Re: Bank hold up

LOL. Obviously you dictionary has a different definition of lazy than mine does. When are you going to answer my question?

You have not proven a problem with Lotts. A different result from a study using additional methodology and data does not automatically invalidate Lott.

This argument is just as easily flipped to say that the A&D conclusions are wrong. Since they haven't been duplicated they are to use your words "not robust". You are relying on conflicting but unduplicated results to discredit one study while believing the other whole heartedly. You can't have it both ways. The best you can get is to say A&D casts doubt.

Please point to where I ever said A&D was an ad hominem attack.

You haven't provided any proof. You have provided enough to raise questions but proove nothing.

Really. I can quote your baseless conclusion, about a dozen examples at least, which you have already admitted was such. I can quote numerous instances of you snipping and editing quoted text in such a way as to change the content and/or context. Your argument on the other hand comes down to my failure to except your "proof" which is not "proof" at all.

I thought we covered this. Even had I not ever seen or heard of them I could point to a problem with them. They conflict with Lotts and have not been independently duplicated. Consequently they are, how did you put it again, not robust I believe it was.

I have done no such thing.

No it is you who has made the 'error' once again (and they are becoming tedious) by changing the name "David" to Steve in the quoted text from message snipped-for-privacy@news.teranews.com> after you quoted it in post Message-id: snipped-for-privacy@news.teranews.com> to which I am now responding directly to. Your original post is below. Skip to the end and see for yourself. Although why would you? You already know you edited the quoted text in question in a rather pathetic attempt to conceal the fact that you once again reffered to me as "David". Who is this David person anyway? Certainly someone you have something of a compulsive fixation on. You may wish to seek some professional help with this as obviously it is effecting your judgement. Compared to your character, or apparant lack there of Lott's is unscathed. :) LOL. Yes I suppose you could take that as an insult directed at you, in reality it is simply a stated fact you have proven via your deceptive posting again and again. Don't go screaming ad hominem back at me just yet though as unlike you I'm not using your lack of character and obvious albeit rather pathetic attempts at deception against you to discredit your assertions with regard to Lott. :).

Here's your original post:

(although we both know you won't bother to read it since you already know what it says)

Subject: Re: Bank hold up From: Carl Nisarel snipped-for-privacy@postmaster.co.uk Date: 4/8/2004 4:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: snipped-for-privacy@news.teranews.com>

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?

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

....

You're back to the idiotic "IS NOT!" assertion.

Ayers & Donohue's articles point to numerous problems. Michael Maltz's articles point to significant problems.

That's a lame goalpost move, Steve.

Demonstrating that the data contains coding errors does invalidate the research.

Demonstrating that the data is unreliable does invalidate the research.

Demonstrating that the models do not hold up when additional data is examined does invalidate the research.

.....

No, it can't since nobody has taken A & D's models and shown that they do not hold up to additional data or other models.

You're just going for the idiot "IS NOT!" shout again.

That is not how robustness or lack of it is demonstrated, Steve.

To claim a lack of robustness, someone would have to take A & D's data and models and show that they do not hold up to additional data or models with better specifications.

BTW, David Mustard has tested Ayers & Donohue's data and models and he agrees with them. Mustard has demonstrated that Ayers & Donohue's results are robust.

You just used a denying the antecedent fallacy. You still aren't using logic.

......

You described the links, including the A&D articles, I provided by claiming:

"If you have valid criticism of Lotts research then there would be no need to bother with an attack on his character."

A blind fool like you will never see what is directly in front of his face.

....

Hello, Steve?

Can you even admit that Lott's data contained coding errors?

David Mustard had the integrity to admit the errors were there.

Yes, really.

Yet you didn't.

.....

It's rather obvious you haven't actually read them. You haven't even realized that there is more than one article by Ayers & Donohue.

IOW, you'll make statements out of complete ignorance.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

....

You claimed that I 'retracted my admission' - I retracted nothing.

I noted it, Steve. Are you going to claim that I don't have the right to do what I want with my own writings?

Unlike you, I admit it when I make an error.

....

Your calling me "David" yet again is as good as a retraction.

Umm actually you didn't note it you just edited it as usual. I am claiming and most everyone else will agree that when you edit quoted text on Usenet to say something other than it originally said you quickly lose credibility, and for good reason, since it is no longer a quote. Deception, or in your case, pathetic attempts at it cost you credibility. You should be familiar with this concept since it is part of your attack on Lott.

So who is "David" and why are you fixated upon him?

Idiocy is something you know a great deal about.

A lame move is trying to go back and edit mistakes out of your own ARCHIVED posts. That just cracks me up. LOL

If only that were the case you would be set.

How would you know? LOL

And there wouldn't be. Yet still the attack. And from a pathetic fool who feels the need to try and go back and edit his own posts no less. Once again you make a foolish assumption that because I mention an attack on his character that that statement extends to A&D. A study is obviously NOT a personal attack. The personal attack comment was directed at you, and why bother with it. If your position is that A&D in and of itself discredits Lott then that's all you had to say. The personal attack is irrelevant. Argue the study.

In this case what's directly in front of my face changes from post to post as you edit your own statements to suit your current whim. LOL.

That convenient snip again.

I have already. Everytime I have posted quoted text (which you then edit LOL) of you calling me "David".

To you nothing is obvious. Are you sure I'm not David? ROFLOL.

An article and a study are not the same thing.

That and deception or pathetic attempts at it are something you know much about.

BTW is Mustard the David upon whom you fixate?

Well I'm off for the weekend. Have fun tracking down David whoever or wherever he may be. ROFLOL.

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

...

No, it isn't.

...

Go gcreime na péisteoga do cheann, Putyourspamhere --

Because gunners like you are constantly provide examples of it.

Of course you use the ad hom and fail to address the content.

....

It is the case, you just don't have the integrity to admit it.

Yet another item you can't handle.

It's directly above and you just failed to address a single point.

You simply can't do anything beyond shouting "IS NOT!"

....

That's a false bifurcation. There are valid criticisms of Lott's research (presented above) that you've ignored and there are valid reasons to point to Lott's lack of integrity.

Lott is the person who damaged his own character.

You made no distinction and included the A&D articles as part of it.

I have. You have yet to read it and you keep waving your hands.

directly contradicts your assertions.

You claimed that the links provided (which included two articles by Ayers & Donohue) do not provide any "scientific proof".

Are you going to continue to claim that Ayers & Donohue's articles do not provide any?

You simply cannot address those articles, Steve.

Instead you keep on with the idiotic ad homs.

Yet another set of points that went whizzing past your head.

It's become rather apparent that you can't deal with it and you can't admit your errors or the problems with Lott's MGLC research.

When are you going to actually deal with the material provided, Steve?

Or are you tacitly admitting that you simply cannot?

Nope.

When are you going to actually read the articles, Steve?

You simply can't admit an error, even if it is a simple one.

Ayers & Donohue conducted multiple studies.

Because you, and gunners like you, keep doing it and keep providing examples of it.