|
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:48:48 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Mark the Moron Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it was first published in JAMA. Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy. "Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, Yet another genetic fallacy. I'll let zuckier kick your ass on the Kellermann research. You're not even smart enough to spell his name correctly. Thats pretty sad Cattle..when you are so low on ammo you have to resort to spelling flames..snicker ..... Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed" Kellermann's studies were peer-reviewed. Really? By whom..Sarah Brady? Cites boy..cites! Why are you posting false statements, Mark? Why are you lying to deflect, Cattle? Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:54:52 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: You need to get smacked around every so often, Mark. Bring your lunch, a designated driver and notification for your next of kin. You get your ass kicked so often, you know what you need to do. ROFLMAO!!!!!!! Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:56:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:07:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: "There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck That same study fails predictive validity tests, Mark. Marvin Wolfgang, .... None of which is relevant to the fact that Kleck's work fails predictive validity tests. Cites? You're simply posting an anecdotal opinion. By one of the most noted authorities on the subject. Thats called Peer Review. If that doesnt hold water..nothing does on any side of the topic. Why don't you admit that you don't even know what "predictive validity" is or how to deal with it? Do I need to know? Gunner ... That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:19:09 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Ok..so answer my question. Is the right to keep and bear arms an individual right in the US? Yes or no. Come on Cattle..double dog dare you to answer. If you wont...the rest of your spew is not only suspect..but you are null and void. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
mistaking history was Nice write up about LEDs
On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote: Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz: Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck is stacked against them. "(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was much safer than today's Washington, D.C., Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too. with homicides running to one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned, writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other misdemeanants.") " Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many who had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight. Any one or all three, don't matter." Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern" times. (See Sig) But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own view of reality. Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the term "true colors". Please amplify. Gunner I would suggest that one or two fatalities per year in a town of 1200 is quite high. Mark Rand RTFM |
mistaking history was Nice write up about LEDs
On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:29:12 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote: On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote: Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz: Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck is stacked against them. "(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was much safer than today's Washington, D.C., Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too. with homicides running to one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned, writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other misdemeanants.") " Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many who had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight. Any one or all three, don't matter." Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern" times. (See Sig) But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own view of reality. Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the term "true colors". Please amplify. Gunner I would suggest that one or two fatalities per year in a town of 1200 is quite high. Mark Rand RTFM Indeed. And most would be knifings or beating to deaths, usually involving drugs or booze. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Catl's lameness was Nice write up about LEDs
Skipping school, I decide to piggy back on Gunner
fosted Sat, 22 May 2004 03:46:10 GMT in misc.survivalism , viz: On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:23:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: Im still waiting for your answer on whether or not firearms ownership is an individual right in the US. I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate cite. You're just waving an irrelevant red herring. This is hysterically funny. King of the Red Herring Chasers Catl says he won't answer "irrelevant red herrings" Sounds to me that Catl is now using "red herring" instead of "straw man argument" as his reason for not responding to anything he doesn't understand. Go smack yourself in the face with it, Mark. Simple question, or a really really tough one for you to answer? You are marginally smart enough to understand that no matter which way you answer..you get hammered. If you answer no..then I supply the cites that it is. Cites that you cannot dodge. If you answer yes..then your entire anti-gun argument goes down the while porcelain receptacle with a swirl. Must really suck to be you right about now. Posting nit pics while you go up in flames. Catl seems to be handling the part of the discussion he truly understands, which is to say "not much". Chortle.. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell -- pyotr filipivich "Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable." |
Nice write up about LEDs
Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Sat, 22 May 2004 21:52:49 GMT in misc.survivalism , viz: On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:19:09 GMT, Gunner wrote: Ok..so answer my question. Is the right to keep and bear arms an individual right in the US? Yes or no. Come on Cattle..double dog dare you to answer. If you wont...the rest of your spew is not only suspect..but you are null and void. Catl is null and void. He still hasn't made up his mind if it was a good thing or not for the Klan to have been prevented from murdering Dr Perry, a Civil rights activist back in the sixties. Judging from his other blitherings, Catl is most upset by the use of firearms by Negroes to prevent murder by the Klan. -- pyotr filipivich "Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable." |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:04:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed (largely) civilians being ripe targets for the picking. "There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it, but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house fires, floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not to have insurance, or wear their seatbelts? Most folks are at risk of house fires and car accidents. Everyone is at risk of something. One just has to figure the odds. Will a smoke detector or seat belts go a long ways to saving your life in the exeeedinly rare instance that you have a fire or life threatening accident? Indeed. Its far better to have them, then to need them. Same with a firearm. Its not the Odds..its the Stakes Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
mistaking history was Nice write up about LEDs
On Mon, 24 May 2004 06:58:33 GMT, Gunner wrote:
