[choosetheright]

One of the things debunking the whole liberal attack on Lott was the fact that at least one of his interview subjects has stepped forward to say that yes, he was interviewed by Lott.

Not exactly. He doesn't say he was interviewed by Lott. Lott didn't interview anyone; he says he paid college students to telephone people and interview them. This person says that he remembers getting a phone call and participating in a survey about gun use, and he thinks it was probably Lott's survey. Of course, this person also happens to be an NRA board member and a gun rights activist.

It's strange that you're willing to pass that off as conclusive proof that Lott is telling the truth. Let's put it this way - if Sarah Brady was accused of lying about something, and the only "witness" who stepped forward to corroborate her story was the president of a local Million Mom March chapter, what would you be saying about the credibility of that defense?

It is awfully strange that Lott did a major survey, used cash to pay the students doing the survey for him, can't remember the name of any of those students, and doesn't have a single scrap of paper (even a list of the questions) left from the survey.

[section9]

Just because an individual is an NRA board member does not make his testimony any less true than it might be were he not an NRA board member.

Secondly, afaik, Lott's original study has not been debunked.

I remain open to the possibility that he might have been a huge fraud, but it is a remote possibility. He is a professor at the University of Chicago. I went to the University of Chicago. I know what kind of people make up the academic community there. Fakers aren't tolerated. This is not Berkeley we're talking about.

Secondly, you're not expecting Lott to remember the names of the Undergrads who were paid to do the survey, are you? Profs usally direct the graduate assistant to organize and supervise the project. They have contact with the grunts, not the prof. He just collates and analyzes the material, with the help of his graduate assistants. When I took a class with William McNeill back in 1978, I didn't expect him to remember me in 1981 when I graduated.

As to Sarah Brady, I would be just as skeptical of her as you are, apparently, of Lott. Turnabout is fair play, sir. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Lott is a liar and a charlatan.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[coloradan]

It is awfully strange that Lott did a major survey, used cash to pay the students doing the survey for him, can't remember the name of any of those students, and doesn't have a single scrap of paper (even a list of the questions) left from the survey.

The central thesis of Lott's work does not rest on the results of this survey. Suppose the survey never happened. Does that discredit the remainder of Lott's work, for which data does exist and the conclusions remain checkable (and, so far, fully correct)? It may reduce his credibility, but it does not reduce it to zero: his other data stands on its own.

This situation is miles different from Bellesiles, who misrepresented, fabricated, or selectively edited essentially all the data he relied on. When the fraudulent work is removed from Arming America, nothing is left. Even if Lott did conjure up a non-existent survey, the remainder of his work still stands. The two cases are incomparable.