. That
would be "aggression in child is related to spanking." or "It appears there
is some relation between spanking and aggression in children."

That's before we even GET TO the rest of the premise of that article.
With you we play "FUZZY DEFINITIONS" of Planet Kane!

[krp]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>> >
>> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>> >>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>> >>>>>> Pick either:
>> >>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>> >>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>> >>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>> >>>>> research that
>> >>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>> >>>>> children all
>> >>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've made my claim.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>> >>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on
>> >>> you
>> >>> thugs, did you?
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>> >>>
>> >>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>> >>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>> >>> Abstract
>> >>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>> >>> European
>> >>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> >>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>> >>> Youth,
>> >>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> >>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>> >>> Children
>> >>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>> >>> 1990,
>> >>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> >>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>> >>> of
>> >>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>> >>> the
>> >>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>> >>> the
>> >>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>> >>> of
>> >>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> >>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> >>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>> >>> with
>> >>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>> >>> levels
>> >>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>> >>> emotional
>> >>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >>>
>> >>> Note.
>> >>>
>> >>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>> >>> increase
>> >>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>> >>> income-needs
>> >>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> >>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>> >>> was
>> >>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> >>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> >>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> >>> racial-ethnic groups."
>> >>>
>> >>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>> >>> concerns if you have any.
>> >> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>> >> parts..
>> >>
>> >>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>> >>> European
>> >>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> >>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>> >>> Youth,
>> >>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> >>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>> >>> Children
>> >>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>> >>> 1990,
>> >>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> >>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>> >>> of
>> >>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>> >>> the
>> >>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>> >>> the
>> >>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>> >>> of
>> >>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> >>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> >>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>> >>> with
>> >>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>> >>> levels
>> >>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>> >>> emotional
>> >>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >>>
>> >>> Note.
>> >>>
>> >>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>> >>> increase
>> >>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>> >>> income-needs
>> >>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> >>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>> >>> was
>> >>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> >>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> >>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> >>> racial-ethnic groups."
>> >> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>> >> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>> >> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>> >> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>> >>
>> > But Kane said it's BOTH:
>> > "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>> >
>> > When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>> > emotion support."
>>
>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>
> What pattern, Kane?
>
>> Show where it didn't.
>>
> The place where it said *NOT*.

You see on the PLANET KANE "NOT" means "MAYBE" or "SOMETIMES" or some other
fuzzy definition.

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
...
> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>>>>>>> research that
>>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>>>>>>> children all
>>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>> European
>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>> Children
>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>>>> parts..
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>> European
>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>> Children
>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>>>> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>>>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>>
>>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>
>>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>>> emotion support."
>>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>>
>> What pattern, Kane?
>
> All reactions to spanking, whether more or less misbehavior, whether more
> or less emotional support. Including where the outcomes were not in the
> context of high levels of emotional support.
>
> That's an item in the pattern.
>
> In fact, you a take any part of the paragraph and apply it the same way.
>
>>> Show where it didn't.
>>>
>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>
> Why would the sentence right afterward say that "this pattern" which would
> include the not in the context of high emotional support statement, not
> apply to it?
>
> The "not" statement applies to the pattern that held.


As I predicted ACCURATELY AGAIN on PLANET KANE the word "NOT" has a
different meaning than in the rest of the Galaxy!

It means YES!!!!

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>>
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>
>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>> Abstract
>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant parts..
>>>>
>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>
>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>
>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>> emotion support."
>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>
> What pattern, Kane?
>
>> Show where it didn't.
>>
> The place where it said *NOT*.
>
> Doan
>
>> Go back and take a high school writing course. They will tell you that
>> the last sentence in a paragraph supports and explains the paragraph, in
>> good writing.
>>
>> The writing was good. The statement that, "This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups," also applies to "Spanking was associated with
>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> support."
>>
>> Isolating one phrase and claiming the conclusion applied only to it is
>> contextual corruption, and since I'm sure you know better, I have to
>> concluded you are deliberately misleading...that's lying.
>>
>> Show how it would not.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>

More on the examination of the Gunnoe and Marriner study and the
question of why it appeared that AA children showed reductions in
fighting and aggression after spanking.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/113/5/1321.pdf


2.3-times greater risk of maternal ratings of behavior
problems exceeding the 90th percentile 4 years
later (0.159 vs 0.068). Among Hispanic and African
American children, spanking frequency before age 2
was not consistently associated with child behavior 3
years later, although some results (shown in Fig 2)
were suggestive of a positive association in these
families.
These associations are consistent with those reported
in previous studies of European American
and African American children older than 2. Deater-
Deckard et al43 reported that spanking was positively
correlated with child externalizing behaviors
in subsequent years among European American children
but was not significantly correlated with behavior
problems among African American children.
Gunnoe and Mariner45 reported that spanking frequency
at ages 5 to 11 was significantly associated
with an increase in fighting 5 years later among
European American children but was also significantly
related to a decrease in fighting among African
American children. Finally, McLeod et al,46 who
also used data from the NLSY-MC, reported that
spanking frequency at ages 4 and above predicted
significantly greater antisocial behavior among European
Americans 2 years later, but the association
was not statistically significant among African Americans.
Several possible explanations for these differences
in association have been proposed.4,44 Spanking is
thought to have greater “normative acceptance” in
African American families,7,52,53 which could mean
that African American children and parents are relatively
less likely to perceive spanking as harsh or
unfair. Alternatively, in white non-Hispanic communities—
where spanking is used less frequently and
where its use is thought to be more stigmatizing—
frequent spanking before age 2 could be associated
with other factors that indicate relatively greater developmental
risk, such as high parent stress. Both
interpretations are consistent with our finding
(shown in Fig 1) that compared with African American
and Hispanic families, child behavior problems
that require a parent-teacher meeting were predicted
to be relatively less common in white non-Hispanic
families when spanking before age 2 was infrequent,
whereas the relative ordering was the reverse in
families in which spanking was relatively frequent.
However, in predictions of risk for behavior problem
ratings above the 90th percentile (Fig 2), African
American children were predicted to be at greater
risk at all spanking frequencies, suggesting that in
both groups, more frequent spanking was associated
with greater behavioral risk.

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:f8OdnePrG5osZCLYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>> Funny how those newsgroup addies will slip away from yah, idnit?
>> 0;}
>
> Huh?
>
> QUOTE AND EMPHASIS SNIPPED
>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>>>> parts..
>>>> Okay.
>>>>
>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>> European
>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>> Children
>>>>>> were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>> I don't see those parts highlighted that you mentioned you were going
>>>> to do.
>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -
>>>> Okay. Did you note me making other claims?
>>> <GROAN>
>
>> Ask for help when you've fallen, Ken.
>
> Oh ****, is this the "CORELATIUON AND CAUSATION" are the same thing
> argument again Kane?
>
>>> The issue is "SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS" or it is THE cause
>>> for "BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS" in kids.
>
>> Really? The study wasn't about that. And we are looking at that study
>> together. It said that they found that children that were spanked showed
>> more aggression.
>
> Kane the ORIGINAL claim was that SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS!
> That was the SUBJECT HEADER!

You seem to keep dropping the reference to cross culture, Ken.

And that the title of the article isn't the title of the study.

> Now it isn't. I find it interesting trying to figure out just exactly WHAT
> the hell you are claiming. It keeps changing. EVERY DAY!

Actually you keep changing it and I keep dragging you back to the original.

> Kane you remind me of the little groundhog game in the Chuckee Cheese
> pizza places. You put your quarter in and take the padded mallet and when
> the groundhog sticks his head up you whack it down and then it pops up in
> another hole, and this goes on until your quarter is used up. I have LOVED
> the debate with you on both spanking and the SAC Dolls. You have managed to
> take EVERY frigging side of both issues more than once and some sides I
> didn't know existed.

No I haven't. I have stated my position clearly, and you have
continually lied about it and re framed, or simply changed my words.

> It is IMPOSSIBLE to resolve any debate with you because you will NEVER keep
> the same side for two posts in a row. That's your debate style.

No it isn't. You are referring to my looking at more than one point
about an issue. If debate were limited to a single point about an issue
it would stop in the first exchange.

And you are a master at dodging by Strawman, Red Herring, Goal Post
Moving, and simple lying, Ken. Or at least and eager acolyte.

> Either the SAC Dolls are accurate indicators of abuse or they are not.

Ah, would that life were so simple. When circumstances are all fixed,
one can claim that. They aren't. Real life is filled with variables, a
lot of them uncontrollable. Think about all the issues.

> I
> say not.

Which makes you wrong unless you can create a research model that does
not allow for ethics in research.

> You say they are,

Actually you are now lying through your teeth or out your ass, same
difference.

I have repeated stated I do NOT accept SAC dolls for the purpose of
determining IF abuse has or has NOT occurred. And I've stated I would
like to see more research into, what to me personally and professional,
I consider a possible valid use....to assist in interviewing KNOWN
victims of sexual abuse to describe HOW they were abused.

Why are you lying about this, Ken?

> they aren't,

I made NO such claim, Ken. You are lying. In fact I agreed with you that
they were NOT acceptable for the purpose of determination. And I
objected to them being used for any purpose (other than teaching) for
younger children.

You are lying, Ken.

and they MIGHT be but the jury is
> out etc etc etc etc.. On Spanking you have NO clue as to what correlation is
> or causation.

The hell I don't.

> You have a unique inability to understand that the statement
> "Spanking LEADS TO aggression in Children" is a declarative sentence ONLY in
> causation.

Yep. And where did you see that sentence? And did the article not point
you to the research report with the researchers actual Title on it?

The authors of the article, while accurate in the body of their
narrative drawn from the news report of the publication source for the
research report were less than scrupulous with the title.

The fact you won't walk away from it now that I had said, to your
argument, "Okay, let's move too the substance of the report from the
researchers," indicates to me you are afraid to deal with that.

> It means "spanking CAUSES aggression in children."

I said it before, I'll say it again. Okay.

> It is NOT and
> not matter how you beat the walls mean it is a correlative statement.

Okay.

> That
> would be "aggression in child is related to spanking."

Okay, and a sloppy but fairly accurate representation of what the
researchers found. They are not bound to the sloppy title of a review of
their report.

> or "It appears there
> is some relation between spanking and aggression in children."

Okay.

Are you ready to deal with the actual report, rather than a secondary
source that had a less than accurate title to their own article?

> That's before we even GET TO the rest of the premise of that article.
> With you we play "FUZZY DEFINITIONS" of Planet Kane!

Nope. I have said okay to you before, and requested we move to the
actual report as published by the researchers.

You seem terrible reluctant to go there.

