Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Beta M

2012-04-25T10:56:22Z

Tyciol:

[http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&oldid=50650 Archive 1]

In regard to [http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?diff=51726 your removal], I think your definition of 'troll' is overly broad. I assure you, while the tone in which I delivered my inquiry might have been slightly teasing, I was not feigning curiosity, nor do I have any interest in angering you. I am only 'fishing for a reaction' so far as anyone might in the general realm of communication, for if we cared not for responses, we would not speak at all. For now, I'll review your editing history to see what to expect later. [[User talk:Tyciol|Ty]] 10:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Beta M

2012-04-25T04:12:26Z

Tyciol:

[http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&oldid=50650 Archive 1]

==Interesting==
When is [http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?&diff=16804 a movement] a movement? lol [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 04:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
*ITW: "Returning to contribute" = leaving for month+ [[User talk:Tyciol|Ty]] 04:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Beta M

2012-04-25T04:10:53Z

Tyciol: why you no sign ur stament?

Hello, everybody. I'm back. I plan to restart my contributions to this project. - [[User:Beta M|Beta M]] 12:09, 15 March 2012

User talk:Beta M

2012-04-25T04:08:59Z

Tyciol:

User:Tyciol

2010-03-30T17:19:54Z

Tyciol: Protected "User:Tyciol" ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

Hm, I've read the Anarchist's Cookbook (well, part of it), and had a lot of friends into the concept. I do find the topic interesting, though I do like a degree of order in my life, for safety and what not. [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Rind Report

2010-02-09T23:03:18Z

Tyciol: moving external link to bottom, external links should not be seeded throughout article. Possible use <reference> ?

The '''Rind Report''' is the common name given to a study by [[Bruce Rind]], Department of Psychology Temple University, Philip Tromovitch, Graduate School of Education Temple University and Robert Bauserman, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan entitled ''A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples'' published in <u>The ''Psychological Bulletin'' of the American Psychological Association, April 1999</u>.

==Objectives==
It set about to investigate how previous research, taken as a collective, addresses these common assumptions:
*Child sexual abuse (CSA) causes psychological harm,
*this harm is pervasive,
*this harm is intense, and
*boys and girls experience CSA equivalently.

The authors undertook this through a meta-analysis, correlating the statistics from all known studies of CSA known to exist in the English language that use college samples.

==Abstract==
"Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became non-significant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported." [quoted directly from the paper]

==Reaction==
This study generated a large amount of controversy, first by conservative talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessenger and, but later spread through political circles to the US Congress where it was "condemned and denounced" by a unanimous vote of 355-0 (with 13 voting "present") on July 12, 1999.

However, pressed to justify itself, the APA submitted the meta-analysis to yet another round of scientific peer-review and study by statisticians who drew the following conclusion:
:"Ray Fowler, Ph. D., writes at May 25, representing the APA: "Because the article has attracted so much attention, we have carefully reviewed the process by which it was approved for publication and the soundness of the methodology and analysis. This study passed the journal's rigorous peer review process and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound."

In addition, a number of press releases and rebuttals surfaced offering a variety of reasons why the study should be repudiated. The author, and others countered these rebuttals.

Because of outside pressure stemming from this research, Dr. Rind has publicly admitted that he cannot continue pending research on this topic and will pursue other subjects of research as a result of the public reaction to his paper.

==External links==
*[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm Full text of the Rind Report]
*[http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/congress.htm HumanBeingsWeb Congress decision]
:*[http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/science_and_morality.htm Science and Morality or The Rind ''et al''. Controversy] - a counter-rebuttal to public reaction against the ''Rind Report''.

{{boywiki|Rind Report}} 
[[Category:Research]]

Template talk:boywiki

2010-02-09T23:01:15Z

Tyciol: New page: =2007= {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 275px; text-align: center; float: left; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid #999;" | style="font-size: 8pt; line-height: 1.25em;" |This article is based ...

