Pangborn Priorities

[0:->]

It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.

He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
even puts it in quotes.

He continues for a month or more to refuse to quote me directly
providing the source for this claim.

He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.

He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
0:-]

He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.

He claims a survey (the researches referred to the tool as
'interview') isn't a study, which is true....it's part of a study if
that is the method being used.

He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.

He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.

In fact, the abstract says it twice.

Reviewers make note of this fact and even use their own words, in one
instance, to say the same thing.

But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
LOST THE DEBATE.

Hmmmm......he appears to want me to lie. Wouldn't you say?

Is there a trend here, and a clarification of Ken Pangborn Priorities?

Kane

[krp]

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

> It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.

More than you.

> He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
> even puts it in quotes.

You have.

> He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
> are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.

Not exactly what I said.

> He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
> 0:-]

No that is also a misrepresentation. I said I wouldn't until EITHER you
PROVED with scientifically valid evidence that spanking indeed DOES cause
aggression in children or you admit you were wrong. On Mondays Wednesdays
and Fridays you admit the evidence doesn't support your claim the rest of
the week you claim you PROVED it beyond a shadow of a doubt and you kicked
my ass. It's an either OR Kaney. Make up your mind which door you wish to
choose. What's behind door # 1 or door # 2.

> He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
> his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.

Kaney I don't sonsider a "SURVEY" to be a "scientific study" because it
offers NO mechanism for validation of the information, without that it's
just a high tones OPINION POLL!

> He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
> corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.

> He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
> opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
> fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.

MAN you are Stoooooooooooooooooooooooopid! Yes, Kane that's what it said
ALMOST..... It showed much LESS of a increase in anxiety.
Again IF you weren't a MORON a TOTAL and ABSOLUTE MORON you'd know that
cultural infleuences should have ZERO impact that only SPANKING is CAUSING
the aggression. It's not my job to explain to you what it is then. Probably
a combination of factors but NOT spanking in and of itself. There were ZERO
checks to see if the "PERCEIVED" aggression was real or not. What it
offensive in nature or defensive? The "STUDY" as YOU like to call it was
little more than a self fulfilling prophecy. The study began with a THEORY
and set about proving it! READ IT JACKASS! READ IT!!

READ MORON READ!!!

"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 "

To find out IF the LATER throry was valid.......... NOT to find out
WHICH THEORY but only the LATER theory. JUNK SCIENCE Kaney JUNK!
Politically correct and it warms the cockles of the hearts of STRIDENT
anti-spanker hysterics like you. Meanwhile keep appealing for your HERO
Moore to come and rescue you!

> But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
> LOST THE DEBATE.

OR - ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Kaney you PROVE that spanking CAUSES
aggression in kids. Pick DOOR # 1 or DOOR #2..

[0:-]]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:00:45 GMT, "KRP" > wrote:

>
...but I do so love to keep the dad'srights folks amused...So your
attempts to escape dad'srights notice, (Moore is the only person
there, then?) is thwarted again, Ken.

And where have you seen me address Mr. Moore with my posts? YOU keep
bringing him up, not I.

What a simple **** you are.

>"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.

Ken starts with a laughable lie.

> More than you.

See? Toadjahso.

>> He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
>> even puts it in quotes.
>
>You have.

Then show where I did using MY words, not your claim, and your quotes
of yourself claiming those are my words.

Quote and link, Ken. It's the right thing to do. 0:]

Just like I do when I "quote" you.

>> He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
>> are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.
>
> Not exactly what I said.

Nope. But very close, and I've quoted you many times and still you've
dodged.

Unlike you I've not only quoted you directly, but provided a link so
anyone, including you, could go and view your words in your own post.

Why are you now lying about this?

You are being unethical to claim I said something and refusing to
produce the evidence when I ask for it. After all you are talking
about me.

On the other hand, being ethical myself, I will once again...I'd say
for roughly the fifth or sixth time, provide you with exactly what I
claim you said, and by providing the actual words from your own post,
and passage to that post:

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

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

See, pretty much what I claimed you said..and have quoted you
accurately so many times.

I remind you that you have claimed you are more ethical in debate than
I. From the opening to your post:

>> It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.
> More than you.

