Re: Kane EXPOSED his STUPIDITY in public again Re: Social WorkerGuilty In Caging Case...

[Doan]

Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>
Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
ago:

"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
the last 30 days.......Alina.

And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."

Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!


Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>>
> Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> ago:
>
> "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> the last 30 days.......Alina.
>
> And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."

That's called bait, Doan.

I've told you that before. Don't turn your back on me when I make what
appears to be an obvious mistake. I usually want to take you somewhere.

You keep forgetting. I keep relying on you damaged emotional base.

Sameol sameol.

> Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!

That's not 180 degrees, dummy.

It's the path I put you on.

So you would focus on it, like you do on ad hom, as a way to escape from
the real issue.

That there is NO ISP listed for Alina's IP number.

There is for ALL the rest of us.

Interesting, eh?

That's because the tracking of e-mail traffic by a magnitude survey
service doesn't do a "whois" on an IP but on a range of assigned IP
addresses the ISPs use...

And if the exact IP number falls outside, by the suffix numbers....the
ones on the end, we have a FICTITIOUS number being used to route
internally for anonymous services providers.

I don't care if anyone uses those, I'm just amused at "Alina's" need for
one.

Someone appearing to be not well versed in these matters.

Someone unlikely to need anonymity, unless that someone is someone else.


>
> Doan
>

You don't have a leg to stand on, stupid.

Never did. I had you from Alina's second or third post.

And you'll go right where I want you when I want you there.

Especially when you think you won't.

What do you think we learn working with cons and mentally ill dangerous
teens, stupid?

If we couldn't predict them and direct them we'd be DEAD. I'm not.

And I taught others how to stay alive and still do the work.

Come on, entertain us some more, Doan the Deceitful.

0;>

[Doan]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >>
> > Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> > ago:
> >
> > "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> > I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> > the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >
> > And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>
> That's called bait, Doan.
>
Nope! That's called a STUPID LIAR being caught! Hihihi!

> I've told you that before. Don't turn your back on me when I make what
> appears to be an obvious mistake. I usually want to take you somewhere.
>
Hahaha! It's funny that when you caught lying you turned and said it a
mistake. You are too predictable, Kane. And STUPID too! Hihih!

> You keep forgetting. I keep relying on you damaged emotional base.
>
> Sameol sameol.
>
Hihihi!

> > Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> > individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
>
> That's not 180 degrees, dummy.
>
> It's the path I put you on.
>
Hihihi! Your STUPID LIES will lead you to nowhere!

> So you would focus on it, like you do on ad hom, as a way to escape from
> the real issue.
>
> That there is NO ISP listed for Alina's IP number.
>
Yes, there is. You just too STUPID to know it.

> There is for ALL the rest of us.
>
> Interesting, eh?
>
> That's because the tracking of e-mail traffic by a magnitude survey
> service doesn't do a "whois" on an IP but on a range of assigned IP
> addresses the ISPs use...
>
Hahaha! Another "mistake", Kane. You are just STUPIDLY funny!!!

Doan

> And if the exact IP number falls outside, by the suffix numbers....the
> ones on the end, we have a FICTITIOUS number being used to route
> internally for anonymous services providers.
>
> I don't care if anyone uses those, I'm just amused at "Alina's" need for
> one.
>
> Someone appearing to be not well versed in these matters.
>
> Someone unlikely to need anonymity, unless that someone is someone else.
>
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
>
> You don't have a leg to stand on, stupid.
>
> Never did. I had you from Alina's second or third post.
>
> And you'll go right where I want you when I want you there.
>
> Especially when you think you won't.
>
> What do you think we learn working with cons and mentally ill dangerous
> teens, stupid?
>
> If we couldn't predict them and direct them we'd be DEAD. I'm not.
>
> And I taught others how to stay alive and still do the work.
>
> Come on, entertain us some more, Doan the Deceitful.
>
> 0;>
>

[Doan]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >>
> > Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> > ago:
> >
> > "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> > I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> > the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >
> > And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>
> That's called bait, Doan.
>
So that's a DELIBERATE LIE, Kane.

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>>>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>>>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>>>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>>>>
>>> Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>>> ago:
>>>
>>> "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>>> I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>>> the last 30 days.......Alina.
>>>
>>> And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> That's called bait, Doan.
>>
> So that's a DELIBERATE LIE, Kane.

Nope. Not a lie at all. What part would be a lie, Doan?

Looking at an issue from different perspectives is lying, Doan?

Or is that your diversionary Trumpet sounding again, out your ass?

> Doan

Still can't provide a logical explanation, can you, for all of us having
identifiable ISPs on that e-mail volume tracking site, but Alina not
having one....hmmmm?

Want to do all you can to dance away with every diversion you can dream
up, just as you do when your arguments are exposed for the **** lies you
spew, right?

Now give us another dodge, little boy.

0:]

[Doan]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >>>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >>>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >>>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >>>>
> >>> Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> >>> ago:
> >>>
> >>> "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >>> I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >>> the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >>>
> >>> And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> That's called bait, Doan.
> >>
> > So that's a DELIBERATE LIE, Kane.
>
> Nope. Not a lie at all. What part would be a lie, Doan?
>
So which part is the truth, Kane?

> Looking at an issue from different perspectives is lying, Doan?
>
Well, you made two contradictory statements. Both cannot be true.
One of them has to be a lie! Which one, Kane?

> Or is that your diversionary Trumpet sounding again, out your ass?
>
Hihihi! Your mouth is trumpetting!

Doan

> > Doan
>
> Still can't provide a logical explanation, can you, for all of us having
> identifiable ISPs on that e-mail volume tracking site, but Alina not
> having one....hmmmm?
>
> Want to do all you can to dance away with every diversion you can dream
> up, just as you do when your arguments are exposed for the **** lies you
> spew, right?
>
> Now give us another dodge, little boy.
>
> 0:]
>
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>>>>>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>>>>>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>>>>>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>>>>> ago:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>>>>> I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>>>>> the last 30 days.......Alina.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>>>> That's called bait, Doan.
>>>>
>>> So that's a DELIBERATE LIE, Kane.
>> Nope. Not a lie at all. What part would be a lie, Doan?
>>
> So which part is the truth, Kane?
>
>> Looking at an issue from different perspectives is lying, Doan?
>>
> Well, you made two contradictory statements.

Answer my question above, Doan.

And no, they aren't contradictory. One is about leading you to the
information, the other is about other information added to it.

Stop playing the fool.

> Both cannot be true.

If they are contradictory.

Please show how information about what an anonymous proxy service IS,
and how a tracking service for email volume and magnitude contradict
each other.

You are just, as usual, running your lying scam, Doan.

> One of them has to be a lie! Which one, Kane?

First prove they contradict, Doan.

Until you do, it's impossible for it to be a lie.

So?

Or are you just going to continue to make up things as you go along,
like "contradictory?"

What a silly ass you reveal yourself to be.



>
>> Or is that your diversionary Trumpet sounding again, out your ass?
>>
> Hihihi! Your mouth is trumpetting!

I don't key in posts with my mouth, little boy.

You are just practicing your usual lying and diversions, and I gave you
a bolt hole to see if you'd use it.

You did. Instead of answering my actual question.

You'll do it again when I ask you to prove the contradictory nature of
my two statements and posts, Doan.

You always do.

You are funny.

I see, once again, you passed on the question below.

Sure looks like you have conceded I am right, Doan.

Just like you always do by dodging the real questions and working on
answering the unimportant diversionary ones.

You and Ken, birds of a feather.

R R R R R

> Doan
>
>>> Doan
>> Still can't provide a logical explanation, can you, for all of us having
>> identifiable ISPs on that e-mail volume tracking site, but Alina not
>> having one....hmmmm?
>>
>> Want to do all you can to dance away with every diversion you can dream
>> up, just as you do when your arguments are exposed for the **** lies you
>> spew, right?
>>
>> Now give us another dodge, little boy.
>>
>> 0:]
>>
>>
>>
>

[Doan]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >>>>>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >>>>>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >>>>>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> >>>>> ago:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >>>>> I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >>>>> the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >>>> That's called bait, Doan.
> >>>>
> >>> So that's a DELIBERATE LIE, Kane.
> >> Nope. Not a lie at all. What part would be a lie, Doan?
> >>
> > So which part is the truth, Kane?

Can't handle the truth, Kane? Hihihi!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>>>>>>>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>>>>>>>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>>>>>>>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>>>>>>> ago:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>>>>>>> I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>>>>>>> the last 30 days.......Alina.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>>>>>> That's called bait, Doan.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So that's a DELIBERATE LIE, Kane.
>>>> Nope. Not a lie at all. What part would be a lie, Doan?
>>>>
>>> So which part is the truth, Kane?
>
> Can't handle the truth, Kane? Hihihi!

Can't answer the question, Doan? Hohoho!

>
> Doan
>
>

[0:-]]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>>
>Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>ago:
>
>"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>the last 30 days.......Alina.
>
>And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>
>Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
>individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!


At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)

Of COURSE there is no number in the magnitude column, you stupid git.
Unless the source of the IP, the computer that number is assigned to,
is shipping out masses of spam it's NOT going to register enough
PERCENTAGE to trigger a roll-over of the figure under "Magnitude"

The field isn't formatted (defaulted) to WHOLE NUMBERS, dummy.

Or it wouldn't show the default "0.0"

You looked right at it and thought, "no number, no mail sent."

IT'S NOT A WHOLE NUMBER COLUMN, YOU STUPID LITTLE GIT.

And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.

A fictitious IP.

Meaning it's anonymous.

NO ISP LISTED IN THE DATA ON THAT PAGE FOR THE IP NUMBER LOOKUP.

Stop being stupid, stupid.

Yet for all others BUT Alina, there WAS and ISP listed.

The fact WE had no 'tics' under "magnitude" means NOTHING but that we
just aren't spammers.

Man you are stupid.

"Traffic MAGNITUDE" + "0.0" MEANS PERCENTAGE of the world TOTAL, you
blithering IDIOT...

....not a whole number count of each individual email posting.

Go back to picking your nose. It's obviously more productive for you.
>
>Doan
>
Kane

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >>
> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> >ago:
> >
> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >
> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >
> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
>
>
> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
>
And yet you said:

"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
the last 30 days.......Alina.

And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."

Were you lying, Kane?

> Of COURSE there is no number in the magnitude column, you stupid git.
> Unless the source of the IP, the computer that number is assigned to,
> is shipping out masses of spam it's NOT going to register enough
> PERCENTAGE to trigger a roll-over of the figure under "Magnitude"
>
> The field isn't formatted (defaulted) to WHOLE NUMBERS, dummy.
>
> Or it wouldn't show the default "0.0"
>
> You looked right at it and thought, "no number, no mail sent."
>
You are contradicting yourself, Kane. It was YOU who thought "no number,
no mail sent."

> IT'S NOT A WHOLE NUMBER COLUMN, YOU STUPID LITTLE GIT.
>
Are you calling yourself "STUPID LITTLE GIT"? Hihihi!

> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
>
> A fictitious IP.
>
Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?

> Meaning it's anonymous.
>
Are you saying that Alina's ip is "fictitious" and yours is not?

> NO ISP LISTED IN THE DATA ON THAT PAGE FOR THE IP NUMBER LOOKUP.
>
So how did you and I found the ISP, Kane?

inetnum: 148.233/16
status: reallocated
owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 56244400 []

> Stop being stupid, stupid.
>
Hihihi! Are you sure you are not talking about yourself?

> Yet for all others BUT Alina, there WAS and ISP listed.
>
> The fact WE had no 'tics' under "magnitude" means NOTHING but that we
> just aren't spammers.
>
Well, in a previous post you said differently.

"I wrote "Alina" to provoke you into a response, stupid little monkeyboy.

And sure enough YOU, Alina, responded, and I immediately ran a check to
see if 'her' IP was real or fictitious.....Here's YOUR post to me Doan,
with all the elaborate created websites and other bull**** you've
exercised yourself to create for the sole purpose of LYING. "

Remember that, Kane? Hihihi!

> Man you are stupid.
>
Hihihi! You prove yourself to be STUPID!

> "Traffic MAGNITUDE" + "0.0" MEANS PERCENTAGE of the world TOTAL, you
> blithering IDIOT...
>
> ...not a whole number count of each individual email posting.
>
You are contradicting yourself, again.

> Go back to picking your nose. It's obviously more productive for you.

Hihihi! And what do you pick, Kane? Your #@$!?

> >
> >Doan
> >
> Kane
>
>
>
>

[0:-]]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>> >>
>> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>> >ago:
>> >
>> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
>> >
>> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> >
>> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
>> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
>>
>>
>> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
>> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
>> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
>> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
>>
>And yet you said:
>
>"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>the last 30 days.......Alina.
>
>And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>
>Were you lying, Kane?

About what?

From SenderWatch, Alina's IP was NOT detected. You don't tell, at
SenderWatch, if someone has sent a particular post, or a whole number
count....as it tracks traffic percentage stats, and won't show
anything on little posters like us...only spammers or commercial large
scale senders...but what it does do is give ISP info IF the IP number
is not fictitious.