Either buy the rights to read the report, or have Doan send you a copy
(he would be misappropriating the authors work of course, since it is
for sale to one person.. and his copy, even if he can get it for free is
not legally up for public unpaid distribution.)

As I recall this is one of those 30 day 'rentals' that close on the date
the rental ends.

Or would you like to just discuss the report of the research?

I have, in another thread, by the way, posted some research on the claim
that spanking is related to aggression including the researchers use of
more declarative language.

I think you should read my posts to Doan and have a little peek yourself.

As for all this bull**** dodging, Ken, most of it is to stay as far away
as possible from responding to what I keep asking and you keep dodging.

You made a claim that there was evidence that failure to spank children
left them at risk of sociopathy outcomes.

No comment. No response. Just dodges.

All the rest of this crap you spew is to avoid admitting you lied.

0,]

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:fMWdnW0iPO6UXl3YnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>> Funny how those newsgroup addies will slip away from yah, idnit?
>>> 0;}
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> QUOTE AND EMPHASIS SNIPPED
>>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the
>>>>>> relevant parts..
>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>> were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>> I don't see those parts highlighted that you mentioned you were going
>>>>> to do.
>>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -
>>>>> Okay. Did you note me making other claims?
>>>> <GROAN>
>>
>>> Ask for help when you've fallen, Ken.
>>
>> Oh ****, is this the "CORELATIUON AND CAUSATION" are the same thing
>> argument again Kane?
>>
>>>> The issue is "SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS" or it is THE cause
>>>> for "BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS" in kids.
>>
>>> Really? The study wasn't about that. And we are looking at that study
>>> together. It said that they found that children that were spanked showed
>>> more aggression.
>>
>> Kane the ORIGINAL claim was that SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN KIDS!
>> That was the SUBJECT HEADER!
>
> You seem to keep dropping the reference to cross culture, Ken.

Kane you seem NOT to understand that IF any other factor modifies the
results it is NOT the spanking that does it, at least not by itself.

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>
>>> Doan wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>>>>>>> research that
>>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>>>>>>> children all
>>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>> European
>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>> Children
>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>>>> parts..
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>> European
>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>> Children
>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>> increase
>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>>>> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>>>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>>
>>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>
>>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>>> emotion support."
>>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>>
>> What pattern, Kane?
>>
>>> Show where it didn't.
>>>
>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>
> You see on the PLANET KANE "NOT" means "MAYBE" or "SOMETIMES" or some other
> fuzzy definition.

In Bizzaro world, where you two hang, claiming that NOT would apply to
one set and not the other of the racial-ethnic groups, is proof you are
either mentally incompetent or liars.

One of you is one, the other the other.

But not if there is higher emotional support by your papa, me.

Now tell me, how did my second statement single one of you out?

The subject of the research was not to show IF aggression occurred, but
when it did did it show one group exhibiting a difference than the others.

No such difference occurred.

Keep making us laugh.

0;-]

>
>

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>>>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>>>>>>>> research that
>>>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>>>>>>>> children all
>>>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the
>>>>>> relevant parts..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>>>>> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>>>>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>>
>>>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>>>> emotion support."
>>>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>>>
>>> What pattern, Kane?
>>>
>>>> Show where it didn't.
>>>>
>>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>>
>> You see on the PLANET KANE "NOT" means "MAYBE" or "SOMETIMES" or some
>> other fuzzy definition.
>
> In Bizzaro world, where you two hang, claiming that NOT would apply to one
> set and not the other of the racial-ethnic groups, is proof you are either
> mentally incompetent or liars.


How many stars in your universe Kane? NOT has a concrete meaning to the
rest of us, to you it is a moving object.

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>>>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>>>>>>>> research that
>>>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>>>>>>>> children all
>>>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>>>>> parts..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>>>>> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>>>>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>>
>>>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>>>> emotion support."
>>>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>>>
>>> What pattern, Kane?
>> All reactions to spanking, whether more or less misbehavior, whether more
>> or less emotional support. Including where the outcomes were not in the
>> context of high levels of emotional support.
>>
>> That's an item in the pattern.
>>
>> In fact, you a take any part of the paragraph and apply it the same way.
>>
>>>> Show where it didn't.
>>>>
>>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>> Why would the sentence right afterward say that "this pattern" which would
>> include the not in the context of high emotional support statement, not
>> apply to it?
>>
>> The "not" statement applies to the pattern that held.
>
>
> As I predicted ACCURATELY AGAIN on PLANET KANE the word "NOT" has a
> different meaning than in the rest of the Galaxy!
>
> It means YES!!!!

It means "NOT" applied to all three groups, thus supporting AA children
did not differ from the other two groups in their response to spanking
with high maternal emotional support, or low maternal emotional support.

If some was true for one, it was for all. If something was NOT true for
one then it was not true for the others as well. No separating out one
group and claiming it showed different responses under ANY circumstance
was claimed by the report of the study.

Stop lying Ken. You can't possible be this stupid....oh, wait, it's Ken
Pangborn isn't it now?

R R R R R R R R R R R RRRR

Just how much ass kicking are you looking for Ken?

Or is disruption, Doan's goal, your goal too?

Now, as to that issue of evidence that non-spanked children have
'sociopathy.' R R R R

You're going to dodge that forever, aren't you, Ken?

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>>>>>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>>>>>>>> Pick either:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>>>>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>>>>>>>>> research that
>>>>>>>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>>>>>>>>> children all
>>>>>>>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>>>>>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>>>>> You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> thugs, did you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>>>>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>>>>> concerns if you have any.
>>>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the
>>>>>>> relevant parts..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>>>>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>>>>>>>> Youth,
>>>>>>>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>>>>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>>>>>>>> Children
>>>>>>>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>>>>>>>> 1990,
>>>>>>>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>>>>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>>>>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>>>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>>>>>> emotional support from parents. As usual the significance of that
>>>>>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Kane said it's BOTH:
>>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the study specifically said "NOT in the context of high levels of
>>>>>> emotion support."
>>>>> Doan, it said THAT held to the pattern for all groups.
>>>>>
>>>> What pattern, Kane?
>>>>
>>>>> Show where it didn't.
>>>>>
>>>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>>> You see on the PLANET KANE "NOT" means "MAYBE" or "SOMETIMES" or some
>>> other fuzzy definition.
>> In Bizzaro world, where you two hang, claiming that NOT would apply to one
>> set and not the other of the racial-ethnic groups, is proof you are either
>> mentally incompetent or liars.
>
>
> How many stars in your universe Kane? NOT has a concrete meaning to the
> rest of us, to you it is a moving object.

And what did it mean to you, so concretely, in relationship to Doan's
claim that AA children respond differently than the other children who
are not AA?

Please be specific and show your logic and your work product.

And if you have a moment, would you point me to that evidence you claim
shows that children that are not spanked are at risk of developing
'sociopathy.'

Could it be you are waiting for me to forget and quit asking?

And can I expect you to erase this in your reply?

0;-]


>

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:mcqdnaN4VIJESV3YnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@scnresearch. com...


>>>>> The place where it said *NOT*.

>>>> You see on the PLANET KANE "NOT" means "MAYBE" or "SOMETIMES" or some
>>>> other fuzzy definition.

>>> In Bizzaro world, where you two hang, claiming that NOT would apply to
>>> one set and not the other of the racial-ethnic groups, is proof you are
>>> either mentally incompetent or liars.

>> How many stars in your universe Kane? NOT has a concrete meaning to the
>> rest of us, to you it is a moving object.

> And what did it mean to you, so concretely, in relationship to Doan's
> claim that AA children respond differently than the other children who are
> not AA?

The meaning of the word "NOT" is specific Kane. It states a negative. Not a
positive or something in between OR BOTH a positive and negative. It has a
literal meaning EXCEPT on Planet Kane where it can mean absolutely ANYTHING
at all!

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:PYqdnYLWVvxFVF3YnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>>>>
>>>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>>> Why would the sentence right afterward say that "this pattern" which
>>> would include the not in the context of high emotional support
>>> statement, not apply to it?
>>>
>>> The "not" statement applies to the pattern that held.
>>
>>
>> As I predicted ACCURATELY AGAIN on PLANET KANE the word "NOT" has a
>> different meaning than in the rest of the Galaxy!
>>
>> It means YES!!!!
>
> It means "NOT" applied to all three groups, thus supporting AA children
> did not differ from the other two groups in their response to spanking
> with high maternal emotional support, or low maternal emotional support.

> Now, as to that issue of evidence that non-spanked children have
> 'sociopathy.' R R R R

> You're going to dodge that forever, aren't you, Ken?

So long as you continue to screw around with the issue of PROVING your
original claim that spanking CAUSES children to be aggressive.
You still don't understand the rules of debate. YOU do NOT get to make
demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you prove your opening point.
You may believe you have proved it, but aside from your fellow travelers
nobody else does. First PROVE that spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
Only THEN will I unload MY data on you.

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:mcqdnaN4VIJESV3YnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>
>>>>>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>
>>>>> You see on the PLANET KANE "NOT" means "MAYBE" or "SOMETIMES" or some
>>>>> other fuzzy definition.
>
>>>> In Bizzaro world, where you two hang, claiming that NOT would apply to
>>>> one set and not the other of the racial-ethnic groups, is proof you are
>>>> either mentally incompetent or liars.
>
>>> How many stars in your universe Kane? NOT has a concrete meaning to the
>>> rest of us, to you it is a moving object.
>
>> And what did it mean to you, so concretely, in relationship to Doan's
>> claim that AA children respond differently than the other children who are
>> not AA?
>
> The meaning of the word "NOT" is specific Kane.

Yes. And to which one of the three groups in the demographic would "NOT"
apply?

> It states a negative.

At risk of you saying I agreed that it's a negative so how can it be a
positive 0:-] I'll say...

Yes. And to which of one the three groups in the demographic would "NOT"
apply?

> Not a
> positive

I didn't claim a positive. I pointed to what the research report said:
That the PATTERN of responses, including the "NOT" response, was
consistent for all three groups.

*** I will include it again, despite you thugs colluding in removing it
to dodge the truth of what it says.

> or something in between OR BOTH a positive and negative. It has a
> literal meaning EXCEPT on Planet Kane where it can mean absolutely ANYTHING
> at all!

.... Maternal emotional support moderated the link between spanking and
problem behavior. Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior
problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
but not in the context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern
held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...

Where is the mention that AA children were different than the others?

The issue is if AA children respond differently to the variables as the
other children do.

Specificity applies to them and the others equally according to the
statement being discussed.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups"

If it is "NOT" for one, Ken, then it's NOT for all.

Where in the paragraph does it establish that AA children respond
differently than the other children.

***
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
<http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002..00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf>

Journal of Marriage and Family
Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
Abstract

Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...