See? Now IF you are ethical, more than me, how is it I prove what I
claim, and you refuse to?

And I point out again, to you, that you made an assertion that you
failed to support except with speculation that reports of more
sociopathy exist now than in the past...you apparently don't
understand how the passage of time effects data collection, or how
other variables can effect mental health issues.

Or how the passage of time changes a professional discipline as it
does in the mental health field. We didn't SEE "sociopathy" as that in
the distant past.

We more often called it CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. All that has happened is
that the label has change. My own guess is that the rate of actual
sociopathy has gone down, not up. But the recognition and treatment
has increased.

>> He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
>> 0:-]
>
> No that is also a misrepresentation.

No it is not. It is a very close approximation of your words.

>I said I wouldn't until EITHER you
>PROVED with scientifically valid evidence

And you have defined "scientifically valid evidence" in terms that
reject the accepted standards, ethically, and practically, that social
scientists must adhere to if they are to satisfy both the law, and
peer review for publication.

You are making an unethical demand. Basically telling me I must jump
to the moon before you'll respond to my reasonable request.

In fact you are revealing that you are a liar by violation of your own
standards on what scientific evidence in social science actually
consists of. You even agreed with ME as to what it is:
....
> "Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
> successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things
> as varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast."

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

The first statement is mine. The second yours, Ken.

You wish me to provide "PROOF" of "cause" but admit and defend that
"correlation" is the best evidence we have.

It is unethical to take that position for YOUR arguments, but deny me
the same latitude and boundaries in mine.

You lie when you say you won't debate me because you claim to be more
ethical than I.
....
>> It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.
> More than you.
....

>that spanking indeed DOES cause
>aggression in children or you admit you were wrong.

It is unethical to claim another has made a statement and when it's
contested to refuse to prove it, and to then make demands based on
your lie as the barrier to you responding to a proven-fact-based
request by your opponent. You are NOT more ethical than I.

You don't even play in the same ballpark, sonny.

I did not make a claim "that spanking indeed DOES cause
aggression in children." hence I'm under NO obligation to prove
something I not only didn't say, but disagree with myself. It does not
"cause" aggression and there is scientific evidence, peer reviewed,
and published that shows correlation.

YOU are under an obligation to both ask for producible evidence, or
admit you have asked for what does not exist, and you are under an
obligation to produce proof if you claim I said something I protest
having said.

>On Mondays Wednesdays
>and Fridays you admit the evidence doesn't support your claim

No, I "admit," and "concede" as I did before, that I made no such
claim that spanking "CAUSES" aggression.

That moved the ball to your court, and it's now your obligation that
you told the truth when you claimed I did.

Show were I did.

>the rest of
>the week you claim you PROVED it beyond a shadow of a doubt and you kicked
>my ass.

No, I made no claim that I proved spanking "CAUSES" aggression in
children. I did provide evidence that shows correlation. You refuse to
debate that evidence, instead moving the goal posts to your definition
of both the issues, and what I said about them.

That is lying. May I remind you of this?
....
>> It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.
> More than you.
....

You are unethical. And your statement above is a lie.

> It's an either OR Kaney.

Your fantasy is not my obligation.

>Make up your mind which door you wish to
>choose. What's behind door # 1 or door # 2.

I claimed that the evidence in the abstract of the international cross
cultural research on the effects of spanking were exactly what the
abstract said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Provide a link to my words where I am alleged to have said that
"spanking causes aggression in children" or where the study abstract
itself said that. ...

.... or where I attempted to use the abstract to support an argument of
"spanking 'CAUSES' aggression in children."

>> He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
>> his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.
>
>Kaney I don't sonsider a "SURVEY"

The method was "interview." Read the abstract.

> to be a "scientific study" because it
>offers NO mechanism for validation of the information, without that it's
>just a high tones OPINION POLL!

You don't know this about this study and it's report.

And you have just defined about 90% of the "scientists" who conduct
studies to REFUTE the anti spanking position, and support the pro
spanking on, out of their methods. They rely TOO on "interview," and
"survey."

What YOU consider a scientific study matters little to the facts. This
was research by respected investigators, under a many nations academic
effort, and produced viable useful information about a number of
things, among which was that anxiety and aggression while not as high
in one population if the child was spanked, was nonetheless noted to
increase...regardless of the cultures acceptance or rejection of CP
parenting methods.

You are unable to accept the truth of that finding so you dance.

>> He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
>> corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.
>
>> He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
>> opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
>> fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.
>
> MAN you are Stoooooooooooooooooooooooopid! Yes, Kane that's what it said

How would I be stupid if I am correct, as "that's what it said?"

>ALMOST..... It showed much LESS of a increase in anxiety.

Irrelevant to both the research premise, and the argument on the use
of CP in other than 'white' culture, as has been Doan's argument.

And the issue isn't "much LESS" of anything, but that it appears at
all.

An increase is an increase.

You need to read the premise of the research again. It's in the first
two paragraphs of the abstract. It plainly states that the argument
about CP used in cultures that accept it more makes it non harmful and
effective and does not produce anxiety and aggression in the children
was the reason for this research. And their finding refuted this hoary
old bull**** that black kids feel more loved by being spanked.

Hell, you are just going to lie, but I'll post it AGAIN for you to
ignore and snip from your answer, or switch threads and dodge AGAIN.

Oh, wait, you stupidly quote it for me at the end of your post...and
it refutes you AGAIN.

>Again IF you weren't a MORON a TOTAL and ABSOLUTE MORON you'd know that
>cultural infleuences should have ZERO impact that only SPANKING is CAUSING
>the aggression.

I beg your pardon? Would you mind fitting this into the premise of the
study abstract we are looking at?

>It's not my job to explain to you what it is then.

Then why are you trying, so ineptly?

>Probably
>a combination of factors but NOT spanking in and of itself.

What "factors," and what proof have you they were not considered?

>There were ZERO
>checks to see if the "PERCEIVED" aggression was real or not.

And the significance of that would be?

>What it
>offensive in nature or defensive?

Did the price of mangos go up or down the day before?

>The "STUDY" as YOU like to call it

Along with a half dozen or so journal authors reviewing it.

>was
>little more than a self fulfilling prophecy.

Have you the balls to take that up with the primary author?

>The study began with a THEORY
>and set about proving it! READ IT JACKASS! READ IT!!

I'm afraid you don't understand research. What does research usually
start with, Ken? 0:]

And if you need to, tell us what it starts with on Bizzaro Kenworld.

I've read the abstract. Have you?

>READ MORON READ!!!

Oh, there's a bit more to it than this you pasted below...without a
link, I notice.

>"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 "

Yes? And? And?

>
>To find out IF the LATER throry was valid.......... NOT to find out
>WHICH THEORY but only the LATER theory.

Non sequitur.

Knowing the one pits it against the other.

It would be rather foolish of them to attempt to conduct what amounts
to two study subject/premise at the same time.

They are quite aware there is already primary research on the former,
and very aware there is little to nothing on the latter.

Others research the opposing or contrary theory, Ken, honest. That's
how it's done.

> JUNK SCIENCE Kaney JUNK!

May I quote you to the research principle author, Jennifer Lansford,
Ph.D.?

>Politically correct

Politically correct? In what way? Dr. Lansford et al, was and is being
politically correct?

Possibly you'd like to carry this to a higher level and voice your
concerns that Dr. Lansford et al, claimed that spanking caused
aggression in the study subjects?

You could also express your questioning of a prestigious institute
like Duke producing the kind of "junk science," you claim this
research was. That was approximately your concern, was it not? Earlier
post, as I recall.

Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D.
Research Scientist ( staff )
Center for Child and Family Policy

+1 919 668 0981 (tel)
+1 919 668 6923 (fax)

Physical Address:
2024 W Main St Ste C222
Durham, NC 27705-4667

Postal Address:
Box 90545
Durham, NC 27708-0545

Be my guest. I haven't talked with her yet, but I'm certainly
interested enough in this seminal research (I suspect it will give
rise to more...possibly UN funded) to do so at some point possibly.

>and it warms the cockles of the hearts of STRIDENT
>anti-spanker hysterics like you.