>
>> Of COURSE there is no number in the magnitude column, you stupid git.
>> Unless the source of the IP, the computer that number is assigned to,
>> is shipping out masses of spam it's NOT going to register enough
>> PERCENTAGE to trigger a roll-over of the figure under "Magnitude"
>>
>> The field isn't formatted (defaulted) to WHOLE NUMBERS, dummy.
>>
>> Or it wouldn't show the default "0.0"
>>
>> You looked right at it and thought, "no number, no mail sent."
>>
>You are contradicting yourself, Kane. It was YOU who thought "no number,
>no mail sent."

Nope. NO ISP info, no such real IP number issued.

>> IT'S NOT A WHOLE NUMBER COLUMN, YOU STUPID LITTLE GIT.
>>
>Are you calling yourself "STUPID LITTLE GIT"? Hihihi!

My name is not Doan.

You claimed that there was no record of email in the 0.0 field.

And of course there isn't. The site program won't process numbers so
small that percentages or tiny. It didn't for ANYONE, but what was
significant was that we all had an ISP listed, and Alina didn't.


>
>> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
>> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
>>
>> A fictitious IP.
>>
>Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
>that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?

Experience.

A fictitious IP is one outside the range of numbers assigned.

>
>> Meaning it's anonymous.
>>
>Are you saying that Alina's ip is "fictitious" and yours is not?

Yep.

Or for some strange reason, her's isn't being recognized as having
been issued by an ISP to a customer. Odd, eh?

Explain how we all show ISP identities and Alina's doesn't.


>
>> NO ISP LISTED IN THE DATA ON THAT PAGE FOR THE IP NUMBER LOOKUP.
>>
>So how did you and I found the ISP, Kane?

By looking at another source that recognized that PORTION of the IP
number that ID's the ISP.

Those sources, like Whois, care not for the rest of the info.
SenderWatch DOES, because it's not an ID finder site, it's a traffic
watch site.

>
>inetnum: 148.233/16
>status: reallocated
>owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
>ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
>responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
>address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
>address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
>country: MX
>phone: +52 55 56244400 []
>
>> Stop being stupid, stupid.
>>
>Hihihi! Are you sure you are not talking about yourself?

I am sure.
>
>> Yet for all others BUT Alina, there WAS and ISP listed.
>>
>> The fact WE had no 'tics' under "magnitude" means NOTHING but that we
>> just aren't spammers.
>>
>Well, in a previous post you said differently.

Possibly I mispoke. Could be.

>
>"I wrote "Alina" to provoke you into a response, stupid little monkeyboy.
>
>And sure enough YOU, Alina, responded, and I immediately ran a check to
>see if 'her' IP was real or fictitious.....Here's YOUR post to me Doan,
>with all the elaborate created websites and other bull**** you've
>exercised yourself to create for the sole purpose of LYING. "
>
>Remember that, Kane? Hihihi!
>
>> Man you are stupid.
>>
>Hihihi! You prove yourself to be STUPID!

Why haven't you denied it?

>> "Traffic MAGNITUDE" + "0.0" MEANS PERCENTAGE of the world TOTAL, you
>> blithering IDIOT...
>>
>> ...not a whole number count of each individual email posting.
>>
>You are contradicting yourself, again.

Nope. I mispoke the first mention. I meant to say "traffic." And NO
ISP.

>
>> Go back to picking your nose. It's obviously more productive for you.
>
>Hihihi! And what do you pick, Kane? Your #@$!?

You pick yours?

Oh, I mistook one part of your anatomy for another, but who could
blame me.

0:]



>
>> >
>> >Doan
>> >
>> Kane
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >> >>
> >> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> >> >ago:
> >> >
> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >> >
> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> >
> >> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> >> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
> >> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
> >> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
> >> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
> >>
> >And yet you said:
> >
> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >
> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >
> >Were you lying, Kane?
>
> About what?
>
Your words: " And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."

> From SenderWatch, Alina's IP was NOT detected. You don't tell, at
> SenderWatch, if someone has sent a particular post, or a whole number
> count....as it tracks traffic percentage stats, and won't show
> anything on little posters like us...only spammers or commercial large
> scale senders...but what it does do is give ISP info IF the IP number
> is not fictitious.
>
What is this "fictitious" thing you are talking about, Kane? You said
called Senderbase. Is this what they told you?

> >
> >> Of COURSE there is no number in the magnitude column, you stupid git.
> >> Unless the source of the IP, the computer that number is assigned to,
> >> is shipping out masses of spam it's NOT going to register enough
> >> PERCENTAGE to trigger a roll-over of the figure under "Magnitude"
> >>
> >> The field isn't formatted (defaulted) to WHOLE NUMBERS, dummy.
> >>
> >> Or it wouldn't show the default "0.0"
> >>
> >> You looked right at it and thought, "no number, no mail sent."
> >>
> >You are contradicting yourself, Kane. It was YOU who thought "no number,
> >no mail sent."
>
> Nope. NO ISP info, no such real IP number issued.
>
You can get ISP info with a whois lookup, Kane. You and I did!

> >> IT'S NOT A WHOLE NUMBER COLUMN, YOU STUPID LITTLE GIT.
> >>
> >Are you calling yourself "STUPID LITTLE GIT"? Hihihi!
>
> My name is not Doan.
>
So why why called yourself "STUPID LITTLE GIT"? Hihihi!

> You claimed that there was no record of email in the 0.0 field.
>
Where? Please post what you and I said about it.

> And of course there isn't. The site program won't process numbers so
> small that percentages or tiny. It didn't for ANYONE, but what was
> significant was that we all had an ISP listed, and Alina didn't.
>
But you said "And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
What did you meant then?

>
> >
> >> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
> >> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
> >>
> >> A fictitious IP.
> >>
> >Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
> >that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?
>
> Experience.
>
> A fictitious IP is one outside the range of numbers assigned.
>
Please teach me. You said: "Alina's" IP addy: 148.233.119.168"

What is the "range of numbers assigned"? How is Alina's IP addy
outside of that range?

> >
> >> Meaning it's anonymous.
> >>
> >Are you saying that Alina's ip is "fictitious" and yours is not?
>
> Yep.
>
> Or for some strange reason, her's isn't being recognized as having
> been issued by an ISP to a customer. Odd, eh?
>
How is hers different from the yours?
Do you know who her ISP is? Yes!
Do you know who your ISP is? Yes!
How is yours NOT "outside the range" while hers is?

> Explain how we all show ISP identities and Alina's doesn't.
>
Senderbase is not accurate??? You said you called someone from
Senderbase. What did they say, Kane?

>
> >
> >> NO ISP LISTED IN THE DATA ON THAT PAGE FOR THE IP NUMBER LOOKUP.
> >>
> >So how did you and I found the ISP, Kane?
>
> By looking at another source that recognized that PORTION of the IP
> number that ID's the ISP.
>
And Senderbase can't do that?

> Those sources, like Whois, care not for the rest of the info.
> SenderWatch DOES, because it's not an ID finder site, it's a traffic
> watch site.
>
So how does it find the ISP?

> >
> >inetnum: 148.233/16
> >status: reallocated
> >owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
> >ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
> >responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
> >address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
> >address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
> >country: MX
> >phone: +52 55 56244400 []
> >
> >> Stop being stupid, stupid.
> >>
> >Hihihi! Are you sure you are not talking about yourself?
>
> I am sure.

Yup! Your are sure STUPID! Hihihi!

> >
> >> Yet for all others BUT Alina, there WAS and ISP listed.
> >>
> >> The fact WE had no 'tics' under "magnitude" means NOTHING but that we
> >> just aren't spammers.
> >>
> >Well, in a previous post you said differently.
>
> Possibly I mispoke. Could be.
>
Or STUPIDILY lying. Could be. Hihihi!

> >
> >"I wrote "Alina" to provoke you into a response, stupid little monkeyboy.
> >
> >And sure enough YOU, Alina, responded, and I immediately ran a check to
> >see if 'her' IP was real or fictitious.....Here's YOUR post to me Doan,
> >with all the elaborate created websites and other bull**** you've
> >exercised yourself to create for the sole purpose of LYING. "
> >
> >Remember that, Kane? Hihihi!

Can't even face your own STUPID LIES, Kane? Hihihi!

> >
> >> Man you are stupid.
> >>
> >Hihihi! You prove yourself to be STUPID!
>
> Why haven't you denied it?
>
No. I haven't deniede that YOU ARE STUPID!

> >> "Traffic MAGNITUDE" + "0.0" MEANS PERCENTAGE of the world TOTAL, you
> >> blithering IDIOT...
> >>
> >> ...not a whole number count of each individual email posting.
> >>
> >You are contradicting yourself, again.
>
> Nope. I mispoke the first mention. I meant to say "traffic." And NO
> ISP.
>
So YOU were the one that make the "mistake"! Why did you claim that it
was my mistake, Kane?

> >
> >> Go back to picking your nose. It's obviously more productive for you.
> >
> >Hihihi! And what do you pick, Kane? Your #@$!?
>
> You pick yours?
>
You didn't answer me, Kane. What do you pick, Kane?

> Oh, I mistook one part of your anatomy for another, but who could
> blame me.
>
Is that why your mouth is FULL? Hihihi!

Doan

> 0:]
>
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Doan
> >> >
> >> Kane
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

[0:-]]

As per SenderWatch and handling traffic counting for analysis:

Is there a program available to system administrators or operators
that will infact recognize bogus accounts:

1.2 Spoofing Sets

TCP implementations must be reasonably robust against denial of
service (DoS) attacks. Among other things, this means that all TCP
implementations regularly discard packets with incorrect ISNs, since
the failure to do so presents an obvious DoS attack. TCP ISNs are
32-bit numbers. So, if an attacker is able to generate 2^32 packets,
each with a different guess for the next sequence number, the attacker
would be assured that one of his malicious packets will contain the
correct sequence number. However, guessing the right ISN from the
entire 32-bit space (4,294,967,296 possibilities) is not feasible due
to the excessive amount of bandwidth and time required. That is why a
good TCP sequence number generator implementation currently provides
enough security to protect against spoofing attacks, at least for the
present time and in typical conditions. But increasing bandwidth and
processor speed will eventually make brute force guessing of 32-bit
ISNs feasible for the average attacker.

The answer, of course, is yes. They have it for another purpose, (than
what I used it for) but if you are invested in research on various
issues a tool for one thing can tell you other things you might wish
to know as well...like "incorrect" ISNs.

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> As per SenderWatch and handling traffic counting for analysis:
>
> Is there a program available to system administrators or operators
> that will infact recognize bogus accounts:
>
> 1.2 Spoofing Sets
>
> TCP implementations must be reasonably robust against denial of
> service (DoS) attacks. Among other things, this means that all TCP
> implementations regularly discard packets with incorrect ISNs, since
> the failure to do so presents an obvious DoS attack. TCP ISNs are
> 32-bit numbers. So, if an attacker is able to generate 2^32 packets,
> each with a different guess for the next sequence number, the attacker
> would be assured that one of his malicious packets will contain the
> correct sequence number. However, guessing the right ISN from the
> entire 32-bit space (4,294,967,296 possibilities) is not feasible due
> to the excessive amount of bandwidth and time required. That is why a
> good TCP sequence number generator implementation currently provides
> enough security to protect against spoofing attacks, at least for the
> present time and in typical conditions. But increasing bandwidth and
> processor speed will eventually make brute force guessing of 32-bit
> ISNs feasible for the average attacker.
>
> The answer, of course, is yes. They have it for another purpose, (than
> what I used it for) but if you are invested in research on various
> issues a tool for one thing can tell you other things you might wish
> to know as well...like "incorrect" ISNs.
>
You can make BILLION$ with such a program, Kane. Did you develop it?
What are you using it for? Secret military intelligent? Hihihi!
What is "incorrect" ISNs, Kane? Could it be that it just BIG TERMS
you like to throw around to impress naive people?

Doan

[0:-]]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:36:09 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>> >> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>> >> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>> >> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>> >> >ago:
>> >> >
>> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
>> >> >
>> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> >> >
>> >> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
>> >> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
>> >> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
>> >> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
>> >> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
>> >>
>> >And yet you said:
>> >
>> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
>> >
>> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> >
>> >Were you lying, Kane?
>>
>> About what?
>>
>Your words: " And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."

"It" being the ISP. I should have been more clear I was not referring
at that point to an Email, but to the ISP any IP number account
traffic should have triggered a return on a inquiry.

Alina's didn't. Everyone else's did.

"Overview

SenderBase is a free service designed to help email administrators
better manage incoming email streams by providing objective data about
the identity of senders. SenderBase is akin to a credit reporting
service for email, providing data that ISPs and companies can use to
differentiate legitimate senders from spam sources. SenderBase
provides objective data that allows email administrators to reliably
identify and block IP addresses originating unsolicited commercial
email (UCE) or to verify the authenticity of legitimate incoming email
from business partners, customers or any other important source. What
makes SenderBase unique is that it provides a global view of email
message volume and organizes the data in a way that it is easy to
identify and group related sources of email. SenderBase is also
different from most existing spam prevention solutions because it is:

* Identity-based - Rather than looking at message content,
SenderBase provides information on the source of the email. The
service is built around the one piece of information in an email that
is almost impossible to spoof - the sending IP addresses - so mail
administrators can rely on SenderBase to make accurate decisions about
incoming mail. "

>
>> From SenderWatch, Alina's IP was NOT detected. You don't tell, at
>> SenderWatch, if someone has sent a particular post, or a whole number
>> count....as it tracks traffic percentage stats, and won't show
>> anything on little posters like us...only spammers or commercial large
>> scale senders...but what it does do is give ISP info IF the IP number
>> is not fictitious.
>>
>What is this "fictitious" thing you are talking about, Kane? You said
>called Senderbase. Is this what they told you?