||On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:29:12 +0100, Mark Rand wrote: || ||On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich ||wrote: || ||Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner ||fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz: || ||Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a ||crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about ||committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either ||make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates ||the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck ||is stacked against them. || ||"(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was ||much safer than today's Washington, D.C., || || Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too. || || with homicides running to ||one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned, ||writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other ||misdemeanants.") " || || Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many who ||had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight. Any ||one or all three, don't matter." || Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern" times. ||(See Sig) || ||But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own ||view of reality. || ||Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the ||term "true colors". Please amplify. || ||Gunner || ||I would suggest that one or two fatalities per year in a town of 1200 is quite ||high. Heed the immortal words of Marion Barry, several times (before and AFTER prison) mayor of DC: "Other than the killings, our crime rate is pretty low" Texas Parts Guy |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:14:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:04:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed (largely) civilians being ripe targets for the picking. "There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it, but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house fires, floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not to have insurance, or wear their seatbelts? Most folks are at risk of house fires and car accidents. Everyone is at risk of something. One just has to figure the odds. Produce the cites that show that the risk of needing a gun because of a violent criminal act are the same as the risk of a car accident. I know you won't because I know you can't. You're simply not smart enough to figure out how to do it and the odds are not in your favor on this point, Mark. I really dont care what the odds are, Cattle..Im more concerned about the stakes. Ive had 5 DGUs in the past 27 yrs. This means Im way ahead of the curve. Ive never had a car accident or a fire. But I will still wear my seatbelts, and maintain my smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, along with my CCW. Btw..Im still waiting for you to answer the question about Individual Rights. At this point..it appears that you and your comments are dangerously close to becoming null and void. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:26:56 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:14:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:04:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed (largely) civilians being ripe targets for the picking. "There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it, but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house fires, floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not to have insurance, or wear their seatbelts? Most folks are at risk of house fires and car accidents. Everyone is at risk of something. One just has to figure the odds. Produce the cites that show that the risk of needing a gun because of a violent criminal act are the same as the risk of a car accident. I know you won't because I know you can't. You're simply not smart enough to figure out how to do it and the odds are not in your favor on this point, Mark. I really dont care what the odds are, So you were lying when you previously claimed that "one just has to figure the odds". .... Nicely disingenuous snip there Cattle. Typical of your posting "style" Indeed, one does have to figure the odds. How much is your life, or the life of your loved ones worth to you? Where will you be going? A monastery or East LA? Do you work from home, or run a register in a liquor store in Watts? Will you be wearing lots of gold jewelry during your nocturnal walkabouts in Manchester? But then..as others have said..its not the odds..its the stakes. Still refusing to answer the question? You are now null and void. Its been fun. As usual you loose. Bye. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:01:52 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: You are now null and void. Its been fun. As usual you loose. Bye. Mark's running away like a little wuss. Again. I suspect he simply got bored with you. Justifiably so. Sue |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:25:03 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Sue wrote: I suspect he simply got bored with you. Nah, he knows he can't deal with the truth. Piffle. You deal with your truth, he deals with his. Neither of you will *ever* change the other's mind. I suspect he was smart enough to realize this. God, I hope so beause this whole thing has gotten exceedingly boring. |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:48:48 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Mark the Moron Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it was first published in JAMA. Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy. "Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, Yet another genetic fallacy. I'll let zuckier kick your ass on the Kellermann research. Sounds like fun to me. God save me, my worst vice is deflating pompous ignorant windbags. You're not even smart enough to spell his name correctly. Thats pretty sad Cattle..when you are so low on ammo you have to resort to spelling flames..snicker It's not a spelling flame when you can't even spell the name of the person you are discussing. How exactly do you search for 'Kellerman', and get anything other than the hermetically sealed little world of crackpots, gunloons, and Usenet cranks which keeps repeating the same nonsense and passing it around and then trotting it out as though they had actually taken the time to read the original paper and ponder it deeply. Take your post here as a case in point. On the other hand, if you actually search for 'Kellermann', you may at least find some intelligent commentary from the world of the sane. For someone who squeals 'Cites! Cites' as much as you, you sure don't have much interest in actually making use of the information the net provides to those who make an effort. I look forward to your discussions of what you've learned about Shakespear, Einstien, and Platoh. ..... Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed" Kellermann's studies were peer-reviewed. Really? By whom..Sarah Brady? Cites boy..cites! There it is again, 'cites! Cites!'. Perhaps you could explain to us all exactly what 'Cites' have to do with peer review. Peer review is a specific term with a specific meaning that has been unchanged for decades, maybe even centuries, and 'Cites' are not involved. You apparently don't know the difference between peer review and a book review. For your information, NEJM is perhaps the most aggressively peer reviewed journal in the world. No paper gets published there without peer review. That's why when someone like Kellermann publishes there, the little diddly arguments you guys use against this 'Kellerman' character don't wash. The paper has already been scrutinized by people more intelligent and educated than you will ever be. Why are you posting false statements, Mark? Why are you lying to deflect, Cattle? Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
In article , z says...
