Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

In article <1136908182.069777.209490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:

> Okay, I guess I'll have to go read that specific one -- which is it?
> And where can I find it?
>
> Are you sure he claimed this just like that? Or perhaps it was just
> what his model showed. Such a thing is not ridiculous at all but
> typical if there are *extreme indications* in the data. And that would
> likely be his point for mentioning it.
>
> Even if he said this somewhere, so what?

I'm sorry, did you just ask me for a cite, and then say that such a cite
wouldn't matter?

Which is it?

If I provide this cite, is it your position that Lott's research on gun
violence is useless due to obvious error?

If not, why not?

If so, what does the rest of your post mean? You can't have it both
ways, honey.

Which are we to believe, that you want the cite, because it has meaning,
that you don't want the cite, because it doesn't, or that there is some
bullshit about "extreme indications"?

Are you ready?

Are you really here, are you ready to state that Lott is wrong, if I
cite this fact?

Or should we go with "...so what?"

Did you come to fuck or did you come to kiss?

Alchemy doesn't have anything to do with calculus. Get a fucking grip.

Newbies. Jesus...

--
"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