No, actually for me it falls short of what would satisfy my belief
that a law needs to be passed that protects children again assault in
the same way and for the same actions adults are protected.

Problem is, as I mentioned recently, and Doan ran from, it's going to
be on emotions.

I have to go with my gut on this one, not science, as I know the final
decisions about law, as usual, will be based not directly on research
such as this, but the emotions it will bring up in people.

So what you and I say here, Ken, actually does have importance in that
way....we do speak from our emotions, you as well as I, stridently,
and from our hearts, or the cockles thereof.

The argument has been going more and more public over the years, to
the point I wonder if I might not see the law in my lifetime. We live
very long in my family. 0:]

>Meanwhile keep appealing for your HERO
>Moore to come and rescue you!

I don't recall addressing a single post to Mr. Moore, about you Ken.
Other than to question him privately a couple of times about the
accuracy and validity of his "evidence."

I was not kind. RR RRRR R R R R ....

I challenged him on YOUR behalf by doubting his evidence and forcing
him to produce it....well, 'forcing' is a bit strong, because he
wasn't the least reluctant ... <smile>

And he and I took that confrontation about one issue public with you
reading it, where he admitted that the piece I challenged did not in
fact reach a level of "conclusive" evidence.

Hence I, then and there, publicly rejected his claim -- said it could
not stand as correct and true, ...and you said nothing other than to
accuse me of being his lapdog, or some such bull**** accusation.

.... this AFTER I defended you against him. You are one sick puppy.

>> But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
>> LOST THE DEBATE.
>
> OR - ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Kaney you PROVE that spanking CAUSES
>aggression in kids. Pick DOOR # 1 or DOOR #2..

Okay, let's play.

DOOR # 1 = Kane never claimed "CAUSES"

Now let's try...

DOOR # 2 = Ken refuses to prove his claim that Kane claimed "CAUSES"
and avoids both Doan's and HIS admission that this was at best a study
that showed correlation...as I had said repeatedly.

I'll take both.

Thanks.

Why, by the way, didn't you provide (it's very easy) a link to your
quote of the abstract, Ken?

Didn't want folks to see what it said next?

Here is the LINK.

Let's start with the list of research institutes involved, shall we?
The ones that you claim are publishing "JUNK SCIENCE ... JUNK!"

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

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

By they way, if you survey the reviews from other journals you'll see
all kinds of titles used, hence, this title is not the one we should
restrict ourselves to, though that would cut off your favorite escape
route.

Now what in this 'junk science ... junk' research, Ken, do you find
supports any claim that because there is less anxiety and aggression
with spanking in cultures more accepting of it there is no correlation
between spanking and aggression in children?

That has been my argument all along, despite your lies to the
contrary...that there is a correlation.

0:]

[Ron]

"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.

Yeah, right. He also sells swamp land in Kansas.

> He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
> even puts it in quotes.

I notced that, but then again he fails to back the statement. Nothing
unusual about that, not from kenny.

> He continues for a month or more to refuse to quote me directly
> providing the source for this claim.

At LEAST a month. More in my book.

> He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
> are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.

Personally, its kenny that suffers from "sociopathy".

> He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
> 0:-]

Just who was it that posted a message that he was leaving Usenet? I didn't
see YOUR name on the note, except to disparage you of course.

> He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
> his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.

"Inneresting"

> He claims a survey (the researches referred to the tool as
> 'interview') isn't a study, which is true....it's part of a study if
> that is the method being used.
>
> He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
> corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.

And he doesn't seem to be able to support that statement either. Is this a
trend?

> He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
> opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
> fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.
>
> In fact, the abstract says it twice.
>
> Reviewers make note of this fact and even use their own words, in one
> instance, to say the same thing.
>
> But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
> LOST THE DEBATE.
>
> Hmmmm......he appears to want me to lie. Wouldn't you say?

Why not? He does. Its ALL he does. Other than his name (which I suspect
is also inaccurate), I cant think of a single thing that kenny has said that
IS accurate.

> Is there a trend here, and a clarification of Ken Pangborn Priorities?
>
> Kane

Looking like an idiot must be at the very top of the list for him. He works
so hard at it, it must be in the top 5 at the very least.

