On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 06:42:58PM -0800, Paul Echeverri <gomi at pollywog.com> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:29:15 -0800 (PST), Philip Hart > <philiph at SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote: > >For those not keeping score, Bellesiles is a discredited historian of > >gun issues in early America - sort of the left-wing version of John Lott. > That sort of implies you believe Lott's been discredited, which I hardly > think is the case, certainly nowhere near the scale of Bellesille's > widespread fraud. I've been busy lately so I didn't see this when it was first posted, but I'm glad someone piped up. While there are some analogies between Bellesiles and Lott, they are mostly there because one side of the debate, having been stung by Bellesilles, is desperately trying to *force* an analogy into place. I wrote a lengthy analysis of the comparison, in case anyone is interested and not already familiar with both controversies: http://www.triggerfinger.org/features/bellesilesvlott.jsp -- Matthew Hunter (matthew at infodancer.org) Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp