Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

In article <k16ms11c844j10a7oqu41r304lilpq00vn@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you refuse to admit the causality given all the evidence and the
> obvious rationale, then you are just slothfully inducting.

You mean as opposed to blind, dumb following?

Here in rec.scuba, we call that "worshiping", and we bend the
practitioners over, and pass them around.

You're going to fit right in.

--
"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 Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:49:20 -0800, Jammer Six <jammersix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <k16ms11c844j10a7oqu41r304lilpq00vn@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you refuse to admit the causality given all the evidence and the
>> obvious rationale, then you are just slothfully inducting.
>
>You mean as opposed to blind, dumb following?
>
>Here in rec.scuba, we call that "worshiping", and we bend the
>practitioners over, and pass them around.
>
>You're going to fit right in.

Cite and defend or STFU, child.

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.

Bend over, honey.

Are you here to kiss or fuck?

--
"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 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" <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.

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....

Recognize the fact that these rude children got one over you.
Get over it and move on
Otherwise you'll continue to waste your time and bandwidth on those who
really don't deserve this much attention.
Time to move on, man
These children are all hat and no cattle.

In article <5702t19dqf9cu5i8jod57og6ncc5hd0n51@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You fucking idiot! Lott does not think that crime rates can be
> negative, shithead.

Really? Then why does he claim that it can?

> NOW MAKE YOUR FUCKING CITE!

Make it matter, lover. You know you want it.

--
"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

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11t3ikjk3cfmb02@corp.supernews.com...

> Adrian
> Jammer six like his other sock-puppets

Here at Rec.scuba, many, and possibly the majority, of the regulars have
established identities.

Many of us know and dive with each other.

Jammer is one of the oldest and most established.

As far as the rest of your post, while it isn't grossly inaccurate
(especially the part about the fishing tackle), it is rather ad hominem.

If you could make your point, you would.

Before you sling mud with these "children", I'd review Lord of the Flies.

>are trolling you
> And you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>
> 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....
>
> Recognize the fact that these rude children got one over you.
> Get over it and move on
> Otherwise you'll continue to waste your time and bandwidth on those who
> really don't deserve this much attention.
> Time to move on, man
> These children are all hat and no cattle.

Big hat no cattle is the essence of the anonymous poster.
>
>
>

"Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
news:11t40sds47rc2fd@news.supernews.com...
>
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11t3ikjk3cfmb02@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Adrian
>> Jammer six like his other sock-puppets
>
> Here at Rec.scuba, many, and possibly the majority, of the regulars have
> established identities.
>

That's nice
So why should I care ?
And in what way does that make him less a jerk ?


> Many of us know and dive with each other.
>

Ibid.

> Jammer is one of the oldest and most established.
>

Doesn't make him less an idiot with a big mouth and no brain behind it
(Possibly caused by oxygen deprivation in his recent past..)


> As far as the rest of your post, while it isn't grossly inaccurate
> (especially the part about the fishing tackle), it is rather ad hominem.
>
> If you could make your point, you would.
>

I did make my point
Maybe you should read the whole thing before blabbering nonsense.


> Before you sling mud with these "children", I'd review Lord of the Flies.
>

Clearly he's suffering from oxygen deprivation and derives his jollies from
twitting others.
And tha'ts just a low form of entertainement
As to slinging mud
I haven't slung any yet..
But I'll be more than happy to stick your collective heads in some mud if
that will help
But really, bottom line, you're all a waste of my time, and not worth
that much effort.



>>are trolling you
>> And you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
>>
>> 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....
>>
>> Recognize the fact that these rude children got one over you.
>> Get over it and move on
>> Otherwise you'll continue to waste your time and bandwidth on those who
>> really don't deserve this much attention.
>> Time to move on, man
>> These children are all hat and no cattle.
>
> Big hat no cattle is the essence of the anonymous poster.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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