Was that Brie Felnagle's dad I been watching all over the news lately, from TacomaWA, Judge Felnagle?

Oops. Genteel.

I was distracted by the news that 3 Lakewood police officers were in a car crash.

AnneCaroline wrote:

Excuse me?

I thought this was a web site for runners.

I'm not an academic defending a dissertation here.

My credibility is well-established. If I thought those criticizing me were sincerely interested in preventing domestic violence, I would gladly invest a couple of days ferreting out the link to the statistic I cited.

Make outrageous claims, be prepared to provide evidence. It's that simple.

Look - your numbers are a false - and you can't even admit that. You either misread or are deliberately misrepresenting the data. Which one is it?

I'm not interested in promoting or preventing or selling or buying anything. I'm interested in people who either know what they're talking about (apparently you - for all your claims - do not) or are big enough to admit when they're wrong (again, you won't.)

It's a plain and simple fact that your statement that >50% of women and >60% of men were victims of child abuse is not based on the facts you say it is. There's not a statistic out there that says that - or says anything close to that.

Go ahead - put your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet. Doesn't make what you're saying true. Your "credibility" may be well-established, but it certainly isn't on this board.

Nice to hide behind the cyber-bullying term. When someone says your facts are wrong, you claim you're a victim. Academic dishonesty at it's finest.

Shakespeare, perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Because it is abundantly obvious that you are a cyber-bully, I don't care whether I have credibility with you or not.

Two people who I assume are regular visitors to this site have already suggested it is time for you to take a chill pill.

Go out for a run. Find a healthy hobby.

Look Anne, last post on this since this is getting pretty silly, but how exactly are you using "I thought this was a web site for runners" to deflect away Lance's very legitimate points? You came on here posting distinctly non-running content, evidently quite pleased to steer traffic to your site.

The fact is, your claims don't hols up. Not from one of the sources you claim supports you (CDC), and not from the very article you are apparently referencing (which Lance was nice enough to find, since you didn't provide it).

Why do I care? I really care little about you, your site, or your posts. But if you are indeed trying to reduce child abuse, that is a great goal, and I hope you are VERY succesful in it. But you are only going to be as good as your methods, and from what you've displayed here, they're not great. You can dismiss me as another bully if you like, or you could take this to heart: learn to find good data, and don't rely on crappy data. And acknowledge when you're clearly wrong. Good luck.

[quote]dd wrote:

>

No, DD, I did not.

A visitor to my site ~ Appalling on this site ~ provided the link to my post about Clemmons.

In the blog world, it is proper etiquette to thank the person who generates traffic to a blog ~ especially when traffic explodes.

I came back because we were having a civil dialogue until Shakespeare went on his outrageous rant.

I would think that you would appreciate and comprehend that a person who writes a site about preventing abuse would not tolerate cyber-bullying.

And, quite frankly, I thought you were smart enough to figure out that if 5% (using your number) of kids are abused each year that by the time these kids get out of high school ~ even factoring in that some kids get abused more than once ~ that this is easily half the class by the time they graduate. (5 x 18 = 90)

So, the statistic is not nearly as shocking as you claim.

What's shocking is that people don't seem to be able to comprehend the cumulative impact of 5% per year.

AnneCaroline wrote:

And, quite frankly, I thought you were smart enough to figure out that if 5% (using your number) of kids are abused each year that by the time these kids get out of high school ~ even factoring in that some kids get abused more than once ~ that this is easily half the class by the time they graduate. (5 x 18 = 90)

So, the statistic is not nearly as shocking as you claim.

What's shocking is that people don't seem to be able to comprehend the cumulative impact of 5% per year.

Look lady, the first rule of being in a hole is to put down the shovel.

Every time you make a post on here citing statistics, you just reinforce the notion that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You claimed that "51.9% of women and 66.4% of men have experienced child abuse", and cited the DOJ as proof (though you didn't provide the actual link.)

I found the data for you,from the DOJ - and showed that you misrepresented the statistic - as those percentages applied to adult people who had been assaulted at any time in their lives (not child abuse.)

You have refused to either provide different data, and have stuck to your impossible claim.