There it is again, 'cites! Cites!'. Perhaps you could explain to us all exactly what 'Cites' have to do with peer review. Peer review is a little-understood concept. Anyone can blurt out any old thing in a web site, and pretend to be anyone. "I'm not an expert but I play one on the internet" is a humorous yet apt description. Peer review as you use the term means that before publishing an article, the journal distributes it to three or four reviewers. The reviewers will be contributors to the field, and may be both competitors and neutral players. Each one writes a page of critiscism of the work, and makes suggestions that can include specific changes they would see made before publication occurs. So under that scheme, a famous poster here (say, for example Gunner) would have his each of his posts reviewed by some other individual who is knowledgeable about the field (say, for example, Sarah Brady) and would have to listen to her suggestions before having his words dispersed into the aether. Consider the flip side of this though: 'ol Sarah would have all of *her* stuff peer-reviewed by Gunner!! LOL. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Nice write up about LEDs
"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
s.com... Bjórrúnar skaltu z rista -- For your information, NEJM is perhaps the most aggressively peer reviewed journal in the world. My experience is that ASQ (Administrative Science Quarterly) would take that title with three reviewers for every paper and a less than 5% acceptance rate. They're either very tough, or they have an awful lot of crackpots trying to get their articles published. d8-) Ed Huntress |
Nice write up about LEDs
In article m, Carl Nisarel
says... The reviewers will be contributors to the field, and may be both competitors and neutral players. Each one writes a page of critiscism of the work, and makes suggestions that can include specific changes they would see made before publication occurs. A page? I wish. For top journals, some reviews are as long as the original article. Writing a one page review, in social science journals anyway, will be the last one sent to that peer reviewer. Editors demand almost as much from the peer reviewers as they do from the authors. Social science? Bah. That's an oxymoron. Most 'real' science articles are a page or two long. With figures. But you're right, the reviews are about as long as the articles. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Nice write up about LEDs
jim rozen wrote in message ...
In article , z says... There it is again, 'cites! Cites!'. Perhaps you could explain to us all exactly what 'Cites' have to do with peer review. Peer review is a little-understood concept. Anyone can blurt out any old thing in a web site, and pretend to be anyone. "I'm not an expert but I play one on the internet" is a humorous yet apt description. Peer review as you use the term means that before publishing an article, the journal distributes it to three or four reviewers. The reviewers will be contributors to the field, and may be both competitors and neutral players. Each one writes a page of critiscism of the work, and makes suggestions that can include specific changes they would see made before publication occurs. So under that scheme, a famous poster here (say, for example Gunner) would have his each of his posts reviewed by some other individual who is knowledgeable about the field (say, for example, Sarah Brady) and would have to listen to her suggestions before having his words dispersed into the aether. Consider the flip side of this though: 'ol Sarah would have all of *her* stuff peer-reviewed by Gunner!! LOL. just one more thing: the peer reviewers are theoretically anonymous to the authors, (and the authors too, to the reviewers, IIRC), to prevent influence peddling, etc., although in practice, the number of authorities in a given field and their biases and styles is typically low enough that a good guess can be made. When the reviewer has a criticism of a paper, the editor generally decides whether the criticism is warranted or not; if he can't decide, he gets the author to reply and makes a decision based on that. When criticisms are warranted, the paper has to be modified to deal with the problem before it can be published. sometimes you have a good answer, but sometimes that might just mean including a paragraph in the paper pointing out that you're aware of it and don't have an answer, like 'a valid criticism of our work can be made that everybody interviewed was a grad student; later studies will have to enlarge upon this population' or some such. you do have to make some sort of response, though. That doesn't mean that there are no valid criticisms of peer reviewed papers as published; far from it. It just mmeans that all the low hanging fruit have already been picked. if you think you have a criticism that's screamingly obvious, even to the layman, you're probably wrong. And 'cites' don't enter into it, do they? |
Nice write up about LEDs
In article , z says...
just one more thing: the peer reviewers are theoretically anonymous to the authors, (and the authors too, to the reviewers, IIRC), to prevent influence peddling, etc., although in practice, the number of authorities in a given field and their biases and styles is typically low enough that a good guess can be made. This is the "it's a small world" theorem. The corollary of which is, "the paper you are reviewing right now is authored by the guy who's gonna review *your* next submission." So play nice. And 'cites' don't enter into it, do they? Erm, yes and no. The references on a paper, and the authors of the papers they refer to, often tell quite a story. But most scientific works have a list of citations - to other like articles. In peer-reviewed publications.... Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Nice write up about LEDs
jim rozen wrote:
This is the "it's a small world" theorem. The corollary of which is, "the paper you are reviewing right now is authored by the guy who's gonna review *your* next submission." So play nice. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. A paper I submmitted many years ago came back from the three reviewers with the following comments: 1) There is no possible way this could work. 2) This is well a well known reult. 3) The design is flawed. BTW, the apparatus worked fine. Ted |
Nice write up about LEDs
In article , Ted Edwards says...
