On 8 Dec 2003 07:43:57 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

but "she" was good in debate.

Ha ha ha. The image of lott prancing around in a dress
is, well, frankly - priceless.

The guy has *zero* credibility after that. Face it,
he's a laughingstock. I'm sorry to have to disillusion
you, but your man (?) did let you down. No matter how
good he is at what he does, a stunt like that undoes
any former good work he ever did for that cause.

Jim


Granted, it was a stupid thing to do. Shrug. You are aware that old
Ben Franklin had a thing for pubescent girls..under 13 yrs old, right?
And this affects his impact on the Constitution exactly how?
Id imagine you still think Bill Clinton was a generally good
president, right? Rape, murder, Monica Missiles..blow jobs under the
dest, are are to be disregarded in the Grand Scheme of things,
correct?

Your partisianship is noted. Lott ****ed up using the Mary Roush
thing. It makes no differene to his research, other than giving you
antigun individuals something to try to hand your hat on.
If it wasnt one thing, the antigunners would try something else to
demonize the man, as the data is untouchable. Lott was the first
individual to put the lie to the Antigunners agenda, and as such the
biggest target. The others whom conducted other studies, came up with
largely the same conclusions, are not demonized, for to do so, would
bring those studies also into the light of day and thats the Least
thing the Antis want to happen.

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith