Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

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: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