|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): Kanin study a SHAM! - Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Message 116093
Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 15, 2003 11:43 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
The study of the oft quoted Mr. Eugene Kanin, professor at Purdue University, can officially be discarded as evidence supporting a 41% false rape allegation frequency, not only because his sample size is miniscule, but because only half of the women in his study who fabricated a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific person (last sentence, 6th paragraph of the 'Findings' section in the study). Now last time I checked, there has to be a person at the end of the allegation finger for anyone to actually stand accused, much less suffer the horrible fate of men accused of rape. THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS, only 13.5 of the 45 women who made up rapes actually pointed a finger at someone. That drops Mr. Kanin's percentage down to 12.3%, still high, it's true, but no 41%. And given that Mr. Kanin willfully misused the word 'allegation,' to the detrimental effect of everyone interested in the topic, I'm not inclinded to believe that the rest of his methods are all that scrupulous.
And as for you, MR. H. PIERCE, I have now
1.) twice exposed that you don't even READ the "studies" you refer to, and
2.) thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated the need for good citations.
Had you offered a correct one in August of last year when you made the original post, I could have looked up the study and saved a lot of time. (Thanks for coming through, Orolan) Instead, because it is your belief that in addition to evaluating the study, I should have to shoulder the burden of making sure whatever crappy source you quote isn't equally negligent with their evaluation of studies, it took me 3-4 days to find it. And if Orolan hadn't given me a cite, it would have been even LONGER.
The house of cards that H. Pierce built is officially DOWN!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 116102 (In Reply to Message 116093)
Re: Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_losttime
on Sep 16, 2003 12:02 AM | Also by x_losttime
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
The ones who pointed fingers KNEW their attackers. The ones who didn't couldn't. Maybe the best they could do was "he was tall, medium build and had jeans and a tshirt on" Does that invalidate data collected from them? If it does then the number of falses goes up even higher. If A woman says "I was raped" and goes to the police and later says she made it up, does it matter whether she pointed at a specific person? It is still a false rape allegation. The police would still investigate and maybe even arrest someone despite the fact no fingers were pointed. I'd hate to have been an ex-boyfriend of any one of those women. In todays witchhunt climate, If a woman says "I was raped" someone is going to suffer the fates you speak of right or wrong. Rather than dropping them from the statistics, they should make you feel the horror of the victims of false accusations. They should count twice if anything.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116093)
Message 116132 (In Reply to Message 116102)
Re: Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_orolan
on Sep 16, 2003 09:13 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta,
Not a "sham", as there is valid data. Your interpretation of what a "false rape claim" consists of is evidently different than his. Maybe you should say "flawed", because the data isn't collated and presented in a clear fashion.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116102)
Message 116136 (In Reply to Message 116102)
Re: Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 16, 2003 10:39 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
lost time wrote:
>
> The ones who pointed fingers KNEW their attackers. The ones
> who didn't couldn't.
You're speaking as though you've read the study and the descriptions of each of the 45 cases. And I call you on it, because you couldn't have: they are not all included. Amongst the few that are included are more than a few where no sexual activity occurred and the girl/woman made up that they were raped because she wanted her mom off her back, or wanted her friends to sympathize. The second girl did not point the finger at anyone, and didn't even go to the police. Other people did.
> Maybe the best they could do was "he was
> tall, medium build and had jeans and a tshirt on" Does that
> invalidate data collected from them? If it does then the
> number of falses goes up even higher. If A woman says "I was
> raped" and goes to the police and later says she made it up,
> does it matter whether she pointed at a specific person?
Only because H. Pierce was using the study to support his argument that horrible women make men suffer by falsely accusing them of rape.
> I'd hate to have been an ex-boyfriend of any one of those
> women.
Where no finger was pointed, why? Because the girl is dumb? Certainly not because she might later point it at you. If she had any intention of doing so, she would have done it already.
> woman says "I was raped" someone is going to suffer the fates
> you speak of right or wrong. Rather than dropping them from
> the statistics, they should make you feel the horror of the
> victims of false accusations.
My whole point is that the 13.5 never accused ANYONE of ANYTHING. And given that the AVERAGE age of the women was 22, most had nothing more than a high school education, and many were lower middle class, I don't think the fact that they lied really says anything about women as a whole. Would you suggest that because there is a high frequency of violent crime perpetrated by men who live below the poverty line, that all men are violent and should be regarded with suspicion? NO. Here's were my criticism of Mr. Kanin's sample size comes in. See the last FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS thread for my critique of his sample size.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116102)
Message 116137 (In Reply to Message 116132)
Re: Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 16, 2003 10:46 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> marta,
> Not a "sham", as there is valid data. Your interpretation of
> what a "false rape claim" consists of is evidently different
> than his. Maybe you should say "flawed", because the data
> isn't collated and presented in a clear fashion.
Read the study. Both Kanin and H. Pierce make it seem like they're talking about women who point the finger at a specific man. The only place that it's mentioned that only 13-14 women actually accused someone of doing anything is in that one sentence, buried in the middle of the study, where it is EVIDENT that people are highly unlikely to find it. When something is deliberate or grossly negligent in misleading the reader, I call it a sham.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116132)
Message 116138 (In Reply to Message 116137)
Re: Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_orolan
on Sep 16, 2003 11:30 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
"Both Kanin and H. Pierce make it seem like they're talking about women who point the finger at a specific man"
I disagree in part. A person not willing to read the entire study would merely read the abstract, the introduction and possibly the conclusion. Nowhere in these 3 parts of the study does Kanin infer that these allegations were made against specific individuals.
Granted, most people citing the study (HP, men's rights organizations, etc) may make that inference, and in fact do. Such is the norm in study citations, isn't it? Make it "sound" like it supports your position?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116137)
Message 116150 (In Reply to Message 116137)
putting words in my mouth mara
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 16, 2003 12:57 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta says:
>>>
Both Kanin and H. Pierce make it seem like they're talking about women who point the finger at a specific man.
>>>
You may TAKE IT to mean that, but I didn't and it wasn't portrayed in the articles that way. A false claim is a false claim.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116137)
Message 116156 (In Reply to Message 116093)
marta 'down for the count'
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 16, 2003 01:38 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Well I read the article and your conclusions are subjective and taken out of context at the least and possibly fabricated.
By the way, I have twice exposed that you take studies out of context to fit your view of rape statistics.
You tried to use false rape convictions to account for FALSE RAPE CLAIMS. Not the same thing.
So no, the house of cards isn't down on me by a far cry. Frequent false rape reports are frequent and do exist.
marta embarrasses herself with:
>>>
... Now last time I checked, there has to be a person at the end of the allegation finger for anyone to actually stand accused...
>>>
Your opinion (not fact) doesn’t hold any water.
Your fail to get it.. false reports don't need a finger pointed.. just a report. Going to trial is another matter. Quit trying to establish a false report can only be decided in court. That is entirely wrong. The person reporting the claim can recant it as in these cases. Marta is attempting to discount false rapes simply because they never went to trial.
However, I checked up on your ASSUMPTIONS and offer this quote from the author of the study regarding the mid-western town that PART of the study was conducted. This is the part she failed to explain to you.
>>>
In short, these cases are declared false only because the complainant admitted they are false.
… Last, it should be noted that this department [police department] does not confuse reported rape attempts with completed rapes. Thus, the rape complainants referred to in this paper are for completed forcible rapes only. The foregoing leaves us with a certain confidence that cases declared false by this police agency are indeed a reasonable- if not a minimal reflection of false rape allegations made to this agency, especially when one considers that a finding of false allegation is totally dependent upon the recantation of the rape charge.
>>>
Ooops had nothing to do with them not pointing a finger, it has to do with them making up a story. In fact no where in the article was there mention of finger pointing.
It also only considered only forcible rapes, which wouldn’t even be the full spectrum of reported rapes. Had they considered other categories of rape the statistic may have been even higher. Especially when one considers the forced rapes would be under higher scrutiny than less severse cases (improper touching, etc).
If I make a claim that I was attacked and then later recanted, it is still a false report even though I never pointed a finger at someone. Marta needs to understand what a FALSE REPORT means. It doesn’t mean you didn’t identify someone… it just means you lied.
Marta also neglected to tell you it was over a ****nine year *** period. This wasn’t just a peak year picked for its obvious spike in rapes.. it was almost a full decade. Hardly shoddy data gathering.
Plus marta failed to cite that the city was a perfect choice:
=== This city was targeted for study because it offered an almost model laboratory for studying false rape allegations. First, its police agency is not inundated with serious felony cases and, therefore, has the freedom and the motivation to record and thoroughly pursue all rape complaints. In fact, agency policy forbids police officers to use their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint may be. Second, the declaration of a false allegation follows a highly institutionalized procedure. The investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects. Additionally, for a declaration of false charge to be made, the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false. The police department will not declare a rape charge as false when the complainant, for whatever reason, fails to pursue the charge or cooperate on the case, regardless how much doubt the police may have regarding the validity of the charge.
Last, the policy of this police agency is to apply a statute regarding the false reporting of a felony. After the recant, the complainant is informed that she will be charged with filing a false complaint, punishable by a substantial fine and a jail sentence. In no case, has an effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation. Although we certainly do not deny the possibility of false recantations, no evidence supports such an interpretation for these cases.=====
Finally marta says:
>>>
… but because only half of the women in his study who fabricated a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific person (last sentence, 6th paragraph of the 'Findings'
>>>
>>>
I didn’t find this reference at all in his findings. Please give the exact citation since the ONLY citations you have given on this is http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html and http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0722.html from the FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS thread. In that article there isn’t a 6th paragraph, only three to ‘findings’. If I’m looking at the wrong citation, please direct me to the one you are making these claims from. In fact the ifeminist article links back to the anandaanswers.com page.
Furthermore the author stated that additional cities that have the proper discipline and institutionalized procedures would also be used to futher validate his findings. Sounds to me that he plans to fortify his current data. That doesn’t should shoddy to me, marta. Plus he has a 50% false rape claims at two universities he has checked.
Even the ifeminist page makes mention:
>>>
…. Studies and statistics often vary and for legitimate reasons. For example, they may examine different populations. But such a dramatic variance -- two percent to 50 percent -- raises the question of whether political interests are at work.
It is understandable why some feminists might wish to understate the incidence of false reporting. In the '50s, women who reported sexual assault or domestic violence were dismissed. To acknowledge false reports as a real problem might undercut the gains made toward taking women seriously.
>>>
So no, you are the one ‘down for the count’
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116093)
Message 116168 (In Reply to Message 116150)
Re: putting words in my mouth mara
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 16, 2003 05:24 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Can everyone just please go back and read H. Pierce's posts regarding false rape claims. AND I QUOTE:
When you figure in that there are men who were sentenced who are innocent (case of he said, she said) or simply too naive to understand what the plea involved, would raise this figure even higher. (09-11-03 10:24)
A man convicted of rape often spends 10 years of his life behind bars.But what happens to a woman who makes a false allegation of rape? Usually, nothing. In other words, men can be freely accused of crimes they did not commit. (08-05-03 22:20)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116150)
Message 116175 (In Reply to Message 116168)
pathetically grasping at straws, marta
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 16, 2003 07:09 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Just give it up marta. Neither Kanin's study (at least the ones you gave citations too), mentioned finger pointing at specific men or did I. It fact it never mentioned if the women named their attacker or not. It only said they made the false rape reports and later recanted their claims. Get off the finger pointing issue.. it isn't the issue.
Yes, readers please go back and read my post where you will see that the thread was about false rape reports. In that thread I mentioned various ways and reasons why it may happen and why it is frequent.
Marta's only hope at denying it was true was by going off on a tangent about finger pointing.
Ohh and another thing, you incorrectly stated that the citations I gave didn't exist.....the citation I gave back in 2002 (the orignal citation) was valid when posted. All I did was make reference to information that I had already cited. It was perfectly legit, but I suspect marta is grasping at anything regardless how pathetically petty in hopes of recouping something out of her failed efforts to disprove false rape report are frequent.
"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910)
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116168)
Message 116187 (In Reply to Message 116138)
Re: Kanin study a SHAM!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 16, 2003 08:15 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
>
> "Both Kanin and H. Pierce make it seem like they're talking
> about women who point the finger at a specific man"
>
> I disagree in part. A person not willing to read the entire
> study would merely read the abstract, the introduction and
> possibly the conclusion.
You agree that this is a BAD, BAD idea, no?
> Nowhere in these 3 parts of the study does Kanin infer that
> these allegations were made against specific individuals.
Which is why I would never just read the abstract, intro and conclusion of a study if I were actually going to talk about it. Too much of a risk of looking like a jackass. But then, I really don't think H. Pierce even did that much.
> Granted, most people citing the study (HP, men's rights
> organizations, etc) may make that inference, and in fact do.
> Such is the norm in study citations, isn't it?
For journalists? Sure, but I wouldn't want people at my paper doing it: it destroys your credibility.
> Make it "sound" like it supports your position?
Not to the extent that you ignore some data and only report that which supports your position. If you tell anything less than the full story, you are lying. If you were a scientist, your career would be destroyed. Same goes for journalists at reputable newspapers. I guess nothing will happen to H. Pierce, especially because I think he actually has convinced himself that he hasn't misrepresented anything, but I, for one, am going to start assuming he's lying when he references statistics.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116138)
Message 116202 (In Reply to Message 116175)
Lying
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 17, 2003 01:47 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> Just give it up marta. Neither Kanin's study (at least the
> ones you gave citations too), mentioned finger pointing at
> specific men or did I.
Yes, you both did.
> Ohh and another thing, you incorrectly stated that the
> citations I gave didn't exist.....the citation I gave back in
> 2002 (the orignal citation) was valid when posted.
No, it wasn't. It was to an article.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116175)
Message 116217 (In Reply to Message 116202)
AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 17, 2003 09:40 AM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta says:
>>>
No, it wasn't. It was to an article
>>>
And so was the URL link you gave... you even metioned in your post that you wished you had access to the STUDY. It was an article just like mine. So knock it off!
