rehmwa 2 #51 February 14, 2006 train operators and garbagemen are now called engineers any dork with an advanced and non-medical degree gets to be called "doctor" - sometimes the degree is even honorary (although I don't know what's so honorable about getting an unearned degree) more examples? this is fun. Let's get into "reverend", "honorable", "humanitarian", "Bob" etc...... I think it's about time they diluted the meaning of the word 'professor' too. Frrankly, I know a lot of tenured professors who have already done some 'diluting' of the good name of that title on their own anyway. everybody's doing it How about anybody who has ever given a speech of any kind now gets to call themselves 'Professor'? I mean, who are you, as a white man, to be telling other people what they are allowed to call themselves? the nerve (for those not paying attention here, this is all tongue in cheek, so I'll be very disappointed at anything other than another playful response) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #52 February 14, 2006 QuoteHe isn't a professor because he isn't one. It's as simple as that. Boy, that's a very compelling argument, Professor. (You ARE one, right? I mean, you teach at an institute for higher education, right?) He WAS one but ISN'T one NOW. Good lord John, you can be so silly. As for the articles you cited, I hope to read them later this afternoon... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #53 February 14, 2006 I have been a guest lecturer at a state university in Tennessee in the graduate psychology department for a few years, does that make me a professor too? Please? Pretty please? Huh huh? Can I huh? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #54 February 14, 2006 QuotePlease? Pretty please? Huh huh? Can I huh? Call yourself whatever you want. It would be non-politically correct and insensitive and 'unevolved' to make a stand on how you wish to title yourself. sincerely, your humble servant William, Esquire of Hambillitoritan, Professor of Theophysics, Emperor of the unknown universe, arch bishop of Chicago, inventor of the intranet, arbitrary semi-anti-maybechrist, holder of the keys, guardian of the number (wouldn't you like to know), minstral of Camelot ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #55 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuotePlease? Pretty please? Huh huh? Can I huh? Call yourself whatever you want. It would be non-politically correct and insensitive and 'unevolved' to make a stand on how you wish to title yourself. sincerely, your humble servant William, Esquire of Hambillitoritan, Professor of Theophysics, Emperor of the unknown universe, arch bishop of Chicago, inventor of the intranet, arbitrary semi-anti-maybechrist, holder of the keys, guardian of the number (wouldn't you like to know), minstral of Camelot Oh THANK you, your worshipfulness! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #56 February 14, 2006 Wow! You guys need to get layed more often! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #57 February 14, 2006 QuoteWow! You guys need to get layed more often! Dude! Tell my wife that! It just might work! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #58 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteHe isn't a professor because he isn't one. It's as simple as that. Boy, that's a very compelling argument, Professor. (You ARE one, right? I mean, you teach at an institute for higher education, right?) He WAS one ... No, he wasN'T one either. Lott has NEVER been a professor. Not even an associate professor. You do know what "Assistant" means, don't you? Maybe this will help explain: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - cabinet rank official. Then there are the low life functionaries who work for him: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (HA) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense (HD) Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (ISA) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs (LA) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/Chief Information Officer (NII/DoD CIO) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (PA) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (RA) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight (IO) Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear & Chemical & Biological Defense Programs Did you notice how they had the word "Assistant" in their titles?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #59 February 14, 2006 QuoteI have been a guest lecturer at a state university in Tennessee in the graduate psychology department for a few years, does that make me a professor too? Please? Pretty please? Huh huh? Can I huh? By your reckoning, it likely makes you President of the United States of America.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #60 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWow! You guys need to get layed more often! Dude! Tell my wife that! It just might work! _____________________________________________ If I give a lecture on it...can I be a professor too? It's interesting the way everyone and anyone can produce experts for both sides in any argument. I've read a lot of threads in SC. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that everything is false and I probably don't even really exist. I do know one thing though...The bastards will never get my guns! (my redneck heritage showing). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #61 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuote We could avoid the problem by calling him "Dr. Lott," but then I'm sure some would feel the urge to remind us he is not a doctor. He has an earned doctorate, that makes him a doctor. The medical profession appropriated the word 'doctor' for their own gratification about 150 years ago. The word is Latin, it goes back to Roman times and means "teacher", not physician.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #62 February 14, 2006 QuoteNo handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. True. Impeccable logic. If there were no handguns, people could not be killed by handguns. Now, how do you seek to get rid of guns? How do you plan to ensure everybody gets rid of them? That, sir, is the dilemma. If just one person has a gun, then there is a problem with the power. This sets up a prisoner's dilemma. So, while it's nice to posit things like that, how is it going to be put into practice? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #63 February 14, 2006 so do you address such people as: Assistant Professor Lott, could you pick up my dry cleaning at 4? ---- thanks for the article list. Those are legitimate points raised in the summaries. I've always wondered how much of the change in crime over the past decade or so is merely due to cyclic changes in the age distribution. For me, it is sufficient to show that CCW policy changes don't have a negative effect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #64 February 14, 2006 Quote'Why' does not actually matter - my older points were - more guns, more dead people, pretty simple. No handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. Yes everyone has the right to defend themselves, but the more guns that are out there, then the more chances of 'innocent' people getting killed over measly disputes. All stated in this article, which supports my point, so I brouight it up. If we all have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, then we as a country should also believe that every country should be able arm themselves with nuclear weapons, therefore, we would all be safer. Its the same arguement, but on a different scale. I doubt ANYONE in this country would be in favor of that. So carry your gun and feel good that people are shooting each other over petty things. My solution is less guns - what's yours? First of all, you now claim you were correct because gun crime is up in just a few places? Wow. Now that's solid scientific proof! What about the last 8 years when gun crime has dropped to the lowest level in 40 years, despite more guns than ever in circulation? Oh yeah, you stick your head in the sand and ignore that ugly little fact which destroys your little fantasy belief. Second, "why" matters greatly. Because if their is no relationship between gun crime ratess and gun ownership levels, then banning guns is a fruitless endeavor. And all the studies prove this is so. So pull your head out of the sand. Third, you can't wave a magic wand and make all handguns disappear. The bad guys will always get them, not matter what gun control is instituted. Another Head/Sand issue for you. Fourth, taking guns away from the law-abiding does nothing to stop gun crime by criminals. And it violates their rights as citizens. Head-Sand! Fifth, the article also has many opinions expressed about the social and cultural causes of violence, which you conveniently ignored, while latching onto the one opinion that matched your own fantasy belief. Head-Sand! Sixth, the nuclear analogy is so ridiculous you should be ashamed of yourself. Guns used for self defense only kill the bad guys whom they are aimed at, while nukes kill tens of thousands indiscriminately, both guilty and innocent. What number am I up to? Oh yeah, seventh, my personal gun ownership and gun carry has no bearing on gun crime committed by criminals, so I have no reason to bear any guilty feelings over it. Get your head out of the sand! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #65 February 14, 2006 Does his tenure or lack thereof actually infer his points are not valid?...NO why does then the brady campaign and the NRA both use his studies to state a belief? I will tell you why ....his study (which I actually read) states his position thoroughly, and in fact it has been misrepresented in a dishonest fashion by the brady campaign, in order to negate anyone's stance that the data was in fact supporting the NRA position. NOT a good way to argue a point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #66 February 14, 2006 QuoteDoes his tenure or lack thereof actually infer his points are not valid?...NO Nope, just makes him a liar if he has stated such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #67 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuotedoes look like he isn't a professor, so if he has been claiming that, that would be lie number 1. Professional Experience -Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001 -Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 1994-1995 -Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994 -Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1989-1991 -Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University, 1987-1988 -Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, 1984-1986 My God, you're right!! Selective reading, anyone? it isn't as if the man is some whack job off the street now is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #68 February 14, 2006 Quoteit isn't as if the man is some whack job off the street now is it? No it isn't, he is well educated, quite impressive...just doesn't seem to be a professor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #69 February 14, 2006 Quoteso do you address such people as: Assistant Professor Lott, could you pick up my dry cleaning at 4? "Hey, you" generally works.