Ron

[Doan]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:

>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.
>
> Yeah, right. He also sells swamp land in Kansas.
>
And I am Alina, posting from Mexico! Hihihi!

> > He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
> > even puts it in quotes.
>
> I notced that, but then again he fails to back the statement. Nothing
> unusual about that, not from kenny.
>
"Spanking leads to aggression" is a CAUSAL claim.

> > He continues for a month or more to refuse to quote me directly
> > providing the source for this claim.
>
> At LEAST a month. More in my book.
>
> > He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
> > are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.
>
> Personally, its kenny that suffers from "sociopathy".
>
> > He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
> > 0:-]
>
> Just who was it that posted a message that he was leaving Usenet? I didn't
> see YOUR name on the note, except to disparage you of course.
>
> > He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
> > his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.
>
> "Inneresting"
>
First, I am not "his buddy". Second, he already said he doesn't consider
a survey of personal opinions a study. That is his opinion. Third,
what do you meant by "Inneresting"?

> > He claims a survey (the researches referred to the tool as
> > 'interview') isn't a study, which is true....it's part of a study if
> > that is the method being used.
> >
> > He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
> > corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.
>
> And he doesn't seem to be able to support that statement either. Is this a
> trend?
>
I don't think Kane can support the statement "Spanking leads to
aggression" neither. In fact, he conceded that fact. The debate is
over and HE LOST!

Doan

> > He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
> > opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
> > fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.
> >
> > In fact, the abstract says it twice.
> >
> > Reviewers make note of this fact and even use their own words, in one
> > instance, to say the same thing.
> >
> > But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
> > LOST THE DEBATE.
> >
> > Hmmmm......he appears to want me to lie. Wouldn't you say?
>
> Why not? He does. Its ALL he does. Other than his name (which I suspect
> is also inaccurate), I cant think of a single thing that kenny has said that
> IS accurate.
>
> > Is there a trend here, and a clarification of Ken Pangborn Priorities?
> >
> > Kane
>
> Looking like an idiot must be at the very top of the list for him. He works
> so hard at it, it must be in the top 5 at the very least.
>
> Ron
>
>
>

[0:-]]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:16:57 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.
>>
>> Yeah, right. He also sells swamp land in Kansas.
>>
>And I am Alina, posting from Mexico! Hihihi!

No you aren't. YOU are lying. To avoid facing that I simply copied
your common posting style...making a claim then refusing to support
it.

It was your lesson for this month. I might have another for you next.
Stay alert. You have a lot of fallacious and unethical argument to
answer for, and you are going to.

But then there is that bet, isn't there now?

>
>> > He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
>> > even puts it in quotes.
>>
>> I notced that, but then again he fails to back the statement. Nothing
>> unusual about that, not from kenny.
>>
>"Spanking leads to aggression" is a CAUSAL claim.

Yep. Who made that claim? The FIRST person to say that was not me, but
Ken claiming I had.

Did I make it, or was it the title of an article about a study, which
I pointed out was not accurate in relation to the content of an
article OR the study itself?

It would have been deceptive of me to change the title. Yet the
article was about a study YOU RUN FROM DISCUSSING.

Or lie about.

>> > He continues for a month or more to refuse to quote me directly
>> > providing the source for this claim.
>>
>> At LEAST a month. More in my book.
>>
>> > He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
>> > are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.
>>
>> Personally, its kenny that suffers from "sociopathy".
>>
>> > He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
>> > 0:-]
>>
>> Just who was it that posted a message that he was leaving Usenet? I didn't
>> see YOUR name on the note, except to disparage you of course.
>>
>> > He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
>> > his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.
>>
>> "Inneresting"
>>
>First, I am not "his buddy".

Sure you are. He jumps into the discussion immediately upon your
mentioning of him. You continually defend him as you are doing now.

>Second, he already said he doesn't consider
>a survey of personal opinions a study.

Gee, and what is your opinion, and how do you feel about using 'study'
a minimum of twice, in an early post at that, and being told your
opinion is not agreed with by him?

How are you with him mistaking me for you when you derisively quoted
me, and he bought it was YOU and started slavishly agreeing with you
that social science rarely engages in Causal studies, but that
"correlation is the best we have?"

