Bad news for the AWB supporters

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So John Lott used a pseudonym to present a viewpoint that he felt needed to be heard? He wrote as though a woman to represent the views of women? This is not in line with his research and publications related to women's suffrage? Perhaps he is just a guy that wants to make sure women have an active voice in American politics?

John Lott never went out in public dressed as a woman (though he might do it at home ). He just used a female pseudonym in internet discussion boards to argue his viewpoint. Sounds kinda like some fellow here on VJ that uses a picture of one big red electric eye and a funny name to pretend to be a slightly demented supercomputer from an old science fiction movie.

So let me get this straight - not only was the guy "asked to leave" (AKA fired) for not being able to substantiate his statistical analysis, he actually pretended to be someone else to write testimonials for his book and support his work?

Whatever that is - "writing from a woman's perspective" it is not.

I suspect the difference in your comparison is that people would have reasonably thought that this woman was a real person. HAL is a fictional character - I don't think too many people believe that the guy who writes those posts is actually a AI computer.

*You* might perhaps, but then you are a very strange guy...

[justashooter 430]

So John Lott used a pseudonym to present a viewpoint that he felt needed to be heard? He wrote as though a woman to represent the views of women? This is not in line with his research and publications related to women's suffrage? Perhaps he is just a guy that wants to make sure women have an active voice in American politics?

John Lott never went out in public dressed as a woman (though he might do it at home ). He just used a female pseudonym in internet discussion boards to argue his viewpoint. Sounds kinda like some fellow here on VJ that uses a picture of one big red electric eye and a funny name to pretend to be a slightly demented supercomputer from an old science fiction movie.

So let me get this straight - not only was the guy "asked to leave" (AKA fired) for not being able to substantiate his statistical analysis, he actually pretended to be someone else to write testimonials for his book and support his work?

Whatever that is - "writing from a woman's perspective" it is not.

I suspect the difference in your comparison is that people would have reasonably thought that this woman was a real person. HAL is a fictional character - I don't think too many people believe that the guy who writes those posts is actually a AI computer.

*You* might perhaps, but then you are a very strange guy...

In academia, people are "asked to leave" all the time, for not agreeing with the PTB. His statistical analysis has merit. It just came to a conclusion that others in his community were uncomfortable with.

People on this board think that the logic and emotions behind Hal's writing represent a real person. He simply chooses to write under a name other than his own, just like you and I, and John Lott.

So go ahead. write under your real name, and provide your address and phone number, while you're at it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So John Lott used a pseudonym to present a viewpoint that he felt needed to be heard? He wrote as though a woman to represent the views of women? This is not in line with his research and publications related to women's suffrage? Perhaps he is just a guy that wants to make sure women have an active voice in American politics?

John Lott never went out in public dressed as a woman (though he might do it at home ). He just used a female pseudonym in internet discussion boards to argue his viewpoint. Sounds kinda like some fellow here on VJ that uses a picture of one big red electric eye and a funny name to pretend to be a slightly demented supercomputer from an old science fiction movie.

So let me get this straight - not only was the guy "asked to leave" (AKA fired) for not being able to substantiate his statistical analysis, he actually pretended to be someone else to write testimonials for his book and support his work?

Whatever that is - "writing from a woman's perspective" it is not.

I suspect the difference in your comparison is that people would have reasonably thought that this woman was a real person. HAL is a fictional character - I don't think too many people believe that the guy who writes those posts is actually a AI computer.

*You* might perhaps, but then you are a very strange guy...

In academia, people are "asked to leave" all the time, for not agreeing with the PTB. His statistical analysis has merit. It just came to a conclusion that others in his community were uncomfortable with.

People on this board think that the logic and emotions behind Hal's writing represent a real person. He simply chooses to write under a name other than his own, just like you and I, and John Lott.

So go ahead. write under your real name, and provide your address and phone number, while you're at it.

How can you possibly know this?

From what Hal said - it sounds rather more likely that Lott was asked to leave because he refused, or was otherwise unable to meet the institutions academic standards and validate his methodology.

As to the rest, again - John Lott pretended to be a completely different person to promote his own work and to heckle his critics. Firstly, its dishonest; secondly, the only reason to do this is political and to suggest that his work has wider appeal than it actually does.

He spun his own work! Who does that!?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He spun his own work! Who does that!?

John Lott, apparently.

I'm not up to speed on this thread so I have no idea who the hell John Lott even is.

[stangguy 0]

How can you possibly know this?

From what Hal said - it sounds rather more likely that Lott was asked to leave because he refused, or was otherwise unable to meet the institutions academic standards and validate his methodology.

As to the rest, again - John Lott pretended to be a completely different person to promote his own work and to heckle his critics. Firstly, its dishonest; secondly, the only reason to do this is political and to suggest that his work has wider appeal than it actually does.

He spun his own work! Who does that!?

Who spins their own work, with false name? Why the founding fathers of the United States do of course. Jefferson, Madison, et. al. frequently paid newspapers to write articles and letters attacking their opponents and supporting their own positions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Stangguy - can you even tell the difference between politics and academia?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He spun his own work! Who does that!?

John Lott, apparently.

I'm not up to speed on this thread so I have no idea who the hell John Lott even is.

Some ####.

[justashooter 430]

Stangguy - can you even tell the difference between politics and academia?

when academic research becomes the tool of political agenda, the line gets fuzzy.

to believe otherwise is rather naive, stoopid boy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Stangguy - can you even tell the difference between politics and academia?

when academic research becomes the tool of political agenda, the line gets fuzzy.

to believe otherwise is rather naive, stoopid boy.

Thanks for making my point.

[justashooter 430]

Stangguy - can you even tell the difference between politics and academia?

when academic research becomes the tool of political agenda, the line gets fuzzy.

to believe otherwise is rather naive, stoopid boy.

Thanks for making my point.

most double edged swords have a point, regardless of the fact that it is usually dull.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess you'd know, given your unquestioning support of a charlstan who can't meet reasonable academic standards for his work.

[justashooter 430]

I guess you'd know, given your unquestioning support of a charlstan who can't meet reasonable academic standards for his work.

hello pot, i'm the kettle.

[fozzie 41]

Stangguy - can you even tell the difference between politics and academia?

when academic research becomes the tool of political agenda, the line gets fuzzy.

to believe otherwise is rather naive, stoopid boy.

True, but it is also naive to beleive that only one side does it. We are all at the mercy of "experts" as we do not have the knowledge that they possess. We rely on their opinions and research to lead the way. Unfortunately most start with the end in mind which severly biases there reults.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lott supposedly did a 2000 participant survey and laid claim to conclusions that he couldn't substantiate with evidence because he claims he lost the data on a corrupt hard drive (and had no back ups)

No academic institution is going to stand behind someones work and conclusions if the evidence and methodology are not documented. Most institutions actually care about their reputations, so why on earth they should be accepted to take lotts word that he, in fact, did do the work in question and can validate his conclusions.

At the very least if Lott had any credibility he would have repeated the survey he says he did in the first place.

I guess you'd know, given your unquestioning support of a charlstan who can't meet reasonable academic standards for his work.

hello pot, i'm the kettle.

No you're just a ####### for tatter who has no more support of his position that Lott does for his alleged survey.

[justashooter 430]

No you're just a ####### for tatter who has no more support of his position that Lott does for his alleged survey.

and you're an angry little boy looking to stir $hit, but that's OK, we don't mind. we have nothing better to do lately, anyway. we have to find a harder job that takes more of our time.