Now you are claiming that 5% of kids per year suffer child abuse (though the actual data says ~1% of kids, and that includes neglect which comprises about 60% of that total) and that the additive effect over the course of years means that your numbers are true.

Sorry, but the statistics of incidence and prevalence don't work that way. Go take a freshman stats class to help you figure this out.

Either that or ACTUALLY PROVIDE DATA for your claims. Don't tell us it comes from the American Cancer Society and leave it at that. Don't give us links to websites that just repeat the statistic you just mentioned - provide us with a link to the studies that say this - not just reference it.

I'm sure you won't - and it's not because you "don't respond to cyber-bullying" or "don't want to defend an academic dissertation on a running message board."

It's because your statistics don't exist. They don't say what you think they say. You're repeating bad statistics done using sloppy research. You take this high and mighty stance that you have great credibility...well, it's only a matter of time before you're exposed.

Do some real research, provide some real data. Otherwise, you're no different from those pissants on Fox News or MSNBC - another talking head screaming louder than the last about "alarming statistics" (60% of boys are abused! 72.4% of muslims are terrorists! 18.67% of christians are secretly gay!)

It's time to put up or shut up: provide your data.

wow is there a lot of bickering on this thread....

so is Brie his daughter or what??

Get a life, Shakespeare. She came here to thank Appalling for linking her blog. You're being a jerk.

Pics?

AnneCaroline wrote:

"Approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner - a figure that far exceeds victimization rates for other types of violence affecting youth."

http://www.giverespect.org/about/facts/

BTW, this is exactly the type of sloppy statistics that you keep peddling. It's part and parcel what's wrong with the blogosphere - that someone like you can keep repeating stuff like this without any critical examination of where the numbers actually come from. The fact that CNN and the NYTimes refer to you as an "expert" says more about the poor quality of their reporting than it does about your reputation.

Let's examine this statistic, in the spirit of academic rigor and honesty.

I'm glad you provided a link (goes further than either just saying it, or saying that someone said it.) However, when I click on the link (sponsored by MACY'S!), there's no citation of that actual claim. Sure, there are end notes (printed in small legalese print, like the credit card companies do); but a reader doesn't know which statistic is linked to which endnote.

MOST people won't possibly investigate the truth of a claim if they have to search 28 references. Fortunately for you, I am not most people.

Buried on the page you linked to is another link (click here!), that takes you to this website, where there are properly cited statistics:

Now we're getting somewhere. Seems like the claim that "Approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner" comes from citation #13: 13 Davis, Antoinette, MPH. 2008. Interpersonal and Physical Dating Violence among Teens. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency Focus. Available at

Perfect. Now we have an actual study. It's only taken 3 links to get to - (something that you cited as source data; we'll forgive your oversight for now...) Except when you click on the link....nothing. Whoops, page cannot be found. That's ok, a couple seconds of googling turns up the paper.

Ah, so here it is - the paper by Ms. Davis, Master of Public Policy. Only, it's not actually a study itself. It's a review of some other studies. That's ok - we'll find that statistic. There it is: presented in a chart on page 2: "Estimates of Youth Violence": 33% adolescent girls victimized by dating partner.

Of course, the chart isn't referenced, so we have to actually figure out where that stat is coming from...(this is becoming a theme, no?) Reading though the paper a bit further, the next paragraph gets at what I think it the source material: 3 references (Marcus 2005, CDC 2007, Bonomi & Kelleher 2007) that give us the data. Can't say for certain, because the caveat is placed before it: "the prevalence of interpersonal violence among adolescents generally varies from 9% to 35%, depending upon on the population surveyed and how interpersonal violence is defined.

Nonetheless, lets look at the data. Start with the CDC, the reference cited in Ms. Davis' paper is this:

On that site they have a number of statistics, 1 in 4, 1 in 11, 1 in 5, etc. Hard to say where exactly the claim that "33% of adolescent girls..." comes from, but it certainly doesn't come from this website. I guess maybe you could extrapolate the data from "1 in 4 adolescent girls", but again, it's not entirely clear. In any case, the numbers on the CDC website are from a number of different studies - none of which Ms. Davis specifically cites. (Pattern!)

