Originally Posted by GUWonder
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).
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Furthermore, the law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
Is there a qualifier here? and until you responded to copwriter in the post previous to this present posting you had not.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Furthermore, the law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
And then; No conflict in these two statements?
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Originally Posted by GUWonder
By the way, I did not make a presumption that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people.
Then the broad issue;
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Originally Posted by GUWonder
It wasn't made on such a broad scale; you read it as being on a broad scale.
And the broad statement encompassing all LE/Security types, since there are no qualifiers in this statement ;
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Furthermore, the law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people
You have not placed any qualifiers in this statement then it is broad and made on a broad scale.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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."
I have and have not included any that has not been there. If you have left your statements intentionally vague then you have mischaracterized your own statements.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
I would imagine that you cannot produce anyone else who has access to this study. Just as the study itself you can not substantiate your claim.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
In an example that is more relevant, if I made the statement that my aim was good and you said it was not, both are opinion. If I wished to validate my claim by saying the data exist to show that my aim is good and you questioned the data exists, then it would be upon me to either accept your position or produce the data. I don't accept your statement that the data exists or for the reason that it would not be made for public consumption. Without supporting data you have an opinion.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
My data is not in question yours is.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
This is silly.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
You are absolutely right, you did not provide any information on the data/studies or any study data.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
If there are mischaracterizations in my statements it is based on your vague unsubstantiated claims.
If you are going to make a profound statement such as;
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Furthermore, the law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
Then you should clarify it or support it, which you only partially clarified today.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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
A rational conclusion of these exchanges are that posted data shows a decline in U.S. Police Officer deaths of 150% and you have no evidence that most U.S. LE/Security types are dishonest.