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. A paper I submmitted many years ago came back from the three reviewers with the following comments: 1) There is no possible way this could work. 2) This is well a well known reult. 3) The design is flawed. LOL. I recall a former supervisor of mine was laid off from a job at one time. He said that during his exit interviews, one of his bosses said "your trouble is, you're just not broad enough. You specialize too much." His other supervisor said, "you need to settle down and specialize in one particular area...." Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Nice write up about LEDs
Ted Edwards wrote in message ...
jim rozen wrote: This is the "it's a small world" theorem. The corollary of which is, "the paper you are reviewing right now is authored by the guy who's gonna review *your* next submission." So play nice. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. A paper I submmitted many years ago came back from the three reviewers with the following comments: 1) There is no possible way this could work. 2) This is well a well known reult. 3) The design is flawed. BTW, the apparatus worked fine. Ted Yeah, I remember my reviewers comments on my first pub, expanded from my thesis. #1: A great paper, publish as is. #2: A terrible paper, trash it. #3: A decent paper, needs the following corrections. Sheesh. |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E. Schaffner, Ph.D.; Schaffner? You're citing Shaffner as antiKellermann? Shows what you know, in spades. Shaffner has never written anything in the slightest critical of Kellermann. Anyone who read Shaffner would know that. Whenever Shaffner wrote of Kellermann, he had nothing but high praise for the study. |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it was first published in JAMA. Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy. "Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, and indicates--as does his financing and publication by gun-control zealots James Mercy at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of NEJM--that the intent of these so-called studies is to produce pro-gun-control soundbites for Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc., rather than scientific knowledge. The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so flagrant and outrageous that the Congress threatened to cut off its funding entirely. The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Let's see; a peer-reviewed article from the New England Journal of Medicine which you consider bogus, according to a 'review' never reviewed and never published. Well perhaps Buckner is an unheralded genius who can see what 3 peer reviewers couldn't. Let's take a look: Buckner tosses in this little paragraph of lies and irrelevancies: "They [Kellerman & Reay] conducted their research by limiting their cases to people murdered in their own homes, thus excluding any instances where intruders were killed by the homeowner. They did not ask the victim's proxy (from whom they got their data about the victim and his or her household) whether or not the victim had previously defended him/herself with a gun. Thus their conclusion that a gun provides no protective benefit flows from their failure to consider cases where it might have." Gee, right away Buckner's starting out on a bad foot here. He's confusing Kellermann's 1993 paper and Kellermann's 1986 paper. I begin to fear that you don't know what each paper actually says, you just know that you're supposed to hate Kellermann because he doesn't provide the results that gunnies consider Politically Correct, so what does it matter. Better policy to consult primary sources yourself to check out what a 'review' says so that you don't get caught like this. But that's OK, since Buckner starts out his review by being completely confused himself as to which of Kellermann's papers he's writing about. Buckner's first sentence is a lie, and irrelevant. He states that they excluded any instances were intruders were killed by the homeowner. This is obviously completely false; if the homeowner died, that was a homicide for the homeowner, if the homeowner lived because he killed the intruder, that was a nonhomicide for the homeowner; the life or death of the assailant was never in question either way. The only question is: did the gun make it more likely or less likely that the owner survived? It's more than misleading for Buckner to state that cases including the death of the assailant were not counted by Kellermann's methodology, it's a lie. The basic question asked in the 1993 paper was very simple: If people keep a gun in the house are they more likely or less likely to be killed in their own homes? And the answer found by actual count was: they were more likely to be killed if they kept a gun. Any questions of whether the intruder was killed or not, or whether the intruder might have been killed in their own home, or how many times the homeowner successfully defended his house, are not really relevant to the basic calculation: of two groups of homes, one with a gun and one without a gun, at the end of 5 years which group has had more murders? Just score two simple factors: gun, yes or no, and homicide, yes or no. This is pretty clear to me, to NEJM's peer reviewers, and to millions of others who read the paper. This is why it's unfortunate that Buckner's 'review' was never subject to peer review or somebody might have caught his dumbass mistake. He states that Kellermann did not ask the victim's proxy whether the victim had previously defended him/herself with a gun. That's true, but also irrelevant, for the same reason; the gun owner is either a homicide victim or he is not, as is the nongunowner, and the rates at which they are both murdered are compared, and their histories are irrelevant. Buckner decides that Kellermann's conclusion that the gun provides no protective benefit is from failing to consider cases where it might have. This is again, false, to the point of silliness. Any overall protective value of the gun cannot help but show up if there were more gun owners who were alive than gunowners who were homicide victims, compared to nongunowners, no matter how the gun worked its protective magic. How could it not show up? That's the meaning of protective benefit: more of those people are protected from being dead. It's not a hard concept. If you give a 6 year old two bags of jelly beans and he pulls out 10 from each bag, and from the first bag he pulls 2 red and 8 black, and from the second bag he pulls 2 black and 8 red, most kids will tell you that they think there are a higher percentage of black in the first bag than the second. And 99% of