You haven't given the exact quote and citation from the article, not study, that you claim Mr. Kanin made about only half the women pointed the finger. The reason you haven't is because it doesn't exist. Remember, I read the article too.
I'm not going to drop to your level of name calling, marta, only going to let your lack of evidence speak loud and clear for you.
I'm finished with this subject since nothing new except your excuses are being presented.
Therefor I rightfully state that false rape claims are frequent.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116202)
Message 116219 (In Reply to Message 116156)
That says it ALL!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 17, 2003 10:06 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> Well I read the article
I see that you still have NOT read the study that you referred to as though you had read it (in 8/02). If anyone's assuming things, it's you. And that's what's been my problem with you all along. As a matter of fact, you really have no place to even still be talking about this study, as you STILL HAVEN'T READ IT.
> Finally marta says:
> >>>
> … but because only half of the women in his study who
> fabricated a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific
> person (last sentence, 6th paragraph of the 'Findings'
> >>>
Although, if you're not lying about only really ever having been talking about CLAIMS, it's not clear to me why you would try to FIND and rebut this particular quote. After all, you've already successfully proved your point, RIGHT?
> I didn’t find this reference at all in his findings.
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE A FRACTION OF HIS FINDINGS. That's what happens when you don't look at the original study, but instead rely on some hack journalist to think for you.
> Please give the exact citation since the ONLY citations you
> have given on this is
> http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html and
>http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0722.html> from the FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS thread. In that article there > isn’t a 6th paragraph, only three to ‘findings’.
Correct, in that article there is no "Findings" section, no 6th paragraph of such a section, and no reference to the fact that only 13.5 of the 45 claims actually involved a suspect identified by the woman. It's not even clear how many of the women even went to the police, or made a formal report before recanting their story, let alone how many allowed a man to be caught up in their stupid little games. ALL of which is extremely relevant, and I'm sure the readers would have been interested in knowing.
That said, I return to my original point: if you refer to a study, you better have AT LEAST read it, in which case you can provide a citation.
So I don't need to give you a cite. You actually read the study, right?
. . .
You're an idiot.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116156)
Message 116224 (In Reply to Message 116219)
yeah sure.
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 17, 2003 11:05 AM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Whatever, marta... just continue to manipulate your answers and requirements of citations to suit your need to always be right.
Go on and play your mind games with someone else. You lost this one and your credibility.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116219)
Message 116270 (In Reply to Message 116217)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 17, 2003 07:50 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> I'm finished with this subject since nothing new except your
> excuses are being presented.
You're an idiot. I know what the exact cite is. Orolan knows what the exact cite is. Steve knows what the exact cite is. It appears that YOU'RE the only one who doesn't know what the exact cite is, despite the fact that it was YOU who brought the study up in the first place (what irony - it's sickening actually), and despite the fact that you feel free to pontificate about what is actually in the study and what is not. My discussion of this issue is over too, UNTIL you finally do what you should have done over a year ago. READ THE STUDY.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116217)
Message 116271 (In Reply to Message 116224)
Re: yeah sure.
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 17, 2003 08:03 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
>
> Whatever, marta... just continue to manipulate your answers
> and requirements of citations to suit your need to always be
> right.
>
> Go on and play your mind games with someone else. You lost
> this one and your credibility.
I'm perfectly willing to let the rest of the readers decide who it is that's perverting the truth, playing mind games, and losing their credibility.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116224)
Message 116277 (In Reply to Message 116132)
Question for Orolan
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 17, 2003 09:03 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Since you have the actual study in front of you, and you seem to be level-headed and fair, I was wondering what your interpretation of the last sentence in the sixth paragraph of the Findings section was. Half of the 27 or half of the 45? 13.5 is way better than 22.5, but I want to be honest, and given my problems with the sample size, I don't have a real problem with either number.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116132)
Message 116342 (In Reply to Message 116270)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 18, 2003 03:12 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Sorry marta, not only are you wrong, you have the stories and who presented them messed up as well. Go back and refresh your confused yet bull-headed memory in the links below.
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15916&t=15464 http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15972&t=15464
>>>>>>>> orolan wrote: > . > "According to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin of Purdue > University, the correct figure may rise to the 40 percent > range. >>>>
Orolan presented the info about Eugene Kanin, not me. The article I gave was about the Canadian police reporting that as much as 30% of the rapes in one area were false.
