There are limits in my prior statements by which I continue to stand. Just because you may fail to properly identify such "limitations" (read: "qualifyers") in those statements does not mean such is not already present in those very statements of mine. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims about my statements without meaningfully (i.e., in context) quoting any post of mine in this thread to add weight to your accusations. It's reasonably amusing -- and a bit sad too -- that mischaracterization is the retort that must be applied against me (since all else has hitherto failed).

This is getting to be typical. Your first sentence is a mischaracterization that is wholly incorrect. In regards to the second sentence above: if you are quite confused, I cannot help you with that state of being.

You claim I made a statement that I did not make. And upon your being asked to clearly indicate where I said that which you claim I said, you then fail to quote my words properly and in context. Perhaps you are the cause of your own confusion? (I know I have been on occassion.) As you are confused, it is understandable that you have failed to prove your allegations about my statements.

I really suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there.

As I said before: "I suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there."

Let me help make the implicit explicit and the explicit more explicit )especially for those who have missed certain items): I was not the only one that had access to the data/studies mentioned.

Did I ever claim otherwise? No. The thin air is clearly not here; apparently it's somewhere else. As I said above: "I suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there."

The following exchange is even more amusing:

That is incorrect; you have (intentionally or unintentionally) mischaracterized your own statement.

I can only call your statement a manifestation of ill-informed opinion; after all what else can one call your comments about data/studies which you have admitted to not having had in your possession? Only ill-informed opinion.

Let me provide you yet another example of why your statement can be classified as such:

If someone asked me to comment about your aim with a gun and I had never reviewed your shooting, how would most reasonable people characterize my statement about your being a great shot in the absence of my reviewing actual data points/studies related to your shooting? Most reasonable people would accuractely characeterize such as "ill-informed opinion". And they would be right.

It's not "my study" to be disseminated; however, thank you for trying to educate me, regardless of the merits. I do understand a bit (and then some) about valid studies (and, more importantly, invalid ones). If you care to conduct your own research and the findings are yours and only yours, feel free to share. If extensive enough, I may even volunteer to get it reviewed.

I don't believe in violating my agreements and understandings.

Again, thanks for your fine example of a non-sequitur: "if it is not yours then post it." If you cashed your relative's personal check at their bank and the teller gave you far more money than you had prior expectations of receiving, would you just run off and say "the money's not mine, so I'll spend it however I like"? Is that the kind of thinking you are advocating? I hope not.

I did not, to my knoweldge, provide you with any information on the data/studies I previously mentioned in this thread. And yet you still feel qualified to dismiss data/studies you have admittedly not reviewed. That crystal ball must be quite valuable.

This is getting to be typical. As I'll indicate below, your first sentence is almost wholly incorrect and certainly a gross mischaracterization; however, that is not unexpected.

Did I ever claim that which you apparently think I have? No.

Yet again, "you claim I made a statement that I did not make. And upon your being asked to clearly indicate where I said that which you claim I said, you then fail to quote my words properly and in context." It is understandable that you have failed to prove your allegations about my statements, for you are apparently reading things that have never come across your eyes.

"I suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there."

I agree. The unhealthy culture of rigid "self-protection" does seem to have diminished in parts; hopefully that trend, where it exists, will continue and become more universal.

I never wrote that most LE/security types in the US were dishonest. Why didn't I? Because I have no evidence that indicates such. My personal experience is that most LE/security types, especially in the US, wish to do the right thing -- especially when the "costs" of doing right are low while the "costs" of doing wrong are high, highly publicized and frequently realized. Unfortunately such conditions are not always present.