the time they'd be correct, even if Buckner complains that 'they failed to consider cases where there were more red jelly beans in the first bag'. His objection that they 'failed to consider cases where the gun saved a life' is just exactly as absurd as that. "In order to provide a control group they selected another person from the neighborhood of the same sex, race, and age group as the victim, and asked them the same questions they had asked the victim's proxy. While matched on the demographic variables, the control group was stunningly different on behavioral measures. Compared to the control group the victim group was more likely to: rent rather than own, live alone, drink alcoholic beverages, have problems in the household because of drinking, have trouble at work because of drinking, be hospitalized because of drinking, use illicit drugs, have physical fights in the home during drinking, have a household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home, have a household member require medical attention because of a fight in the home, have a household member involved in a physical fight outside the home, have any household member arrested, and be arrested themselves. Thus the victim group and the control group had very different lifestyles, with the victim group living a very high-risk lifestyle." Now Buckner is talking about the 1993 study, all of a sudden. Yes, it has been well established that murder victims tend to have more 'marginal' lifestyles than the average. Was Buckner suggesting that this would be why there were more gunowners killed, because gunowners tend to indulge in illegal, immoral, and dangerous behavior? Are you recognizing yourself here? For this to be a valid criticism, Buckner must be suggesting that all gunowners are a higher risk group. He doesn't demonstrate that, however. Because he can't, because it's demonstrably false, as gunowners obviously know and post here all the time. For both gunowners and nongunowners, as can be seen in the study, the homicide victims are a higher risk group than the survivors, so the difference in homicide rates can't be due to a difference in behavior. That's why case-control studies are done for this type of question. Did Buckner misread the difference in risky behavior for homicide victims as a difference in risky behavior for the gunowners? Or is he deliberately obscuring things by confusing the two groups? Who knows. Furthermore, the advantage of a case-control study such as this over a population study such as Kleck or Lott produce is that the population can be subgrouped so as to exclude any group you find unacceptable. Buckner doesn't bother trying this; luckily, Kellermann did and put the results right there in the paper: it changes the degree of the risk, but doesn't eliminate it. Take just the people with no arrest record, no drug use, no alcohol abuse, no violent history; you still see more homicides in the gunowner group. Even if Buckner doesn't make the effort to examine the data himself and see that his theory is quite wrong, didn't he see where that was stated in the paper? Again he seems to be 'reviewing' a different paper from the one Kellermann published. This result of the risk not being tied to a subgroup validates the second part of Kellermann's paper, the factor analysis of the independent effect of each of these on the risk of homicide, if the groups were perfectly matched in terms of all other factors. In contrast to the simple gun-yes-or-no/homicide-yes-or-no calculation, this is something a lay person might not be familiar with. It would appear from his complaint above trying to implicate the bad habits of the homicide victims that Buckner himself does not understand that the various factors can be mathematically isolated; except that he then goes on to critique the paper further, on the basis of these same factor analysis results: "In fact, Kellermann found that having a gun in the home ranked fifth out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using illicit drugs lead to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times, having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household member being arrested, 2.5 times." Note that in contrast to his complaint just above, all of a sudden Buckner now accepts these results that find gun ownership as an independent risk factor, not dependent on criminal behavior in the sample; he just thinks it isn't big enough to be important. Well, Kellerrmann just provides all the risk factors that are statistically found to reach significance, that's mathematically verifiable. Buckner wants to talk about what he considers a large or small risk; that's a judgement call. Most things in life have more than one risk factor. If speeding on icy roads turns out to be a bigger risk factor than driving drunk, would that mean that driving drunk was not worthy of being noted as a risk? If working around asbestos turns out to be a bigger risk factor than smoking, does that mean that all the papers identifying smoking as a risk are wrong? Note that the risk of homicide associated with gun ownership is in fact greater than that associated with having a family member arrested, which Buckner had just identified in the paragraph above as something part of a 'high risk lifestyle', as he put it. Buckner seems to pick and choose what risk factors are significant based on something other than how big of a risk they are. Then buckner's other critique: http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-buckner.html Yes, underreporting of gun ownership by the no homicide group relative to the homicide group would reduce the correlation. Kellermann points that out himself. But it would take an additional 20% of the no homicide group lying that they had no gun, over and above however many of the homicide group who lied, to make the 'raw' risk (not the multifactorial logistic regression) go away (but not yet demonstrate any protective value for guns; that would take even more). Kellermann finds some sources that support his position that the numbers are at least accurate enough, Buckner has nothing other than the possibility that they might not be. Buckner points out that the control group actually recorded 35.8% ownership whereas the homicide group reported 45.4% ownership, as opposed to a national average of 48%. So, what are the possibilities? Well, the control group might actually have had 10% lying about their gun ownership, to make them equal with the homicide group. The control group and the homicide group might actually both be equal to the national average, so that 12.2% of the control group were lying. But it's starting to strain things to assume with no evidence that 20% of the