What, Ken, is the subject of "all 3 racial groups?"

What is not the subject of all three racial groups?

And why is it, using the paragraph itself to determine that something is
excluded from the set and from the outcomes, negative, or positive?

And lest we forget what you are so fond of avoiding by these pointless
arguments, you have not as yet answered to your claim that non-spanked
children are at risk of developing 'sociopathy.'

Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this
becomes for you.

You can find relief in truth, Ken.

I, unlike you, or Greg, or Doan, won't rub in what you admit to
willingly.....(you are willing, aren't you, Ken?)

Kane

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:PYqdnYLWVvxFVF3YnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>>>> The place where it said *NOT*.
>>>> Why would the sentence right afterward say that "this pattern" which
>>>> would include the not in the context of high emotional support
>>>> statement, not apply to it?
>>>>
>>>> The "not" statement applies to the pattern that held.
>>>
>>> As I predicted ACCURATELY AGAIN on PLANET KANE the word "NOT" has a
>>> different meaning than in the rest of the Galaxy!
>>>
>>> It means YES!!!!
>> It means "NOT" applied to all three groups, thus supporting AA children
>> did not differ from the other two groups in their response to spanking
>> with high maternal emotional support, or low maternal emotional support.
>
>> Now, as to that issue of evidence that non-spanked children have
>> 'sociopathy.' R R R R
>
>> You're going to dodge that forever, aren't you, Ken?
>
> So long as you continue to screw around with the issue of PROVING your
> original claim that spanking CAUSES children to be aggressive.

I didn't make that claim. It was the title of an article I posted. I've
said to you, "okay" as in "it was mistaken."

> You still don't understand the rules of debate.

Sure I do. Different subjects are not to be used to cross over to and
claims made that "because you didn't debate X subject, I will not answer
to the challenge of Y, a different subject.

> YOU do NOT get to make
> demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you prove your opening point.

I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making
an affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."

What did you think, when you made the point before, "okay" from me
meant, Ken?

> You may believe you have proved it, but aside from your fellow travelers
> nobody else does.

No, I haven't 'proved it' and I haven't claimed it, so it's a bogus
dodged on your part.

You won, on that point.

Now, according to YOUR demands of ME above, it IS your turn, Ken.

> First PROVE that spanking CAUSES aggression in children.

There is not study that I know of that claims a causal relationship from
spanking to aggression, and proves it even by my own standards.

There are many that show correlation.

Done. Your turn now.

> Only THEN will I unload MY data on you.

So unload.

Do you remember your claim and my challenge to produce that evidence?

Here it is, quoted word for word:

Ken: "There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

Kane: "Happy to discuss these claims with you in alt.parenting.spanking."

And as you know, you were released from that request by my kind and
gentle nature.

I bowed to your bullying and accepted that we would discuss it anywhere.

Of course, that means anywhere for BOTH of us, if course.

In a post later by me hitting 'reply' to my own post, for the purpose of
amending to clarify the meaning of words you used, I posted this:

> There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can produce
sociopathy in children.

Please pardon me, I completely forgot to clarify this term you brought
into the debate:

..... so·ci·o·path /?so?si??pæ?, ?so??i-/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Psychiatry.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial
and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience....

Do you accept this as a definition of "sociopath," for our purposes of
discussion?

Thanks, Kane ...

Whereupon, rather than you answering, Doan leapt to your defense with
chaff scattering ad hom, to which you replied INSTEAD OF TO ME.

With this:


Doan: > Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?


Kan: Wouldn't surprise me. ...

And to date, Ken, no further willingness that I can find to debate this
issue.

If you tried and I missed it, the my error.

If you didn't we now, together, by agreement, to YOUR terms, it is your
turn.

Will you run? Will you dodge again?

Will it be blatant lies? Will it be ad hom?

Will it be the Strawman Ploy, the Red Herring logical fallacy of
diversion, the post hoc ergo proctor hoc dodge?

How about the, "when did you stop beating your wife," number for a more
colorful ad hom diversion than the all too obvious, "HERE'S DAVID
MOORE'S GAY LOVER, NAZI BOOT HEEL CLICKING SIEG HEILER from Planet Kane
again."

What will he do, yes, what will Ken do.

I know what I'm going to do.

0,]

[Greegor]

Firemonkey in Iowa wrote
> I speak from experience as you are
> responsible for my computer problems.

ROFL!

You think he did it by way of SHAW CABLE of CANADA??
And your computer had no firewall or virus scan protection?
I've been asking who is that idiotic. Now I know!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Firemonkey in Iowa wrote
>> I speak from experience as you are
>> responsible for my computer problems.
>
> ROFL!
>
> You think he did it by way of SHAW CABLE of CANADA??
> And your computer had no firewall or virus scan protection?

You are aware, we hope, but don't count on it, that virus checkers, and
firewalls do not catch everything, right?

> I've been asking who is that idiotic. Now I know!

Yes, Greg is that idiotic if he thinks the currently available security
software will catch everything.

And if he thinks that hackers aren't always one step ahead of the
security software folks.

If software would catch everything updates would not be necessary.

Someone got invaded, or the virus would not have been found to force the
companies to update the virus or adware database kept on your machine.

Now, Greg, either you are stupid, or you are trying to help hackers by
minimizing the dangers.

Which is it I wonder.

0:-]

[AnneF->]

On Jan 30, 7:39 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
> AnneF-> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 12:44 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
> >> Let's start by cleaning up that lie in the subject line.
>
> >> Ron has ignored nothing that you can prove. He stated he would not
> >> debate these issues. Simple as that. So your subject is a lie. Nice way
> >> to start a debate.
>
> >> Secondly, I have ignored nothing on this subject. I have refused to
> >> debate, at times, on YOUR terms, when they are bogus.
>
> >> For instance in this post you argue something other than the subject
> >> that originally was the issue. And something I did not argue about at all.
>
> >> From it you make a claim that goes in another direction entirely. The
> >> Segueing Strawman.
>
> >> We are as yet still debating the claim of Doan that Black children have
> >> a different response to spanking than white children. This study says
> >> absolutely otherwise.
>
> >> Let's move on.
>
> >> krp wrote:
>
> >>> "0:->" >> wrote in
> >>> ...
> >>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
> >>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>> >>>> Pick either:
> >>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
> >>> research that
> >>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
> >>> children all
> >>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>> >>> I've made my claim.
> >>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> >>> > thugs, did you?
> >>>http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.000....
> >>> <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002..00....>
> >>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> >>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> >>> > Abstract
> >>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> >>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> >>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> >>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> >>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> >>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> >>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> >>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> >>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> >>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> >>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> >>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> >>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> >>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> >>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> >>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> >>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ....
> >>> > Note.
> >>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> >>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> >>> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> >>> > concerns if you have any.
> >>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
> >>> parts..
> >>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> >>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> >>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> >>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> >>> > moderates the */_relation between spanking and behavior problems_/*.
> >> Now instead of sticking to the subject of our argument, and to that of
> >> this study, you will try to build into a new argument.
>
> >> I will stay with the current one and ask this question of your
> >> HIGHLIGHT. (Feel free to use caps to highlight as many readers loose the
> >> formatting codes when going to "reply" attributions...for now your
> >> highlights are bracketed by * *):
>
> >> What has this to do with the one group, African American children and
> >> not the others?
>
> >> The end statement says that all responded the same, as in the pattern
> >> held for all three.
>
> >>> > Children
> >>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> >>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> >>> > rated their */_children's behavior problems_/*.
> >> Again, where is the African American group mentioned separately?
>
> >> > > Maternal emotional
>
> >>>> support of
> >>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> >>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> >>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking */_predicted an increase in the
> >>>> level of problem behavior over time,_/*
> >> Do you see those first words in the paragraph?
>
> >> Do you understand their relationship to the rest of the sentence and the
> >> paragraph, this one, in which they appear?
>
> >> Each, that is ALL three, groups shows that spanking resulted in an
> >> increase in problem behavior over time...this by the way supports my
> >> contention this was indeed a longitudinal study.
>
> >>>> controlling for income-needs ratio and
> >>> > maternal emotional support. *_Maternal emotional support moderated the
> >>> > link between spanking and problem behavior_*.
> >> For AA children only, or for all three groups?
>
> >> > > *_Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems
> >> over time in the context of low levels
>
> >>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> >>> > support._*
> >> Which separate group mentioned is being shown to have these associations
> >> and outcomes? Is it not all three?
>
> >> If you think not, show your analysis of the statement. And where it says
> >> or even leads one to think, African American children were different
> >> from the others.
>
> >> > > This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> >> I believe you should have highlighted the above sentence, as no matter
> >> which portion of the paragraph, the immediately preceding phrase, the
> >> entire immediately preceding sentence, or the entire paragraph up to
> >> that point, it does not separate out any child group by race-ethnicity.
>
> >> If you understanding is that African American children showed some
> >> different pattern, then why would the closing sentence say, "This
> >> pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups?"
>
> >>> > Note.
> >>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, */_spanking predicted an
> >>> increase
> >>> > in the level of problem behavior over time_/*,
> >> My same question still holds. Each of the three, Ken. meaning ALL.
>
> >> > > controlling for
>
> >>>> income-needs
> >>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. */_Maternal emotional support
> >>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior_/*.
> >> Again my point stands as to the AA group NOT being singled out.
>
> >>> */_Spanking was
> >>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> >>> > high levels of emotional support._/*
> >> Again, where does this apply to one group and not the others out of the
> >> set of racial-ethnic groups...the subject of the paragraph, and ....
>
> >> ... the subject of the next sentence. Precisely because it says so.
>
> >>> > This pattern held for all 3
> >>> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >>> The article suggests there is a "*/relation/*" between spanking and
> >>> *BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS* -
> >> I most certainly does. For which group? Is it not all, just as the
> >> words "each of the three" denotes?
>
> >> > BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>
> >>> emotional support from parents.
> >> Do you have a problem with that not identifying any one of the three
> >> from the full set is singled out?
>
> >> > *As usual the significance of that
>
> >>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.*
> >> And the significance to the issue under discussion until you replaced it
> >> with straw, of one group differing in response to the others, spanked AA
> >> children being less prone to misbehave than say "white" children would be?
>
> >> Read the paragraph for understanding, not with the intent to cherry pick
> >> and start a debate on an issue not in debate on this subject.
>
> >>> **
> >>> * Now back to the /PROOF/ that spanking IN AND _EXCLUSIVELY OF
> >>> ITSELF_ "/_CAUSES_/" aggression in Children????*
> >> So you are saying this paragraph you just highlighted in some way
> >> disproves that spanking increases misbehavior?
>
> >> It doesn't say that.
>
> >> And in fact, at this point I'm wondering just what you were trying to argue?
>
> >> Doan's claim as to there being studies that shows AA children do respond
> >> differently, or that spanking isn't followed by more aggression in the
> >> tested populations?
>
> >> Do AA children (putting aside racial-ethnic comparisons) exhibit a
> >> reduction in aggression when they are spanked?
>
> >> Are unspanked AA children shown to exhibit aggression more if they are
> >> not spanked?
>
> >> Do they, if non-spanked, develop sociopathy?
>
> >> No questions have been answered here except ONE. And it's the one I did
> >> not, as you lie in your subject field, ignore.
>
> >> That AA children respond differently to the children of other races is
> >> not proven.
>
> >> Now if you'd like to move on to some of those many studies Doan has and
> >> discuss the actual subject, hey, I'm right here.
> >> ...
>
> >> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > LOL!
>
> > AF
>
> In other words, you lost.
>
> Are you now threating Ann Fisher, Don Fisher's wife?

Who is Ann Fisher? and who is Don Fisher? And How am I threatening
them? You
think they will die if they read my "LOL"?

AF

[0:->]

AnneF-> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:39 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
>> AnneF-> wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 12:44 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
>>>> Let's start by cleaning up that lie in the subject line.
>>>> Ron has ignored nothing that you can prove. He stated he would not
>>>> debate these issues. Simple as that. So your subject is a lie. Nice way
>>>> to start a debate.
>>>> Secondly, I have ignored nothing on this subject. I have refused to
>>>> debate, at times, on YOUR terms, when they are bogus.
>>>> For instance in this post you argue something other than the subject
>>>> that originally was the issue. And something I did not argue about at all.
>>>> From it you make a claim that goes in another direction entirely. The
>>>> Segueing Strawman.
>>>> We are as yet still debating the claim of Doan that Black children have
>>>> a different response to spanking than white children. This study says
>>>> absolutely otherwise.
>>>> Let's move on.
>>>> krp wrote:
>>>>> "0:->" >> wrote in
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>>>>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>> >>>> Pick either:
>>>>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>>>>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>>>>> research that
>>>>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>>>>> children all
>>>>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>> >>> I've made my claim.
>>>>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>>>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>>>>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>>>>> > thugs, did you?
>>>>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.000....
>>>>> <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002..00....>
>>>>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>>>>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>>>> > Abstract
>>>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>>>>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>>>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>>>>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>>>>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>>>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ....
>>>>> > Note.
>>>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>>>>> > concerns if you have any.
>>>>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>>>>> parts..
>>>>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>>>>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>>>>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>>>>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>>>>> > moderates the */_relation between spanking and behavior problems_/*.
>>>> Now instead of sticking to the subject of our argument, and to that of
>>>> this study, you will try to build into a new argument.
>>>> I will stay with the current one and ask this question of your
>>>> HIGHLIGHT. (Feel free to use caps to highlight as many readers loose the
>>>> formatting codes when going to "reply" attributions...for now your
>>>> highlights are bracketed by * *):
>>>> What has this to do with the one group, African American children and
>>>> not the others?
>>>> The end statement says that all responded the same, as in the pattern
>>>> held for all three.
>>>>> > Children
>>>>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>>>>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>>>>> > rated their */_children's behavior problems_/*.
>>>> Again, where is the African American group mentioned separately?
>>>> > > Maternal emotional
>>>>>> support of
>>>>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>>>>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>>>>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking */_predicted an increase in the
>>>>>> level of problem behavior over time,_/*
>>>> Do you see those first words in the paragraph?
>>>> Do you understand their relationship to the rest of the sentence and the
>>>> paragraph, this one, in which they appear?
>>>> Each, that is ALL three, groups shows that spanking resulted in an
>>>> increase in problem behavior over time...this by the way supports my
>>>> contention this was indeed a longitudinal study.
>>>>>> controlling for income-needs ratio and
>>>>> > maternal emotional support. *_Maternal emotional support moderated the
>>>>> > link between spanking and problem behavior_*.
>>>> For AA children only, or for all three groups?
>>>> > > *_Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems
>>>> over time in the context of low levels
>>>>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>>>>> > support._*
>>>> Which separate group mentioned is being shown to have these associations
>>>> and outcomes? Is it not all three?
>>>> If you think not, show your analysis of the statement. And where it says
>>>> or even leads one to think, African American children were different
>>>> from the others.
>>>> > > This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>>> I believe you should have highlighted the above sentence, as no matter
>>>> which portion of the paragraph, the immediately preceding phrase, the
>>>> entire immediately preceding sentence, or the entire paragraph up to
>>>> that point, it does not separate out any child group by race-ethnicity.
>>>> If you understanding is that African American children showed some
>>>> different pattern, then why would the closing sentence say, "This
>>>> pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups?"
>>>>> > Note.
>>>>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, */_spanking predicted an
>>>>> increase
>>>>> > in the level of problem behavior over time_/*,
>>>> My same question still holds. Each of the three, Ken. meaning ALL.
>>>> > > controlling for
>>>>>> income-needs
>>>>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. */_Maternal emotional support
>>>>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior_/*.
>>>> Again my point stands as to the AA group NOT being singled out.
>>>>> */_Spanking was
>>>>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>>>>> > high levels of emotional support._/*
>>>> Again, where does this apply to one group and not the others out of the
>>>> set of racial-ethnic groups...the subject of the paragraph, and ....
>>>> ... the subject of the next sentence. Precisely because it says so.
>>>>> > This pattern held for all 3
>>>>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>> The article suggests there is a "*/relation/*" between spanking and
>>>>> *BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS* -
>>>> I most certainly does. For which group? Is it not all, just as the
>>>> words "each of the three" denotes?
>>>> > BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of
>>>>> emotional support from parents.
>>>> Do you have a problem with that not identifying any one of the three
>>>> from the full set is singled out?
>>>> > *As usual the significance of that
>>>>> factor reaches escape velocity from the planet Kane.*
>>>> And the significance to the issue under discussion until you replaced it
>>>> with straw, of one group differing in response to the others, spanked AA
>>>> children being less prone to misbehave than say "white" children would be?
>>>> Read the paragraph for understanding, not with the intent to cherry pick
>>>> and start a debate on an issue not in debate on this subject.
>>>>> **
>>>>> * Now back to the /PROOF/ that spanking IN AND _EXCLUSIVELY OF
>>>>> ITSELF_ "/_CAUSES_/" aggression in Children????*
>>>> So you are saying this paragraph you just highlighted in some way
>>>> disproves that spanking increases misbehavior?
>>>> It doesn't say that.
>>>> And in fact, at this point I'm wondering just what you were trying to argue?
>>>> Doan's claim as to there being studies that shows AA children do respond
>>>> differently, or that spanking isn't followed by more aggression in the
>>>> tested populations?
>>>> Do AA children (putting aside racial-ethnic comparisons) exhibit a
>>>> reduction in aggression when they are spanked?
>>>> Are unspanked AA children shown to exhibit aggression more if they are
>>>> not spanked?
>>>> Do they, if non-spanked, develop sociopathy?
>>>> No questions have been answered here except ONE. And it's the one I did
>>>> not, as you lie in your subject field, ignore.
>>>> That AA children respond differently to the children of other races is
>>>> not proven.
>>>> Now if you'd like to move on to some of those many studies Doan has and
>>>> discuss the actual subject, hey, I'm right here.
>>>> ...
>>>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> LOL!
>>> AF
>> In other words, you lost.
>>
>> Are you now threating Ann Fisher, Don Fisher's wife?
>
> Who is Ann Fisher? and who is Don Fisher?

Who is AnneF?

> And How am I threatening
> them? You
> think they will die if they read my "LOL"?

I think you know what you are up to but ignore how serious it could become.

0:-]

>
> AF
>
>

[Ron]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:

>
> "krp" > wrote in message
> news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
> >>>> Pick either:
>
> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
> research that
> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
> children all
> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
> >>>
> >>> I've made my claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
> >
> > You've been watching it in this thread.
> >
> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
> > thugs, did you?
> >
> >
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
> >
> > Journal of Marriage and Family
> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
> > Abstract
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
> European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
> Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
> Children
> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
> 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
> of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
> the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
> the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
> with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
> levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
> emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
> increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
> income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
> >
> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
> > concerns if you have any.
>
> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
> parts..
>
> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
> European
> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
> Youth,
> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
> Children
> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
> 1990,
> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
> of
> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
> the
> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
> the
> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
> with
> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
> levels
> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
> emotional
> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
> >
> > Note.
> >
> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
> increase
> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
> income-needs
> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> > racial-ethnic groups."
>
> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional
> support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches
> escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>
> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF
> "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>
>
> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>
> Ron
>
But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support. This is an
obvious LIE or Kane is just too STUPID to understand what the study
said. Which is it, Ron?

Doan

Why ask me? I know little of this discussion, other than that kenny usually
claims things that are far from factual.

Ron

[0:->]

Ron wrote:
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> "krp" > wrote in message
>> news:G%Ivh.37727$uC6.8954@trnddc02...
>>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine
>> till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>> >>>> Pick either:
>>
>> >>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.
>> >>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative
>> research that
>> >>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian
>> children all
>> >>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've made my claim.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>> >
>> > You've been watching it in this thread.
>> >
>> > Thought I needed a little exercise to keep me from bearing down on you
>> > thugs, did you?
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>> >
>> > Journal of Marriage and Family
>> > Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>> > Abstract
>>
>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>> European
>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>> Youth,
>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>> Children
>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>> 1990,
>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>> of
>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>> the
>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>> the
>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>> with
>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>> levels
>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>> emotional
>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >
>> > Note.
>> >
>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>> increase
>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>> income-needs
>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>> >
>> > Feel free to access the source. Address the researchers with your
>> > concerns if you have any.
>>
>> Okay now I am going to REQUOTE the abstract and HIGHLIGHT the relevant
>> parts..
>>
>> > Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>> European
>> > American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> > children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of
>> Youth,
>> > this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> > moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems.
>> Children
>> > were 4-5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988,
>> 1990,
>> > 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> > rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support
>> of
>> > the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of
>> the
>> > Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of
>> the
>> > 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> > problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> > maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> > link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated
>> with
>> > an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low
>> levels
>> > of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of
>> emotional
>> > support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>> >
>> > Note.
>> >
>> > "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>> increase
>> > in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>> income-needs
>> > ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> > moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> > associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> > context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the context of
>> > high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> > racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> The article suggests there is a "relation" between spanking and
>> BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS - BUT Kane - only in cases of low levels of emotional
>> support from parents. As usual the significance of that factor reaches
>> escape velocity from the planet Kane.
>>
>> Now back to the PROOF that spanking IN AND EXCLUSIVELY OF ITSELF
>> "CAUSES" aggression in Children????
>>
>>
>> He never said that dimwit. YOU did.
>>
>> Ron
>>
> But Kane did said that the pattern (spanking associated with behavior
> problems) held for both LOW and HIGH emotional support.