See above.

I needed to read the help page more closely, so do you.

What is spoofing, but creating a fictitious account, by playing with
the header portion where the posting host ID is given....IP addresses?

I'm going to ask you again, Doan, why by the this service were we all
detected as having ISPs, but Alina was not?

If you don't know, say so.

If you do know, say so.

Stop dodging the question.

And stop asking ME questions or FOR THINGS until you have answered MY
question. It's very simple.

Where is Alina's ISP info in THIS source, Doan. Why is there none?

This one specifically addresses the issue of spoofing and obviously
takes care to detect and reject such attempts.

No run Alina's IP again, and read that lower left block on ISP
info...and see if it is not ALL blank.

Run my IP if you wish, I've run it and posted it a couple of times
already, and it MOST CERTAINLY DOES SHOW MY Internet Service Provider.

Stop playing the arrogant knowitall fool, Doan.

You are becoming all too obvious.





>
>> >
>> >> Of COURSE there is no number in the magnitude column, you stupid git.
>> >> Unless the source of the IP, the computer that number is assigned to,
>> >> is shipping out masses of spam it's NOT going to register enough
>> >> PERCENTAGE to trigger a roll-over of the figure under "Magnitude"
>> >>
>> >> The field isn't formatted (defaulted) to WHOLE NUMBERS, dummy.
>> >>
>> >> Or it wouldn't show the default "0.0"
>> >>
>> >> You looked right at it and thought, "no number, no mail sent."
>> >>
>> >You are contradicting yourself, Kane. It was YOU who thought "no number,
>> >no mail sent."
>>
>> Nope. NO ISP info, no such real IP number issued.
>>
>You can get ISP info with a whois lookup, Kane. You and I did!

Yes you can, at sites that are NOT tracking traffic to calculate
percentages. They have zero investment in detecting spoofing.
Sendebase DOES...and I presume it's why they "kick" what appears to be
attempts to spoof....FICTITIOUS entries.

And why they show NO data whatsoever...in that ISP ID area or anywhere
else.

With us, the other's IPs that were run, we are not spoofing by
anonymizing or any other methods, and sure enough our ISP identities
are displayed.

>
>> >> IT'S NOT A WHOLE NUMBER COLUMN, YOU STUPID LITTLE GIT.
>> >>
>> >Are you calling yourself "STUPID LITTLE GIT"? Hihihi!
>>
>> My name is not Doan.
>>
>So why why called yourself "STUPID LITTLE GIT"? Hihihi!

Why are you just dodging the question, Doan?

It's simple enough. I've pointed out the desrepencies, and I've shown
you the evidence, and I've provided you the links to see for yourself,
and I've pointed out that you keep avoiding that evidence in the lower
left corner of the results page for a Senderbase IP inquiry.

There's nothing complex in my questions or the evidence I've offered,
except that you keep refusing to answer that simple question.

Where is the ISP info for Alina's IP in THIS SOURCE.

>
>> You claimed that there was no record of email in the 0.0 field.
>>
>Where? Please post what you and I said about it.

No. My question was not completed. You broke it in two...read on.

>> And of course there isn't. The site program won't process numbers so
>> small that percentages or tiny. It didn't for ANYONE, but what was
>> significant was that we all had an ISP listed, and Alina didn't.
>>
>But you said "And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>What did you meant then?

"It" being an ISP identification. I did not mean to say the Email
itself. That was a reference to there being an email that would have
or should have shown, if it were not in some way fictitious and
NULLIFYING THE log entry as invalid, the ISP information.

Alina's didn't, ours did.

>>
>> >
>> >> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
>> >> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
>> >>
>> >> A fictitious IP.
>> >>
>> >Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
>> >that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?
>>
>> Experience.
>>
>> A fictitious IP is one outside the range of numbers assigned.
>>
>Please teach me. You said: "Alina's" IP addy: 148.233.119.168"
>
>What is the "range of numbers assigned"?

I posted the information today on how IP numbers are generated and
from where, NIC. If you don't know, look it up.

>How is Alina's IP addy
>outside of that range?

How, specifically, I don't know. But whatever is there that is not
valid, Senderbase caught it and refused to recognize an ISP...so of
course did not list such.

It could be it's a "used" and discarded number and no longer
recognized. I've heard that they cannot be reused for a time after
being discared. You tell US.

Senderbase DID produce and ISP identify for my IP and Ron's and
Betty's.

Why the difference?

What do YOU think?

>> >
>> >> Meaning it's anonymous.
>> >>
>> >Are you saying that Alina's ip is "fictitious" and yours is not?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Or for some strange reason, her's isn't being recognized as having
>> been issued by an ISP to a customer. Odd, eh?
>>
>How is hers different from the yours?
>Do you know who her ISP is? Yes!
>Do you know who your ISP is? Yes!
>How is yours NOT "outside the range" while hers is?

Mine is recognized as valid. Ron's, and Betty's as well. I trust
pretty much everyone you'd run on Senderbase.

Alina's was not. Go figger, eh?

>> Explain how we all show ISP identities and Alina's doesn't.
>>
>Senderbase is not accurate???

Where did I say that?

>You said you called someone from
>Senderbase. What did they say, Kane?

Darned if I remember now. But it had to do with reading the Help page.
0:]

Why don't YOU read it and get back to us. They WATCH FOR SPOOFING, and
they say so.

How they watch is likely proprietory. I doubt they'll tell me.
>> >
>> >> NO ISP LISTED IN THE DATA ON THAT PAGE FOR THE IP NUMBER LOOKUP.
>> >>
>> >So how did you and I found the ISP, Kane?
>>
>> By looking at another source that recognized that PORTION of the IP
>> number that ID's the ISP.
>>
>And Senderbase can't do that?

Yes it can, but won't if the IP number is spoofed apparently.
Why should they bother?

They aren't a lookup such as Whois.

>> Those sources, like Whois, care not for the rest of the info.
>> SenderWatch DOES, because it's not an ID finder site, it's a traffic
>> watch site.
>>
>So how does it find the ISP?

148.233, like the lookups do, but they don't bother, apparently, if
they get a hit on a possible spoofing attempt.

It's not critical info unless they spot a valid IP number.

>> >
>> >inetnum: 148.233/16
>> >status: reallocated
>> >owner: Uninet S.A. de C.V.
>> >ownerid: MX-USCV4-LACNIC
>> >responsible: Gestin de cambios y configuraciones
>> >address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
>> >address: 01900 - Ciudad de Mxico - DF
>> >country: MX
>> >phone: +52 55 56244400 []
>> >
>> >> Stop being stupid, stupid.
>> >>
>> >Hihihi! Are you sure you are not talking about yourself?
>>
>> I am sure.
>
>Yup! Your are sure STUPID! Hihihi!

The above is not a Senderbase product, Doan. Stop you smoke and
mirrors.

>
>> >
>> >> Yet for all others BUT Alina, there WAS and ISP listed.
>> >>
>> >> The fact WE had no 'tics' under "magnitude" means NOTHING but that we
>> >> just aren't spammers.
>> >>
>> >Well, in a previous post you said differently.
>>
>> Possibly I mispoke. Could be.
>>
>Or STUPIDILY lying. Could be. Hihihi!

So if someone makes a mistake, or mispeaks they are lying?

Check you mail, stupid. YOU admitted to being mistaken. I think you
might have been lying.

By your logic, that you just expressed, you WERE lying about Straus
and the DC homicide rate.

You make your bed. YOU lie in it. R R R R RR R

I NEVER accuse you of a lie when you are mistaken. I speculate and I
point to circumstances the support my speculation. YOU JUST ACCUSE,
thus YOU are the one lying.

>> >
>> >"I wrote "Alina" to provoke you into a response, stupid little monkeyboy.
>> >
>> >And sure enough YOU, Alina, responded, and I immediately ran a check to
>> >see if 'her' IP was real or fictitious.....Here's YOUR post to me Doan,
>> >with all the elaborate created websites and other bull**** you've
>> >exercised yourself to create for the sole purpose of LYING. "
>> >
>> >Remember that, Kane? Hihihi!
>
>Can't even face your own STUPID LIES, Kane? Hihihi!

Can even face your stupid lies, Doan?

Prove the lie, Doan.

I can only tell you what happened. I can only tell you what I think
you did.

I can only provide evidence and ask you to explain. And I can only
point out that you then go into elaborate evasive dances instead of
simple denial and logical explanation.

>> >
>> >> Man you are stupid.
>> >>
>> >Hihihi! You prove yourself to be STUPID!
>>
>> Why haven't you denied it?
>>
>No. I haven't deniede that YOU ARE STUPID!

Why haven't you denied you are the Alina in our prior post exchanges?

>> >> "Traffic MAGNITUDE" + "0.0" MEANS PERCENTAGE of the world TOTAL, you
>> >> blithering IDIOT...
>> >>
>> >> ...not a whole number count of each individual email posting.
>> >>
>> >You are contradicting yourself, again.
>>
>> Nope. I mispoke the first mention. I meant to say "traffic." And NO
>> ISP.
>>
>So YOU were the one that make the "mistake"! Why did you claim that it
>was my mistake, Kane?

You just turned logic on its head, Doan.

My mistake was not being more specific about the failure of the site
to produce an ISP from Alina's IP while I KNEW 'she' had posted within
their time frame for analysis.

YOUR mistake was thinking that anything at all, for any of us, would
appear in the magnitude column under a percentage calculated in a 3
BILLION email posts per day.

As I have repeated to you, they are about tracking volume for commerce
and our little piddling numbers of posts won't result in a
calculation. Or if it does it's so small there would be too many zeros
to the right of the decimal for the default field length.

>> >
>> >> Go back to picking your nose. It's obviously more productive for you.
>> >
>> >Hihihi! And what do you pick, Kane? Your #@$!?
>>
>> You pick yours?
>>
>You didn't answer me, Kane. What do you pick, Kane?

See below.
>
>> Oh, I mistook one part of your anatomy for another, but who could
>> blame me.
>>
>Is that why your mouth is FULL? Hihihi!

It's not, but yours is increasingly.

No answer the questions or pick your nose. Your choice.


>Doan
>
>> 0:]
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Doan
>> >> >
>> >> Kane
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >What is this "fictitious" thing you are talking about, Kane? You said
> >called Senderbase. Is this what they told you?
>
> See above.
>
> I needed to read the help page more closely, so do you.
>
Why read the help page when you already SPOKE to a real person as you
claimed, Kane? It is a sure sign that YOU ARE FULLL of IT!!! ;-)

> What is spoofing, but creating a fictitious account, by playing with
> the header portion where the posting host ID is given....IP addresses?
>
> I'm going to ask you again, Doan, why by the this service were we all
> detected as having ISPs, but Alina was not?
>
Did you ask Senderbase that?

> If you don't know, say so.
>
> If you do know, say so.
>
I did. I offerred to give the answer under the condition I presented.
Do you accept the terms?

> Stop dodging the question.
>
> And stop asking ME questions or FOR THINGS until you have answered MY
> question. It's very simple.
>
> Where is Alina's ISP info in THIS source, Doan. Why is there none?
>
It is from a whois lookup, Kane.

> This one specifically addresses the issue of spoofing and obviously
> takes care to detect and reject such attempts.
>
You just told me that Senderbase doens't look just a specific ip address.
Can't keep your story straight, Kane?

> No run Alina's IP again, and read that lower left block on ISP
> info...and see if it is not ALL blank.
>
So?

> Run my IP if you wish, I've run it and posted it a couple of times
> already, and it MOST CERTAINLY DOES SHOW MY Internet Service Provider.
>
So?

> Stop playing the arrogant knowitall fool, Doan.
>
Hihihi! I am NOT a "published researcher". YOU ARE!

> You are becoming all too obvious.
>
You should know me by now. Hihihi!

Doan

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> >> And of course there isn't. The site program won't process numbers so
> >> small that percentages or tiny. It didn't for ANYONE, but what was
> >> significant was that we all had an ISP listed, and Alina didn't.
> >>
> >But you said "And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >What did you meant then?
>
> "It" being an ISP identification. I did not mean to say the Email
> itself. That was a reference to there being an email that would have
> or should have shown, if it were not in some way fictitious and
> NULLIFYING THE log entry as invalid, the ISP information.
>
Are you just making this up or someone from Senderbase actually told you
this, Kane?

> Alina's didn't, ours did.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
> >> >> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
> >> >>
> >> >> A fictitious IP.
> >> >>
> >> >Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
> >> >that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?
> >>
> >> Experience.
> >>
> >> A fictitious IP is one outside the range of numbers assigned.
> >>
> >Please teach me. You said: "Alina's" IP addy: 148.233.119.168"
> >
> >What is the "range of numbers assigned"?
>
> I posted the information today on how IP numbers are generated and
> from where, NIC. If you don't know, look it up.
>
And I told you your information is BOGUS!