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #70 February 14, 2006 QuoteFirst of all, you now claim you were correct because gun crime is up in just a few places? While I can't go back and read the link on this PC right now, I don't recall the article referencing Gun Crime in the stats. It had stats of murder and violent crime and then interviews and statements with references to guns. Did it actually statistically link the murders and violent crime to gun murders and gun violent crime? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #71 February 14, 2006 Since i'm the fuckwit who started this whole imbroglio by calling him Professor in the first place (Mea Culpa, Mein Furher, Professor Kallend *stomp*), I tried to go back and insert the word ASSISTANT in the original post. But oh shuckie-darn. It's been too long. I can no longer edit it. *snaps fingers in mock concern* I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #72 February 14, 2006 well kallend if you are more QUALIFIED than Dr. Lott please enlighten us if not do not demean a man who has spent most of his adult life in pusuit of academic prowess and FACT. I myself will never nit pick someone over title which can be in most cases irrelevant. in this case the man IS QUALIFIED on this subject Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #73 February 14, 2006 by the way I wasn't trying to demean you either. I hum it 'cause I can: (Henry 3:16) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #74 February 14, 2006 QuoteThen there are the low life functionaries who work for him: Doc - I tend to decide if I think someone is a low life by their actions, not their title. Even if their title steps on the toes of those that seem to place great importance in that kind of thing. hugs, Bill, master of my domain ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #75 February 14, 2006 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) now that guy isn't a cabinet member however piss on his leg and see what happens Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,150 #61 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuote We could avoid the problem by calling him "Dr. Lott," but then I'm sure some would feel the urge to remind us he is not a doctor. He has an earned doctorate, that makes him a doctor. The medical profession appropriated the word 'doctor' for their own gratification about 150 years ago. The word is Latin, it goes back to Roman times and means "teacher", not physician.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #62 February 14, 2006 QuoteNo handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. True. Impeccable logic. If there were no handguns, people could not be killed by handguns. Now, how do you seek to get rid of guns? How do you plan to ensure everybody gets rid of them? That, sir, is the dilemma. If just one person has a gun, then there is a problem with the power. This sets up a prisoner's dilemma. So, while it's nice to posit things like that, how is it going to be put into practice? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #63 February 14, 2006 so do you address such people as: Assistant Professor Lott, could you pick up my dry cleaning at 4? ---- thanks for the article list. Those are legitimate points raised in the summaries. I've always wondered how much of the change in crime over the past decade or so is merely due to cyclic changes in the age distribution. For me, it is sufficient to show that CCW policy changes don't have a negative effect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #64 February 14, 2006 Quote'Why' does not actually matter - my older points were - more guns, more dead people, pretty simple. No handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. Yes everyone has the right to defend themselves, but the more guns that are out there, then the more chances of 'innocent' people getting killed over measly disputes. All stated in this article, which supports my point, so I brouight it up. If we all have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, then we as a country should also believe that every country should be able arm themselves with nuclear weapons, therefore, we would all be safer. Its the same arguement, but on a different scale. I doubt ANYONE in this country would be in favor of that. So carry your gun and feel good that people are shooting each other over petty things. My solution is less guns - what's yours? First of all, you now claim you were correct because gun crime is up in just a few places? Wow. Now that's solid scientific proof! What about the last 8 years when gun crime has dropped to the lowest level in 40 years, despite more guns than ever in circulation? Oh yeah, you stick your head in the sand and ignore that ugly little fact which destroys your little fantasy belief. Second, "why" matters greatly. Because if their is no relationship between gun crime ratess and gun ownership levels, then banning guns is a fruitless endeavor. And all the studies prove this is so. So pull your head out of the sand. Third, you can't wave a magic wand and make all handguns disappear. The bad guys will always get them, not matter what gun control is instituted. Another Head/Sand issue for you. Fourth, taking guns away from the law-abiding does nothing to stop gun crime by criminals. And it violates their rights as citizens. Head-Sand! Fifth, the article also has many opinions expressed about the social and cultural causes of violence, which you conveniently ignored, while latching onto the one opinion that matched your own fantasy belief. Head-Sand! Sixth, the nuclear analogy is so ridiculous you should be ashamed of yourself. Guns used for self defense only kill the bad guys whom they are aimed at, while nukes kill tens of thousands indiscriminately, both guilty and innocent. What number am I up to? Oh yeah, seventh, my personal gun ownership and gun carry has no bearing on gun crime committed by criminals, so I have no reason to bear any guilty feelings over it. Get your head out of the sand! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #65 February 14, 2006 Does his tenure or lack thereof actually infer his points are not valid?...NO why does then the brady campaign and the NRA both use his studies to state a belief? I will tell you why ....his study (which I actually read) states his position thoroughly, and in fact it has been misrepresented in a dishonest fashion by the brady campaign, in order to negate anyone's stance that the data was in fact supporting the NRA position. NOT a good way to argue a point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #66 February 14, 2006 QuoteDoes his tenure or lack thereof actually infer his points are not valid?...NO Nope, just makes him a liar if he has stated such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #67 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuotedoes look like he isn't a professor, so if he has been claiming that, that would be lie number 1. Professional Experience -Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001 -Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 1994-1995 -Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994 -Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1989-1991 -Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University, 1987-1988 -Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, 1984-1986 My God, you're right!! Selective reading, anyone? it isn't as if the man is some whack job off the street now is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #68 February 14, 2006 Quoteit isn't as if the man is some whack job off the street now is it? No it isn't, he is well educated, quite impressive...just doesn't seem to be a professor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #69 February 14, 2006 Quoteso do you address such people as: Assistant Professor Lott, could you pick up my dry cleaning at 4? "Hey, you" generally works.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #70 February 14, 2006 QuoteFirst of all, you now claim you were correct because gun crime is up in just a few places? While I can't go back and read the link on this PC right now, I don't recall the article referencing Gun Crime in the stats. It had stats of murder and violent crime and then interviews and statements with references to guns. Did it actually statistically link the murders and violent crime to gun murders and gun violent crime? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #71 February 14, 2006 Since i'm the fuckwit who started this whole imbroglio by calling him Professor in the first place (Mea Culpa, Mein Furher, Professor Kallend *stomp*), I tried to go back and insert the word ASSISTANT in the original post. But oh shuckie-darn. It's been too long. I can no longer edit it. *snaps fingers in mock concern* I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #72 February 14, 2006 well kallend if you are more QUALIFIED than Dr. Lott please enlighten us if not do not demean a man who has spent most of his adult life in pusuit of academic prowess and FACT. I myself will never nit pick someone over title which can be in most cases irrelevant. in this case the man IS QUALIFIED on this subject Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #73 February 14, 2006 by the way I wasn't trying to demean you either. I hum it 'cause I can: (Henry 3:16) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #74 February 14, 2006 QuoteThen there are the low life functionaries who work for him: Doc - I tend to decide if I think someone is a low life by their actions, not their title. Even if their title steps on the toes of those that seem to place great importance in that kind of thing. hugs, Bill, master of my domain ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #75 February 14, 2006 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) now that guy isn't a cabinet member however piss on his leg and see what happens Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #62 February 14, 2006 QuoteNo handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. True. Impeccable logic. If there were no handguns, people could not be killed by handguns. Now, how do you seek to get rid of guns? How do you plan to ensure everybody gets rid of them? That, sir, is the dilemma. If just one person has a gun, then there is a problem with the power. This sets up a prisoner's dilemma. So, while it's nice to posit things like that, how is it going to be put into practice? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 February 14, 2006 so do you address such people as: Assistant Professor Lott, could you pick up my dry cleaning at 4? ---- thanks for the article list. Those are legitimate points raised in the summaries. I've always wondered how much of the change in crime over the past decade or so is merely due to cyclic changes in the age distribution. For me, it is sufficient to show that CCW policy changes don't have a negative effect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #64 February 14, 2006 Quote'Why' does not actually matter - my older points were - more guns, more dead people, pretty simple. No handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. Yes everyone has the right to defend themselves, but the more guns that are out there, then the more chances of 'innocent' people getting killed over measly disputes. All stated in this article, which supports my point, so I brouight it up. If we all have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, then we as a country should also believe that every country should be able arm themselves with nuclear weapons, therefore, we would all be safer. Its the same arguement, but on a different scale. I doubt ANYONE in this country would be in favor of that. So carry your gun and feel good that people are shooting each other over petty things. My solution is less guns - what's yours? First of all, you now claim you were correct because gun crime is up in just a few places? Wow. Now that's solid scientific proof! What about the last 8 years when gun crime has dropped to the lowest level in 40 years, despite more guns than ever in circulation? Oh yeah, you stick your head in the sand and ignore that ugly little fact which destroys your little fantasy belief. Second, "why" matters greatly. Because if their is no relationship between gun crime ratess and gun ownership levels, then banning guns is a fruitless endeavor. And all the studies prove this is so. So pull your head out of the sand. Third, you can't wave a magic wand and make all handguns disappear. The bad guys will always get them, not matter what gun control is instituted. Another Head/Sand issue for you. Fourth, taking guns away from the law-abiding does nothing to stop gun crime by criminals. And it violates their rights as citizens. Head-Sand! Fifth, the article also has many opinions expressed about the social and cultural causes of violence, which you conveniently ignored, while latching onto the one opinion that matched your own fantasy belief. Head-Sand! Sixth, the nuclear analogy is so ridiculous you should be ashamed of yourself. Guns used for self defense only kill the bad guys whom they are aimed at, while nukes kill tens of thousands indiscriminately, both guilty and innocent. What number am I up to? Oh yeah, seventh, my personal gun ownership and gun carry has no bearing on gun crime committed by criminals, so I have no reason to bear any guilty feelings over it. Get your head out of the sand! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #65 February 14, 2006 Does his tenure or lack thereof actually infer his points are not valid?...NO why does then the brady campaign and the NRA both use his studies to state a belief? I will tell you why ....his study (which I actually read) states his position thoroughly, and in fact it has been misrepresented in a dishonest fashion by the brady campaign, in order to negate anyone's stance that the data was in fact supporting the NRA position. NOT a good way to argue a point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #66 February 14, 2006 QuoteDoes his tenure or lack thereof actually infer his points are not valid?...NO Nope, just makes him a liar if he has stated such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #67 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuotedoes look like he isn't a professor, so if he has been claiming that, that would be lie number 1. Professional Experience -Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001 -Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 1994-1995 -Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994 -Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1989-1991 -Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University, 1987-1988 -Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, 1984-1986 My God, you're right!! Selective reading, anyone? it isn't as if the man is some whack job off the street now is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #68 February 14, 2006 Quoteit isn't as if the man is some whack job off the street now is it? No it isn't, he is well educated, quite impressive...just doesn't seem to be a professor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #69 February 14, 2006 Quoteso do you address such people as: Assistant Professor Lott, could you pick up my dry cleaning at 4? "Hey, you" generally works.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #70 February 14, 2006 QuoteFirst of all, you now claim you were correct because gun crime is up in just a few places? While I can't go back and read the link on this PC right now, I don't recall the article referencing Gun Crime in the stats. It had stats of murder and violent crime and then interviews and statements with references to guns. Did it actually statistically link the murders and violent crime to gun murders and gun violent crime? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #71 February 14, 2006 Since i'm the fuckwit who started this whole imbroglio by calling him Professor in the first place (Mea Culpa, Mein Furher, Professor Kallend *stomp*), I tried to go back and insert the word ASSISTANT in the original post. But oh shuckie-darn. It's been too long. I can no longer edit it. *snaps fingers in mock concern* I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #72 February 14, 2006 well kallend if you are more QUALIFIED than Dr. Lott please enlighten us if not do not demean a man who has spent most of his adult life in pusuit of academic prowess and FACT. I myself will never nit pick someone over title which can be in most cases irrelevant. in this case the man IS QUALIFIED on this subject Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #73 February 14, 2006 by the way I wasn't trying to demean you either. I hum it 'cause I can: (Henry 3:16) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #74 February 14, 2006 QuoteThen there are the low life functionaries who work for him: Doc - I tend to decide if I think someone is a low life by their actions, not their title. Even if their title steps on the toes of those that seem to place great importance in that kind of thing. hugs, Bill, master of my domain ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #75 February 14, 2006 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) now that guy isn't a cabinet member however piss on his leg and see what happens Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