That's not what the report says. Nor is it what I said in argumentation.

It says simply that the pattern for all three racial ethnic group, for
any conditions, held. High or low, with or without emotional support.
The constant was 'spanking' the variables, 'behaviors' and 'emotional
support.'

Spanking a child with high emotional support did not conform to spanking
to low emotional support in outcomes. In the former, obviously there was
less misbehavior of the child subsequently, and with the child having
low emotional support, the misbehavior rate was higher.



What is the subject for "This pattern" held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

What pattern is "this" pattern, Doan?

"Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support."

All the last phrase is saying is it was the opposite in the context of
high levels of emotional support.

It logically would read, if one applied the last phrase to the first
phrase and made the changes explicitly, "Spanking was NOT associated
with an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of HIGH
levels of emotional support."

> This is an
> obvious LIE

It's an obvious lie or stupidity on your part.

> or Kane is just too STUPID to understand what the study
> said. Which is it, Ron?

Ron's dog stayed home.

He's not in this particular fight. Ask him.

I'm not "to[sic] stupid" that I don't see plainly that the report and
the paragraph fail to support YOUR claim that AA children respond
differently.

Please show were that is shown in the paragraph.

Which group showed any difference in the same conditions?
>
> Doan
>
> Why ask me? I know little of this discussion, other than that kenny usually
> claims things that are far from factual.

Not just Ken, Doan. You have, as usual, lied your way through this
entire discussion.

Unless you wish to retract your claim about AA children.

Your claim is not supported. While you are not stupid enough to not see
you are stupid to keep trying to sell that the report supports your claim.

AA children were found to have the same responses, regardless, as the
others, or the opening sentence and the closing sentence would not
identify all three, with no claim they had a different outcome than the
others. All three, is all three.

0:]

>
> Ron
>
>

[Greegor]

1. Virus scan SW active and updated twice daily.
2. Web based e-mail where they scan for viruses also.
3. Firewall
4. backup hard disk drives, can swap drives in less than 60 seconds!
(complete ready to run duplicate drive!)
A good virus scan software package ALSO spots a virus by it's
activities.
Can even notice and stop completely UNKNOWN viruses that way!

Items 1-3 are der rigeur for anybody using the internet.
Especially using newsgroups, those are a must.
Anything less is just plain idiotic.

Firemonkey in Iowa wrote
> I speak from experience as you are
> responsible for my computer problems.

G > ROFL!
G > You think he did it by way of SHAW CABLE of CANADA??
G > And your computer had no firewall or virus scan protection?
G > I've been asking who is that idiotic. Now I know!

Kane wrote
> You are aware, we hope, but don't count on it, that virus
> checkers, and firewalls do not catch everything, right?
> Yes, Greg is that idiotic if he thinks the currently available security
> software will catch everything.
>
> And if he thinks that hackers aren't always one step ahead of the
> security software folks.
>
> If software would catch everything updates would not be necessary.
>
> Someone got invaded, or the virus would not have been found to force the
> companies to update the virus or adware database kept on your machine.
>
> Now, Greg, either you are stupid, or you are trying to help hackers by
> minimizing the dangers.
>
> Which is it I wonder.

But Kane, we all know VERY WELL that Firemonkey
did not have der rigeur (normal) PROTECTION working.
This is incredibly stupid for anybody using newsgroups.

All of your rhetiric is just a mouthy dance.
Just like her stupid accusations.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 1. Virus scan SW active and updated twice daily.
> 2. Web based e-mail where they scan for viruses also.
> 3. Firewall
> 4. backup hard disk drives, can swap drives in less than 60 seconds!
> (complete ready to run duplicate drive!)
> A good virus scan software package ALSO spots a virus by it's
> activities.
> Can even notice and stop completely UNKNOWN viruses that way!
>
> Items 1-3 are der rigeur for anybody using the internet.
> Especially using newsgroups, those are a must.
> Anything less is just plain idiotic.

What makes you think we don't have such software? I use of the highest
rated in security software, does all that and more.

Heuristic scanning has been around for some time. Are you claiming to
pretend others don't know about such?

Want to guess how many drives I mount?

>
> Firemonkey in Iowa wrote
>> I speak from experience as you are
>> responsible for my computer problems.
>
> G > ROFL!
> G > You think he did it by way of SHAW CABLE of CANADA??
> G > And your computer had no firewall or virus scan protection?
> G > I've been asking who is that idiotic. Now I know!
>
> Kane wrote
>> You are aware, we hope, but don't count on it, that virus
>> checkers, and firewalls do not catch everything, right?
>> Yes, Greg is that idiotic if he thinks the currently available security
>> software will catch everything.
>>
>> And if he thinks that hackers aren't always one step ahead of the
>> security software folks.
>>
>> If software would catch everything updates would not be necessary.
>>
>> Someone got invaded, or the virus would not have been found to force the
>> companies to update the virus or adware database kept on your machine.
>>
>> Now, Greg, either you are stupid, or you are trying to help hackers by
>> minimizing the dangers.
>>
>> Which is it I wonder.
>
> But Kane, we all know VERY WELL that Firemonkey
> did not have der rigeur (normal) PROTECTION working.
> This is incredibly stupid for anybody using newsgroups.

"We" do? Exactly how does anyone find out what someone else is or isn't
running in the way of security software, eh Greg?

You going to give us another lesson now?

> All of your rhetiric is just a mouthy dance.

Think so, do you?

I now have a fair idea of what you run, and how it's configured.

I get the darnedest feeling that you feel confident because you know
more than we do about where this is coming from.

> Just like her stupid accusations.

Her "stupid accusations" managed to smoke out the brilliant "Computer
Boy," <tah dah>.

Your pal should tell you that gabbing it up around an attempted security
attack can give the target(s) more information than he'd like to share.

You see, Greg, if I was the target of the attack I wouldn't be giving
away what protection I have.

But you seem totally unconcerned with describing what is best, and how
to configure it, and presenting excellent information for a code writing
cracker, or one that knows where to down load, then assemble the right
bits and pieces to cobble together a delivery system.

Now why is it you aren't concerned about that being out there for a
cracker to use on you?

You do, Greg, appear to be phishing for more on what we have.

Can't speak for the others, but mine isn't common off the shelf stuff.

And I'm the only one that doesn't, apparently actually have a problem,
just alerts.

Tell your buddy he's busted.

I put my spare on line and sure enough, got a boot sector change attack
without me adding any new software. Know what that means, "Computer
Boy?" <tah dah>

Nice thing is I was waiting.

For me it's nice.

When were you going to get around to asking the brand name of folks
security software, Greg?


What's yours, by they way? It's sure protection against attacks, as you
seem to think, "Computer Boy," <tah dah>.

So then, what software you runnin'?

Wouldn't you want to share with us, or do you wish us to remain naked
and vulnerable?

0&^]

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Ronald Van Dyne of Nebraska wrote
>> Why ask me? I know little of this discussion, other than that kenny usually
>> claims things that are far from factual.
> (Nothing but ad hominem.)

It's gotten to the point that for time saving one doesn't ask what Ken
has lied about, but what he's told the truth about.

Though I do agree, when confronted with questions and challenges
concerning his claims both on topic and off (his personal ****) he does
quickly go to ad hom of the crudest and stupidest sort.

He goes especially batty when he makes claims about research and is
asked to support them.

So tell us, Greg, do you know of any research that proves that children
that aren't spanked are at more risk of developing 'sociopathy?'

There has to be something out there, doesn't it? Your guest seems so
sure but so reluctant to share. Why would that be, I wonder.

0*-}

[0:->]

Greegor REwrote: ...

....the subject to hope to pretend to claim that readers would assume
Kane made such a stupid claim, rather than Greg's guest, Ken Pangborn.

> krp wrote
>> You still don't understand the rules of debate. YOU do NOT get to make
>> demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you prove your opening point.

I made no opening point on the subject of sociopathy in children, folks.

>> You may believe you have proved it, but aside from your fellow travelers
>> nobody else does.

No, I made no claim that fits your definition below, Ken.

>> First PROVE that spanking CAUSES aggression in children.

I didn't claim that it "CAUSES aggression in children." Not even the
researchers cited by the author of the review of their report made such
a claim.

Your claim is as hollow as your head, Ken.

>> Only THEN will I unload MY data on you.

Well, I stated that I "lots" the debate on the Strawman Ken created with
Doan's able assistance. That there is no proof that spanking 'CAUSES'
aggression in children, and that I based that conclusion about this
study on the fact they weren't trying to make any such claim.

The most that could be concluded was that there was an 'association.'
That usually, in researcher's language, means "correlation."

So now I'm biding my time for Ken to move on to what he has said he'd
unload on me; his data.

So Greg, do you think I'll have long to wait?

I can hardly wait for the definition of 'sociopathy' to be provided.

And for Ken to show CAUSE from the data.

> I think even RON agrees that Kane was full of crap when he
> asserted that spanking causes agression in children
> when Kane started that thread.

Why would you want Ron, who has said he has "no dog in this fight" to
join in, Greg?

Ron pointed out though, accurately, that I made no such claim. Ken just
lied and said I did.

I invite you as I did Ken to point out where I made such a claim.

The title to the article is no more mine than the article itself. I
didn't write it. The author of the review did. Not even the researchers
said that. I agree with the research, not the review of it necessarily.
Most reviews are loaded with opinion.

Doan even, staying on Ken's track, tried to use an UNIDENTIFIED as
opinion piece to make it appear still that I was claiming 'cause.'

Do you wish to claim that when one posts an article 0:-] that it's
automatic they agree with all portions of it?

How about when one hides a portion of the posted information, as Doan
did, that would make the information appear more authoritative than
simple lay opinion, Greg?

We could go to that as a standard here, but it might severely limit our
posting methods, don't you think? Or are you special and don't have to
go by rules you'd make for others?

> Are you too painted into a corner to state that Ron?

R R R R RRR RR R .

You'd have more success baiting me than Ron, stupid. I have my weak
moments when I cannot resist planting another delivery of boot leather
on your asses.

> Or is the issue more about PERSONALITY than the logic?

It seems to be for you a great deal more than it appears to be for Ron.
After all, Ron is my opponent on this issue. And yet he maintains,
apparently, some respect for me. I wonder why?

> Backing up other members of the hyena pack?

None of us have the habits of hyenas except you, Greg, and Doan, and
your guest, Ken Pangborn. The special invitation to your guest, not
unlike your cultivation of Kathleen, makes plain who the thugs are here.

Now there are three of you, and still only me.

As for Hyenas. When someone comes here to ascps for help one can assume
they are distracted, anxious, even fearful because they are involved in
events that could cost them dearly.

Have you seen any of us, Fire, LIT, Betty, Dan, Sherry, myself, attack
them for not having done the 'smartest' thing by our standards?

You go for the throat just like a hyena, Greg.

You attack those that offer help and support who themselves have beaten
CPS, where you have not.

I can see how you might take a dislike to those here that have exposed
you for the dangerous anti-Parent's Rights hyena you are, but a brand
new person that's said nothing about you?

Very strange you are.

Why did you attack Tamara? Why have you done the same to so many in the
past?

> Even when you actually disagree with the BS Kane spewed Ron?

Ron has said that he and I came to an impasse. That tends to happen on
an issue so fraught with contention and opposing views on the scale of
this issue. Parenting seems to be common to the human race, dontchaknow.

And we decided to no longer debate it with each other. People that don't
rely on various forms of lying to try and promote their agenda tend to
get to that point.

Neither concedes anything and both understand they simply disagree.

He still thinks I'm wrong, and I still think he is.

For you that is an untenable situation because you think in, and act
upon, your perception that the world is about absolutes. We simply know
better.

> And Kane KNOWS this is true!

That Ron disagrees with me? Hell, we've discussed that publicly just
recently. How could I NOT know it?

> But the HYENA PACK MENTALITY prevails right?

Oh, you mean Ron refuses to attack someone he respects that respects him.

I notice he gets a real laugh out of the antics of the liars.

>
> Truth takes a back seat to that, right Ron?
>

What truth, Greg?

Ron seems to know who the stupid liars are, even if they agree with a
position of his on this subject.

If they knew how to argue honestly I doubt he'd have the same opinions
of him he has.

If they were honorable one of two things would happen on this issue of CP.

They would recognize an impasse and let it go, or admit they have been
pursuing their agenda by lying dodges and similar tactics. Their choice
is to continue to lie.

Even if Ron agrees with some of what they claim I doubt he'd align with
liars just for that reason.

You would align with them if they were worse liars, Greg, because they
have set themselves up to be my opponents.

Yet you attack an honorable man that agrees with you in some matters
pertaining to the use of spanking.

You have that Ken Knack for making those that aren't your opponents
consider changing their minds.

That suggests that for you the issue is not the issue, but your agenda is.

What a simple little thug you are.

You even went so far as to remove the relevant newsgroups from the
addresses, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.foster-parents. Brilliant.

Shows real class, Greg.

You cut attributions. You claim things are said that aren't. And you
play with addresses of newsgroups.

And you attack and insult new posters on the most vulnerable of issues,
their possible loss of their children.

You're a pip you are.

0&-]

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
> for you.

Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
snappy replies, I won't see them.

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
>> prove your opening point.
>
> I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
> affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."

Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
>> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
>> for you.
>
> Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
> after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
> Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
> HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
> abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
> snappy replies, I won't see them.

I'll miss you. Sob.

>
>
>

[Ron]

"krp" > wrote in message
news:uaqwh.4881$lk3.3100@trnddc04...
>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
>> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
>> for you.
>
> Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
> after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
> Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
> HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
> abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
> snappy replies, I won't see them.

Somehow I have a very hard time believing that.

Ron

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
>>> prove your opening point.
>> I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
>> affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."
>
> Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
> take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.

Gosh, whatever prompted your departure?

Feel free to feed Greg.

After all, he's been feeding you.

Or trying to.

To all others...wanna bet he won't be in Usenet with a nym?

Kane

[0:->]

Ron wrote:
> "krp" > wrote in message
> news:uaqwh.4881$lk3.3100@trnddc04...
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>
>>> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
>>> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
>>> for you.
>> Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
>> after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
>> Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
>> HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
>> abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
>> snappy replies, I won't see them.
>
> Somehow I have a very hard time believing that.
>
> Ron

Now what's Greg going to do to destroy ascps, invite Kathleen back?

Or can he find another Ken?

Or IS there another "Ken" waiting in the wings.

And Ken has beaten me at last. He just spoiled all my fun. I was soooo
interested in his Master's thesis and wanted to explore his responses in
defending it to the college.

I guess I'll just have to keep looking for it myself.

0:-]

[0:->]

Ron wrote:
> "krp" > wrote in message
> news:uaqwh.4881$lk3.3100@trnddc04...
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>
>>> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
>>> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
>>> for you.
>> Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
>> after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
>> Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
>> HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
>> abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
>> snappy replies, I won't see them.
>
> Somehow I have a very hard time believing that.

Why MUST you take the negative with Ken so often, Ron? It's obvious that
he has decided to rehabilitate. He needs our support, man.

KEN...GO GO GO GO KEN...RAH FOR KEN GO KEN. YOU CAN DO IT. AR AR AR
AR., AS TIM THE TOOLMAN WOULD SAY.

>
> Ron
>
See. That's what Ken needs: Genuine encouragement.

0;)

[Doan]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, krp wrote:

>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
> >> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
> >> prove your opening point.
> >
> > I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
> > affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."
>
> Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
> take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.
>
Hahaha! Did I read this right, Kane actually conceded?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, krp wrote:
>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>
>>>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
>>>> prove your opening point.
>>> I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
>>> affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."
>> Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
>> take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.
>>
> Hahaha! Did I read this right, Kane actually conceded?


I conceded that point of argument.

I had already said it was in at least three prior posts. Your English is
still very poor.

You failed to notice, or are avoiding that when I jerked his "argument"
out from under him the truth surfaced.

He ran because he, and you, know he had not argument. And never did.

He faced having to come up with proof of his claims.

So then what did he do, Doan?

>
> Doan
>
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, krp wrote:
> >
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> >>
> >>>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
> >>>> prove your opening point.
> >>> I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
> >>> affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."
> >> Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
> >> take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Did I read this right, Kane actually conceded?
>
>
> I conceded that point of argument.
>
Yup! You are the loser!

> I had already said it was in at least three prior posts. Your English is
> still very poor.
>
I didn't claim that I was a "published researcher"! ;-)

> You failed to notice, or are avoiding that when I jerked his "argument"
> out from under him the truth surfaced.
>
> He ran because he, and you, know he had not argument. And never did.
>
> He faced having to come up with proof of his claims.
>
> So then what did he do, Doan?
>
He stopped wasting time one you? ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

On Feb 6, 10:10 am, Doan > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, krp wrote:
>
> > >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> > >>news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
> > >>>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
> > >>>> prove your opening point.
> > >>> I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
> > >>> affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."
> > >> Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
> > >> take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.
>
> > > Hahaha! Did I read this right, Kane actually conceded?
>
> > I conceded that point of argument.
>
> Yup! You are the loser!
>
> > I had already said it was in at least three prior posts. Your English is
> > still very poor.
>
> I didn't claim that I was a "published researcher"! ;-)
>
> > You failed to notice, or are avoiding that when I jerked his "argument"
> > out from under him the truth surfaced.
>
> > He ran because he, and you, know he had not argument. And never did.
>
> > He faced having to come up with proof of his claims.
>
> > So then what did he do, Doan?
>
> He stopped wasting time one you? ;-)

He ran on the question, just as you are doing.

So, look at the subject. Are you going to defend his claim, or admit
he lied?\

"...evidence that non-spanked children have 'sociopathy.'


>
> Doan

Should be right up your alley, apologist.

Or are you going to just continue his dodging?
0:]

[Doan]

On 6 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> On Feb 6, 10:10 am, Doan > wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, krp wrote:
> >
> > > >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> > > >>news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> >
> > > >>>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
> > > >>>> prove your opening point.
> > > >>> I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in making an
> > > >>> affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."
> > > >> Okay but since I will no longer participate on ANY Usenet group we can
> > > >> take this to e-mail or I can feed Greg with the data.
> >
> > > > Hahaha! Did I read this right, Kane actually conceded?
> >
> > > I conceded that point of argument.
> >
> > Yup! You are the loser!
> >
> > > I had already said it was in at least three prior posts. Your English is
> > > still very poor.
> >
> > I didn't claim that I was a "published researcher"! ;-)
> >
> > > You failed to notice, or are avoiding that when I jerked his "argument"
> > > out from under him the truth surfaced.
> >
> > > He ran because he, and you, know he had not argument. And never did.
> >
> > > He faced having to come up with proof of his claims.
> >
> > > So then what did he do, Doan?
> >
> > He stopped wasting time one you? ;-)
>
> He ran on the question, just as you are doing.
>
He ran after he whupped your ass? After you CONCEDED? Hihihi!

> So, look at the subject. Are you going to defend his claim, or admit
> he lied?\
>
> "...evidence that non-spanked children have 'sociopathy.'
>
>
> >
> > Doan
>
> Should be right up your alley, apologist.
>
> Or are you going to just continue his dodging?
> 0:]
>
Hihihi! You are a LOSER!

Doan

>

[0:-]]

So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?

And why can't you defend his claims of "sociopathy" research evidence
for non-spanked children?

R R R R R R

Because yer part of a pack of saps, Doan.




On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:19:06 GMT, "krp" > wrote:

>
>"0:->" > wrote in message
>news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
>> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
>> for you.
>
> Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
>after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
>Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
>HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
>abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
>snappy replies, I won't see them.
>
>

[Doan]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

>
> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>
> And why can't you defend his claims of "sociopathy" research evidence
> for non-spanked children?
>
I don't know Mr. Pangborn's and is not privy to the data he has so I
cannot comment! All I know he WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you conceded.
GAME OVER!

> R R R R R R
>
> Because yer part of a pack of saps, Doan.
>
Because you are a LOSER and still foaming mad! ;-)

Doan

>
>
>
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:19:06 GMT, "krp" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"0:->" > wrote in message
> >news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> >
> >> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
> >> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
> >> for you.
> >
> > Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
> >after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
> >Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
> >HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
> >abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
> >snappy replies, I won't see them.
> >
> >
>
>

[0:-]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:45:46 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>>
>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>>
>> And why can't you defend his claims of "sociopathy" research evidence
>> for non-spanked children?
>>
>I don't know Mr. Pangborn's and is not privy to the data he has so I
>cannot comment!

R R R R....YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T FIND IT EITHER, LIAR.

> All I know he WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you conceded.
> GAME OVER!

Then you don't know much, or you are lying. He ran. He "whupped" air,
stupid. An argument I didn't make. You are lying, so did he, and you
are both cowards.

