Comments on: Good Old John Lott

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:34:24 +0000

I’m sure you remember them – they are the guys who didn’t know the difference between degrees and radians…

Birds of a feather flock together.

By: ian

ian — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:22:53 +0000

I see from Mr Lott’s blog that at the end of January he was still citing with approval the work of McIntyre and McKittrick on climate change. I’m sure you remember them – they are the guys who didn’t know the difference between degrees and radians…

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:28:29 +0000

John Q, Malkin does seem to have some intellectual integrity issues of her own.

By: engels

engels — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:43:33 +0000

For instance, when he says that Donald Luskin is the “stupidest man alive” I am sure that he has the IQ tests to prove that. And will produce that evidence, if asked to.

Ok, Luskin is the second stupidest man alive.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:28:43 +0000

It’s unfair to lump Michelle Malkin and John Lott together, especially as Malkin (unlike Jim Miller) has accepted the evidence showing that Lott is a serial fraudster. I’m no fan of Malkin, but Lott/Rosh are in a class of their own.

By: pp

pp — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:57:39 +0000

Jim Miller,
I will answer your question as best I can… if there is going to be a slander suit you had better be podcasting. You can libel someone on the internet as it is something in print, slander implies spoken words.
Also the party bringing the action is required to among other things show that the libel is untrue and that there are damages. Remember something so fantastic as to be unbelievable is not libelous see Jerry falwell v Larry Flynt.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:36:47 +0000

I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Maximizing a “three-variable function defined by stupidity, error and sheer bad faith” is not necessarily bad. Who’s to say that the three-variable function isn’t -(s+e+sbf)?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:28:08 +0000

Lott has been shown to a serial liar. Jim doesn’t like the fact that he can be so easily dupped by liars like Lott. So he lashes out pretending to be high and mighty but really shows that he can not argue the point that Lott is a serial liar. Pity Jim.

By: Freddie Widgeon

Freddie Widgeon — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:43 +0000

I get it. This comment thread is a sequel to the Satire Is Dead thread below.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:50:54 +0000

Scott, some people must seriously covet that title of ‘stupidest man alive’. I guess that if one has failed at all constructive pursuits, seeking notoreity instead of fame is all that’s left.

By: Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:30:04 +0000

“I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea whether the claim that another person is the stupidest person alive, assuming for the moment that the claim is false, is actionable, but it does seem to me the sort of thing that a prudent person would avoid.”

OK, this has to be satire; obviously, it’s a clever allusion to Luskin’s risible threatened lawsuit against Atrios! Really, I would prefer not to even consider the alternative interpretation.

By: gmoke

gmoke — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:06:00 +0000

I thought Doug Feith was famously “the f*cking stupidest man on Earth.”

By: Mary Rosh

Mary Rosh — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:32:34 +0000

John Lott is an exceptionally erudite and masculine hunk of a man. I think you’re just envious of his superior intellect and fabulous good looks. How could anyone say such things about such a fine example of a human being/sheep’s ass is beyond me.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:10:59 +0000

abb1, you might be confusing stupidity and dishonesty there.

By: wcw

wcw — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:56:08 +0000

Oh, how we are going off topic. To reiterate: every word that comes out of John Lott’s keyboard is suspect. Every coefficient he copies from a stats program is dubious. Every conclusion he reaches should be considered cherrypicked, misleading or just-plain lying unless proven beyond any doubt to be otherwise. Full stop.

Jim, I would be very sorry to have to subject you to a similar judgement. Alas, you appear, like Lott, to be congenitally incapable of swallowing legitimate criticism. Here’s one more chance.

To reiterate, the first phrase I noticed on a clickthrough to your screeds read, “as Michelle Malkin points out.” I suggested you test your hypothesis that either Lott or Malkin shows the ability to “point out” anything. You were gracious enough to drop any defense of Lott (though fairness ought to have militated for an explicit denunciation), but you got all snippy on Malkin, retorting, “[w]hat Michelle Malkin pointed out is that the broadcast of the Super Bowl..” [snip claims] and proceeded to playact at fairly taking insult.

Should anyone have the patience for a second clickthrough, he will find that what Malkin said, to which you linked, is, “I didn’t watch the football game yesterday.” It was not she, but others who “pointed out” that the Stupid Bowl’s halftime show lacked the requisite militarism.

It is, I suppose, true that Malkin pointed out that other people pointed out that the halftime show didn’t include any explicit tributes to the armed forces.

You might, however, see that I feel it doesn’t do much for your attempt to refute my point.

I shall reiterate the point that John Lott is a sycophantic, cherrypicking, useful idiot. Malkin’s no better, but math scares people, so it’s more important to underline Lott’s utter intellectual bankruptcy.