Marta in a post from one the URLs above said.. >>>>>>> Mr. Pierce, as far as I can tell, was quoting a mensnewsdaily.com article (which can be found at http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts080503.html) when he said: .. False Rape Claims -- The Evidence from Canada http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/000010.html >>>>>>
Yet you keep telling me that the finger pointing issue comes from Kanin's report. The only citations so far that dealt with finger pointing was from the Canadian report. You have failed to listen to what I've been trying to tell you. You have confused the two articles. It was in the Canadian false rape claims that your remark about finger pointing was made, NOT IN EUGENE KANIN'S study. However, even then it only mentioned up to 30%, so somewhere you are pulling a figure of 50% that you have failed to cite. I say failed to cite because I read through three separate abstracts of Eugene Kanin's study online yesterday and your statements weren't found in any of the three I read. You earlier admitted you didn't have access to it. I tried to find it online but as far I've found the Archive of Sexual Behaviors (which is where it was printed) wasn't archived on-line until 1997. Eugene Kanin's study was from 1994. So if you have indeed read through it give the citation so we can all share in this knowledge.
And even if it was, do YOU even comprehend it's meaning?
marta said without citation:
>>>
...because only half of the women in his study who fabricated a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific person....
>>>
It is incorrect to assume you must name an attacker to file a rape claim. All you have to do is file a report saying you were raped. Apparantly the police don't share marta's opinion of what constitutes a false rape report, because the police charged those women who filed false rape reports. The part about all 41% of rape claims were recanted by persons making the report themself and that the police filed charges against those who made false rape reports are in all three abstracts I read, including the only one you cited.
So no, they were false because those who made the reports admitted they lied. Doesn't matter if they tried or not to accuse someone.. the fact is they all admitted they lied. So the 41% stands.... almost a decade of statistics isn't miniscule, the fact that the figures match what he found in two university strengthens those figures.
So without a doubt I am walking from this debate knowing:
1) You have confused the articles and the quotations found in those articles.
2) You only read Eugene Kanin's abstract (as I did) and you never read his study from the Archive of Sexual Behaviour. If you did you would give the citation. I happen to know the exact volume it was printed in but it isn't available on-line.
3)All of kanin's false rapes were false because those who reported them later recanted them and were charged for making false reports. It states so in the abstract.
4) Rather than check to see if you had quoted from the wrong source, you were bull-headed and refused to check your sources calling me an idiot for pointing it out to you.
5) You claim Steve knows the exact citation to Eugene Kanin's study. No doubt Steve could look it up, but I seriously doubt if I asked him he would know it without searching the net as I did.
But most importantly I walk away knowing that false rape accusations are frequent.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116270)
Message 116345 (In Reply to Message 116342)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_Steve
on Sep 18, 2003 03:47 PM | Also by x_Steve
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> 5) You claim Steve knows the exact citation to Eugene Kanin's
> study. No doubt Steve could look it up, but I seriously doubt
> if I asked him he would know it without searching the net as
> I did.
You're right - I would have to look it up. With the hurricane and evacuated family staying at my house I haven't been reading posts as thoroughly as I usually do, but I don't think I've even chimed in on the threads about the study, though I would if I had the time.
By the way, I've already lost power a few times today and locally the winds aren't that bad and there's no real flooding yet so it's possible (likely?) when the eye approaches this evening I could lose power for an extended period. If posts aren't approved for a while that's why.
-Steve, SexCriminals.com
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116342)
Message 116354 (In Reply to Message 116342)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 18, 2003 05:03 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
> So without a doubt I am walking from this debate knowing:
>
> 1) You have confused the articles and the quotations found in
> those articles.
> 2) You only read Eugene Kanin's abstract (as I did) and you
> never read his study from the Archive of Sexual Behaviour. If
> you did you would give the citation. I happen to know the
> exact volume it was printed in but it isn't available on-line.
> 3)All of kanin's false rapes were false because those who
> reported them later recanted them and were charged for making
> false reports. It states so in the abstract.
> 4) Rather than check to see if you had quoted from the wrong
> source, you were bull-headed and refused to check your
> sources calling me an idiot for pointing it out to you.
> 5) You claim Steve knows the exact citation to Eugene Kanin's
> study. No doubt Steve could look it up, but I seriously doubt
> if I asked him he would know it without searching the net as
> I did.
>
> But most importantly I walk away knowing that false rape
> accusations are frequent.
>
> H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
You don't know anything. : ( I didn't want to have to do this, because you don't deserve it, but orolan posted the full cite for the study about 5 days ago. If you look HARD enough, you can find it. I said that Steve knows what the cite is because I know he monitors all posts? I figured that since orolan posted it, Steve would have seen it.
All of that said, I am so sick and tired of watching you make an ass out of yourself. The ENTIRETY of your last post was based on a FALSE premise (you had a post of orolan's but not the right one) from which you came to equally erroneous conclusions. You are simply too sloppy for me to take seriously anymore. It's become very clear that this is all about the confrontation itself for you, and that you couldn't care less if you're actually right or not.
