13:0913:09, 6 February 2012diffhist+1,747
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
Response to Johniq: if you had bothered to read my comment, you would have already had your brief answer. Do your homework about this topic. Read Chapter 9 of the Rosnow book.
20:1320:13, 5 February 2012diffhist−3
Rind et al. controversy
removed the word "casual" (a word with a different meaning from "causal," and easily confusing also for the reader), and I substituted simpler, clearer wording, so there is no misunderstanding in the average reader about the intent and meaning.
04:3204:32, 5 February 2012diffhist+115
Rind et al. controversy
In the 'Subsequent research and legacy' section, added another quote from the APA press release/letter to REp. Mark Foley to show the APA position just before the condemnation by Congress.
4 February 2012
21:3121:31, 4 February 2012diffhist+394
Rind et al. controversy
Added a quote to the Holes and Slap citation, noting among other things, that the full text of this article is freely available at the AMA website.
20:5920:59, 4 February 2012diffhist+123
Rind et al. controversy
I noted in the footnote that apparently Malon, in Spain, offers free access to the full text of the English version of his article on the web. This web-based article is the same as the one that was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
20:4220:42, 4 February 2012diffhist+666
Rind et al. controversy
In the 'Subsequent research and legacy' Section, added as a citation to the Kendall-Tackett (1993) study, with a short quote from the article itself at the end of the footnote.
20:1520:15, 4 February 2012diffhist−285
Rind et al. controversy
Combined 2 footnotes to make one footnote. Two different footnotes referred to the same APA press release, the letter of Dr. Raymond Fowler to Rep. Tom Dalay.
19:0719:07, 4 February 2012diffhist+266
Rind et al. controversy
Added all the co-authors' names to the Ondersma citation, and included a short quote from the text to the Ondersma footnote. Removed the dead URL link in the Ondersma citation.
17:2917:29, 4 February 2012diffhist+1,228
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
In the 'Lifted out messy section for cleaning' Section, added a bit more from the original sources to the material that appears at the end of the footnotes. Various tweks and additions. Response to older comment from Legitimus.
02:5302:53, 4 February 2012diffhist+436
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
Added a quote, one from the abstract of Ondersma's response to Rind, and one from the Kendall-Tackett's article, to their citations' formatting, so the short, inserted quotes appear at the end of the repective footnotes.
00:5000:50, 4 February 2012diffhist+340
m
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
Response to Juice. Deleting a space that causes the malfunction of the URL to the Congressinal Condemnation. This same error has appeared before. Is this error possibly introduced by some software or bot?
3 February 2012
11:1111:11, 3 February 2012diffhist+16,574
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
A case can be made to argue for and against CSA causing at some harm. The questions are: How much harm and for what percent of those exposed? What do the sources tell us?
23:4423:44, 2 February 2012diffhist+16,266
User:Radvo/sandbox
In the 'Lifted out messy section for cleaning.' Citations that suggest some possibility of a causal link btw. CSA and "harm" 2d
13:0913:09, 6 February 2012diffhist+1,747
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
Response to Johniq: if you had bothered to read my comment, you would have already had your brief answer. Do your homework about this topic. Read Chapter 9 of the Rosnow book.
20:1320:13, 5 February 2012diffhist−3
Rind et al. controversy
removed the word "casual" (a word with a different meaning from "causal," and easily confusing also for the reader), and I substituted simpler, clearer wording, so there is no misunderstanding in the average reader about the intent and meaning.
04:3204:32, 5 February 2012diffhist+115
Rind et al. controversy
In the 'Subsequent research and legacy' section, added another quote from the APA press release/letter to REp. Mark Foley to show the APA position just before the condemnation by Congress.
4 February 2012
21:3121:31, 4 February 2012diffhist+394
Rind et al. controversy
Added a quote to the Holes and Slap citation, noting among other things, that the full text of this article is freely available at the AMA website.
20:5920:59, 4 February 2012diffhist+123
Rind et al. controversy
I noted in the footnote that apparently Malon, in Spain, offers free access to the full text of the English version of his article on the web. This web-based article is the same as the one that was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
20:4220:42, 4 February 2012diffhist+666
Rind et al. controversy
In the 'Subsequent research and legacy' Section, added as a citation to the Kendall-Tackett (1993) study, with a short quote from the article itself at the end of the footnote.
20:1520:15, 4 February 2012diffhist−285
Rind et al. controversy
Combined 2 footnotes to make one footnote. Two different footnotes referred to the same APA press release, the letter of Dr. Raymond Fowler to Rep. Tom Dalay.
19:0719:07, 4 February 2012diffhist+266
Rind et al. controversy
Added all the co-authors' names to the Ondersma citation, and included a short quote from the text to the Ondersma footnote. Removed the dead URL link in the Ondersma citation.
17:2917:29, 4 February 2012diffhist+1,228
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
In the 'Lifted out messy section for cleaning' Section, added a bit more from the original sources to the material that appears at the end of the footnotes. Various tweks and additions. Response to older comment from Legitimus.
02:5302:53, 4 February 2012diffhist+436
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
Added a quote, one from the abstract of Ondersma's response to Rind, and one from the Kendall-Tackett's article, to their citations' formatting, so the short, inserted quotes appear at the end of the repective footnotes.
00:5000:50, 4 February 2012diffhist+340
m
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
Response to Juice. Deleting a space that causes the malfunction of the URL to the Congressinal Condemnation. This same error has appeared before. Is this error possibly introduced by some software or bot?
3 February 2012
11:1111:11, 3 February 2012diffhist+16,574
Talk:Rind et al. controversy
A case can be made to argue for and against CSA causing at some harm. The questions are: How much harm and for what percent of those exposed? What do the sources tell us?
23:4423:44, 2 February 2012diffhist+16,266
User:Radvo/sandbox
In the 'Lifted out messy section for cleaning.' Citations that suggest some possibility of a causal link btw. CSA and "harm" 2d