> >How is Alina's IP addy
> >outside of that range?
>
> How, specifically, I don't know. But whatever is there that is not
> valid, Senderbase caught it and refused to recognize an ISP...so of
> course did not list such.
>
> It could be it's a "used" and discarded number and no longer
> recognized. I've heard that they cannot be reused for a time after
> being discared. You tell US.
>
Where do you heard this?

> Senderbase DID produce and ISP identify for my IP and Ron's and
> Betty's.
>
> Why the difference?
>
I told you, MEXICO vs. United STates.

> What do YOU think?
>
A bug?

Doan

[0:-]]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> >> And of course there isn't. The site program won't process numbers so
>> >> small that percentages or tiny. It didn't for ANYONE, but what was
>> >> significant was that we all had an ISP listed, and Alina didn't.
>> >>
>> >But you said "And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> >What did you meant then?
>>
>> "It" being an ISP identification. I did not mean to say the Email
>> itself. That was a reference to there being an email that would have
>> or should have shown, if it were not in some way fictitious and
>> NULLIFYING THE log entry as invalid, the ISP information.
>>
>Are you just making this up or someone from Senderbase actually told you
>this, Kane?

You answer my questions.

>> Alina's didn't, ours did.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
>> >> >> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A fictitious IP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
>> >> >that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?
>> >>
>> >> Experience.
>> >>
>> >> A fictitious IP is one outside the range of numbers assigned.
>> >>
>> >Please teach me. You said: "Alina's" IP addy: 148.233.119.168"
>> >
>> >What is the "range of numbers assigned"?
>>
>> I posted the information today on how IP numbers are generated and
>> from where, NIC. If you don't know, look it up.
>>
>And I told you your information is BOGUS!

Then show the correct information if you wish. Why didn't you, rather
than just make a claim?

And no, I don't have to meet your conditions. If you have something to
claim you get busy and support it.


>
>> >How is Alina's IP addy
>> >outside of that range?
>>
>> How, specifically, I don't know. But whatever is there that is not
>> valid, Senderbase caught it and refused to recognize an ISP...so of
>> course did not list such.
>>
>> It could be it's a "used" and discarded number and no longer
>> recognized. I've heard that they cannot be reused for a time after
>> being discared. You tell US.
>>
>Where do you heard this?

On a website that provides information about Internet Protocol.

>> Senderbase DID produce and ISP identify for my IP and Ron's and
>> Betty's.
>>
>> Why the difference?
>>
>I told you, MEXICO vs. United STates.

R R R ...what nonsense. Senderbase is about WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC.

And no, you did NOT tell me that.

Show me where you did.


>
>> What do YOU think?
>>
>A bug?

You sure are. Under a rock.


>
>Doan

[0:-]]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> >> And of course there isn't. The site program won't process numbers so
>> >> small that percentages or tiny. It didn't for ANYONE, but what was
>> >> significant was that we all had an ISP listed, and Alina didn't.
>> >>
>> >But you said "And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> >What did you meant then?
>>
>> "It" being an ISP identification. I did not mean to say the Email
>> itself. That was a reference to there being an email that would have
>> or should have shown, if it were not in some way fictitious and
>> NULLIFYING THE log entry as invalid, the ISP information.
>>
>Are you just making this up or someone from Senderbase actually told you
>this, Kane?
>
>> Alina's didn't, ours did.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> And it's irrelevant to the purpose I used this site for...to detect
>> >> >> the presence of a NON EXISTENT IP number assignment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A fictitious IP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Hihihi! What is a "fictitious IP", Kane? They have never taught me
>> >> >that in ANY OF THE CLASSES I took. Who taught you, Kane?
>> >>
>> >> Experience.
>> >>
>> >> A fictitious IP is one outside the range of numbers assigned.
>> >>
>> >Please teach me. You said: "Alina's" IP addy: 148.233.119.168"
>> >
>> >What is the "range of numbers assigned"?
>>
>> I posted the information today on how IP numbers are generated and
>> from where, NIC. If you don't know, look it up.
>>
>And I told you your information is BOGUS!

Tell them:

http://ganshore.com/InformationTrail.html

.... Internet service providers ("ISPs"), such as America Online,
Verizon DSL, or Road Runner, utilize certain ranges of IP addresses.
The ISP assigns a specific IP address to each internet service
subscriber, usually on a session by session basis, when a subscriber
connects to the internet.3 ...

See the word, "ranges?"

Go back to school.


>
>> >How is Alina's IP addy
>> >outside of that range?
>>
>> How, specifically, I don't know. But whatever is there that is not
>> valid, Senderbase caught it and refused to recognize an ISP...so of
>> course did not list such.
>>
>> It could be it's a "used" and discarded number and no longer
>> recognized. I've heard that they cannot be reused for a time after
>> being discared. You tell US.
>>
>Where do you heard this?
>
>> Senderbase DID produce and ISP identify for my IP and Ron's and
>> Betty's.
>>
>> Why the difference?
>>
>I told you, MEXICO vs. United STates.
>
>> What do YOU think?
>>
>A bug?
>
>Doan

[0:-]]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:

....no, he danced and made bogus claims....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation

....
Overview

NAT first became popular as a way to deal with the IPv4 address
shortage and to avoid the difficulty of reserving IP addresses. Use of
NAT has proven particularly popular in countries other than the United
States, which (for historical reasons) have fewer address-blocks
allocated per capita. It has become a standard feature in routers for
home and small-office Internet connections, where the price of extra
IP addresses would often outweigh the benefits.

In a typical configuration, a local network uses one of the designated
"private" IP address subnets (the RFC 1918 Private Network Addresses
are 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x through 172.31.x.x, and 10.x.x.x), and a
router on that network has a private address (such as 192.168.0.1) in
that address space. The router is also connected to the Internet with
a single "public" address (known as "overloaded" NAT) or multiple
"public" addresses assigned by an ISP. As traffic passes from the
local network to the Internet, the source address in each packet is
translated on the fly from the private addresses to the public
address(es). The router tracks basic data about each active connection
(particularly the destination address and port). When a reply returns
to the router, it uses the connection tracking data it stored during
the outbound phase to determine where on the internal network to
forward the reply; the TCP or UDP client port numbers are used to
demultiplex the packets in the case of overloaded NAT, or IP address
and port number when multiple public addresses are available, on
packet return. To a system on the Internet, the router itself appears
to be the source/destination for this traffic. ...

[Doan]

Amazing! Where does Alina's ip address fit into this?
Do you understand what you read, Kane? Or you are just "pretend"
to be this STUPID?

Doan

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> ...no, he danced and made bogus claims....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
>
> ...
> Overview
>
> NAT first became popular as a way to deal with the IPv4 address
> shortage and to avoid the difficulty of reserving IP addresses. Use of
> NAT has proven particularly popular in countries other than the United
> States, which (for historical reasons) have fewer address-blocks
> allocated per capita. It has become a standard feature in routers for
> home and small-office Internet connections, where the price of extra
> IP addresses would often outweigh the benefits.
>
> In a typical configuration, a local network uses one of the designated
> "private" IP address subnets (the RFC 1918 Private Network Addresses
> are 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x through 172.31.x.x, and 10.x.x.x), and a
> router on that network has a private address (such as 192.168.0.1) in
> that address space. The router is also connected to the Internet with
> a single "public" address (known as "overloaded" NAT) or multiple
> "public" addresses assigned by an ISP. As traffic passes from the
> local network to the Internet, the source address in each packet is
> translated on the fly from the private addresses to the public
> address(es). The router tracks basic data about each active connection
> (particularly the destination address and port). When a reply returns
> to the router, it uses the connection tracking data it stored during
> the outbound phase to determine where on the internal network to
> forward the reply; the TCP or UDP client port numbers are used to
> demultiplex the packets in the case of overloaded NAT, or IP address
> and port number when multiple public addresses are available, on
> packet return. To a system on the Internet, the router itself appears
> to be the source/destination for this traffic. ...
>

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:36:09 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >
> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >> >> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >> >> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >> >> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> >> >> >ago:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> >> >> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
> >> >> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
> >> >> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
> >> >> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
> >> >>
> >> >And yet you said:
> >> >
> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >> >
> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> >
> >> >Were you lying, Kane?
> >>
> >> About what?
> >>
> >Your words: " And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>
> "It" being the ISP. I should have been more clear I was not referring
> at that point to an Email, but to the ISP any IP number account
> traffic should have triggered a return on a inquiry.
>
Hihihi! Do you always makeup lies as you go, Kane?

> Alina's didn't. Everyone else's did.
>
And does it has to do with email traffic?

> "Overview
>
> SenderBase is a free service designed to help email administrators
> better manage incoming email streams by providing objective data about
> the identity of senders. SenderBase is akin to a credit reporting
> service for email, providing data that ISPs and companies can use to
> differentiate legitimate senders from spam sources. SenderBase
> provides objective data that allows email administrators to reliably
> identify and block IP addresses originating unsolicited commercial
> email (UCE) or to verify the authenticity of legitimate incoming email
> from business partners, customers or any other important source. What
> makes SenderBase unique is that it provides a global view of email
> message volume and organizes the data in a way that it is easy to
> identify and group related sources of email. SenderBase is also
> different from most existing spam prevention solutions because it is:
>
> * Identity-based - Rather than looking at message content,
> SenderBase provides information on the source of the email. The
> service is built around the one piece of information in an email that
> is almost impossible to spoof - the sending IP addresses - so mail
> administrators can rely on SenderBase to make accurate decisions about
> incoming mail. "
>
They didn't say anything about anon. proxy checking now, did they?
You said you called Senderbase, didn't they tell you this?

Doan

[Doan]

No answer, Kane? Come on, admit that you are STUPID and I will tell
you why Alina's ip address didn't show an ISP at Senderbase, Kane.
You can learn something or you choose to remain IGNORANT, Kane. Your
choise. What will it be?

Doan

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Doan wrote:

>
> Amazing! Where does Alina's ip address fit into this?
> Do you understand what you read, Kane? Or you are just "pretend"
> to be this STUPID?
>
> Doan
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >
> > ...no, he danced and made bogus claims....
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
> >
> > ...
> > Overview
> >
> > NAT first became popular as a way to deal with the IPv4 address
> > shortage and to avoid the difficulty of reserving IP addresses. Use of
> > NAT has proven particularly popular in countries other than the United
> > States, which (for historical reasons) have fewer address-blocks
> > allocated per capita. It has become a standard feature in routers for
> > home and small-office Internet connections, where the price of extra
> > IP addresses would often outweigh the benefits.
> >
> > In a typical configuration, a local network uses one of the designated
> > "private" IP address subnets (the RFC 1918 Private Network Addresses
> > are 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x through 172.31.x.x, and 10.x.x.x), and a
> > router on that network has a private address (such as 192.168.0.1) in
> > that address space. The router is also connected to the Internet with
> > a single "public" address (known as "overloaded" NAT) or multiple
> > "public" addresses assigned by an ISP. As traffic passes from the
> > local network to the Internet, the source address in each packet is
> > translated on the fly from the private addresses to the public
> > address(es). The router tracks basic data about each active connection
> > (particularly the destination address and port). When a reply returns
> > to the router, it uses the connection tracking data it stored during
> > the outbound phase to determine where on the internal network to
> > forward the reply; the TCP or UDP client port numbers are used to
> > demultiplex the packets in the case of overloaded NAT, or IP address
> > and port number when multiple public addresses are available, on
> > packet return. To a system on the Internet, the router itself appears
> > to be the source/destination for this traffic. ...
> >
>
>

[Doan]

No answer, Kane? You said you worked with computers way back before Al
Gore invented the Internet, Kane. How can you be so STUPID? Could it
be that all that claim from you is just that - talk but no walk? Hihihi!

Doan

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Doan wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:36:09 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> > >> >> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> > >> >> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> > >> >> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> > >> >> >ago:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> > >> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> > >> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> > >> >> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
> > >> >> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
> > >> >> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
> > >> >> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
> > >> >>
> > >> >And yet you said:
> > >> >
> > >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> > >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> > >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> > >> >
> > >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> > >> >
> > >> >Were you lying, Kane?
> > >>
> > >> About what?
> > >>
> > >Your words: " And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >
> > "It" being the ISP. I should have been more clear I was not referring
> > at that point to an Email, but to the ISP any IP number account
> > traffic should have triggered a return on a inquiry.
> >
> Hihihi! Do you always makeup lies as you go, Kane?
>
> > Alina's didn't. Everyone else's did.
> >
> And does it has to do with email traffic?
>
> > "Overview
> >
> > SenderBase is a free service designed to help email administrators
> > better manage incoming email streams by providing objective data about
> > the identity of senders. SenderBase is akin to a credit reporting
> > service for email, providing data that ISPs and companies can use to
> > differentiate legitimate senders from spam sources. SenderBase
> > provides objective data that allows email administrators to reliably
> > identify and block IP addresses originating unsolicited commercial
> > email (UCE) or to verify the authenticity of legitimate incoming email
> > from business partners, customers or any other important source. What
> > makes SenderBase unique is that it provides a global view of email
> > message volume and organizes the data in a way that it is easy to
> > identify and group related sources of email. SenderBase is also
> > different from most existing spam prevention solutions because it is:
> >
> > * Identity-based - Rather than looking at message content,
> > SenderBase provides information on the source of the email. The
> > service is built around the one piece of information in an email that
> > is almost impossible to spoof - the sending IP addresses - so mail
> > administrators can rely on SenderBase to make accurate decisions about
> > incoming mail. "
> >
> They didn't say anything about anon. proxy checking now, did they?
> You said you called Senderbase, didn't they tell you this?
>
> Doan
>
>

[0:-]]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:34:14 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>No answer, Kane? Come on, admit that you are STUPID

Can't do it unless I meet your conditions, Doan?