You ran right past that as fast as you could instead of correcting
him, didn't you?

He disagreed with YOU little idiot.

And he defended MY position on correlation being a useful method, as
it is of course, proven by the thousands of researchers to do, as this
study was, a search for correlations.

> That is his opinion.

Yes, and you agree?

>Third,
>what do you meant by "Inneresting"?

I bet he means "Inneresting."
>
>> > He claims a survey (the researches referred to the tool as
>> > 'interview') isn't a study, which is true....it's part of a study if
>> > that is the method being used.

You need to have a chat with Ken and explain how some research is
done, and that the research staff at the various universities would
probably at least laugh at him if not take umbrage at his calling
their very good work "Junk science ... junk."

Do you think it was junk science, and would you be willing to put that
on USC letterhead and address it to the researchers?

>> >
>> > He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
>> > corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.

No comment Doan?


>>
>> And he doesn't seem to be able to support that statement either. Is this a
>> trend?
>>
>I don't think Kane can support the statement "Spanking leads to
>aggression" neither.

In fact not only can't I, I already refused to, and agreed the study
and the article related to, as YOU yourself said, when you called it a
"study" twice in one sentence, correlation.

Yet Ken, and I believe you, went on to continue to argue that I had
claimed "Spanking leads to Aggression." And it was patently obvious to
avoid getting into the body of the article or abstract because you
could not carry your argument there. YOU RAN.

YOU CONCEDED. Debate is over. YOU LOST.

>In fact, he conceded that fact.

Of course, because I had never claimed it.

Neither you or Ken have been able to quote MY words to that effect.

He has falsely, referring to me, put those words in quotes as though
it was I saying that. I never have.

>The debate is
>over and HE LOST!

The debate is over because you ran. And most certainly Ken did, and
refused to back up his assertion...which I see YOU are keeping your
little hooves off of...that not spanking can lead to sociopathy.

>
>Doan
>

See, there you are, doing what I said you were doing. Defending your
little buddy's lies, Doan. But then birds of a feather, eh?




>> > He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
>> > opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
>> > fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.
>> >
>> > In fact, the abstract says it twice.
>> >
>> > Reviewers make note of this fact and even use their own words, in one
>> > instance, to say the same thing.
>> >
>> > But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
>> > LOST THE DEBATE.
>> >
>> > Hmmmm......he appears to want me to lie. Wouldn't you say?
>>
>> Why not? He does. Its ALL he does. Other than his name (which I suspect
>> is also inaccurate), I cant think of a single thing that kenny has said that
>> IS accurate.
>>
>> > Is there a trend here, and a clarification of Ken Pangborn Priorities?
>> >
>> > Kane
>>
>> Looking like an idiot must be at the very top of the list for him. He works
>> so hard at it, it must be in the top 5 at the very least.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>

[krp]

"0:-]" > wrote in message
...
>
> And where have you seen me address Mr. Moore with my posts? YOU keep
> bringing him up, not I.

Every time you cross post to the ADRU group you desperate little pansy! You
are BEGGING for Moore's help.
Pleading in desperation.

[Greegor]

Ron, aside from your constant personal attack, do you
really buy the notion that spanking causes aggression in kids?

Did you catch the part about how kids in cultures where
spanking is considered NORMAL fared better later?

Did you buy the article that stated one CAUSES the other
but then showed correlation instead of causality?

Whether you bought it or not, do you take kindly
to articles that were TITLED as causality but then
show only correlation?

Do you throw out all logic in favor of ad hom?

[0:-]]

On 5 Mar 2007 16:23:32 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>Ron, aside from your constant personal attack, do you
>really buy the notion that spanking causes aggression in kids?

Gosh, for all his comments on Ken's lies, he never once took at
position on that. And he made plain he does not discuss that. And Ken
lied and behaved as though Ron actually posted something on that. Now
YOU want to get in on the act?

R R R R R....

WHAT Ron addressed, if I understand correctly, was not if Ken was
right or wrong, or he agreed with Ken or not, but that Ken failed to
produce evidence he was most rightly asked for, given his assertion, a
causal one at that.


