Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

35. That was an example and you do know

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:22 PM

May 2012

what an analogy is. You missed the point. You did not say specifically McClatchy is a gun blog, but when presented by nonbiased sources including McClatchy (the above being but one example of) you whine about gun blogs and Fox. I can provide a wall of links if you like, but I really don't have the time. Everyone here have read the same thing, so you can whine and call me a liar, stupid (IIRC, why so many of your DU2 posts got zapped by the mods) but everyone here has read them. You know it and I know it.

You said was not spot on nor was it supported by evidence. You were not spot on. You repeated what you read on some anti gun blog. Which is what you do, because you don't address points you can't answer even when when asked.
The DanTex method: never mind the evidence, I have already made up my mind, and then falsely accuse those who disagree as being right wing, climate change deniers, etc.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group [View all] gejohnston May 2012 OP

Yes, as long as there's full disclosure to everyone concerned, elleng May 2012 #1

but is it science? gejohnston May 2012 #2

I think a better question to consider: truedelphi May 2012 #4

You just made my point gejohnston May 2012 #6

Except gun control is not an "industry". There's no profit motive. DanTex May 2012 #8

Those in charge of gun control do have a profit motive. truedelphi May 2012 #9

LOL. Yeah, you better stock up on "guns" to protect you from the "man"... DanTex May 2012 #11

Bears are the #1 threat to America. ellisonz May 2012 #59

you missed the point gejohnston May 2012 #12

How is it different than climate change denialists? DanTex May 2012 #16

you have it backwards gejohnston May 2012 #19

Do you ever say anything that's true? I mean even by accident? DanTex May 2012 #21

what I said was true gejohnston May 2012 #23

As usual, you provide no proof of anything you say. DanTex May 2012 #25

Gee I don't know...... gejohnston May 2012 #26

LOL. I guess this is what passes for backing your statements with proof in pro-gunner land... DanTex May 2012 #27

kind like falsly claiming that gejohnston May 2012 #29

Change of subject to a different false allegation. You lose. DanTex May 2012 #31

nope gejohnston May 2012 #32

Must be fun living in that fantasy world of yours... DanTex May 2012 #34

That was an example and you do know gejohnston May 2012 #35

Finally, something true! DanTex May 2012 #36

your post regurgated something a UK paper said gejohnston May 2012 #37

No, mine was correct! Mine is based on more evidence! DanTex May 2012 #38

fuck if I know gejohnston May 2012 #39

The people in it seem to be in it for political points... krispos42 May 2012 #42

I agree with some of what you said. DanTex May 2012 #43

Oops, forgot about this discussion we were having krispos42 Jun 2012 #61

Interesting comment from you Lurks Often May 2012 #58

And I assume you're equally opposed to scientists working with the American Cancer Society... DanTex May 2012 #3

show me evidence Hemenway is actually valid gejohnston May 2012 #5

LOL. "Evidence that Hemenway is actually valid"? DanTex May 2012 #7

let me repprase that gejohnston May 2012 #10

Now you're doing that thing you always do... make false statements. DanTex May 2012 #14

that is not a false claim gejohnston May 2012 #18

And it continues... No substance. Joyce! Something you made up! Kleck is your hero! DanTex May 2012 #20

as soon as you do gejohnston May 2012 #22

Still waiting for you to make a single substantive point. DanTex May 2012 #24

that would require a long post gejohnston May 2012 #47

... DanTex May 2012 #49

and gejohnston May 2012 #50

LOL! A good job of backing up what you claim! DanTex May 2012 #52

that is the truth gejohnston May 2012 #56

Sometimes patience does not lead to resolution... ellisonz May 2012 #60

OK, other than gejohnston May 2012 #46

Wow, you're linking to something by Gary Kleck! Shocking! DanTex May 2012 #48

really? gejohnston May 2012 #51

Blah blah blah. DanTex May 2012 #55

I suggest you read some older posts gejohnston May 2012 #57

"gun violence charities"? PavePusher May 2012 #13

Yes, that's what right-wingers say about global warming advocacy groups also... DanTex May 2012 #15

I noticed that you did not refute what he said, but chose to play the "right-winger" card friendly_iconoclast May 2012 #40

Well done, thanks! PavePusher May 2012 #54

I refer you back to your own words.... PavePusher May 2012 #53

No - it is absolutely **not** proper. Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #17

I don't see a problem with an interest group in a particular area honoring a researcher petronius May 2012 #28

Not being a scientist gejohnston May 2012 #30

That's certainly the risk an academic takes in this situation - but a free dinner petronius May 2012 #33

You ask this question ... GeorgeGist May 2012 #41

Please explain gejohnston May 2012 #45

Research on gun control is not really science. Remmah2 May 2012 #44