🚀 go-pugleaf

Your use of the Lott as a reference shows you're not interested in any
actual debate.  Lott has been entirely discredited as a statistician.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:B4QPb.61000$fA7.41757@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:100upnonbig4d18@corp.supernews.com...
> > --
> > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:FYHPb.60150$5D6.38875@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > news:100ub47eu96m604@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > You do know that Dr. John Lott (or is that Mary Roth) has been
> > > discredited.
> > > > You're in serious disinformation territory now.  None of this is
> valid.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
>
> You didn't prove that top 25 counties with spoiled ballots were controlled
> by Democrats and 1 with no party affiliation.
>
> You didn't prove that if you had a Democrat Election Supervisor, that you
> were 3 times more likely to have your ballot thrown out.
>
> Since I have seen the numbers form other sources, I didn't think that you
> could prove otherwise.
>
>
>
>
> > --------------
> > John Lott's unethical conduct
> >
> > John Lott is embroiled in several controversial affairs:
> > * he almost certainly fabricated a mysterious survey and certainly
behaved
> > unethically in making claims for which he had no supporting data
> > * he presented results purporting to show that "more guns" led to "less
> > crime" when those results were the product of coding errors
> > * he pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet in order
> to
> > praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.
> > * he probably was the person who anonymously accused Steve Levitt of
being
> > "rabidly antigun"
> >
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/links/2003/07/
> >
> > JOHN LOTT DEFENDS HIS LIE, CLAIMS PSYCHIC POWERS: John Lott responds to
my
> > complaint about citing a Baghdad murder statistic that doesn't exist.
> >
> > "While it might be difficult to keep track of the number of property
> crimes
> > or robberies these days in Iraq, presumably Rumsfeld knows whether the
> > number of murders is greater or less than 200 a month."
> >
> > I suppose we can be grateful that Lott know longer has Mary Rosh
fighting
> > his battles for him. But this is still a load of crap. PRESUMABLY?
> > Presumably, John Lott is now able to read the mind of Donald Rumsfeld,
is
> > convinced that Rumsfeld knows the murder rate in Baghdad, and knows that
> > that it is higher than the murder rate in DC.
> >
> > Normally, when you say that X is bigger than Y, it is because you have
> proof
> > of both X and Y and can measure them both. It isn't because you have
> > extrapolated a number for Y out of a bunch of self-serving calculations
> > designed to fit your thesis.
> >
> > Apparently the argument for the defense is "Just because John Lott cites
> an
> > imaginary statistic doesn't make him a liar." Um, okay. But it doesn't
> make
> > him a very good academic, either.
> >
>
http://wyethwire.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_wyethwire_archive.html#105950494756
> > 483830
> >
> >
>
>