>Did you catch the part about how kids in cultures where
>spanking is considered NORMAL fared better later?

I asked if you wanted to debate this study with me, Greg. Are you
choosing instead to engage someone that has already said clearly, and
before this discussion about the International study, that he's not
interested in the debate.

I, on the other hand am. Why are you not engaging someone that IS
interested?

Or are you going to join Ken in his lies about Ron not being able to
come up with evidence...RR RR ...
>
>Did you buy the article that stated one CAUSES the other
>but then showed correlation instead of causality?

And the article said this where? The article did not state that. The
title to the article did and we already clearly establish, through a
series of lying dodges by Doan and Ken that we agreed the title did
not reflect the article content, or the abstract of the study content.

>Whether you bought it or not, do you take kindly
>to articles that were TITLED as causality but then
>show only correlation?

What does that matter? It's not the article title but the content that
matters.

Given the propensity for YOU to title media articles that do not say
what your title claims or insinuates, I feel you do not have a lot of
claim to being offended at the title debacle.

I posted the article content clearly so the title would not mislead,
but I prefer NOT to change anything, even the title to something
someone else has published. You and others here feel free to do that.

And I also posted the abstract from the source, Duke University
researcher.

>
>Do you throw out all logic in favor of ad hom?

Well, I see you are presuming already what Ron's view might be with a
rhetorical question to see if you can force him into declaring a
position on a subject he's already given an adequate answer on...he's
not interested in debating the spanking question.

He is, simply, annoyed at liars like Ken.

I have it on good authority...meaning he hasn't told me otherwise, the
Ron believes that CP is an effective tool in parenting.

Should he change his mind I promise I'll sneak back here without his
knowledge and tip you off so you can actually debate honestly, unlike
your present attempt.

You are part of a pack of liars, Greg. Get over yourself and just go
ahead and lie outright, without all the squirming. It's much more
manly and brave.

0|]

[Doan]

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

> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:16:57 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > It seems Ken believes that he's ethical in debate.
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. He also sells swamp land in Kansas.
> >>
> >And I am Alina, posting from Mexico! Hihihi!
>
> No you aren't. YOU are lying. To avoid facing that I simply copied
> your common posting style...making a claim then refusing to support
> it.
>
Oops! That was you claim, Kane. You said you have proof. Where is
the PROOF Kane? You were even so STUPID as to claim Senderbase is
an anon. proxy checker. You called Senderbase, Kane? What is
their number?

> It was your lesson for this month. I might have another for you next.
> Stay alert. You have a lot of fallacious and unethical argument to
> answer for, and you are going to.
>
Hihihi! Empty Kane making more noises. Hihihi!

> But then there is that bet, isn't there now?

What bet is that, Kane? My bet is that you don't have the proof that
Alina is me? Wannna bet? Hihihi