control group were lying but none of the homicide group; particularly when Buckner goes to great pains to explain what a highrisk, highly criminal group the homicide group actually was. One would expect such a group to be more likely to have guns than the control, lower risk group; to be more likely to be legally barred from owning guns; and to lie more often that they did not have guns, rather than the reverse. Buckner's argument requires the famous 'law-abiding citizens' to not only be much more frequently armed than criminals who are actively conducting risky crimes, but also to lie that they do not own guns, more frequently than the criminals do. Is that your opinion of law-abiding gun owners? And this is just to establish that the guns are not a risk factor; you'd have to go even further in the same direction to prove that guns offer any protection. Buckner mentions the high risk of the homicide group as though it contradicts the finding of the presence of the gun as a risk factor; but these risks are controlled for by the multivariate regression, as Buckner actually knows and understands, since he then points out how many of these factors were more important than guns. But this does not mean that guns were not a risk; just that they were only the fourth highest risk. Kellermann never said the presence of the gun was the highest risk. So, while Buckner would be correct in stating that Kellermann hasn't formally proved his case in the absolute mathematical sense, because he has not proved that criminals keep secret guns and lie about it more often than law-abiding citizens. However, since most people, particularly law-abiding gunowning citizens, do believe that criminals lie about having a gun more than they themselves do, Buckner is stretching it when he says the study is 'seriously flawed', and is just blowing hot air when he says 'the conclusions were driven more by ideology than research'. Kellermann's conclusions come straightforwardly out of the data. Ironically, it's that last little ad hominem dig that Buckner couldn't refrain from tossing in that shows that in fact it's Buckner's conclusions that are driven by something other than logical analysis, not Kellermann's. |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it was first published in JAMA. Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy. "Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, and indicates--as does his financing and publication by gun-control zealots James Mercy at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of NEJM--that the intent of these so-called studies is to produce pro-gun-control soundbites for Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc., rather than scientific knowledge. The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so flagrant and outrageous that the Congress threatened to cut off its funding entirely. The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E. Schaffner, Ph.D.; and J. Neil Schulman, in his book Stopping Power: The Humanistic Case for Civilian Arms, Centurion Press, 1994. Schulman also confuses Kellermann's 1986 and 1993 study. Do you not have anybody available for your side who understands that a person can do more than one study in his life? Schulman starts off by mentioning Kellermann's 1993 study, then drops it and immediately launches into a discussion of the limitations of the 1986 study, which are not relevant to the 1993 study. It's all very nice that Schulman can see the flaws in the early work now that the improved version is out, but why is he telling us about them now, when in fact Kellermann's 1993 study does 'include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm.' and 'Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed' by its very design, as we discussed in connection with Buckner? One more time: if there are some cases where the homicidal intruders do not actually intrude because of the firearm, then there will be fewer homicides in the houses with the firearms. Or where they intrude but are frightened away, etc. Or if the presence of the gun prevents a homicide in any way, whatsoever, the homicide rate will be lower for gunowners. That is the whole point of the 93 study, it's not just a duplicate of the 86 study. The 1993 study involved expensive and difficult house to house canvassing to get to the bottom of these questions. So after showing off his erudition by complaining about the 1986 study, does Schulman go on to say that 'But the 1993 study doesn't have these limitations'? No, he just drops it. A little misdirection and sleight of hand there, but lying by omission to imply a false conclusion is still lying. If you believe that cases where intruders either avoid a house known to be armed, or are wounded or frightened away by a gun, somehow would not appear in a simple table of counts of 'homicide victim, yes or no' vs. 'gun owner, yes or no', then Schulman has successfully confused you. The rest of his article manages to hit the trifecta of fallacies. He complains 'Another problem is that by relying on a case study of households with homicide victims Kellermann is looking at almost twice as many black households as white'. Yes, more homicide victims in America are black. In other words, Schulman feels Kellermann's study of homicide victims vs. non-victims is invalid because his homicide victims are typical homicide victims. As Kellermann said once, he did not choose the victims, just counted them afterwards. Schulman raises similar complaints about social dysfunction among the victims. I wonder who Schulman thinks we are supposed to be studying? Homicide rates among people who are not actually homicide victims? He also manages to completely ignore the process of firstly choosing a control for each specific homicide that matched that household on several parameters, then secondly isolating individual causal factors by logistic regression. At any rate, if Schulman has a problem with the preponderance of African American homicide victims, despite the fact that they are the people most at risk, he can feel free to examine only the white victims, where, as discussed above, he will find the same qualitative results, i.e. that the gun is a risk factor, not a protective factor. The same for the social dysfunction markers, as discussed above. And in fact, he knows this, since he quotes Kellermann 'We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup', with no discussion. Then Schulman tries to suggest reverse causation, but stubs his toe very badly. 