Gee what kind of debate is that?

>and I will tell
>you why Alina's ip address didn't show an ISP at Senderbase, Kane.

So you promise you won't tell me if I don't meet your conditions of
admitting I'm stupid?

Well, I'll be derned. R R R R R

>You can learn something or you choose to remain IGNORANT, Kane. Your
>choise. What will it be?

Well, since I know everything that's transpired and what I know and
don't know, you are just blowing smoke out your ass again, Doan.

I told you I was going to run you around and I did.

You forget. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ALINA.

It's YOU that keep bringing 'her' up.

You just go right on ahead without me proving that you still don't
have what it takes to actually debate...by the constant use of such
tactics as you just did again.

0:->


>
>Doan
>
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Doan wrote:
>
>>
>> Amazing! Where does Alina's ip address fit into this?
>> Do you understand what you read, Kane? Or you are just "pretend"
>> to be this STUPID?
>>
>> Doan
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> >
>> > ...no, he danced and made bogus claims....
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
>> >
>> > ...
>> > Overview
>> >
>> > NAT first became popular as a way to deal with the IPv4 address
>> > shortage and to avoid the difficulty of reserving IP addresses. Use of
>> > NAT has proven particularly popular in countries other than the United
>> > States, which (for historical reasons) have fewer address-blocks
>> > allocated per capita. It has become a standard feature in routers for
>> > home and small-office Internet connections, where the price of extra
>> > IP addresses would often outweigh the benefits.
>> >
>> > In a typical configuration, a local network uses one of the designated
>> > "private" IP address subnets (the RFC 1918 Private Network Addresses
>> > are 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x through 172.31.x.x, and 10.x.x.x), and a
>> > router on that network has a private address (such as 192.168.0.1) in
>> > that address space. The router is also connected to the Internet with
>> > a single "public" address (known as "overloaded" NAT) or multiple
>> > "public" addresses assigned by an ISP. As traffic passes from the
>> > local network to the Internet, the source address in each packet is
>> > translated on the fly from the private addresses to the public
>> > address(es). The router tracks basic data about each active connection
>> > (particularly the destination address and port). When a reply returns
>> > to the router, it uses the connection tracking data it stored during
>> > the outbound phase to determine where on the internal network to
>> > forward the reply; the TCP or UDP client port numbers are used to
>> > demultiplex the packets in the case of overloaded NAT, or IP address
>> > and port number when multiple public addresses are available, on
>> > packet return. To a system on the Internet, the router itself appears
>> > to be the source/destination for this traffic. ...
>> >
>>
>>

[0:-]]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>No answer, Kane? You said you worked with computers way back before Al
>Gore invented the Internet, Kane. How can you be so STUPID? Could it
>be that all that claim from you is just that - talk but no walk? Hihihi!

Why yes, Doan, it could be that I just fed you a pile of Doan ****
I've collected from your past posts. How's it taste?

Now quote Straus again out of context for us.

>
>Doan
>
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Doan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:36:09 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
>> > >> >> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
>> > >> >> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
>> > >> >> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
>> > >> >> >ago:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>> > >> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>> > >> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
>> > >> >> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
>> > >> >> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
>> > >> >> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
>> > >> >> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >And yet you said:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
>> > >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
>> > >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Were you lying, Kane?
>> > >>
>> > >> About what?
>> > >>
>> > >Your words: " And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
>> >
>> > "It" being the ISP. I should have been more clear I was not referring
>> > at that point to an Email, but to the ISP any IP number account
>> > traffic should have triggered a return on a inquiry.
>> >
>> Hihihi! Do you always makeup lies as you go, Kane?
>>
>> > Alina's didn't. Everyone else's did.
>> >
>> And does it has to do with email traffic?
>>
>> > "Overview
>> >
>> > SenderBase is a free service designed to help email administrators
>> > better manage incoming email streams by providing objective data about
>> > the identity of senders. SenderBase is akin to a credit reporting
>> > service for email, providing data that ISPs and companies can use to
>> > differentiate legitimate senders from spam sources. SenderBase
>> > provides objective data that allows email administrators to reliably
>> > identify and block IP addresses originating unsolicited commercial
>> > email (UCE) or to verify the authenticity of legitimate incoming email
>> > from business partners, customers or any other important source. What
>> > makes SenderBase unique is that it provides a global view of email
>> > message volume and organizes the data in a way that it is easy to
>> > identify and group related sources of email. SenderBase is also
>> > different from most existing spam prevention solutions because it is:
>> >
>> > * Identity-based - Rather than looking at message content,
>> > SenderBase provides information on the source of the email. The
>> > service is built around the one piece of information in an email that
>> > is almost impossible to spoof - the sending IP addresses - so mail
>> > administrators can rely on SenderBase to make accurate decisions about
>> > incoming mail. "
>> >
>> They didn't say anything about anon. proxy checking now, did they?
>> You said you called Senderbase, didn't they tell you this?
>>
>> Doan
>>
>>

[Doan]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:34:14 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >
> >No answer, Kane? Come on, admit that you are STUPID
>
> Can't do it unless I meet your conditions, Doan?
>
> Gee what kind of debate is that?
>
This is not a debate, STUPID. It is information I have and you don't.
You can choose to remain STUPID or learn. It's your choice!

> >and I will tell
> >you why Alina's ip address didn't show an ISP at Senderbase, Kane.
>
> So you promise you won't tell me if I don't meet your conditions of
> admitting I'm stupid?
>
You want to remain STUPID?

> Well, I'll be derned. R R R R R
>
So you are choosing to remain STUPID?

> >You can learn something or you choose to remain IGNORANT, Kane. Your
> >choise. What will it be?
>
> Well, since I know everything that's transpired and what I know and
> don't know, you are just blowing smoke out your ass again, Doan.
>
Try me, Kane. I am not the one that were making a fool of myself talking
about things that I know nothign about. Tell me how Alina's ip address is
OUT OF RANGE again, Kane. Hihihi!

> I told you I was going to run you around and I did.
>
Yes, you did and EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY round and round! Hihihi!

> You forget. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ALINA.
>
> It's YOU that keep bringing 'her' up.
>
Well, I should since you were the one that claimed you have proof that
Alina is me out to SCAM YOU. That is defamation, Kane!

> You just go right on ahead without me proving that you still don't
> have what it takes to actually debate...by the constant use of such
> tactics as you just did again.
>
One more time, Kane. This is NOT A DEBATE, STUPID! IT ABOUT YOU
MAKING FALSE ACCUSATION AGAINST ME!


Doan

> 0:->
>
>
> >
> >Doan
> >
> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Doan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Amazing! Where does Alina's ip address fit into this?
> >> Do you understand what you read, Kane? Or you are just "pretend"
> >> to be this STUPID?
> >>
> >> Doan
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:42 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ...no, he danced and made bogus claims....
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> > Overview
> >> >
> >> > NAT first became popular as a way to deal with the IPv4 address
> >> > shortage and to avoid the difficulty of reserving IP addresses. Use of
> >> > NAT has proven particularly popular in countries other than the United
> >> > States, which (for historical reasons) have fewer address-blocks
> >> > allocated per capita. It has become a standard feature in routers for
> >> > home and small-office Internet connections, where the price of extra
> >> > IP addresses would often outweigh the benefits.
> >> >
> >> > In a typical configuration, a local network uses one of the designated
> >> > "private" IP address subnets (the RFC 1918 Private Network Addresses
> >> > are 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x through 172.31.x.x, and 10.x.x.x), and a
> >> > router on that network has a private address (such as 192.168.0.1) in
> >> > that address space. The router is also connected to the Internet with
> >> > a single "public" address (known as "overloaded" NAT) or multiple
> >> > "public" addresses assigned by an ISP. As traffic passes from the
> >> > local network to the Internet, the source address in each packet is
> >> > translated on the fly from the private addresses to the public
> >> > address(es). The router tracks basic data about each active connection
> >> > (particularly the destination address and port). When a reply returns
> >> > to the router, it uses the connection tracking data it stored during
> >> > the outbound phase to determine where on the internal network to
> >> > forward the reply; the TCP or UDP client port numbers are used to
> >> > demultiplex the packets in the case of overloaded NAT, or IP address
> >> > and port number when multiple public addresses are available, on
> >> > packet return. To a system on the Internet, the router itself appears
> >> > to be the source/destination for this traffic. ...
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>

[Doan]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >
> >No answer, Kane? You said you worked with computers way back before Al
> >Gore invented the Internet, Kane. How can you be so STUPID? Could it
> >be that all that claim from you is just that - talk but no walk? Hihihi!
>
> Why yes, Doan, it could be that I just fed you a pile of Doan ****
> I've collected from your past posts. How's it taste?
>
Hihihi! "Doan ****" coming out of your mouth, Kane!

> Now quote Straus again out of context for us.
>
Hihihi! Another diversion tactic, Kane?

> >
> >Doan
> >
> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Doan wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:36:09 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:57:04 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> >Wed, 28 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> The "look up" for me, is not about "activity" of an individual IP addy,
> >> > >> >> >> Doan. It's a service that looks at volume from an IP, and it doesn't
> >> > >> >> >> 'count' individual postings. It's looks at averages and volume against
> >> > >> >> >> world wide figures. Hence a few postings wouldn't even move the needle.
> >> > >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >Oh! What a tangled web we weaved, Kane. Here is what you said not long
> >> > >> >> >ago:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >> > >> >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >> > >> >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >Now you turned 180 degree around and said that it doesn't count
> >> > >> >> >individual postings!!! WHAT A PATHETIC STUPID LIAR you are, Kane!!!
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> At SenderWatch it does not "detect" as in LIST individual e-mails,
> >> > >> >> Doan. It calculates a magnitude (read the column headingings, stupid)
> >> > >> >> by taking a percentage of the total WORLD WIDE EMAIL TRAFFIC FOR THE
> >> > >> >> PERIOD...one day, or 30 days)
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >And yet you said:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >"The reason I used 'Alina's' addy, and MY OWN, is because I am quite sure
> >> > >> >I've used mine for Email, and I received an email from "Alina" within
> >> > >> >the last 30 days.......Alina.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Were you lying, Kane?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> About what?
> >> > >>
> >> > >Your words: " And yet EMAIL traffic logging did not detect it."
> >> >
> >> > "It" being the ISP. I should have been more clear I was not referring
> >> > at that point to an Email, but to the ISP any IP number account
> >> > traffic should have triggered a return on a inquiry.
> >> >
> >> Hihihi! Do you always makeup lies as you go, Kane?
> >>
> >> > Alina's didn't. Everyone else's did.
> >> >
> >> And does it has to do with email traffic?
> >>
> >> > "Overview
> >> >
> >> > SenderBase is a free service designed to help email administrators
> >> > better manage incoming email streams by providing objective data about
> >> > the identity of senders. SenderBase is akin to a credit reporting
> >> > service for email, providing data that ISPs and companies can use to
> >> > differentiate legitimate senders from spam sources. SenderBase
> >> > provides objective data that allows email administrators to reliably
> >> > identify and block IP addresses originating unsolicited commercial
> >> > email (UCE) or to verify the authenticity of legitimate incoming email
> >> > from business partners, customers or any other important source. What
> >> > makes SenderBase unique is that it provides a global view of email
> >> > message volume and organizes the data in a way that it is easy to
> >> > identify and group related sources of email. SenderBase is also
> >> > different from most existing spam prevention solutions because it is:
> >> >
> >> > * Identity-based - Rather than looking at message content,
> >> > SenderBase provides information on the source of the email. The
> >> > service is built around the one piece of information in an email that
> >> > is almost impossible to spoof - the sending IP addresses - so mail
> >> > administrators can rely on SenderBase to make accurate decisions about
> >> > incoming mail. "
> >> >
> >> They didn't say anything about anon. proxy checking now, did they?
> >> You said you called Senderbase, didn't they tell you this?
> >>
> >> Doan
> >>
> >>
>
>

[0:-]]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
Doan's claim:

"Doan" > wrote in message

...

>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...

An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:

Doan
Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
Newsgroups: misc.kids

From: Doan >
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> In article >,
> (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

> > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.

> > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > spanked more.

> > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > alternative explanation of the correlation.

> There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.

> If X correlates with Y, they are:

> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

> The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.

> I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> the null hypothesis.

> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

> "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...

Really Doan, an "excellent point?"

Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
causation, as In

> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
research,
"The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
further
research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?

So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."

As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"

I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.

And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.

Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"

Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.

Just how dishonest are you, Doan?

R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R

[Doan]

Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?

Doan


On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> Doan's claim:
>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>
> An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>
> Doan
> Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> Newsgroups: misc.kids
>
> From: Doan >
> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>
> > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>
> > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > > spanked more.
>
> > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>
> > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>
> > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>
> > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>
> > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> > the null hypothesis.
>
> > --
> > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>
> Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>
> Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>
> Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> causation, as In
>
> > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> research,
> "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> further
> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>
> So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>
> As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>
> I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>
> And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>
> Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>
> Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>
> Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>
> R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[0:->]

On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?

Diversion? What diversion?

When you bring up a new subject, rather than answer the questions or
challenges being made to you what do you call it?

Just give this whatever name you use for it when you do it?

>
> Doan
>

And we don't need to go back to Senderbase as I've told you I have no
interest in Alina whatsoever. That's YOUR issue you keep bringing up
when YOU want to divert.

So getting the same back isn't comfortable for you?

Hi..hi..hi... Doan


> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> > Doan's claim:
>
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>
> > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>
> > Doan
> > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> > Newsgroups: misc.kids
>
> > From: Doan >
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>
> > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>
> > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > > > spanked more.
>
> > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>
> > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>
> > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>
> > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>
> > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> > > the null hypothesis.
>
> > > --
> > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>
> > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>
> > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>
> > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> > causation, as In
>
> > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> > research,
> > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> > further
> > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>
> > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>
> > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>
> > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>
> > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>
> > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>
> > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>
> > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>
> > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R

[0:->]

On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?

Why not respond to the post, Doan?

Can't deal with facing how deceptive and lying you are?
>
> Doan

Tell us again about your views on correlation, Doan...Hihihi.




>
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> > Doan's claim:
>
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>
> > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>
> > Doan
> > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> > Newsgroups: misc.kids
>
> > From: Doan >
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>
> > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>
> > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > > > spanked more.
>
> > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>
> > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>
> > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>
> > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>
> > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> > > the null hypothesis.
>
> > > --
> > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>
> > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>
> > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>
> > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> > causation, as In
>
> > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> > research,
> > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> > further
> > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>
> > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>
> > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>
> > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>
> > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>
> > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>
> > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>
> > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>
> > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R

[0:-]]

What's the matter, Doan, can't answer this post?

Don't like everyone seeing your bare naked monkeyass stickin' out
there proving you are a liar, deceptive, and a fool?

hi hi hi, Doany.



On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
Doan's claim:

"Doan" > wrote in message

...

>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...

An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:

Doan
Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
Newsgroups: misc.kids

From: Doan >
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> In article >,
> (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

> > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.

> > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > spanked more.

> > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > alternative explanation of the correlation.

> There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.

> If X correlates with Y, they are:

> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

> The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.

> I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> the null hypothesis.

> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

> "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...

Really Doan, an "excellent point?"

Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
causation, as In

> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
research,
"The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
further
research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?

So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."

As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"

I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.

And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.

Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"

Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.

Just how dishonest are you, Doan?

R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R

[Doan]

On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> > Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
>
> Diversion? What diversion?
>
Diversion from your accusation that Alina is me! Senderbase was one of
the source you claimed showed that Alina was using a "fictitous address".
You said you have called them. Is that just a LIE, Kane?

> When you bring up a new subject, rather than answer the questions or
> challenges being made to you what do you call it?
>
> Just give this whatever name you use for it when you do it?
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
>
> And we don't need to go back to Senderbase as I've told you I have no
> interest in Alina whatsoever. That's YOUR issue you keep bringing up
> when YOU want to divert.
>
That is the accusation that you brought against me. You said you have
PROOF that Alina is me, out to scam you a copy of the Embry Study.
Is that a LIE too, Kane?

> So getting the same back isn't comfortable for you?
>
Is false accusation comfortable for you, Kane?

> Hi..hi..hi... Doan
>
Hihihi!

Doan

>
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> > > Doan's claim:
> >
> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
> >
> > > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
> >
> > > Doan
> > > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> > > Newsgroups: misc.kids
> >
> > > From: Doan >
> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> > > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
> >
> > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
> >
> > > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
> >
> > > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > > > > spanked more.
> >
> > > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
> >
> > > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
> >
> > > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
> >
> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >
> > > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> > > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
> >
> > > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> > > > the null hypothesis.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> > > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
> >
> > > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> > > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> > > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
> >
> > > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> > > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> > > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
> >
> > > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
> >
> > > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> > > causation, as In
> >
> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >
> > > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> > > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> > > research,
> > > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> > > further
> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
> >
> > > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> > > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
> >
> > > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
> >
> > > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
> >
> > > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> > > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
> >
> > > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> > > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
> >
> > > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> > > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> > > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
> >
> > > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
> >
> > > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>
>
>

[Doan]

On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> > Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
>
> Why not respond to the post, Doan?
>
Yeah, why not, Kane? Since when is Senderbase an anon. proxy checker?

> Can't deal with facing how deceptive and lying you are?

The proven liar IS YOU, Kane!

> >
> > Doan
>
> Tell us again about your views on correlation, Doan...Hihihi.
>
Correlation is NOT cause! Hihihi!

Doan

>
>
>
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> > > Doan's claim:
> >
> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
> >
> > > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
> >
> > > Doan
> > > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> > > Newsgroups: misc.kids
> >
> > > From: Doan >
> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> > > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
> >
> > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
> >
> > > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
> >
> > > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > > > > spanked more.
> >
> > > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
> >
> > > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
> >
> > > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
> >
> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >
> > > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> > > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
> >
> > > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> > > > the null hypothesis.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> > > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
> >
> > > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> > > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> > > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
> >
> > > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> > > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> > > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
> >
> > > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
> >
> > > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> > > causation, as In
> >
> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >
> > > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> > > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> > > research,
> > > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> > > further
> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
> >
> > > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> > > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
> >
> > > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
> >
> > > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
> >
> > > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> > > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
> >
> > > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> > > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
> >
> > > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> > > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> > > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
> >
> > > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
> >
> > > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>
>
>

[Doan]

What's the matter, Kane. Where is the proof that Alina is me?

Doan


On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> What's the matter, Doan, can't answer this post?
>
> Don't like everyone seeing your bare naked monkeyass stickin' out
> there proving you are a liar, deceptive, and a fool?
>
> hi hi hi, Doany.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> Doan's claim:
>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>
> An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>
> Doan
> Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> Newsgroups: misc.kids
>
> From: Doan >
> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>
> > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>
> > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> > > spanked more.
>
> > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>
> > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>
> > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>
> > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>
> > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> > the null hypothesis.
>
> > --
> > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>
> Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>
> Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>
> Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> causation, as In
>
> > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>
> And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> research,
> "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> further
> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>
> So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>
> As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>
> I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>
> And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>
> Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>
> Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>
> Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>
> R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[0:-]]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:10:26 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
>> > Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
>>
>> Diversion? What diversion?
>>
>Diversion from your accusation that Alina is me! Senderbase was one of
>the source you claimed showed that Alina was using a "fictitous address".
>You said you have called them. Is that just a LIE, Kane?
>
>> When you bring up a new subject, rather than answer the questions or
>> challenges being made to you what do you call it?
>>
>> Just give this whatever name you use for it when you do it?
>>
>> >
>> > Doan
>> >
>>
>> And we don't need to go back to Senderbase as I've told you I have no
>> interest in Alina whatsoever. That's YOUR issue you keep bringing up
>> when YOU want to divert.
>>
>That is the accusation that you brought against me. You said you have
>PROOF that Alina is me, out to scam you a copy of the Embry Study.
>Is that a LIE too, Kane?
>
>> So getting the same back isn't comfortable for you?
>>
>Is false accusation comfortable for you, Kane?

Seems to be for you when you do it.

>
>> Hi..hi..hi... Doan
>>
>Hihihi!
>
>Doan
>
>>
>> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> > > Doan's claim:
>> >
>> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>> >
>> > > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>> >
>> > > Doan
>> > > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
>> > > Newsgroups: misc.kids
>> >
>> > > From: Doan >
>> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
>> > > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
>> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
>> > > > In article >,
>> > > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
>> > > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
>> > > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
>> > > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
>> > > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>> >
>> > > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
>> > > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
>> > > > > spanked more.
>> >
>> > > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
>> > > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
>> > > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
>> > > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
>> > > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
>> > > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>> >
>> > > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>> >
>> > > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>> >
>> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>> >
>> > > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
>> > > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>> >
>> > > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
>> > > > the null hypothesis.
>> >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
>> > > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>> >
>> > > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
>> > > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
>> > > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>> >
>> > > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
>> > > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
>> > > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>> >
>> > > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>> >
>> > > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
>> > > causation, as In
>> >
>> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>> >
>> > > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
>> > > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
>> > > research,
>> > > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
>> > > further
>> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>> >
>> > > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
>> > > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>> >
>> > > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>> >
>> > > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>> >
>> > > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
>> > > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>> >
>> > > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
>> > > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>> >
>> > > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
>> > > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
>> > > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>> >
>> > > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>> >
>> > > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>>
>>
>>

[0:-]]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:12:17 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
>> > Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
>>
>> Why not respond to the post, Doan?
>>
>Yeah, why not, Kane? Since when is Senderbase an anon. proxy checker?
>
>> Can't deal with facing how deceptive and lying you are?
>
>The proven liar IS YOU, Kane!
>
>> >
>> > Doan
>>
>> Tell us again about your views on correlation, Doan...Hihihi.
>>
>Correlation is NOT cause! Hihihi!

No one claimed it was.

You are ignoring also that I don't care about the Alina debate, Doan.
It was YOUR diversion many times. Thought I'd feed you a little of
your own ****.


>
>Doan
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> > > Doan's claim:
>> >
>> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>> >
>> > > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>> >
>> > > Doan
>> > > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
>> > > Newsgroups: misc.kids
>> >
>> > > From: Doan >
>> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
>> > > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
>> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
>> > > > In article >,
>> > > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
>> > > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
>> > > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
>> > > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
>> > > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>> >
>> > > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
>> > > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
>> > > > > spanked more.
>> >
>> > > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
>> > > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
>> > > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
>> > > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
>> > > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
>> > > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>> >
>> > > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>> >
>> > > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>> >
>> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>> >
>> > > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
>> > > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>> >
>> > > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
>> > > > the null hypothesis.
>> >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
>> > > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>> >
>> > > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
>> > > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
>> > > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>> >
>> > > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
>> > > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
>> > > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>> >
>> > > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>> >
>> > > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
>> > > causation, as In
>> >
>> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>> >
>> > > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
>> > > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
>> > > research,
>> > > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
>> > > further
>> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>> >
>> > > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
>> > > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>> >
>> > > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>> >
>> > > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>> >
>> > > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
>> > > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>> >
>> > > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
>> > > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>> >
>> > > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
>> > > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
>> > > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>> >
>> > > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>> >
>> > > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>>
>>
>>

[0:-]]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:15:58 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>What's the matter, Kane.

Is that a question?

I'm not a physicist. I do not know what matter really is, in that
sense. And I understand it's still being explored.

> Where is the proof that Alina is me?

Up your monkeybutt.

What the matter, Doan, can't answer the challeng below...that you
lied, as usual, mislead, make claims you don't support, or even
believe in and then switch tracks when it's convenient to you new
position on a question?

You won't answer, of course, because I fed you your own **** and you
are spewing it back as a way to avoid answering to your dishonorable
posting.


>Doan
>
>
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> What's the matter, Doan, can't answer this post?
>>
>> Don't like everyone seeing your bare naked monkeyass stickin' out
>> there proving you are a liar, deceptive, and a fool?
>>
>> hi hi hi, Doany.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> Doan's claim:
>>
>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>>
>> An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>>
>> Doan
>> Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
>> Newsgroups: misc.kids
>>
>> From: Doan >
>> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
>> Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
>> Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>>
>> > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
>> > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
>> > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
>> > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
>> > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>>
>> > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
>> > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
>> > > spanked more.
>>
>> > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
>> > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
>> > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
>> > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
>> > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
>> > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
>>
>> > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>>
>> > If X correlates with Y, they are:
>>
>> > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>> > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>> > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>> > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>>
>> > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
>> > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>>
>> > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
>> > the null hypothesis.
>>
>> > --
>> > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
>> > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>>
>> > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
>> > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
>> > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>>
>> Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
>> alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
>> were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>>
>> Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>>
>> Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
>> causation, as In
>>
>> > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>> > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>> > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>> > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>>
>> And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
>> correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
>> research,
>> "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
>> further
>> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>>
>> So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
>> is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>>
>> As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>>
>> I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>>
>> And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
>> validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>>
>> Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
>> could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>>
>> Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
>> position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
>> imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>>
>> Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>>
>> R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:10:26 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >
> >On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> >> > Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
> >>
> >> Diversion? What diversion?
> >>
> >Diversion from your accusation that Alina is me! Senderbase was one of
> >the source you claimed showed that Alina was using a "fictitous address".
> >You said you have called them. Is that just a LIE, Kane?
> >
> >> When you bring up a new subject, rather than answer the questions or
> >> challenges being made to you what do you call it?
> >>
> >> Just give this whatever name you use for it when you do it?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Doan
> >> >
> >>
> >> And we don't need to go back to Senderbase as I've told you I have no
> >> interest in Alina whatsoever. That's YOUR issue you keep bringing up
> >> when YOU want to divert.
> >>
> >That is the accusation that you brought against me. You said you have
> >PROOF that Alina is me, out to scam you a copy of the Embry Study.
> >Is that a LIE too, Kane?
> >
> >> So getting the same back isn't comfortable for you?
> >>
> >Is false accusation comfortable for you, Kane?
>
> Seems to be for you when you do it.
>
I don't make false accusation, Kane. Are you saying your accusation that
Alina is me FALSE?