>
>> R R R R R R
>>
>> Because yer part of a pack of saps, Doan.
>>
>Because you are a LOSER and still foaming mad! ;-)

I am not the one that ran, nor the liar that defends the coward that
ran, nor the liar that claims he is not "privy" to the data....like
you don't know how to search for it....R R R R

This is about as real as your claim that there is sufficient research
to support the claim (which has NEVER been supported by more than
OPINION) that black children react differently to corporal punishment
than white children.

You got YOUR ASS WHUPPED, Doan and now you are dodging again.

You are a liar, a fraud, and an unethical cheat.

0;]


>
>Doan
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:19:06 GMT, "krp" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"0:->" > wrote in message
>> >news:Ic6dnb2yo4hYaV3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>> >
>> >> Get it over with, Ken. The longer you put it of, and the more you remove
>> >> it from your replies to my posts asking it, the more painful this becomes
>> >> for you.
>> >
>> > Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
>> >after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
>> >Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so your
>> >HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it terminated for
>> >abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't bother with your
>> >snappy replies, I won't see them.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

[krp]

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?

What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did. But I see
your hysterical desperation trying to re-enlist my psycho stalker to come
rescue you again by pettifogging the issues. That is, in between your rather
loud self congratulation, as being a victor in your insipid little debate.

On the issue of sociopathy in non-disciplined children, I said I'd prove
that point AFTER you proved your claim that spanking CAUSES aggression in
children. Since you have conceded that your original claim was bull****, I
am not under any obligation to prove what I said. Get back to me when you
CAN prove that spanking causes aggression Kane. Not until! Now - please - go
on trying to make gullible people think you won a debate you LOST! A debate
where your pants were yanked down and your ass blackened. Did I make you
aggressive or were you a "prikk" before I even first encountered you? Grow
up little boy and just lick your wounds. Feel free to call for help from
your HERO... You NEED him!

[0:-]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:51:00 GMT, " KRP" >
wrote:

>
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>
> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.

No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
through on your claim.

>But I see
>your hysterical desperation trying to re-enlist my psycho stalker to come
>rescue you again by pettifogging the issues. That is, in between your rather
>loud self congratulation, as being a victor in your insipid little debate.

This post goes to, along with the dad'srights group, three related
newsgroups. Hence, it's not an insipid little debate.

It's about the effects of corporal punishment on children. Something
you have run from, lied about, changed my words to change my meaning,
claimed I said things I didn't (and you got caught at it) AND YOU RAN.
>
>On the issue of sociopathy in non-disciplined children, I said I'd prove
>that point AFTER you proved your claim that spanking CAUSES aggression in
>children.

Well I made no such claim, dummy, so you are now caught in your own
vacuous attempt to create an unanswerable question, aren't you?

Ron caught you putting those words in my mouth, Ken. I never made such
a claim. In fact I denounced, right along with you, the claim that
existed in only one place in our discussion....the title of an article
ABOUT a study. The study made no such claim, and neither did I.


> Since you have conceded that your original claim was bull****,

You are lying. I made no such claim that "spanking CAUSES anything."
The article (not the study at all) said, "Leads to," and YOU made the
presumption that "leads to" perforce MUST mean "causes."

I did NOT support the position that "leads to," in this context (since
both the article and the study itself did NOT make the claim of
"cause") so you are lying, or simply mistaken.

If you KNOW otherwise and can prove it, please do. Show where I
defended a claim of "cause" about the study.

Or don't you wish to discuss the study and want to continue the
niggling bull**** with the title of an article refering to the study?

>I
>am not under any obligation to prove what I said.

You never have been. I've simply asked you to and am quite willing to
call you a liar, unless you concede that you were wrong to make such a
claim as you did. Did you not claim the "study" was not a study
because it did not show "causal" relationship of spanking to behavior?

We, dummy, it NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM AND NEITHER DID I.

But you want to stay away from that study (which most certainly WAS a
study). Right?

Secondly you made a claim that non-spanking leads to sociopathy in
children.


>Get back to me when you
>CAN prove that spanking causes aggression Kane.

There is no such proof. Prove you own moon rocks, Ken. The two
questions are in the same category.

Ask me a question that deals with a claim I actually made. I made no
such claim.

>Not until! Now - please - go
>on trying to make gullible people think you won a debate you LOST!

They don't have to be gullible. They only need to be breathing and
thinking, Ken. I did not lose a debate. YOU RAN FROM IT.

Claiming I said something I didn't. Ron caught you at it and you've
never refuted his exposure of you, nor mine of you on that issue.

Show were I claimed the study showed CAUSE, little man.

>A debate
>where your pants were yanked down and your ass blackened.

Not hardly, little boy. It's you that got your ass kicked and now run
when I ask for proof of your claims.

> Did I make you
>aggressive or were you a "prikk" before I even first encountered you?

When did you stop ****ing little boys?

>Grow
>up little boy and just lick your wounds. Feel free to call for help from
>your HERO... You NEED him!

No I don't. You are easy, stupid.

Not even Doan can lie sufficiently for you (and he's a very determined
liar) on this one.

Go ahead, show us where I defended the study as being causal.

Then get crackin' on (or conceded you lied, or was mistaken and
stupid, and ignorant) your claim about non-spanking producing
sociopathy in children.

You are still a fraud, Ken. And I'm happy to rub your nose in it.

0;]

[0:-]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:51:00 GMT, " KRP" >
wrote:

>
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>
> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.

No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
through on your claim.

>But I see
>your hysterical desperation trying to re-enlist my psycho stalker to come
>rescue you again by pettifogging the issues. That is, in between your rather
>loud self congratulation, as being a victor in your insipid little debate.

This post goes to, along with the dad'srights group, three related
newsgroups. Hence, it's not an insipid little debate.

It's about the effects of corporal punishment on children. Something
you have run from, lied about, changed my words to change my meaning,
claimed I said things I didn't (and you got caught at it) AND YOU RAN.
>
>On the issue of sociopathy in non-disciplined children, I said I'd prove
>that point AFTER you proved your claim that spanking CAUSES aggression in
>children.

Well I made no such claim, dummy, so you are now caught in your own
vacuous attempt to create an unanswerable question, aren't you?

Ron caught you putting those words in my mouth, Ken. I never made such
a claim. In fact I denounced, right along with you, the claim that
existed in only one place in our discussion....the title of an article
ABOUT a study. The study made no such claim, and neither did I.


> Since you have conceded that your original claim was bull****,

You are lying. I made no such claim that "spanking CAUSES anything."
The article (not the study at all) said, "Leads to," and YOU made the
presumption that "leads to" perforce MUST mean "causes."

I did NOT support the position that "leads to," in this context (since
both the article and the study itself did NOT make the claim of
"cause") so you are lying, or simply mistaken.

If you KNOW otherwise and can prove it, please do. Show where I
defended a claim of "cause" about the study.

Or don't you wish to discuss the study and want to continue the
niggling bull**** with the title of an article refering to the study?

>I
>am not under any obligation to prove what I said.

You never have been. I've simply asked you to and am quite willing to
call you a liar, unless you concede that you were wrong to make such a
claim as you did. Did you not claim the "study" was not a study
because it did not show "causal" relationship of spanking to behavior?

We, dummy, it NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM AND NEITHER DID I.

But you want to stay away from that study (which most certainly WAS a
study). Right?

Secondly you made a claim that non-spanking leads to sociopathy in
children.


>Get back to me when you
>CAN prove that spanking causes aggression Kane.

There is no such proof. Prove you own moon rocks, Ken. The two
questions are in the same category.

Ask me a question that deals with a claim I actually made. I made no
such claim.

>Not until! Now - please - go
>on trying to make gullible people think you won a debate you LOST!

They don't have to be gullible. They only need to be breathing and
thinking, Ken. I did not lose a debate. YOU RAN FROM IT.

Claiming I said something I didn't. Ron caught you at it and you've
never refuted his exposure of you, nor mine of you on that issue.

Show were I claimed the study showed CAUSE, little man.

>A debate
>where your pants were yanked down and your ass blackened.

Not hardly, little boy. It's you that got your ass kicked and now run
when I ask for proof of your claims.

> Did I make you
>aggressive or were you a "prikk" before I even first encountered you?

When did you stop ****ing little boys?

>Grow
>up little boy and just lick your wounds. Feel free to call for help from
>your HERO... You NEED him!

No I don't. You are easy, stupid.

Not even Doan can lie sufficiently for you (and he's a very determined
liar) on this one.

Go ahead, show us where I defended the study as being causal.

Then get crackin' on (or conceded you lied, or was mistaken and
stupid, and ignorant) your claim about non-spanking producing
sociopathy in children.

You are still a fraud, Ken. And I'm happy to rub your nose in it.

0;]

[0:-]]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:55:34 GMT, "krp" > wrote:

....more attempts to dodge his claims by lying about what I said and
did not say. Here is Ken's post where I very plainly state that the
international study claims that all children showed a similar increase
in aggression after spanking.

I made no claim, nor did the study, that there was a "causal"
relationship...but what does Ken do with my statement....?

He rewrites it for me so he can find a bolt hole to dive out of.

I'll mark his statement....with ***

>>>>>> I remember. I want you to prove your claim. I won't prove mine till you prove JUST ONE of your original claims.
>>>>> Pick either:
>
>>>>> 1. SAC DOLLS.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Spanking CAUSES kids to become aggressive.***

Where did I make such a claim, Ken?

You are lying, again.

>>>> You missed my piece with citation by report of authoritative research that
>>>> indeed showed that African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian children all
>>>> showed similar increases in aggression after spanking.
>>>>
>>>> I've made my claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please provide the support for that claim Kane.
>>
>> You've been watching it in this thread.

As to my actual claim I provided citations from the research abstract.
Stop your lying Ken, and admit there is NO such thing as scientific
proof of non-spanking CAUSING SOCIOPATHY IN CHILDREN.

YOU were the one that tried to claim a "cause," and YOU can't provide
proof of your claim...not even a correlation, let alone a causal
connection.

Dodger. Liar. Fraud.

That's what YOU are, Ken.

Now come back for some more. Your actual statements and my actual
statements are very easy to find.

Kane

[krp]

"0:-]" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>>
>> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.
>
> No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
> through on your claim.


Still hysterically appealing to your HERO to come rescue you Kane? I'm not
"back" just poking some pins in your grandiosity and bull**** balloons you
try to float of your GREAT VICTORY.... Congratulate yourself, if you slack
off Ron will help you. I just got tired of reading your claims of your GREAT
VICTORY over me when you thought I wasn't around. I laid off, and even now
my participation is very minimal. But keep on your desperation calling for
my stalker's assistance
you NEED it! You are a blowhard loser on your own.