Now, once you look up the study and read it, we can continue to argue, as I'm sure you're going to find something to harp on, but I think I've conclusively proved the point I was initially trying to make: when you don't read the original study and give a citation to it, you might as well be spewing trash.
It is clear to me that you are willing to sacrifice truth and twist the meaning of your original post beyond recognition. This tells me you have NO integrity. The only real question I have now is: will H. Pierce admit, once he finds the study, that I must have read it, because the locator I gave for the point of contention (last sentence, 6th paragraph of 'Findings' section) is accurate?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116342)
Message 116363 (In Reply to Message 116354)
Actually I knew...
Posted by x_HPierce
on Sep 18, 2003 06:46 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta says:
>>>
You don't know anything. : ( I didn't want to have to do this, because you don't deserve it, but orolan posted the full cite for the study about 5 days ago. If you look HARD enough, you can find it. I said that Steve knows what the cite is because I know he monitors all posts? I figured that since orolan posted it, Steve would have seen it.
>>>
Well apparantly I know how to search for the citation and you don't? I knew where it was, but you are the one making the assumptions so I asked you for it since you had a tantrum when my valid link didn't work. I found the citation to it on the web about the same time orolan posted in the post below:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15975&t=15464
Rather than being overly defensive, you could have provided us with the entire paragraph, for us that don't have access to it so we can evaluate it for ourselves. As it is you gave us your impression, and since your assumptions haven't impressed me to date as being valid or interpreted correctly, I wasn't taking your OPINION as being valid.
However as I pointed in my last post... your assumptions that a false rape claim has to be identified is false. I don't need the study to know that assumption is flawed.
Perhaps when I get back to my residence I can find Kanin's study. It's not available anywhere in the small hick-town of 2000 that my client is in.
Yeah, I'm sick and tired of this too. But futher more I'm sick of you being unable to accept the facts. You told me that if evidence showed that the rapes were frequent, then you would agree. It has been shown, but instead you, not is doing her best at manipulating the findings to arrive at conclusions that anyone could see through.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116354)
Message 116372 (In Reply to Message 116342)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_marta
on Sep 18, 2003 07:35 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
>
> Sorry marta, not only are you wrong, you have the stories and
> who presented them messed up as well. Go back and refresh
> your confused yet bull-headed memory in the links below.
>
>
> http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15916&t=15464 http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15972&t=15464
>
> >>>>>>>> orolan wrote: > . > "According to a study conducted
> by Eugene Kanin of Purdue > University, the correct figure
> may rise to the 40 percent > range. >>>>
>
> Orolan presented the info about Eugene Kanin, not me. The
> article I gave was about the Canadian police reporting that
> as much as 30% of the rapes in one area were false.
>
Actually, you both talked about the Kanin study, but YOU did first. Why are you lying about it this late in the game, when anyone who cares can check and see that you're making stuff up:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=13385&t=13385
QUOTE:
"Author: H. Pierce (Hostname/IP logged)
Date: 08-05-03 22:20
. . .
Eugene Kanin is a professor of sociology at Purdue University. Kanin tracked all allegations of rapes reported to the police over a 9-year period in one Midwestern town. In 41% of the cases, the woman later admitted that the rape allegation was false."
> Marta in a post from one the URLs above said.. >>>>>>> Mr.
> Pierce, as far as I can tell, was quoting a mensnewsdaily.com
> article (which can be found at
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts080503.html) when he said: .. False Rape Claims -- The Evidence from Canada http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/000010.html >>>>>>
>
> Yet you keep telling me that the finger pointing issue comes
> from Kanin's report. The only citations so far that dealt
> with finger pointing was from the Canadian report. You have
> failed to listen to what I've been trying to tell you. You
> have confused the two articles. It was in the Canadian false
> rape claims that your remark about finger pointing was made,
> NOT IN EUGENE KANIN'S study.
How would you know? You don't have the study. You're TOTALLY making stuff up because you figure that I'm not going to come up with the study, and since others can't access it on line, you're free to reinvent the truth. Well, I've given it to Steve and he may give it to you, but if he does, I'd like a public posting so that everyone can see just how much you've lied. Personally I think you should have to get off your butt, walk to the nearest academic institution, apply for library privileges and then take the time to find it yourself, but for the sake of expediency (and with both my feet firmly planted in reality) I'm giving up on that ever happening. Maybe being exposed will teach you a lesson. And for future reference, I'm watching you now. Every claim of fact you make is going to be monitored and if I even get a whiff of distortion, I'm going to slam you all over the board. If you claim to know about a study beyond that which some friend of a friend of a second-cousin told you, and I find that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to slam you all over the board. Maybe you'll no longer be so willing to spout nonsense about things you know nothing about. How many times of me showing you up do you think it will take before the few remaining people who pay attention to you will stop believing ANYTHING that you say?
> I say failed to cite because I read through three separate
> abstracts of Eugene Kanin's study online yesterday and your
> statements weren't found in any of the three I read.
Perfect evidence, from the mouth of H. Pierce, that reading only part of a study is insufficient. Because it's there, you just haven't seen the whole study yet.
> You earlier admitted you didn't have access to it.
When I thought about it, I realized that I did have access to it through my school's intranet. Thus the pdf file that I sent to Steve.
> tried to find it online but as far I've found the Archive of
> Sexual Behaviors (which is where it was printed) wasn't
> archived on-line until 1997.
At least not for the general public, it wasn't.
> Eugene Kanin's study was from 1994. So if you have indeed
> read through it give the citation so we can all share in this
> knowledge.
First of all, orolan gave the full cite long ago. A citation isn't going to help you now anyway, because you don't have access to a full journal database with the 1994 volumes of Archives of Sexual Behavior. And you still have failed to answer how it was that you felt free to pontificate about the study when you HADN'T READ IT. Will you ever answer this question?
> marta said without citation:
Marta wasn't giving H. Pierce the citation because marta thought H. Pierce should have to find it himself. He was, after all, the person who brought up the study in the first place.
SEE http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=13385&t=13385
> >>>
> ...because only half of the women in his study who fabricated
> a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific person....
> >>>
>
> It is incorrect to assume you must name an attacker to file a
> rape claim. All you have to do is file a report saying you
> were raped.
Aha, but that's not what your post was about. Your post was about women who file false rape claims against specific men.
SEE:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=13385&t=13385
AND
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15498&t=15464)
You can persist in trying to pretend that you were talking about something else, but it's clear to me and a few others that I know of, that you're doing it solely so that you can say that the Kanin study is consistent with what you were saying all along. Nevermind that reading the posts listed above makes it abundantly clear that your primary assertion was that there is a high frequency of false rape ACCUSATIONS, not claims.
But, for the sake of argument, let's just suppose that's really what you were talking about. I have to ask you now, "What's your point?" What are we supposed to learn from an assertion that the frequency of rape CLAIMS is high? What does it mean, if true? Why do we care?
> the fact that the figures match what he found in
> two university strengthens those figures.
As you will see, once you get the study and read it, is that Kanin includes no more than a paragraph about the university data. That means he includes no detailed accounts, no specific numbers, no methodology, NOTHING which is required in a good presentation of data.
Emphasis added:
> But most importantly I walk away knowing that false rape
> ACCUSATIONS are frequent.
But I thought you were talking only about claims?????? The bottom line is that neither you, nor Kanin, distinguish between the two. As that is the case, none of the numbers Kanin cites mean anything unless you are making the argument that a false rape CLAIM (without identifying a perpetrator) and a false rape ACCUSATION are functionally and morally equivalent.
I wonder if Trying to Survive (or anyone like him) would agree?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116342)
Message 116376 (In Reply to Message 116372)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_Steve
on Sep 18, 2003 08:34 PM | Also by x_Steve
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta wrote:
> Well, I've given
> it to Steve and he may give it to you, but if he does, I'd
> like a public posting so that everyone can see just how much
> you've lied.
marta, I got your email and hope to have a chance to read it and the attachment shortly. Apologies to you and everyone else who's contacted me in the last couple of days, but with family members at my house evacuated from Virginia Beach and power going out periodically (60% of my city is without power) I'm behind here and with client projects.
-Steve, SexCriminals.com
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116372)
Message 117924 (In Reply to Message 116175)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_TryingtoSurviv
on Oct 09, 2003 08:29 AM | Also by x_TryingtoSurviv
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
>But I thought you were talking only about claims?????? The >bottom line is that neither you, nor Kanin, distinguish between >the two. As that is the case, none of the numbers Kanin cites >mean anything unless you are making the argument that a false >rape CLAIM (without identifying a perpetrator) and a false rape >ACCUSATION are functionally and morally equivalent.
>>I wonder if Trying to Survive (or anyone like him) would agree ?
Absolutely not !! I think both studies are credible but limited of nessesity. To try to draw wider conclusions from them is going to be dicey. I dont see any spin on either of them. The studies I have seen quoted range from 2% to 50 % it is very easy to see the lack of objectivity in many of the authors - those that argue 2 % seem to be rabid feminazis.
When I first came bruised and blinking out of prison and began to study this field Marta was the first to jeer at me that I was " bitter ". Shattered would be closer to the truth. Marta then said it was my own fault for hanging round with the "sorts of women" who would do that sort of thing - apparently it is so obvious I should have picked it. Prior to my ordeal I was only dimly aware of sex crimes and the dymamics and propandisation involved. The possibility of false rape accusations had been so effectively kept secret they were a transparent brick wall I drove into at full speed.