EK;->

>
> >
> >> > He claims I've said that spanking causes aggression in children. He
> >> > even puts it in quotes.
> >>
> >> I notced that, but then again he fails to back the statement. Nothing
> >> unusual about that, not from kenny.
> >>
> >"Spanking leads to aggression" is a CAUSAL claim.
>
> Yep. Who made that claim? The FIRST person to say that was not me, but
> Ken claiming I had.
>
> Did I make it, or was it the title of an article about a study, which
> I pointed out was not accurate in relation to the content of an
> article OR the study itself?
>
> It would have been deceptive of me to change the title. Yet the
> article was about a study YOU RUN FROM DISCUSSING.
>
> Or lie about.
>
> >> > He continues for a month or more to refuse to quote me directly
> >> > providing the source for this claim.
> >>
> >> At LEAST a month. More in my book.
> >>
> >> > He claims he knows of "considerable evidence" that shows children who
> >> > are not spanked have a risk of developing sociopathy.
> >>
> >> Personally, its kenny that suffers from "sociopathy".
> >>
> >> > He says he won't document it until I admit that I've lost the debate.
> >> > 0:-]
> >>
> >> Just who was it that posted a message that he was leaving Usenet? I didn't
> >> see YOUR name on the note, except to disparage you of course.
> >>
> >> > He claims a study is not a study, yet won't respond when I point out
> >> > his buddy Doan called it a study twice in one sentence.
> >>
> >> "Inneresting"
> >>
> >First, I am not "his buddy".
>
> Sure you are. He jumps into the discussion immediately upon your
> mentioning of him. You continually defend him as you are doing now.
>
> >Second, he already said he doesn't consider
> >a survey of personal opinions a study.
>
> Gee, and what is your opinion, and how do you feel about using 'study'
> a minimum of twice, in an early post at that, and being told your
> opinion is not agreed with by him?
>
> How are you with him mistaking me for you when you derisively quoted
> me, and he bought it was YOU and started slavishly agreeing with you
> that social science rarely engages in Causal studies, but that
> "correlation is the best we have?"
>
> You ran right past that as fast as you could instead of correcting
> him, didn't you?
>
> He disagreed with YOU little idiot.
>
> And he defended MY position on correlation being a useful method, as
> it is of course, proven by the thousands of researchers to do, as this
> study was, a search for correlations.
>
> > That is his opinion.
>
> Yes, and you agree?
>
> >Third,
> >what do you meant by "Inneresting"?
>
> I bet he means "Inneresting."
> >
> >> > He claims a survey (the researches referred to the tool as
> >> > 'interview') isn't a study, which is true....it's part of a study if
> >> > that is the method being used.
>
> You need to have a chat with Ken and explain how some research is
> done, and that the research staff at the various universities would
> probably at least laugh at him if not take umbrage at his calling
> their very good work "Junk science ... junk."
>
> Do you think it was junk science, and would you be willing to put that
> on USC letterhead and address it to the researchers?
>
> >> >
> >> > He claims that spanking in societies that are more accepting of
> >> > corporal punishment produces less anxiety and aggression in children.
>
> No comment Doan?
>
>
> >>
> >> And he doesn't seem to be able to support that statement either. Is this a
> >> trend?
> >>
> >I don't think Kane can support the statement "Spanking leads to
> >aggression" neither.
>
> In fact not only can't I, I already refused to, and agreed the study
> and the article related to, as YOU yourself said, when you called it a
> "study" twice in one sentence, correlation.
>
> Yet Ken, and I believe you, went on to continue to argue that I had
> claimed "Spanking leads to Aggression." And it was patently obvious to
> avoid getting into the body of the article or abstract because you
> could not carry your argument there. YOU RAN.
>
> YOU CONCEDED. Debate is over. YOU LOST.
>
> >In fact, he conceded that fact.
>
> Of course, because I had never claimed it.
>
> Neither you or Ken have been able to quote MY words to that effect.
>
> He has falsely, referring to me, put those words in quotes as though
> it was I saying that. I never have.
>
> >The debate is
> >over and HE LOST!
>
> The debate is over because you ran. And most certainly Ken did, and
> refused to back up his assertion...which I see YOU are keeping your
> little hooves off of...that not spanking can lead to sociopathy.
>
> >
> >Doan
> >
>
> See, there you are, doing what I said you were doing. Defending your
> little buddy's lies, Doan. But then birds of a feather, eh?
>
>
>
>
> >> > He ignore the quotes from the study abstract that say quite the
> >> > opposite: that across all demographic (five countries) spanking did in
> >> > fact produce an increase in anxiety and misbehavior.
> >> >
> >> > In fact, the abstract says it twice.
> >> >
> >> > Reviewers make note of this fact and even use their own words, in one
> >> > instance, to say the same thing.
> >> >
> >> > But Ken isn't going to prove the sociopathy claim unless I ADMIT I'VE
> >> > LOST THE DEBATE.
> >> >
> >> > Hmmmm......he appears to want me to lie. Wouldn't you say?
> >>
> >> Why not? He does. Its ALL he does. Other than his name (which I suspect
> >> is also inaccurate), I cant think of a single thing that kenny has said that
> >> IS accurate.
> >>
> >> > Is there a trend here, and a clarification of Ken Pangborn Priorities?
> >> >
> >> > Kane
> >>
> >> Looking like an idiot must be at the very top of the list for him. He works
> >> so hard at it, it must be in the top 5 at the very least.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>