'Wouldn't logic tell us that the risk of dying as a result of falling from an airplane would be far greater by those people who fall from airplanes who don't have a parachute handy?' Yes, it would. And that is what the data shows, confirming our logic. Similarly, Schulman's logic presumably tells him that the risk of dying as a result of being shot would be far greater by those people who don't have a gun handy; but, unlike jumping out of a plane with no parachute, the data do not show that, they show the exact opposite. Normally, when your beliefs contradict real-world data, it's time to adjust your beliefs; but apparently Schulman believes that when his theories are contradicted with what Kellermann finds in reality, any reality which does not accord with his theory must be disregarded. And again, back to the 'didn't study households where the gun prevented the homicide without killing the bad guy' fallacy. Can anyone either demonstrate that Kellermann restricted the non-victims to ones where the bad guy was killed, or explain how gunowners scaring away all the bad guys from their houses would not affect the homicide rate of the gunowners? If not, why does this absurdity keep coming up? Then he ventures deeply into religious territory; the inability to explain this mystery he ascribes to the deep understanding possessed only by the high priesthood, criminologists. 'Dr. Kellermann can't study such questions because these are the proper focus not of medical doctors, but of criminologists.' Of course, Schulman himself is quite qualified to discuss this matter, as a 'Los Angeles novelist, screenwriter, and journalist', so we can amend his statement to read that the proper study of risk factors related to homicide is restricted to criminologists, novelists, screenwriters, and journalists, but not epidemiologists. Unfortunately, Schulman's demonstrated inability to understand how this study, by its very basic nature, includes ANY and ALL ways in which the gun prevents the homicide, immediately identifies Schulman as someone who is not qualified to comment on the study, let alone on who is qualified to carry out such a study. Surprisingly enough, in the end Schulman basically admits that he gets it! 'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have a key. The caution here might well be that if you live with someone whom you think might possibly murder you, you might want to move out if they also keep a loaded handgun. Or, if the loaded handgun is yours, you might want to keep it somewhere where you can get to it faster than he or she can.' Which is exactly the takehome message from Kellermann's study, summarized very nicely into a single paragraph. Schulman here is admitting that a handgun is, after all, an obvious risk factor for domestic homicides. His list of precautions is quite reasonable in view of that fact, but he just doesn't want to mention the other caution that stem from the paper: if all you want is to protect yourself from being murdered in your home, don't buy a handgun; because home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a stranger and more likely to be murdered with your own gun. And, no surprise, if you have a gun around for other purposes, you're better off keeping it locked and unloaded when at home than ready for instant use by by anyone who feels the impulse. Heck, Schulman sums Kellermann up so well, I'll repeat his summary: 'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have a key. The caution here might well be that if you live with someone whom you think might possibly murder you, you might want to move out if they also keep a loaded handgun. Or, if the loaded handgun is yours, you might want to keep it somewhere where you can get to it faster than he or she can.' -Schulman, agreeing with Kellermann while trying not to. What makes you think this in any way refutes Kellermann's study? |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
But, perhaps most telling was the study by Professor Gary Kleck, head of the criminology department at Florida State University, which was summarized in his paper Guns and Violence: A Summary of the field prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, which was held at the Washington Hilton, August 29 through September 1, 1991. Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed" You may want to pay more attention to our discussion of peer review over the past couple of days. Papers delivered at meetings, as you describe Kleck's, are not peer reviewed, unlike paper's published in journals, as you describe Kellermann's, which are. See how confused you get, when you can't even search the topic of your discussion under its proper spelling? |
Nice write up about LEDs
|
Nice write up about LEDs
|
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jun 2004 11:18:20 -0700, (z) wrote: Gunner wrote in message . .. But, perhaps most telling was the study by Professor Gary Kleck, head of the criminology department at Florida State University, which was summarized in his paper Guns and Violence: A Summary of the field prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, which was held at the Washington Hilton, August 29 through September 1, 1991. Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed" You may want to pay more attention to our discussion of peer review over the past couple of days. Papers delivered at meetings, as you describe Kleck's, are not peer reviewed, unlike paper's published in journals, as you describe Kellermann's, which are. See how confused you get, when you can't even search the topic of your discussion under its proper spelling? See how lame you are when you have to go back 3 weeks for something to discuss. Oh. Did you change your position in the meantime? Or have you been unable to support your statement that Shaffner is skeptical of Kellermann's findings, given three weeks to do so? It was well covered at the time. Snicker.. What was well covered at what time? Three weeks ago? Or just some random time in the past, where you can shove things that might prove embarrassing? Maybe you could take thirty seconds to search out for me something more about this attack on Kellermann's findings by Shaffner which you claim. I'll freely admit being unable to find anything about it; which is odd, if 'it was well covered at the time'. Snicker. Care to answer the question..Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a collective or individual right? Well, no; I don't care to comment on fields about which I am not knowledgeable and about which I have nothing to say which would be worth the time of the reader/listener. Unlike **some others** I do not think my opinion on anything and everything is something people should listen to, just because it's me saying it. You really ought to consider such a philosophy. The one thing you have made a convincing case for is that you have no clue regarding Kellermann's work, can't do anything more than parrot something you read somewhere about how some other folks oppose it, when challenged can't even bolster that with anything more than vague references to 'it was well covered at the time', then make bizarrely irrelevant references to three weeks having passed followed by a rather jarring attempt to change the subject. It's no wonder your skull is so vacant; you're emitting 'facts' at a rate much higher than you are entering any into there, so naturally you're rapidly depleted. Maybe you should stop giving us the benefit of your wisdom until you manage to get it refilled. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jun 2004 11:13:03 -0700, (z) wrote: . His list of precautions is quite reasonable in view of that fact, but he just doesn't want to mention the other caution that stem from the paper: if all you want is to protect yourself from being murdered in your home, don't buy a handgun; because home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a stranger and more likely to be murdered with your own gun. There is the crux of the matter. Tis a bogus statement and reflects Kellermans 43 times claim. How utterly bizarre of you to call that a 'bogus statement', as it's a virtual paraphrase of Schulman's statement: 'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have a key.' You do remember Schulman, don't you? He's the guy you mentioned a couple of posts back who 'refutes Kellerman [sic]'. And here you are, calling what he says a 'bogus statement'. You are a confused person. Do you agree with Schulman or not? Piffle to the rest of your spew. Go piffle in your own spew, I don't want to catch whatever it is that has demolished your brain tissue so thoroughly. |
Nice write up about LEDs
|
Nice write up about LEDs
|
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:01:51 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista -- Its obvious you have little knowlege of the subject, though you go on and on about that which you know little. You have so little knowledge of Kellermann's research that you can't even spell his name correctly. Why are you commenting on it, Mark? Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first name in your posts. Either you think you are being insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are letting out some big secret and you are somehow special because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on several occasions including a long string of middle names). shrug Sue |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista -- Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first name in your posts. Either you think you are being insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are letting out some big secret and you are somehow special because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on several occasions including a long string of middle names). Neither. Sorry, Sue. No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect. How nice. Whatever it is I'm sure you have an excellent reason. Sue |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 10 Jun 2004 22:01:23 -0700, (z) wrote: How utterly bizarre of you to call that a 'bogus statement', as it's a virtual paraphrase of Schulman's statement: Kellermans original claim was you were 43 times as likely to be harmed with your own weapon. Keep backing away from your own statements. All of your spin, misdirection and ranting will not change the fact this is indeed bogus. Why is it bogus? It's actual counts of people who were shot to death. Such things are pretty accurately kept track of. Do you have figures that show something else? What's your numbers say? Gunner "A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden." Strider |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 10 Jun 2004 21:54:59 -0700, (z) wrote: Well, no; I don't care to comment on fields about which I am not knowledgeable and about which I have nothing to say which would be worth the time of the reader/listener. So why are you posting on this subject now? Its obvious you have little knowlege of the subject, though you go on and on about that which you know little. Ego or the simple rantings of an left wing extremeist anti gun nut? An odd reply for someone who cannot spell the subject on which he posts, and has thus far failed to produce anything supporting his statement that Shaffner 'refutes' Kellermann, and has posted that a quote from Schulman is a 'false statement', after referring to Schulman 'refuting' Kellermann. Before we continue, let me ask this.. Are you actually an idiot? Medically diagnosed, etc.? If I was a betting man..Id have to say both. If you were a betting man, you'd be bankrupt after an hour, judging by your inability to perceive reality. Gunner "A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden." Strider |
Nice write up about LEDs
Sue wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista -- Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first name in your posts. Either you think you are being insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are letting out some big secret and you are somehow special because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on several occasions including a long string of middle names). Neither. Sorry, Sue. No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect. How nice. Whatever it is I'm sure you have an excellent reason. Sue So let me get this straight; Gunnie's standard stle of 'debate' is to delete the content of any post that makes substantial criticisms of his previous unsupported assertions, and instead reply with general content-free nastiness and call the other guy names, but you have issues with Carl's motives in calling him 'Mark'? |
Nice write up about LEDs
|
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:43:15 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista -- On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista -- Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first name in your posts. Either you think you are being insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are letting out some big secret and you are somehow special because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on several occasions including a long string of middle names). Neither. Sorry, Sue. No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect. You are correct there. I treat posters generally in the same way they treat me. Were that the case you would be calling him Gummer or some such. G It occurred to me that you are attempting to rise above the name calling. A wise move IMO. Sue ... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter