Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5702t19dqf9cu5i8jod57og6ncc5hd0n51@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:50:29 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article <efhns1119n7bc0dme6k440pg17e4ltlpel@4ax.com>,
> >> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cite and defend or STFU, child.
> >>
> >>Make it matter. Until then, you rank one step below Feesh. At least he
> >>can spell "average".
> >>
> >>Admit that the cite would indicate real error, and that real error
> >>invalidates science and scientific claim.
> >>
> >
> > You fucking idiot! Lott does not think that crime rates can be
> > negative, shithead.
> >
> > NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!
>
> Adrian
> Jammer six like his other sock-puppets are trolling you
> And you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>

Not really -- I want him to continue to respond just like he is. He'll
wrap-up it up shortly for me. The fact that you are making this sort
of post shows that I am succeeding at what I am trying to do here.

> They do NOT have a cite to support their claim
> On the other hand, they are getting their jollies by making you jump over
> and over and over....

I have started to consider that possibility. At first, I thought he
had some sort of cite worth looking at. Then, it became pretty clear
that whatever he had, it was going to be pretty lame (because he was
strenuously avoiding sharing it). But, yesterday I found some
discussion on the net about whether the specification of Lott's models
were flawed because some of them can predict negative crime rates.
That's making me wonder if Jammer Six isn't talking about this
criticism of Lott which isn't Lott saying that crime rates can drop by
102% at all but just an artifact of his model that he specifically
does *not* go on to reiterate in his book.

So, he may very well not even actually have the cite he claims he
does. It might just be some one *else* saying that about Lott.

-snip-

SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5702t19dqf9cu5i8jod57og6ncc5hd0n51@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:50:29 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article <efhns1119n7bc0dme6k440pg17e4ltlpel@4ax.com>,
> >> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cite and defend or STFU, child.
> >>
> >>Make it matter. Until then, you rank one step below Feesh. At least he
> >>can spell "average".
> >>
> >>Admit that the cite would indicate real error, and that real error
> >>invalidates science and scientific claim.
> >>
> >
> > You fucking idiot! Lott does not think that crime rates can be
> > negative, shithead.
> >
> > NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!
>
> Adrian
> Jammer six like his other sock-puppets are trolling you
> And you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>

Not really -- I want him to continue to respond just like he is. He'll
wrap-up it up shortly for me. The fact that you are making this sort
of post shows that I am succeeding at what I am trying to do here.

> They do NOT have a cite to support their claim
> On the other hand, they are getting their jollies by making you jump over
> and over and over....

I have started to consider that possibility. At first, I thought he
had some sort of cite worth looking at. Then, it became pretty clear
that whatever he had, it was going to be pretty lame (because he was
strenuously avoiding sharing it). But, yesterday I found some
discussion on the net about whether the specification of Lott's models
were flawed because some of them can predict negative crime rates.
That's making me wonder if Jammer Six isn't talking about this
criticism of Lott which isn't Lott saying that crime rates can drop by
102% at all but just an artifact of his model that he specifically
does *not* go on to reiterate in his book.

So, he may very well not even actually have the cite he claims he
does. It might just be some one *else* saying that about Lott.

-snip-

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote
>.....But, yesterday I found some
> discussion on the net about whether the specification of Lott's models
> were flawed because some of them can predict negative crime rates.

Lott's raw numbers may have included individuals who had more than one event
in the tracking period; more than one criminal thwarted in a single event;
more than one crime done in one event; events unreported to the police at
all- any number of databits that skew statistical analysis.
Nobody has disproven his thesis by any standard of measurement, or any
numbers generated by *any* protocol.
It's another case of being unable to speak to the point, and having to
resort to questioning methodology for any answer at all- very shoddy
thinking.

Chas

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote
>.....But, yesterday I found some
> discussion on the net about whether the specification of Lott's models
> were flawed because some of them can predict negative crime rates.

Lott's raw numbers may have included individuals who had more than one event
in the tracking period; more than one criminal thwarted in a single event;
more than one crime done in one event; events unreported to the police at
all- any number of databits that skew statistical analysis.
Nobody has disproven his thesis by any standard of measurement, or any
numbers generated by *any* protocol.
It's another case of being unable to speak to the point, and having to
resort to questioning methodology for any answer at all- very shoddy
thinking.

