Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

In article <1136907694.430611.71960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:

> They are nobel prize winning economists. Like Lott who is also an
> economist, they use the same methods in order to draw similar
> conclusions about social policies. The NAS panel is a panel of people
> specifically pulled together by the National Academy of Sciences to
> study crime and the impact of government policies on crime. I guess
> ultimately, you should go get your PhD in whatever you need to
> understand all about what Lott is doing and decide for yourself, but
> since most of us don't have time to go around doing that we tend to be
> swayed by credible experts to tell us at the very least if their
> methods are sound.

Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
diving.

You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?

Why don't you ask Scott?

Newbies. Jesus...

I am in favor of the NAS, though.

They do, in fact, intend to investigate exactly what we're talking about.

I look forward to their conclusions.

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <1136907694.430611.71960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
> adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > They are nobel prize winning economists. Like Lott who is also an
> > economist, they use the same methods in order to draw similar
> > conclusions about social policies. The NAS panel is a panel of people
> > specifically pulled together by the National Academy of Sciences to
> > study crime and the impact of government policies on crime. I guess
> > ultimately, you should go get your PhD in whatever you need to
> > understand all about what Lott is doing and decide for yourself, but
> > since most of us don't have time to go around doing that we tend to be
> > swayed by credible experts to tell us at the very least if their
> > methods are sound.
>
> Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
> diving.
>
> You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
>

I don't care about what you are talking about.

> Why don't you ask Scott?
>

No

> Newbies. Jesus...
>

Indeed

> I am in favor of the NAS, though.
>
> They do, in fact, intend to investigate exactly what we're talking about.
>
> I look forward to their conclusions.
>

Indeed they already have drawn some conclusions in their on-going
investigation into guns and crime. And specifically about Lott, for
that matter. It is clear that most of the committee doesn't like
Lott, but they certainly have not indicted Lott like you have. And
apparently they take him very seriously since the focused almost
exclusively on his work, his data and the criticisms of his work.

Perhaps you should go read it for yourself. (I've already posted a
link somewhere in this thread.)

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <1136907694.430611.71960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
> adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > They are nobel prize winning economists. Like Lott who is also an
> > economist, they use the same methods in order to draw similar
> > conclusions about social policies. The NAS panel is a panel of people
> > specifically pulled together by the National Academy of Sciences to
> > study crime and the impact of government policies on crime. I guess
> > ultimately, you should go get your PhD in whatever you need to
> > understand all about what Lott is doing and decide for yourself, but
> > since most of us don't have time to go around doing that we tend to be
> > swayed by credible experts to tell us at the very least if their
> > methods are sound.
>
> Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
> diving.
>
> You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
>

I don't care about what you are talking about.

> Why don't you ask Scott?
>

No

> Newbies. Jesus...
>

Indeed

> I am in favor of the NAS, though.
>
> They do, in fact, intend to investigate exactly what we're talking about.
>
> I look forward to their conclusions.
>

Indeed they already have drawn some conclusions in their on-going
investigation into guns and crime. And specifically about Lott, for
that matter. It is clear that most of the committee doesn't like
Lott, but they certainly have not indicted Lott like you have. And
apparently they take him very seriously since the focused almost
exclusively on his work, his data and the criticisms of his work.

Perhaps you should go read it for yourself. (I've already posted a
link somewhere in this thread.)

In article <033ds1t1vrvbuom95ltsdni9io3l853sun@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
> > diving.
> >
> > You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
> >
>
> I don't care about what you are talking about.

Yes, I know.

It doesn't support your hypothesis, and you therefore can't AFFORD to
care about it.

The point if very clear: a Nobel Prize laureate died, underwater, during
WKPP-II, because he didn't know how to dive.

Having a Nobel Prize didn't give him any knowledge about diving.

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't give anyone any way to judge Lott or his
work.

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

In article <033ds1t1vrvbuom95ltsdni9io3l853sun@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
> > diving.
> >
> > You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
> >
>
> I don't care about what you are talking about.

Yes, I know.

It doesn't support your hypothesis, and you therefore can't AFFORD to
care about it.

The point if very clear: a Nobel Prize laureate died, underwater, during
WKPP-II, because he didn't know how to dive.

Having a Nobel Prize didn't give him any knowledge about diving.

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't give anyone any way to judge Lott or his
work.

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:11:42 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <033ds1t1vrvbuom95ltsdni9io3l853sun@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
>> > diving.
>> >
>> > You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
>> >
>>
>> I don't care about what you are talking about.
>
>Yes, I know.
>
>It doesn't support your hypothesis, and you therefore can't AFFORD to
>care about it.
>
>The point if very clear: a Nobel Prize laureate died, underwater, during
>WKPP-II, because he didn't know how to dive.
>
>Having a Nobel Prize didn't give him any knowledge about diving.
>

They do not offer Nobel prizes for diving. They do, however, offer
Nobel prizes for ECONOMICS. And these Nobel laureates have their
Nobel prize in ECONOMICS. And John Lott is an ECONOMIST. And his
book consists of ECONOMETRIC modeling to prove his theses about guns
and crime and media bias and so on.

>Having a Nobel Prize doesn't give anyone any way to judge Lott or his
>work.

It does if his work consists of economics -- you know since he is an
economist and all -- and your Nobel prize is in economics.

So, no -- I don't care about your diving story because it has nothing
to do with Lott's work (in economics) being endorsed by Nobel laureate
economists.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:11:42 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <033ds1t1vrvbuom95ltsdni9io3l853sun@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Let's go back to WKPP-II's Nobel Prize Laureate, and what he knows about
>> > diving.
>> >
>> > You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?
>> >
>>
>> I don't care about what you are talking about.
>
>Yes, I know.
>
>It doesn't support your hypothesis, and you therefore can't AFFORD to
>care about it.
>
>The point if very clear: a Nobel Prize laureate died, underwater, during
>WKPP-II, because he didn't know how to dive.
>
>Having a Nobel Prize didn't give him any knowledge about diving.
>

They do not offer Nobel prizes for diving. They do, however, offer
Nobel prizes for ECONOMICS. And these Nobel laureates have their
Nobel prize in ECONOMICS. And John Lott is an ECONOMIST. And his
book consists of ECONOMETRIC modeling to prove his theses about guns
and crime and media bias and so on.

>Having a Nobel Prize doesn't give anyone any way to judge Lott or his
>work.

It does if his work consists of economics -- you know since he is an
economist and all -- and your Nobel prize is in economics.

So, no -- I don't care about your diving story because it has nothing
to do with Lott's work (in economics) being endorsed by Nobel laureate
economists.