Lying John Francis:

Still waiting for you to cite this lie:



I guess for all the times I've accused you of using questionable data
it shouldn't take me a second look to be sure this one was just one
more fake in a long line of trumped up or at least selective data. -JOF

===============
"Popeye" <popeye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12f3hecpn8udq3e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I guess for all the times I've accused you of using questionable data

That's a lie.

You've -never- once accused me of using questionable data, at least with a
cite of any data.

Please verify this (as if -that- would -ever- happen).

When I use data (rarely), it comes from front line news publications* or
the U.S. Government.

it shouldn't take me a second look to be sure this one was just one
more fake in a long line of trumped up or at least selective data.

Should be -no- problem, with that "long line", for you to cite -several-
instances of your accusation.

Like last time, when it was about "buying the pot", eh?
==================

And that being said the antigun arguments are proportionally useless
for the same reasons. That's why I have trouble coming up with valid
cites to support some of my contentions - it's hard to find objective
evidence, and subjective evidence is misleading. -JOF

Do you see though how all this discussion validates my contention that
stats can be used, misused or abused? It's tough for the observer to
know for sure which is the case, particularly if the comparability is
really apples and oranges? -JOF



2000

Suds, this is the type of information the general public receives. This is
simply an example of why I ask people to spend a little time investigating
this
question thoroughly.

2002

On gun-related crime, the NRA tries to say that guns don't increase the
homicide rate. Compare the UK and the US. In the US there are 10 times as
many homicides per 100,000 population than in the UK. Doesn't that tell
people something?

No. First off, get your information from government statistics, not
pro -or-
anti gun orgs.

2003

Stay off the HCI website and refer to government statistics.

2004

From: "Greg Mossman" moss...@xxxxxxxx
It's tough to refute all the studies sponsored by the wealthy NRA

No it's not, they just make up ***.

2005

I guess we could only trust statistics from the NRA, huh?

As opposed to an anti-handgun source?

Try the federal government.

2005

Andrew wrote:
Do you not think that just maybe the NRA is presenting only that data
which supports its objective?

I don't employ NRA data, and didn't read the article.
Although I'm a life member of the NRA, I realize their bias just as I
realize the bias of antigun organization.
My views come from the empirical evidence of my own experiences, and
recorded history.
When I need facts or numbers, I use government information.
While its' perfect neither, it's at least somewhat less bias.

You are assuming that I have assumptions and you are assuming that
the NRA is presenting facts.

You're still presenting the same assumptions, and, you've yet again
assumed that I use NRA data.

2005

If memory serves me, I've never once quoted an NRA cite, or even
one from the pro-gun cites that Scott uses.

I only quote government figures.

=======================
* sometimes, and not recently, I quote Lott, from Newsweek.
The point is just as good as the numbers.
=======================

Still waiting for you to cite this lie as well:

========================

uhoh. Now that your liar ploy has been turned on you, you're gonna drag
out the obfuscation gambit.

Do you have any of the cites I've asked for?

Can you cite the lie you're referring to above?

Did you have any comment about the lie you told that I already cited?

Please remember that while you falsely accuse me quite frequently, flatly
refusing to provide evidence, I'm not the one that sent you the video.

Are you going to start in on someone else now, who's treated you
respectfully in the past?

Well, there's that credibility of yours I describe.

Go ahead. It's rainy and crappy here so I'm
working at the computer anyway. I'll keep an eye on the group for more
of your nonsense. I appreciate the diversion.

=======================
But since you chose to post the email response I sent to you, I'll just
use it as an opening to put an end to my involvement in this peculiar
thread and leave you to take it where you will. My departure alone
should keep you frothing at the mouth for at least a couple of days.
Have fun.

JF



Scuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

yyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess we aren't getting any cites of your previous accusations, or your
lies from today.

Imaaaaaaaaaagine -that-.

Oh, and, try and keep this in mind, the next time we discuss scurrying,
and ass-whippings, to save me having to look it up.

Perfect timing, too, I have to froth over to get the Sex Twins to take
them to "Pirates Of The Caribbean", and then maybe a night dive.

Enjoy the view of your own rectum. ;-)




--

Popeye

Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python
www.finalprotectivefire.com


.

Quantcast