OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

The first being, he fabricated the data, and then told the truth about the bogus information; the second being that he did impeccable research and published it accurately, but then lied about the contents when publicizing it?

I guess I'm in a quandry here. I'm not sure I really see the difference (is there one?) between the two.

Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen
Loading thread data ...

Apparently you don't, idiot.

Let's clear this up once and for all, though. *YOU* give us a definition....any old definition that you want....in which the crime/s don't happen "hundreds of thousands of times a year".

Come on, idiot. You can do it, can't you?

"The act of unlawfully taking the property of another through violence or intimidation".

Seems to back the stats again, idiot.

Waiting, idiot. Come on.

ral

Reply to
Richard Lewis

Of course you are trying to stigmatize anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment as a wife beater, but just to be clear, I've never hit any woman and I'm pretty sure no friend of mine has either, I have been beaten pretty thouroghly by some real irate women as a part of my employment , but I took it in stride. I would stop any man from beating any woman, by any means available to me. And I have done so quite a few times, to the point of breaking multiple bones, women are just not to be hit, period.

JTMcC.

Reply to
JTMcC

OK, so someone my wife, or daughter KNOWS tries to assult my wife, or daughter. This doesn't change the laws of physics, so,the ,45 caliber slug still will disable and probably kill the assulter just as it would if he had been previously unknown to them.

JTMcC.

Reply to
JTMcC

Here's another for you:

"I have not participated in the firearms discussion group nor in the apparent online newsgroup discussions" John Lott 1-14-03

"The MaRyRoSh pen name account was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons." John Lott 1-21-03

"I always presumed that many people suspected me to be behind Mary Rosh, I certainly was not particularly surprised when Julian Sanchez made the exact same linkage based upon the similarity in the language used in my postings." John Lott 4-06-03

Reply to
Carl Nisarel

I understand your comment. And from your place in the Cave of Apathy..it makes sense.

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith

Reply to
Gunner

And as I asked..did Lott lie in his research? The Mary Rouss story is well known.

So again I ask..what lies are in his research. Keep in mind that the Department of Justice, FBI, the Kleck and Mustard studies all confirm his data.

Your cites are?

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith

Reply to
Gunner

Lott's data and research has been well reviewed and found to be accurate, and published correctly. Thats a given. His various studies have been attacked time and time again and no challenge to it has been founded.

The Mary Roush stuff..shrug..

If you want to take a look at what Churl Neaseus's cronies have to say about it:

formatting link
Browse around...I should mention..this is Not a John Lott site but a Bash Lott site...all done nice and neatly to make the reader think it is.

Kind of makes a person wonder why they have to go to such extremes to demonize the individual, and not the data.

Perhaps the Data is unimpeachable, so they have to try to poison the researcher? You be the judge.

Some bits of interest on that site btw...

formatting link
"The fraud and abuse manager for one Internet Service Provider (ISP), whose features had been used by the fraudulent website, confirmed to CNSNews.com Tuesday that the website was "piggy-backed" on the account of an anti-gun organization.

"There is a merchant that is related, and I do see that there is some correlation," he said, speaking on condition that neither he nor his business would be identified. "They seem to be some sort of anti-gun advocate, something to that effect.

"However," he added, "it does seem that mostly they're using the service to conduct legitimate business."

The ISP manager said the "AskJohnLott.org" services formerly provided by his company appeared to have been terminated and that an attempt appeared to have been made to delete the records of the services' use. He would not name the "anti-gun advocate" to which the fraudulent website's services had been billed, noting that he could not confirm from his records whether his legitimate client had authorized the specific use."

Here..btw..is the real John Lott site. Take some time and look around, look at his data sources etc..its all there in black and whitel

formatting link
You might want to read this paper as well

formatting link
Gunner

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith

Reply to
Gunner

What's with your comment, that he lied 'about' his research but not 'in' the research. I really don't understand the distinction.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

It looks like you need some work on your memory to go with your remedial math and remedial reading. Here's what YOU said about it, d*****ad:

76% is closer to 3/4 than 4/5, Einstein. And 2001 produces exactly the same numbers, using your list of states. I never said anything to the contrary.

I haven't been to the NRA-ILA site for a couple of years. You do have a reading comprehension problem there, d*****ad. And you ought to get out more and see what some other sources have to say about it, from the USDOJ for the "prohibited persons" list to Packing.org for another take on which states really are "open carry." And when you're through with them, read the actual damned laws. Then you won't look like a dope for saysing that Utah has some "strict restrictions" on open carry. Right. You have to pull the trigger twice. Dickhead.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Black? Is Mary wearing one of those little black Halston dresses? Or is he playing John on this site?

I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John...

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Hummmm..you are slower than I thought. The lies about his research is a reference to the Mary Roush bugfuck. Where he used a female persona on newsgroups to defend his research, and not have every nut case antigun wonk lined up for miles to fill his email account or the newsgroup he was on with trash.

He never did lie IN the research. Thats been verified 12 ways from Sunday. The only lying he did About his research was the use of a persona.

Still confused? Please say no..else my very high respect for your intelligence level will go down several notches.

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith

Reply to
Gunner

but "she" was good in debate.

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. - L. Neil Smith

Reply to
Gunner

Gunner sputtered:

Heh. Lott's been caught numerous times.

He reported results from a survey he never conducted.

formatting link
He back-dated a chart in an analysis and tried to pretend he didn't change an analytical model.
formatting link
He constantly lies by omission when he excludes research that contradicts his results.
formatting link
and much, much more:
formatting link
Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science, correctly described John Lott's work as a "fraud".

Reply to
Carl Nisarel

That someone is more likely to be you, or your son, than a stranger.

Reply to
Carl Nisarel

This is what Kleck thinks about Lott's MGLC research:

"more likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis."

- Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.

Kleck has never produced any research that 'backs up' Lott.

Reply to
Carl Nisarel

I do, you don't.

The stats you provided were for robbery, not "armed robbery"

You lied.

You gave us the definition. You have yet to present any statistics which show that hundreds of thousands 'loved ones' are assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" every year. .

You're the idiot who created it and you've been frantically moving the goalposts all over the place.

Heh. You just lied again. That isn't the FBI definition.

"Robbery is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."

You appear to be too stupid to understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery and you are too dishonest to admit that you changed the stat from one to the other in your attempt to fit your definition.

Reply to
Carl Nisarel

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted that he did it.

Ok, you don't understand the difference.

Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying to get anything crammed into it.

The data is in the thread and it isn't marginal.

I have credible information and I am much more familiar with the research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread.

1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious definition. 2) People tend to be rather hesitant about a self-defense shooting people they know.
Reply to
Carl Nisarel

The hell she was. After describing those armed guys as "students," she neglected to mention that they were also police officers -- one of them currently employed. That he had a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car should have attracted her curiosity about that fact.

That's a habit of mind, Gunner. If a writer is that sloppy in researching an editorial, not checking out his facts, then there's a good chance he was sloppy in researching his book. If there was money in it I'd love to go do some digging on that book that you guys are talking about. But that's at least $5,000 worth of work.

BTW, it's Mary Rosh, not Roush.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Ha ha ha. The image of lott prancing around in a dress is, well, frankly - priceless.

The guy has *zero* credibility after that. Face it, he's a laughingstock. I'm sorry to have to disillusion you, but your man (?) did let you down. No matter how good he is at what he does, a stunt like that undoes any former good work he ever did for that cause.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.