=2007=
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 275px; text-align: center; float: left; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid #999;"
| style="font-size: 8pt; line-height: 1.25em;" |This article is based on a [[GNU FDL]] [[BoyWiki]] article: [http://www.boywiki.org/wiki/{{{1|{{PAGENAMEE}}}}} '''{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''']
| style="width: 42px; height: 42px; font-size: 14pt;" | '''bW'''
|}<noinclude>

See also: [[Anarchopedia:BoyWiki datadump]]
[[Category:Datadumps]]
</noinclude>

=2009=
no space for that shit over here... [[User:80.143.112.137]] 00:56, 19 April 2009
*And blind unquestioning hatred of a sexual minority does? [[User:91.121.136.187]] 05:37, 24 July 2009
:Pedophiles/Ephebophiles have just as much right to be anarchists as anyone else. [[User:94.75.228.149]] 05:51, 24 July 2009

=2010=
Alright, I noticed this little exchange so I signed it for the anon IPs who edited it in and moved it to the talk page. For now, I'm blanking the template until people can figure out if they want a template or nothing at all, but certainly it's not appropriate to inject a silly forum onto articles which use the template. [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rind Report

2010-02-09T22:51:52Z

Tyciol:

The '''Rind Report''' is the common name given to a study by [[Bruce Rind]], Department of Psychology Temple University, Philip Tromovitch, Graduate School of Education Temple University and Robert Bauserman, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan entitled ''A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples'' published in The ''Psychological Bulletin'' of the American Psychological Association, April 1999.

==Objectives==
It set about to investigate how previous research, taken as a collective, addresses these common assumptions:
*Child sexual abuse (CSA) causes psychological harm,
*this harm is pervasive,
*this harm is intense, and
*boys and girls experience CSA equivalently.

The authors undertook this through a meta-analysis, correlating the statistics from all known studies of CSA known to exist in the English language that use college samples.

==Abstract==
"Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became non-significant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported." [quoted directly from the paper]

==Reaction to the Rind Report==
This study generated a large amount of controversy, first by conservative talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessenger and, but later spread through political circles to the US Congress where it was "condemned and denounced" by a unanimous vote of 355-0 (with 13 voting "present") on July 12, 1999. [http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/congress.htm]

However, pressed to justify itself, the APA submitted the meta-analysis to yet another round of scientific peer-review and study by statisticians who drew the following conclusion:

:"Ray Fowler, Ph. D., writes at May 25, representing the APA: "Because the article has attracted so much attention, we have carefully reviewed the process by which it was approved for publication and the soundness of the methodology and analysis. This study passed the journal's rigorous peer review process and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound."

In addition, a number of press releases and rebuttals surfaced offering a variety of reasons why the study should be repudiated. The author, and others countered these rebuttals.

Because of outside pressure stemming from this research, Dr. Rind has publicly admitted that he cannot continue pending research on this topic and will pursue other subjects of research as a result of the public reaction to his paper.

==External links==
*[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm Full text of the Rind Report]
*[http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/science_and_morality.htm Science and Morality or The Rind ''et al''. Controversy] - a counter-rebuttal to public reaction against the ''Rind Report''.

{{boywiki|Rind_Report}}
[[Category:Research]]

Talk:Rind Report

2010-02-09T22:51:18Z

Tyciol:

==[[Bruce Rind]]==
There is a link here, is it possible if there are any other notable works that he'd get an article too? [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rind Report

2010-02-09T22:51:09Z

Tyciol: New page: ==Bruce Rind== There is a link here, is it possible if there are any other notable works that he'd get an article too? ~~~~

==Bruce Rind==
There is a link here, is it possible if there are any other notable works that he'd get an article too? [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tyciol

2007-01-02T08:04:55Z

Tyciol:

Don't edit comments here! But then, this is anarchy... [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tyciol

2007-01-02T08:04:33Z

Tyciol: