🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100vvr9rs1340e9@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

Translation, you can't disprove his numbers.



> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>