In a small study involving one case, 100% of the acusations were false - mine.
When I was in prison the other prisoners told me to plead guilty and to stay on remand so as to get my time done. When I told them I was applying for bail they said I was crazy and that I was going to fight the case would assure I would be cruxified. This "conventional wisdom" suggests to me overwhelming pressure to cop a plea. To me this suggests that many men will buckle and bump down the statistics. The disparity of the legal resources available to the defendent and the state suggest the same skew.
I would venture that the general public's perception of the frequency of false rape claims would be a wild underestimate.
I would like to see some kind of "Stranger Danger" publicity campaign aimed at men to make them more aware of this hidden peril.
I applaude HP for the "heads up" on the issue.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (116175)
Message 118023 (In Reply to Message 117924)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 10, 2003 11:44 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
trying to survive wrote:
> I would like to see some kind of "Stranger Danger" publicity
> campaign aimed at men to make them more aware of this hidden
> peril.
Why do you need anything more than what your parents taught you to avoid bad people???? Such a campaign has not been launched because everyone but you and H. Pierce aren't unnecessarily worried about being falsely accused of rape. HUMMM. I wonder why that is???
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (117924)
Message 118149 (In Reply to Message 118023)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_TryingtoSurviv
on Oct 13, 2003 11:06 AM | Also by x_TryingtoSurviv
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
I will give you the chance to play Devil's Advocate .... why do you reckon?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118023)
Message 118172 (In Reply to Message 118149)
Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 07:12 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
trying to survive wrote:
>
> I will give you the chance to play Devil's Advocate .... why
> do you reckon?
Because they KNOW (not just guess, not imagine, but KNOW) that the people that they allow themselves to be sexually intimate with aren't going to falsely accuse them of rape. Because they realize that the probability of a total stranger falsely accusing them is next to nil. Need I say more?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118149)
Thread
116093, x_marta, Sep 15, 2003 11:43 PM [Kanin study a SHAM!]
116102, x_losttime, Sep 16, 2003 12:02 AM [Re: Kanin study a SHAM!]
116132, x_orolan, Sep 16, 2003 09:13 AM [Re: Kanin study a SHAM!]
116137, x_marta, Sep 16, 2003 10:46 AM [Re: Kanin study a SHAM!]
116138, x_orolan, Sep 16, 2003 11:30 AM [Re: Kanin study a SHAM!]
116187, x_marta, Sep 16, 2003 08:15 PM [Re: Kanin study a SHAM!]
116150, x_HPierce, Sep 16, 2003 12:57 PM [putting words in my mouth mara]
116168, x_marta, Sep 16, 2003 05:24 PM [Re: putting words in my mouth mara]
116175, x_HPierce, Sep 16, 2003 07:09 PM [pathetically grasping at str...]
116202, x_marta, Sep 17, 2003 01:47 AM [Lying]
116217, x_HPierce, Sep 17, 2003 09:40 AM [AND SO WAS YOURS!]
116270, x_marta, Sep 17, 2003 07:50 PM [Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!]
116286, Rejected
116342, x_HPierce, Sep 18, 2003 03:12 PM [Re: AND SO WAS Y...]
116345, x_Steve, Sep 18, 2003 03:47 PM [Re: AND SO WAS ...]
116354, x_marta, Sep 18, 2003 05:03 PM [Re: AND SO WAS ...]
116363, x_HPierce, Sep 18, 2003 06:46 PM [Actually ...]
116372, x_marta, Sep 18, 2003 07:35 PM [Re: AND SO WAS ...]
116376, x_Steve, Sep 18, 2003 08:34 PM [Re: AND SO ...]
117924, x_TryingtoSurviv, Oct 09, 2003 08:29 AM [Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!]
118023, x_marta, Oct 10, 2003 11:44 AM [Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!]
118149, x_TryingtoSurviv, Oct 13, 2003 11:06 AM [Re: AND SO W...]
118172, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 07:12 PM [Re: AND SO WAS YOURS!]
116277, x_marta, Sep 17, 2003 09:03 PM [Question for Orolan]
116136, x_marta, Sep 16, 2003 10:39 AM [Re: Kanin study a SHAM!]
116156, x_HPierce, Sep 16, 2003 01:38 PM [marta 'down for the count']
116185, Rejected
116219, x_marta, Sep 17, 2003 10:06 AM [That says it ALL!]
116224, x_HPierce, Sep 17, 2003 11:05 AM [yeah sure.]
116271, x_marta, Sep 17, 2003 08:03 PM [Re: yeah sure.]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
