Re: Bank hold up

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

That's because you know you would have to read their studies first and aren't smart enough to be able to understand what they write.

Just why are you being so lazy that you are mindlessly relying on Lott's opinions instead of relying on your own logic and reasoning?

Lott did his typical job of misdirection and falsehoods.

ROTFL!!!!!

A&D use the same data as Lott, David

Not at all.

Sure, David. It's easy to trace you in Google.

I'm not going to rehash the A&D study with you anymore. Lott did a more than ample job of refuting it. Your entire argument comes down to reliance on already discredited data and an ad hominem attack on Lott, which is about what I was expecting when I first saw your links so no surprise there. Also before you refer to me as David (whoever that is) anymore you might want to do a little research of your own on my posting history which will probably convince even you that I am not who you have mistaken me for before you make a larger fool of yourself, if that is possible.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

As Lott's conclusions.

Your reading skills are rather poor, David, but that's expected.

So when are you going to try and read Ayers & Donohue's articles and write an actual rebuttal?

Or are you going to continue to mindlessly follow Lott and not use logic or your own reasoning?

My bet is on #2.

As well as what?

I'm still waiting for anything coherent from you and once again:

Your failure to comprehend is not evidence of any deficiency with regard to that which you fail to understand.

When the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Your cutting and pasting to change context makes you guilty of essentially the same thing you accuse Lott of. Albeit with ample proof of your actions. Those who live in glass houses.............

Obviously not or you wouldn't still be refering to me as David. Your skills with Google are obviously no better than your ability to understand anything else. An intelligent and honest person would quickly realize his mistake and retract it. You on the other hand will probably not even realize yours even though there is NO logical correlation between any of my posts, save perhaps that I am in disagreement with you, and the person you refer to since I don't even know who "David" is. If you dispute this then post what you think the correlation is. You won't of course since none exists. You have simply made a foolish and baseless assumption and like your attack on Lott will stick doggedly to it no matter how obviously incorrect it may be. This speaks volumes about you. Now post back and confirm everything I just said. I know you will. You can't help yourself.

An association between events does not in and of itself imply causality but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to infer causality between such events (as you infer with your question), especially if there is other evidence, or multiple examples. This distinction is often conveniently overlooked by critics of associational studies.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Since that is how you started, you lost in the very first post.

The context remains unchanged and anyone can follow the thread back, Steve.

....

You're correct there, Steve. I confused you with someone else.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Now, explain Lott's thesis.

How did Lott control the dependent variable?

Really? My first post to you was:

Subject: Re: Bank hold up From: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Putyourspamhere) Date: 3/26/2004 8:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m24.aol.com>

None of your accusations are relevant to the point at hand. If you have valid criticism of Lotts research then there would be no need to bother with an attack on his character. Yes I read your links. Nothing of substance to refute Lotts claims, only what you would expect when a scientific logical argument cannot be mustered.

Who just happens to post from a UK address.

So you're an American citizen in America who just happens to prefer to post with a UK e-mail addy.

Perhaps you could try and point out the slanderous part.

Ah not so fast. It's my turn to quiz you now. Why is A&D's methodology any more likely to reach a more reliable conclusion than Lotts? Other than that study your entire case comes down to an ad hominem attack on Lott. At least you no longer insist on calling me David.

Once again the snip to what you wish the answer was. You should make a note with this: "snipped to change material content and or context". Since you do it so frequently. I also like the way you went back and edited "David" out of the text you quoted, now that you realize your baseless conclusion with regard to my identity was, not surprisingly, completely wrong. You have presented some degree of evidence against Lotts character and in the process have proven your own character and judgement to be certainly flawed.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Yes, really. Thanks for demonstrating it.

.....

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

How did Lott control the dependent variable, Steve?

Have you read the articles?

They use the same methodology as Lott as well as additional data and additional methods. If you claim that their results are wrong, then you have to point out why it is different than Lott's.

Results are considered robust when they hold up when different methods are used and when additional data is examined. Ayers and Donohue demonstrate that Lott's results are not robust.

At least you're finally admitting that A & D isn't an ad hom attack.

Not at all. Lott destroyed himself with his Mary Rosh sockpuppet, Michael Maltz demonstrated that Lott's data is unreliable, Lott has demonstrated time and time again that he can't be trusted.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Unlike you, I note when I make an error. Why is it so difficult for you to admit it when you are wrong, David?

It would seem you have retracted your admission. LOL And as yet you haven't pointed out any error.

Simply saying something has been demonstrated when in fact the opposite is true is no more sufficient than any of the other unsupported claims and accusations you make.

When you answer my question I will answer your previous one. You have hardly proven yourself qualified to quiz anyone.

I read your articles. I also read the A&D study results shortly after the study was published.

I won't even bother to point out the contradiction here since you are well aware of it.

So now we have gone from discredited to merely not robust.

As have you with regard to your own trustworthiness. That along with the fact that you jump to baseless conclusions.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

You just made another error.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Is exactly what you've done all along, Steve.