Doan

> >
> >> Hi..hi..hi... Doan
> >>
> >Hihihi!
> >
> >Doan
> >
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> > > Doan's claim:
> >> >
> >> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
> >> >
> >> > > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
> >> >
> >> > > Doan
> >> > > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> >> > > Newsgroups: misc.kids
> >> >
> >> > > From: Doan >
> >> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> >> > > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> >> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
> >> >
> >> > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> >> > > > In article >,
> >> > > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> >> > > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> >> > > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> >> > > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> >> > > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
> >> >
> >> > > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> >> > > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> >> > > > > spanked more.
> >> >
> >> > > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> >> > > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> >> > > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> >> > > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> >> > > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> >> > > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
> >> >
> >> > > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
> >> >
> >> > > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
> >> >
> >> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> >> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> >> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> >> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >> >
> >> > > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> >> > > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
> >> >
> >> > > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> >> > > > the null hypothesis.
> >> >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> >> > > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
> >> >
> >> > > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> >> > > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> >> > > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
> >> >
> >> > > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> >> > > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> >> > > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
> >> >
> >> > > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
> >> >
> >> > > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> >> > > causation, as In
> >> >
> >> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> >> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> >> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> >> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >> >
> >> > > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> >> > > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> >> > > research,
> >> > > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> >> > > further
> >> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
> >> >
> >> > > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> >> > > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
> >> >
> >> > > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
> >> >
> >> > > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
> >> >
> >> > > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> >> > > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
> >> >
> >> > > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> >> > > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
> >> >
> >> > > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> >> > > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> >> > > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
> >> >
> >> > > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
> >> >
> >> > > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:12:17 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> >> > Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
> >>
> >> Why not respond to the post, Doan?
> >>
> >Yeah, why not, Kane? Since when is Senderbase an anon. proxy checker?
> >
> >> Can't deal with facing how deceptive and lying you are?
> >
> >The proven liar IS YOU, Kane!
> >
> >> >
> >> > Doan
> >>
> >> Tell us again about your views on correlation, Doan...Hihihi.
> >>
> >Correlation is NOT cause! Hihihi!
>
> No one claimed it was.
>
Well, "Spanking leads to aggressiona" is a causal claim.

> You are ignoring also that I don't care about the Alina debate, Doan.
> It was YOUR diversion many times. Thought I'd feed you a little of
> your own ****.
>
What Alina debate? IT IS A FALSE ACCUSATION YOU MADE AGAINST ME!!!
OopS1 My "own ****" coming out of your mouth again. Hihihi!

Doan

>
> >
> >Doan
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> > > Doan's claim:
> >> >
> >> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > >> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
> >> >
> >> > > An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
> >> >
> >> > > Doan
> >> > > Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
> >> > > Newsgroups: misc.kids
> >> >
> >> > > From: Doan >
> >> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
> >> > > Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
> >> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
> >> >
> >> > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
> >> > > > In article >,
> >> > > > (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > > As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
> >> > > > > Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
> >> > > > > spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
> >> > > > > (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
> >> > > > > level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
> >> >
> >> > > > > The result of these studies could not be explained merely
> >> > > > > by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
> >> > > > > spanked more.
> >> >
> >> > > > > I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
> >> > > > > this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
> >> > > > > increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
> >> > > > > not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
> >> > > > > argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
> >> > > > > alternative explanation of the correlation.
> >> >
> >> > > > There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
> >> >
> >> > > > If X correlates with Y, they are:
> >> >
> >> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> >> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> >> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> >> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >> >
> >> > > > The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
> >> > > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
> >> >
> >> > > > I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
> >> > > > the null hypothesis.
> >> >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> >> > > > (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
> >> >
> >> > > > "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> >> > > > nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> >> > > > Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
> >> >
> >> > > Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
> >> > > alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
> >> > > were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
> >> >
> >> > > Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
> >> >
> >> > > Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
> >> > > causation, as In
> >> >
> >> > > > X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
> >> > > > Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
> >> > > > A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
> >> > > > misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
> >> >
> >> > > And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
> >> > > correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
> >> > > research,
> >> > > "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
> >> > > further
> >> > > research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
> >> >
> >> > > So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
> >> > > is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
> >> >
> >> > > As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
> >> >
> >> > > I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
> >> >
> >> > > And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
> >> > > validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
> >> >
> >> > > Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
> >> > > could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
> >> >
> >> > > Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
> >> > > position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
> >> > > imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
> >> >
> >> > > Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
> >> >
> >> > > R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:15:58 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >
> >What's the matter, Kane.
>
> Is that a question?
>
> I'm not a physicist. I do not know what matter really is, in that
> sense. And I understand it's still being explored.
>
But you are a "published researcher". Hihihi!

> > Where is the proof that Alina is me?
>
> Up your monkeybutt.
>
Hihihi! Childish name-calling, Kane?

> What the matter, Doan, can't answer the challeng below...that you
> lied, as usual, mislead, make claims you don't support, or even
> believe in and then switch tracks when it's convenient to you new
> position on a question?
>
The proven liar is YOU, Kane!

> You won't answer, of course, because I fed you your own **** and you
> are spewing it back as a way to avoid answering to your dishonorable
> posting.
>
Oops! My "own ****" coming out of your mouth again. How does it get
there, Kane?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:10:26 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
>>>>> Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
>>>> Diversion? What diversion?
>>>>
>>> Diversion from your accusation that Alina is me! Senderbase was one of
>>> the source you claimed showed that Alina was using a "fictitous address".
>>> You said you have called them. Is that just a LIE, Kane?
>>>
>>>> When you bring up a new subject, rather than answer the questions or
>>>> challenges being made to you what do you call it?
>>>>
>>>> Just give this whatever name you use for it when you do it?
>>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>>>
>>>> And we don't need to go back to Senderbase as I've told you I have no
>>>> interest in Alina whatsoever. That's YOUR issue you keep bringing up
>>>> when YOU want to divert.
>>>>
>>> That is the accusation that you brought against me. You said you have
>>> PROOF that Alina is me, out to scam you a copy of the Embry Study.
>>> Is that a LIE too, Kane?
>>>
>>>> So getting the same back isn't comfortable for you?
>>>>
>>> Is false accusation comfortable for you, Kane?
>> Seems to be for you when you do it.
>>
> I don't make false accusation, Kane.

Liar.

> Are you saying your accusation that
> Alina is me FALSE?

Whoops! There's that word. Get stuffed.


>
> Doan
>
>>>> Hi..hi..hi... Doan
>>>>
>>> Hihihi!
>>>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>>>>> Doan's claim:
>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>>>>>> An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>>>>>> Doan
>>>>>> Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
>>>>>> Newsgroups: misc.kids
>>>>>> From: Doan >
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
>>>>>> Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>>>>>>>> As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
>>>>>>>> Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
>>>>>>>> spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
>>>>>>>> (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
>>>>>>>> level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>>>>>>>> The result of these studies could not be explained merely
>>>>>>>> by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
>>>>>>>> spanked more.
>>>>>>>> I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
>>>>>>>> this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
>>>>>>>> increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
>>>>>>>> not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
>>>>>>>> argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
>>>>>>>> alternative explanation of the correlation.
>>>>>>> There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>>>>>>> If X correlates with Y, they are:
>>>>>>> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>>>>>>> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>>>>>>> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>>>>>>> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>>>>>>> The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
>>>>>>> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>>>>>>> I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
>>>>>>> the null hypothesis.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
>>>>>>> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>>>>>>> "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
>>>>>>> nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
>>>>>>> Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>>>>>> Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
>>>>>> alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
>>>>>> were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>>>>>> Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>>>>>> Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
>>>>>> causation, as In
>>>>>>> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>>>>>>> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>>>>>>> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>>>>>>> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>>>>>> And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
>>>>>> correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
>>>>>> research,
>>>>>> "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
>>>>>> further
>>>>>> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>>>>>> So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
>>>>>> is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>>>>>> As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>>>>>> I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>>>>>> And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
>>>>>> validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>>>>>> Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
>>>>>> could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>>>>>> Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
>>>>>> position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
>>>>>> imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>>>>>> Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>>>>>> R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:10:26 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> >>>>> Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
> >>>> Diversion? What diversion?
> >>>>
> >>> Diversion from your accusation that Alina is me! Senderbase was one of
> >>> the source you claimed showed that Alina was using a "fictitous address".
> >>> You said you have called them. Is that just a LIE, Kane?
> >>>
> >>>> When you bring up a new subject, rather than answer the questions or
> >>>> challenges being made to you what do you call it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just give this whatever name you use for it when you do it?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>>>
> >>>> And we don't need to go back to Senderbase as I've told you I have no
> >>>> interest in Alina whatsoever. That's YOUR issue you keep bringing up
> >>>> when YOU want to divert.
> >>>>
> >>> That is the accusation that you brought against me. You said you have
> >>> PROOF that Alina is me, out to scam you a copy of the Embry Study.
> >>> Is that a LIE too, Kane?
> >>>
> >>>> So getting the same back isn't comfortable for you?
> >>>>
> >>> Is false accusation comfortable for you, Kane?
> >> Seems to be for you when you do it.
> >>
> > I don't make false accusation, Kane.
>
> Liar.
>
The proven liar is YOU, Kane. Your accusation that Alina is me is such
a proof!

> > Are you saying your accusation that
> > Alina is me FALSE?
>
> Whoops! There's that word. Get stuffed.
>
Can't answer the question, Kane? A simple YES or NO will do. Hihihi!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:12:17 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
>>>>> Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
>>>> Why not respond to the post, Doan?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, why not, Kane? Since when is Senderbase an anon. proxy checker?
>>>
>>>> Can't deal with facing how deceptive and lying you are?
>>> The proven liar IS YOU, Kane!
>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>> Tell us again about your views on correlation, Doan...Hihihi.
>>>>
>>> Correlation is NOT cause! Hihihi!
>> No one claimed it was.
>>
> Well, "Spanking leads to aggressiona" is a causal claim.

The only place you will find that statement is in Ken's post as HIS
words, claiming others have used them.

It isn't even the title of the article about the study .

And a long way indeed from the title of the researcher's abstract.

So you now wish to join Ken in claiming that I said "Spanking Leads to
Aggression?"

Please post my words. Not someone else's.

>> You are ignoring also that I don't care about the Alina debate, Doan.
>> It was YOUR diversion many times. Thought I'd feed you a little of
>> your own ****.
>>

Snip....no discussion of Alina will be tolerated......

Debate the issues of the article or articles I posts (there were two),
or **** off, monkeyboy.

Here is one of the issues. What do you think of someone who would demand
that before he defend his claim the opponent must admit defeat?

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

Of course you probably think that was clever. Like your bull**** that I
conceded wanting it to appear I 'conceded' anything more than the title
did nor reflect the content and that that content was indeed NOT causal.

Since I'd never claim "cause" in this or anywhere in this debate, it
starts to make you guys look pretty silly when you keep harping that I
did but will not provide proof.

You and Ken are cooperating to keep dodging the important point of the
international study.

And you'll lie about my "conceding" to do it.

Show where I conceded, Doan.

Or be known for the liar you are. A PROVEN LIAR.

And one who makes unsupported accusations of others...more lying.

0:]



> Doan
>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>>>>> Doan's claim:
>>>>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ...
>>>>>> An interesting post from the past, and Doan's reply to it:
>>>>>> Doan
>>>>>> Jul 2 2005, 11:40 am
>>>>>> Newsgroups: misc.kids
>>>>>> From: Doan >
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700
>>>>>> Local: Sat, Jul 2 2005 11:40 am
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
>>>>>>>> As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
>>>>>>>> Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
>>>>>>>> spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
>>>>>>>> (or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
>>>>>>>> level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.
>>>>>>>> The result of these studies could not be explained merely
>>>>>>>> by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
>>>>>>>> spanked more.
>>>>>>>> I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
>>>>>>>> this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
>>>>>>>> increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
>>>>>>>> not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
>>>>>>>> argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
>>>>>>>> alternative explanation of the correlation.
>>>>>>> There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.
>>>>>>> If X correlates with Y, they are:
>>>>>>> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>>>>>>> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>>>>>>> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>>>>>>> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>>>>>>> The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
>>>>>>> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.
>>>>>>> I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
>>>>>>> the null hypothesis.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
>>>>>>> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>>>>>>> "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
>>>>>>> nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
>>>>>>> Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>>>>>> Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
>>>>>> alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
>>>>>> were brought up by Dr. Larzelere: ...
>>>>>> Really Doan, an "excellent point?"
>>>>>> Can we presume then that you agree that correlation can indeed lead to
>>>>>> causation, as In
>>>>>>> X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
>>>>>>> Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
>>>>>>> A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
>>>>>>> misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)
>>>>>> And how does this wash with your calling me stupid when I suggest that
>>>>>> correlation is a useful and often used method for policy setting and
>>>>>> research,
>>>>>> "The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame
>>>>>> further
>>>>>> research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct." ?
>>>>>> So how does this wash with your later claim that ">> First, the study
>>>>>> is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied. ..."
>>>>>> As in " No CAUSATION can be implied. ...?"
>>>>>> I'd say, just offhand, that you spoke out of turn, to say the least.
>>>>>> And I'm more comfortable than ever with my arguments about the
>>>>>> validity of correlation, and how it is and should be used.
>>>>>> Yes, causation can most certainly be implied and you agreed that it
>>>>>> could be, or do you wish to take back, "an excellent point?"
>>>>>> Seems YOU, on the pro spank side, can use correlation to support a
>>>>>> position, but those opposed to spanking cannot. And for YOU it can
>>>>>> imply CAUSE, but for it, it cannot.
>>>>>> Just how dishonest are you, Doan?
>>>>>> R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

[0:->]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
....

