Sam, I said I was trying to ignore you, not that I was succeeding :) Ignore you as I might, the fact is I see other people's answers to your posts and it takes a lot of concentration not not point and laugh :P Of course, all the pointing and laughing sucks up time and seems sterile, ultimately, especially as you seem to take pride in trolling.
I do not have time to go through this post right now, but since you do have one link from what I would consider a respectable source (NIH), I will do so later. Even though I suspect that it probably follows your usual pattern of irrelevancy and junk authority :) Dana On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:08:46 -0800 (PST), Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dana, > > I never said ignoring me made him an asshole. > I said he's being an asshole because he gets nasty > with me every time I question him. No point in having > a discussion if only one view is acceptable. Last > thread was about using a litmus test to hire > professors and he decided to talk about a litmus test > to hire scientists without telling anybody and claimed > I had a reading comprehension problem for > not reading his mind, yeah that again. As always he > has a strong opinion until I throw around facts and > the he gets real and forgets we were in a discussion. > > Funny how you say I'm closed minded because I don't > accept his interpretation of that old study as law > when you do. I dare say if you weren't so narrow > minded you'd realize his claim that teaching > abstinence can never work and will always be a waste > of money is too far fetched to fathom. After all the > study was based on short surveys given to teens. Now > if you think his theories can become law based on a > teen surveys then there's no hope and you should > ignore everything I say. > > The link to the Heritage.org article was the first of > many that Google came up with debunking Waxman's > claim, and the main issue I pointed out from that > article was that funding was only $1 for each $12 of > condom programs. > > I never claimed abstinence lowers the birth rate in > teens and don't even support abstinence-only programs. > I know it seems like I'm supporting Bush but I'm not, > just trying to clear up facts and have a > friendly discussion. > > Now as for the BMJ. It doesn't claim abstinence-only > programs are a waste of money, that was Larry's > conclusion. Here's the conclusion again: > > Conclusions: Primary prevention strategies evaluated > to date do not delay the initiation of sexual > intercourse, improve use of birth control among young > men and women, or reduce the number of pregnancies > in young women. > > Now the study he refers to that was a success is the > Teen Outreach Program. > http://www.cornerstone.to/top/top.html > > A search of there site came up with this: > > http://www.cornerstone.to/what/best.pdf > The federal government has favored abstinence-only > programs. Under 1996 welfare reform legislation, $50 > million is available to states each year from 1998 > until 2002 for education that "has as its exclusive > purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health > gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual > activity." The law also includes funding to > evaluate programs. To date none of the studies of > abstinence-only educational programs have found > consistent and significant effects in delaying the > initiation of sexual activity. One study > provided strong evidence that the program did not > delay sexual initiation. Most of the studies had > methodological shortcomings. At this time, there is > not enough evidence to determine the impact of > abstinence-only programs (see 19) > > Here's 19: > No Easy Answers: > Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy > > by Douglas Kirby, Ph.D. > Director of Research > ETR Associates > A research review commissioned by the > National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, > Task Force on Effective Programs and Research > Washington, DC March 1997 > > http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/report_summaries/no_easy_answers/SumEdu.asp > > Abstinence-only programs focus on the importance of > abstinence from sexual intercourse, typically until > marriage. Either these programs do not discuss > contraception or they briefly discuss the failure of > contraceptives to provide complete protection against > pregnancy and STDs. To date, six studies of > abstinence-only programs have been published. None of > these studies has found consistent and significant > program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, > and at least one study provided strong evidence that > the program did not delay the onset of intercourse. > Thus, the weight of the current evidence indicates > that these abstinence programs do not delay the onset > of intercourse. On the other hand, this evidence is > not conclusive because all but one of these > evaluations had significant methodological limitations > that could have obscured program impact. For example, > two studies measured the impact of the program for > only six weeks post-intervention, which was too short > a time to measure a significant change in behavior in > either the program or control groups. Thus, at the > present time, it is not known whether or not > abstinence-only programs delay intercourse. > Therefore, more research should be done on these > programs. > > Then I also came up with this: > > http://www.childtrends.org/_pressrelease_page.cfm?LID=88E50A94-4B66-4DE4-BE6A5B56DCBD410A > > Only one abstinence-only program has been evaluated > with a rigorous experimental design so far, and it did > not have a significant impact on the initiation of > sex, frequency of sex, or number of sexual partners. > Additional large-scale evaluations of abstinence > programs are under way now and should provide > additional information on the effectiveness of this > approach > > Then there was this study: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1962546&dopt=Citation > > IN the end the only point I was bringing up is we that > we shouldn't dismiss abstinence because of a survey > over 7 years old. The government has been pushing this > since 1976 and Bush just upped the funding. The only > thing everyone except Larry knows for sure is we need > more studies. The new study will be out in 2006. > > And in case you're still reading :) > > I realize how frustrating it must be to have to keep > telling someone you're ignoring them. I'll pretend I > give a shit and post a message ones a week asking if > you're ignoring me. That way you won't have to > keep telling me :P > > > > > --- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sam, > > > > I have been doing my best to ignore you and no doubt > > this makes me an > > asshole too. But here is one more attempt to explain > > things to you > > before I write you off again as a terminally closed > > mind. Discussion > > is great and I enjoy it. So apparently do you. But > > you seem to think > > that it suffices to show that there is another point > > of view out > > there, regardless of the validity or accuracy of > > that point of view. > > You can't post Rush Limbaugh in answer to the > > British Medical Journal > > (for example) and expect people to take you > > seriously. I am wondering > > why I am bothering as I write this -- no doubt you > > will construe it as > > me calling you stupid -- but I see you as a kind of > > symptom of what is > > wrong with the country right now, a polarization of > > information where > > an entire segment of society believes things that > > are demonstrably > > false. If you really want to prove that abstinence > > lowers the birth > > rate, I'd suggest a link from a medical or possibly > > a sociology > > journal. I say this without sarcasm. Waxman can > > certainly be > > legitimately suspected of having an agenda if you > > are so minded, but > > are his facts wrong??? > > > > Dana > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:138939 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
