🚀 go-pugleaf

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

--------------
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