Chas

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:24:06 -0700, "Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote
>>.....But, yesterday I found some
>> discussion on the net about whether the specification of Lott's models
>> were flawed because some of them can predict negative crime rates.
>
>Lott's raw numbers may have included individuals who had more than one event
>in the tracking period; more than one criminal thwarted in a single event;
>more than one crime done in one event; events unreported to the police at
>all- any number of databits that skew statistical analysis.
>Nobody has disproven his thesis by any standard of measurement, or any
>numbers generated by *any* protocol.
>It's another case of being unable to speak to the point, and having to
>resort to questioning methodology for any answer at all- very shoddy
>thinking.
>
>Chas
>

Absolutely. This criticism is just another of a long line of bullshit
most of his critics try to use to discredit his work. The vast
majority of the criticisms I have seen are either outright lies,
equally applicable to everyone doing research on such topics, or
completely irrelevant to his work.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:24:06 -0700, "Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote
>>.....But, yesterday I found some
>> discussion on the net about whether the specification of Lott's models
>> were flawed because some of them can predict negative crime rates.
>
>Lott's raw numbers may have included individuals who had more than one event
>in the tracking period; more than one criminal thwarted in a single event;
>more than one crime done in one event; events unreported to the police at
>all- any number of databits that skew statistical analysis.
>Nobody has disproven his thesis by any standard of measurement, or any
>numbers generated by *any* protocol.
>It's another case of being unable to speak to the point, and having to
>resort to questioning methodology for any answer at all- very shoddy
>thinking.
>
>Chas
>

Absolutely. This criticism is just another of a long line of bullshit
most of his critics try to use to discredit his work. The vast
majority of the criticisms I have seen are either outright lies,
equally applicable to everyone doing research on such topics, or
completely irrelevant to his work.

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4936t15d0ph3ggd0ot9r3qdn9rhud1oapi@4ax.com...

> Absolutely. This criticism is just another of a long line of bullshit
> most of his critics try to use to discredit his work. The vast
> majority of the criticisms I have seen are either outright lies,
> equally applicable to everyone doing research on such topics, or
> completely irrelevant to his work.

2+2 = 4

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4936t15d0ph3ggd0ot9r3qdn9rhud1oapi@4ax.com...

> Absolutely. This criticism is just another of a long line of bullshit
> most of his critics try to use to discredit his work. The vast
> majority of the criticisms I have seen are either outright lies,
> equally applicable to everyone doing research on such topics, or
> completely irrelevant to his work.

2+2 = 4

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:os15t1tfu4av4p8tuh0jda9qtlr1h91m9n@4ax.com...
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5702t19dqf9cu5i8jod57og6ncc5hd0n51@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:50:29 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <efhns1119n7bc0dme6k440pg17e4ltlpel@4ax.com>,
>> >> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Cite and defend or STFU, child.
>> >>
>> >>Make it matter. Until then, you rank one step below Feesh. At least he
>> >>can spell "average".
>> >>
>> >>Admit that the cite would indicate real error, and that real error
>> >>invalidates science and scientific claim.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You fucking idiot! Lott does not think that crime rates can be
>> > negative, shithead.
>> >
>> > NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!
>>
>> Adrian
>> Jammer six like his other sock-puppets are trolling you
>> And you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>>
>
> Not really -- I want him to continue to respond just like he is. He'll
> wrap-up it up shortly for me. The fact that you are making this sort
> of post shows that I am succeeding at what I am trying to do here.
>

Actually, it's counter-productive to you
He's allready killfiled
If you continue, so will you be...
I don't have the time or interest to skim all your repetitive chaff in the
hope of seeing you post something more interesting elsewhere

"Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:os15t1tfu4av4p8tuh0jda9qtlr1h91m9n@4ax.com...
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Adrian" <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5702t19dqf9cu5i8jod57og6ncc5hd0n51@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:50:29 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <efhns1119n7bc0dme6k440pg17e4ltlpel@4ax.com>,
>> >> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Cite and defend or STFU, child.
>> >>
>> >>Make it matter. Until then, you rank one step below Feesh. At least he
>> >>can spell "average".
>> >>
>> >>Admit that the cite would indicate real error, and that real error
>> >>invalidates science and scientific claim.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You fucking idiot! Lott does not think that crime rates can be
>> > negative, shithead.
>> >
>> > NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!
>>
>> Adrian
>> Jammer six like his other sock-puppets are trolling you
>> And you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>>
>
> Not really -- I want him to continue to respond just like he is. He'll
> wrap-up it up shortly for me. The fact that you are making this sort
> of post shows that I am succeeding at what I am trying to do here.
>

Actually, it's counter-productive to you
He's allready killfiled
If you continue, so will you be...
I don't have the time or interest to skim all your repetitive chaff in the
hope of seeing you post something more interesting elsewhere