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:12:17 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 4, 8:50 am, Doan > wrote:
> >>>>> Why the diversion, Kane? Shall we go back to Senderbase?
> >>>> Why not respond to the post, Doan?
> >>>>
> >>> Yeah, why not, Kane? Since when is Senderbase an anon. proxy checker?
> >>>
> >>>> Can't deal with facing how deceptive and lying you are?
> >>> The proven liar IS YOU, Kane!
> >>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>> Tell us again about your views on correlation, Doan...Hihihi.
> >>>>
> >>> Correlation is NOT cause! Hihihi!
> >> No one claimed it was.
> >>
> > Well, "Spanking leads to aggressiona" is a causal claim.
>
> The only place you will find that statement is in Ken's post as HIS
> words, claiming others have used them.
>
No, Kane. It is YOU who made that claim. When you know that it cannot
be proven, you changed your tune and claimed that "X leads to Y" can
be correlation without being causal... you then finally conceded that
"Spanking leads to aggression" can be taken as causal. You LOST, Kane.
Give it up!

> It isn't even the title of the article about the study .
>
Give it up, Kane.

> And a long way indeed from the title of the researcher's abstract.
>
Give it up, Kane!

> So you now wish to join Ken in claiming that I said "Spanking Leads to
> Aggression?"
>
Give it up, Kane!

> Please post my words. Not someone else's.
>
Well, how does someone's words get into your post, Kane?

> >> You are ignoring also that I don't care about the Alina debate, Doan.
> >> It was YOUR diversion many times. Thought I'd feed you a little of
> >> your own ****.
> >>
>
> Snip....no discussion of Alina will be tolerated......
>
Hihihi. It's not a debate, STUPID! IT IS A FALSE ACCUSATION YOU MADE
AGAINST ME!!!

Doan

[0:->]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
....

[Doan]

What were the spanking rates in these countries, Kane?

Doan

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>
> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
>
> The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
> should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
> While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
> because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
> child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
> argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
> characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
> physical discipline is used.
>
> To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
> University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
> Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
> University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
> Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
> India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
> Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
> Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
> the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
> and anxiety.
>
> They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
> children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
> other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
> Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
> is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
> measure children's aggression and anxiety.
>
> The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
> discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
> physical discipline. Specifically:
>
> * Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
> their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
> India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
> discipline their children.
> * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
> associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
> being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
> associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
> perception of cultural acceptance.
> * In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
> culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
> aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
> disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
> * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
> associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
>
> "One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
> recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
> groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
> scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
> "A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
> use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
> example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
>
> However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
> (e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
> "A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
> regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
>
> ###
>
> Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
> Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
> Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
> University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
> Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
> Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
> Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
> Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
> Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
> Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
> rights reserved.
>
> Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
> for Research in Child Development.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
> ...
>

[0:->]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
....

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> What were the spanking rates in these countries, Kane?

What were the spanking rates in these countries, Doan?

>
> Doan
>
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>>
>> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
>>
>> The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
>> should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
>> While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
>> because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
>> child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
>> argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
>> characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
>> physical discipline is used.
>>
>> To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
>> University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
>> G�teborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
>> University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
>> Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
>> India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
>> Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
>> Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
>> the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
>> and anxiety.
>>
>> They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
>> children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
>> other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
>> Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
>> is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
>> measure children's aggression and anxiety.
>>
>> The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
>> discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
>> physical discipline. Specifically:
>>
>> * Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
>> their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
>> India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
>> discipline their children.
>> * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
>> associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
>> being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
>> associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
>> perception of cultural acceptance.
>> * In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
>> culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
>> aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
>> disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
>> * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
>> associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
>>
>> "One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
>> recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
>> groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
>> scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
>> "A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
>> use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
>> example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
>>
>> However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
>> (e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
>> "A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
>> regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
>> Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
>> Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
>> University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
>> Palm�rus K (G�teborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
>> Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
>> Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
>> Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
>> Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
>> Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
>> rights reserved.
>>
>> Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
>> for Research in Child Development.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>> ...
>>
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > What were the spanking rates in these countries, Kane?
>
> What were the spanking rates in these countries, Doan?
>
Not much different, Kane. They were all VERY HIGH! Did you read the
study in full, Kane?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> What were the spanking rates in these countries, Kane?
>> What were the spanking rates in these countries, Doan?
>>
> Not much different, Kane. They were all VERY HIGH! Did you read the
> study in full, Kane?

I don't have access to the academic library. You do.

Is that supposed to make you superior?

You'll tell us the truth about what the study says, won't you, monkeyboy?




>
> Doan
>

[Doan]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> What were the spanking rates in these countries, Kane?
> >> What were the spanking rates in these countries, Doan?
> >>
> > Not much different, Kane. They were all VERY HIGH! Did you read the
> > study in full, Kane?
>
> I don't have access to the academic library. You do.
>
Hihihi! What happenned to your shelves and file cabinets full of research
studies??? Were that also a LIE, Kane?

> Is that supposed to make you superior?
>
No, Kane! It just means that I can spot someone who is not telling truth
easier than the average poster.

> You'll tell us the truth about what the study says, won't you, monkeyboy?
>
Hihihi! Sure, Empty Kane. You can show other people the proof that Alina
is me now, can you?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
........................

Whoops!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
....

[Doan]

That was a lot of of posts by you, Kane. Still trying hard to avoid
having to face the FALSE ACCUSATIONS you made against me, claiming
that Alina is me out to con you?

Doan


On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> .......................
>
> Whoops!
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>
> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
>
> The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
> should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
> While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
> because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
> child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
> argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
> characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
> physical discipline is used.
>
> To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
> University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
> Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
> University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
> Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
> India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
> Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
> Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
> the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
> and anxiety.
>
> They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
> children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
> other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
> Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
> is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
> measure children's aggression and anxiety.
>
> The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
> discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
> physical discipline. Specifically:
>
> * Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
> their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
> India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
> discipline their children.
> * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
> associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
> being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
> associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
> perception of cultural acceptance.
> * In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
> culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
> aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
> disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
> * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
> associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
>
> "One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
> recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
> groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
> scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
> "A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
> use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
> example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
>
> However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
> (e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
> "A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
> regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
>
> ###
>
> Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
> Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
> Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
> University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
> Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
> Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
> Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
> Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
> Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
> Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
> rights reserved.
>
> Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
> for Research in Child Development.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
> ...
>

[0:-]]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:04:51 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>
>That was a lot of of posts by you, Kane.

You've not noticed I post a lot generally? Odd.

>Still trying hard

Not trying at all. You've had your explanation of having your nosed
rubbed in your own methods.

>to avoid
>having to face the FALSE ACCUSATIONS you made against me, claiming
>that Alina is me out to con you?

What yah gonna do about it, stupid? It's YOUR OWN METHODS, that I
stuck your face in.

On purpose.

YOU keep bringing Alina up, Doan, NOT me.
>
>Doan

Doan't the dope who, with his Hihihi reveals he's a liar and cheat.

But is quick to identify someone that does a MIRROR of him as making
false accusations.

YOU are condemning yourself every time you make such observations,
Doan.

That was my point.

No you aren't Alina. Nor were you ever. But you went to great trouble
to NOT deny it, and refuse to provide proof you had the study.

Thus setting UP the appearance of being a sock...a common enough
occurrence on Usenet.

And even MANIPULATE Alina by offering her the study, then demanding an
"envelope" from her to send her the study...when you could have done
so electronically? R R R R R R R

Now tell me you couldn't have scanned the document.

Doan, it would appear to any reasonable person that you did not have
the study at the time and were bluffing while you anxiously awaited
USC to get it.

At the time I tried to see if you were telling the truth and got
listings from the UC library system for the state that it wasn't
available.

Nor did the AAA have it in print at the time.

I had my copy from Dr. Embry, and you had **** for brains.

All you evasive posts made very clear that you either didn't have it
or wanted to avoid actually debating it.

As usual for you.


>
>
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>> .......................
>>
>> Whoops!
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>>
>> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
>>
>> The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
>> should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
>> While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
>> because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
>> child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
>> argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
>> characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
>> physical discipline is used.
>>
>> To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
>> University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
>> Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
>> University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
>> Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
>> India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
>> Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
>> Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
>> the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
>> and anxiety.
>>
>> They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
>> children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
>> other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
>> Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
>> is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
>> measure children's aggression and anxiety.
>>
>> The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
>> discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
>> physical discipline. Specifically:
>>
>> * Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
>> their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
>> India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
>> discipline their children.
>> * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
>> associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
>> being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
>> associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
>> perception of cultural acceptance.
>> * In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
>> culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
>> aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
>> disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
>> * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
>> associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
>>
>> "One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
>> recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
>> groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
>> scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
>> "A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
>> use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
>> example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
>>
>> However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
>> (e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
>> "A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
>> regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
>> Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
>> Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
>> University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
>> Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
>> Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
>> Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
>> Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
>> Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
>> Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
>> rights reserved.
>>
>> Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
>> for Research in Child Development.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>> ...
>>

[Doan]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:04:51 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >That was a lot of of posts by you, Kane.
>
> You've not noticed I post a lot generally? Odd.
>
Yup! Empty Kane tend to make lot of noises! ;-)

EK;-)

> >Still trying hard
>
> Not trying at all. You've had your explanation of having your nosed
> rubbed in your own methods.
>
> >to avoid
> >having to face the FALSE ACCUSATIONS you made against me, claiming
> >that Alina is me out to con you?
>
> What yah gonna do about it, stupid? It's YOUR OWN METHODS, that I
> stuck your face in.
>
> On purpose.
>
> YOU keep bringing Alina up, Doan, NOT me.
> >
> >Doan
>
> Doan't the dope who, with his Hihihi reveals he's a liar and cheat.
>
> But is quick to identify someone that does a MIRROR of him as making
> false accusations.
>
> YOU are condemning yourself every time you make such observations,
> Doan.
>
> That was my point.
>
> No you aren't Alina. Nor were you ever. But you went to great trouble
> to NOT deny it, and refuse to provide proof you had the study.
>
> Thus setting UP the appearance of being a sock...a common enough
> occurrence on Usenet.
>
> And even MANIPULATE Alina by offering her the study, then demanding an
> "envelope" from her to send her the study...when you could have done
> so electronically? R R R R R R R
>
> Now tell me you couldn't have scanned the document.
>
> Doan, it would appear to any reasonable person that you did not have
> the study at the time and were bluffing while you anxiously awaited
> USC to get it.
>
> At the time I tried to see if you were telling the truth and got
> listings from the UC library system for the state that it wasn't
> available.
>
> Nor did the AAA have it in print at the time.
>
> I had my copy from Dr. Embry, and you had **** for brains.
>
> All you evasive posts made very clear that you either didn't have it
> or wanted to avoid actually debating it.
>
> As usual for you.
>
>
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >> .......................
> >>
> >> Whoops!
> >>
> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
> >>
> >> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
> >>
> >> The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
> >> should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
> >> While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
> >> because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
> >> child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
> >> argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
> >> characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
> >> physical discipline is used.
> >>
> >> To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
> >> University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
> >> Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
> >> University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
> >> Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
> >> India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
> >> Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
> >> Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
> >> the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
> >> and anxiety.
> >>
> >> They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
> >> children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
> >> other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
> >> Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
> >> is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
> >> measure children's aggression and anxiety.
> >>
> >> The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
> >> discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
> >> physical discipline. Specifically:
> >>
> >> * Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
> >> their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
> >> India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
> >> discipline their children.
> >> * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
> >> associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
> >> being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
> >> associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
> >> perception of cultural acceptance.
> >> * In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
> >> culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
> >> aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
> >> disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
> >> * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
> >> associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
> >>
> >> "One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
> >> recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
> >> groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
> >> scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
> >> "A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
> >> use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
> >> example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
> >>
> >> However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
> >> (e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
> >> "A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
> >> regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
> >>
> >> ###
> >>
> >> Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
> >> Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
> >> Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
> >> University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
> >> Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
> >> Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
> >> Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
> >> Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
> >> Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
> >> Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
> >> rights reserved.
> >>
> >> Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
> >> for Research in Child Development.
> >>
> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
> >> ...
> >>
>
>