Carl Nisarel wrote:
BottleBob wrote
Carl Nisarel wrote:
BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
......
If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.
Carl:
No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.
You're excusing it.
Carl:
Am I?
Yes, you are.
Carl:
Where?
God knows why you're supporting and excusing his dishonesty.
Actually, I was only pointing out the apparent falseness of your
accusation that Richard Lewis was making his data up out of thin air,
when he said hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence
every year.
.....
Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.
I'm sorry, I don't perceive the fine distinction you're trying to make
here.
I can tell.
Could you elaborate on the difference between "a loved one
assaulted..." and a "victim of a violent crime"?
You don't know much about crime statistics, do you?
Most victims of violent crime are violent criminals.
Even if that were true (which hasn't been shown), when I subtracted 70%
from the 1,410,000 victims of violence number, to simulate "most". We
still are left with 410,000 victims who would in all probability fit
YOUR criteria for "loved ones". Do you consider rape victims violent
criminals as well?
Would you tend to label a violent criminal a "loved one"?
You mean they don't have mothers, wives/girl friends, kids? g
...
I'm shredding Gunner.
Gunner probably thinks he's "shredding" you.
He is rather delusional.
He might say the same about you.
He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites,
And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.
He, and you, would be wrong.
How would *I* be wrong? I have made no assertions as to you "spouting"
any alleged propaganda. I'm just making an observation that you both
may be making comments driven by an emotional bias.
I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.
Perhaps.
See Weibe, 2003. There's no perhaps about it.
You misspelled Wiebe.
Like I said, you really have poor evaluation skills.
How could you make an assumption like that, the only thing I've
"evaluated" so far in our little chats here is the data for victims of
violent crime. Which you claimed Richard made up out of thin air, but
was given at the FBI site I went to.
....
What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?
It's a standard usenet netiquette for noting that material was snipped
out of the post.
.....
Now that's interesting. I never knew that, and I've been posting since
'97. I imagine it can't be TOO much of a standard if I've never seen it
in all that time. Is this primarily a UK thing?
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob