In article , csmkersh@flash.net (Sam A.
Kersh) wrote:


> >snippage
> >
> >>            .... Kleck's and Gertz's DGU estimates do not
> >>       appear to be artifacts of any particular computational or
> >>       weighting decisions made in their analysis.  It there is any
> >>       problem here, it is intrinsic to the method.."
> >
> >Your quote from this article  is totally dishonest, Sam, assuming you
> >read the article.  The most charitable thing I can say, is that you
> >may not have read the rest of Cook, et al.'s article at all.  If you
> >had read it, you would have discovered that they made  the same
> >criticisms of Kleck as I did.  The rest of the article, after the last
> >sentence you quote above, is devoted to showing that there *is* in
> >fact a problem, and it is precisely *intrinsic to the method* employed
> >by Kleck.  The problem, of course, is the false positive problem, and
> >they devote extensive discussion to the their argument that the
> >problem is real, and that it "swamps the truth" in Kleck's survey, and
> >surveys like his.
 
> Oh, Jim, unlike you, I've read both the INSIGHT  article and
> NCJ-165476...  

I that case, Sam, although it saddens me, I have to say you were being
deliberately dishonest, trying to pawn off a quote as supporting Kleck's,
position, when in fact it you knew very well that the quote in question
was an integral part of a presentation of evidence that Kleck's
methodology is fatally flawed.

Best regards,

--Jim McCulloch