Moving on, let's try Marcus, 2005. (Conveniently, Dr. Robert Marcus works at the same University that I do. Interesting.) Let's look at his paper: Marcus, R. (2005). Youth violence in everyday life. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence. 20, 442-447.

Again, Dr. Marcus isn't doing any actual research here, another review article. (to be fair to Dr. Marcus, he's an accomplished researcher who has done a lot of original research on violence in teens, especially here in Baltimore. But this article isn't one of them.) Nowhere in the paper does he specifically mention adolescent girls. In fact, the major part of the paper deals with teen BOYS (age 14-17) and the rates of either hitting or being hit (24%) - this is on page 443. Then it says: "This prevalence rate was consistent with the estimate of 9.5% being hit, slapped, or physically hurt by their partner(i.e., received only)in nationally representative surveys (Centers for Disease Control[CDC],2002b). This rate was also consistent with prevalence rates(i.e., received only) based on nationally representative samples of youth ages 18 to 24 years in which 11% reported having been slapped, hit, or kicked by their

partner(AddHealth,2002)

Nowhere does it mention 33% of adolescent girls suffering abuse. I guess you could extrapolate...but again, not from this data.

That's ok, because moving on to the third study reference noted, we're sure to find our answer: Bonomi, A., & Kelleher, K. (2007). Dating violence, sexual assault, and suicide attempts among minority adolescents. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. 161(6). 609-610.

Naturally, this isn't an actual study either (shocking, I know) but rather an editorial about a study (close enough, I guess). In the editorial they note the claims of the study, which finds that among black and hispanic youth, 1 in 10 reported dating violence victimization in the past year (that includes boys AND girls) and 1 in 10 girls reported a history of sexual assault in her lifetime. This editorial does not mention any other statistics about violence.

The ACTUAL study, (Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Suicide Attempts Among Urban Teenagers;

Olshen, Elyse MD, MPH; McVeigh, Katharine H. PhD, MPH; Wunsch-Hitzig, Robin A. PhD; Rickert, Vaughn I. PsyD) looked at high school students in NYC, predominantly minorities (black and hispanic) - and tried to find an association between dating violence and suicide attempts. Nonetheless, it found that ~ 1/10 (9.6%) lifetime history of sexual assault.

Soooo...what did we learn from all this? Well, the statistics aren't there to back up what you claim. Maybe in some round about way - but certainly no hard data. Most of the stuff you cited is links to other links to other links to editorials or reviews or collections of other data.

Sloppy statistics, poor research. Shocking.

AnneCaroline wrote:

Thanks everybody for visiting my blog today. I had the biggest day EVER and broke through the 10,000 visitor milestone!!! I'm doing a happy dance here in Seattle and loving Appalling for posting a link to my site.

I've finished my post on the disparity in denying bail to the animal cruelty felons versus granting bail to Clemmons. Hope you find it interesting. FYI, I'm a domestic violence survivor (he was a VERY high-ranking judge), and I was licensed to practice law in two states.

Here's the link ~ hope you'll check it out:

http://annecarolinedrake.com/2009/12/01/clemmons-bail-judge-felnagle-grants-bail-to-alleged-child-rapist-denies-bail-to-convicted-animal-abusers/

My web site BTW is pretty much dedicated to Crystal Judson Brame.

I want harsh penalties for both. Don't try to brush off animal cruelty.

I am hoping that someone within the domestic violence community will adopt the brilliant model of animal rights activists. They certainly were effective in the case that Appalling cited which was decided by Brie's dad.

Avacado pointed out that there are wonky bail issues in WA State that made the difference between the animal abuse punks getting denied bail and Maurice Clemmons being granted bail.

This inspired my post that you cited.

I see the two groups as possibly being strategic partners rather than competitiors. A lot of people have observed how frequently punks who abuse animals become adults who terrorize everyone around them ~ at home and at work.

My own point of view is that having a pet is a great way to teach kids responsibility, unconditional love, and respect for all creatures great and small.