[Firemonkey]

Post your proof or shut the f*&k up Piggy


On Feb 25, 5:20 am, " KRP" > wrote:
> "0:-]" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>
> >> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.
>
> > No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
> > through on your claim.
>
> Still hysterically appealing to your HERO to come rescue you Kane? I'm not
> "back" just poking some pins in your grandiosity and bull**** balloons you
> try to float of your GREAT VICTORY.... Congratulate yourself, if you slack
> off Ron will help you. I just got tired of reading your claims of your GREAT
> VICTORY over me when you thought I wasn't around. I laid off, and even now
> my participation is very minimal. But keep on your desperation calling for
> my stalker's assistance
> you NEED it! You are a blowhard loser on your own.

[Condoleezza HaHa]

Firemonkey wrote:
> Post your proof or shut the f*&k up Piggy

Hey retard - you Don's new bodyguard? lol.

>
>
> On Feb 25, 5:20 am, " KRP" > wrote:
>> "0:-]" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>>>> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.
>>> No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
>>> through on your claim.
>> Still hysterically appealing to your HERO to come rescue you Kane? I'm not
>> "back" just poking some pins in your grandiosity and bull**** balloons you
>> try to float of your GREAT VICTORY.... Congratulate yourself, if you slack
>> off Ron will help you. I just got tired of reading your claims of your GREAT
>> VICTORY over me when you thought I wasn't around. I laid off, and even now
>> my participation is very minimal. But keep on your desperation calling for
>> my stalker's assistance
>> you NEED it! You are a blowhard loser on your own.
>
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[0:-]]

On Feb 25, 3:20 am, " KRP" > wrote:
> "0:-]" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>
> >> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.
>
> > No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
> > through on your claim.
>
> Still hysterically appealing to your HERO to come rescue you Kane? I'm not
> "back" just poking some pins in your grandiosity and bull**** balloons you
> try to float of your GREAT VICTORY.... Congratulate yourself, if you slack
> off Ron will help you. I just got tired of reading your claims of your GREAT
> VICTORY over me when you thought I wasn't around. I laid off, and even now
> my participation is very minimal. But keep on your desperation calling for
> my stalker's assistance
> you NEED it! You are a blowhard loser on your own.


You ran, Kennyboy, and your bull**** blowhard nonsense now is simply
more running.

Still can't produce that proof that African American children behave
differently to CP than the other two groups examined in the study?

Still can't produce proof...that you claimed, Kennyboy, that children
not subjected to spanking are at risk of higher rates of developmental
sociopathy?

RUN RABBIT, RUN.

R RR R R R R R R R R

[Ron]

"0:-]" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 25, 3:20 am, " KRP" > wrote:
>> "0:-]" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
>>
>> >> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.
>>
>> > No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
>> > through on your claim.
>>
>> Still hysterically appealing to your HERO to come rescue you Kane? I'm
>> not
>> "back" just poking some pins in your grandiosity and bull**** balloons
>> you
>> try to float of your GREAT VICTORY.... Congratulate yourself, if you
>> slack
>> off Ron will help you. I just got tired of reading your claims of your
>> GREAT
>> VICTORY over me when you thought I wasn't around. I laid off, and even
>> now
>> my participation is very minimal. But keep on your desperation calling
>> for
>> my stalker's assistance
>> you NEED it! You are a blowhard loser on your own.
>
>
> You ran, Kennyboy, and your bull**** blowhard nonsense now is simply
> more running.
>
> Still can't produce that proof that African American children behave
> differently to CP than the other two groups examined in the study?
>
> Still can't produce proof...that you claimed, Kennyboy, that children
> not subjected to spanking are at risk of higher rates of developmental
> sociopathy?

Kenny has not been able to support any of his belief's here, which of course
is the reason he took that time off.

When he left kenny said that it was in hopes that his "internet stalker" (mr
moore) would also take a rest and not follow him anymore. After some
consideration I have come to the conclusion that mr moore is not a
"stalker", but in reality provides the community a service of value by
documenting and exposing kenny's antics over the years. Quite a reasonable
price he asks as well, that we only take the time to view his data and make
up our own minds based on that data and kenny's current antics in whichever
forum he is currently haunting.

Run kenny, you have been given the scarlet letter here and everyone knows
what you are about.

Ron

[Firemonkey]

Real nice Piggy, are you gregs?


On Feb 25, 7:15 am, Condoleezza HaHa > wrote:
> Firemonkey wrote:
> > Post your proof or shut the f*&k up Piggy
>
> Hey retard - you Don's new bodyguard? lol.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 5:20 am, " KRP" > wrote:
> >> "0:-]" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>>>> So what do you think of Mr. Pangborn's keeping his word, Doan?
> >>>> What "word" was that? I said I'd leave for a time and did.
> >>> No, the word I'm interested in is that now you are back you follow
> >>> through on your claim.
> >> Still hysterically appealing to your HERO to come rescue you Kane? I'm not
> >> "back" just poking some pins in your grandiosity and bull**** balloons you
> >> try to float of your GREAT VICTORY.... Congratulate yourself, if you slack
> >> off Ron will help you. I just got tired of reading your claims of your GREAT
> >> VICTORY over me when you thought I wasn't around. I laid off, and even now
> >> my participation is very minimal. But keep on your desperation calling for
> >> my stalker's assistance
> >> you NEED it! You are a blowhard loser on your own.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[0:-]]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:09:08 GMT, " KRP" >
wrote:
.....his farewell post:

"Kane don't know how you are going to handle this, but effective TODAY
after this round of posting, I will be terminating my participation on
Usenet. I will leave this account active till the end of the month so
your HERO Moore can't claim (as he ALWAYS DOES) that he's had it
terminated for abuse. Only the e-mail part will remain active. Don't
bother with your snappy replies, I won't see them.
"

Looks like you couldn't keep your word, Ken.

Now that we have that bit of bull**** out of the way, let's get down
to it again, running dog.

>
>"0:-]" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You ran, Kennyboy, and your bull**** blowhard nonsense now is simply
>> more running.
>
>DAVID MOORE PLEASE COME HELP ME! DAVID MOORE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME!
>RESCUE ME!
>OH PLEASE HELP ME I AM AFRAID OF KENNY PANGBORN! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COME
>RESCUE ME!

You don't really think I need help, Kennyboy. You are just avoiding
the question.

>
>Kane your fatuous self congratulation aside, you and your little pal Ron,
>you LOST!

Lost what?

>When you document your original claim with proof, "that spanking causes
>aggression in children"

I didn't make the claim.

Here is what I said during our discussion:

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:SLidnS56ZKzIZ13YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Ken:
>> YOU do NOT get to make demands on me to prove MY points until FIRST you
>> prove your opening point.

Kane:
"I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in
making an affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."

In fact I pointed out the article and the study were both concerned
with correlation. You simply won't let go of your lifesaver, the title
of the article.

Would you care to discuss the actual study, yet? The only "claim" I
made was that the article said what the article said..and it did not,
nor did I say, "cause."

> then I'll provide you with the information on
>sociopathy NOT UNTIL!

There is no such thing. You are lying. You are simply making up a
claim to dodge the truth.

Why must "I" do something for YOU to do something, little cowardly
running dog whiner?

You made a claim. I made a claim. Whether I've proven my claim or NOT
you still stand as having made a claim you have not supported. I
argued my claim.

You have run from yours. NO argument whatsoever. Just an unsupported
claim about "sociopathy."

> And then we will go to my ACTUAL statement not how you
>mischaracterize it today.

Oh?

You were careful to abort my remarks about your claim ("statement") by
erasing the attributions of my remarks. I wonder why?

In what way did I "mischaracterize" your "actual statement," Ken?

Here's YOUR statement, and here is what you just aborted that I said
concerning your statement.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/686df2e574d74d63?hl=en&
Ken Pangborn said:

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

You obviously presumed I had made the first claim...that the article
said "cause." And the study said "cause." Neither did.

Now as to the second issue....what difference do you see between your
comment: "There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can
produce sociopathy in children." and my statement you aborted from my
prior post: "Still can't produce proof...that you claimed, Kennyboy,
that children not subjected to spanking are at risk of higher rates of
developmental sociopathy?

My statement in no way is a "mischaracterize" of YOUR claim, Ken.

You are simply, as usual, lying and dodging.

Tell you what, use YOUR words, and answer THAT claim with proofs.

>Given that you had to admit

Where did I do that? You are lying again.

>you concede the point on aggression it seems we
>will never need to get to mine.

I neither admitted to a concession, or made a concession on that
issue.

I did not concede a point on agression. I conceded only that the title
of the article was not accurate for the content of either the article
or the study the article was addressing, IF you insist the title
words, "leads to" means "caused by."

In other words, you have run again, little man. By lying.

Here is what I "conceded," and it does NOT concede anything about
agression. You simply made that up. You are a liar.

"I conceded the point. The title of the article was incorrect in
making an affirmative claim that could be read as "cause."

And throughout our debate, if you can call your lying, and me dragging
you back to the truth continually, "debate," I pointed out the title
was NOT accurate, but that did NOT negate the content of the study.

You refused to debate the study CONTENT honestly and refused to answer
simple questions that established the study went against Doan's claim
of Black children reaction differently than the other children in the
study to condition of and around corporal punishment.

You lied, right along with Doan about what the study said by claiming
a portion of a sentence was NOT applicable to the mitigating statement
of ALL three subject groups had the same outcomes to the same
constants.

You are a liar, and a fool, Ken Pangborn.

Here's the correct chronology that led up to you laying and
perpetuating lies, and still refusing to stay and support your claims.

You, AFTER I had pointed out the uses of correlation, and that the
study in question at most would be attempting to establish
correlation, while you INSISTED that I and the study were trying to
prove CAUSE, popped in with this interesting bit:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/cc2d7af4ad646482?hl=en&
You are responding to my comment, which comes first as follows:

Doan writes derisively, quoting KANE:

> "Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
> successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things
> as varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast."

And you are so stupid or out of it that you thought Doan said the
above and tried to be "agreeable."

Ken replies to the above quote:
" Of course it is. Often in "science" as opposed to CPS voo doo,
"correlation" is the best evidence we have because "causation" is so
hard to prove. But in this case Kane has NADA! Ron has finally
admitted he has NO evidence of any kind. Progress toward sanity."

(by the way, you LIED about Ron as well...he did not offer to debate,
nor make a single claim about spanking, Ken YOU LIED AGAIN.)

I had been claiming Correlation all along, but YOU had lied by
extending your LIE that I was arguing 'cause,' from that point on.

YOU are a liar, and a fool, Ken.

And you lost big time, and appear to wish to compound your loss.

Keep it up, stupid. I can do this for years.

Ask Greg.

Now. Where IS your proof "There is considerable evidence that a lack
of spanking can produce sociopathy in children?"

YOUR own words, Ken. Support them with that "considerable evidence."

Or run again, coward, and liar.

Kane