Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

[merphie]

But we are talking about the questions, because those give us the answers to how people see a DGU.

I believe you quoted the questions. They still need controls in place to ensure the data is accurate. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

I did not ignore anything, quite contrary. I would just like to know why you consider this study trustworthy, if you can't trust the numbers.

You are ignoring the information. A detailed explaination was given in the article on why the 8% was not accurate and how the 8% was obtained. You are ignoring the answer because it doesn't support your pet theory.

Why don't you? Why are you not interested in this consequence of this huge number of DGUs?

I have looked for similar data. This is your claim so you should have to provide evidence. You are presenting a claim like it was based on fact and then asking me to answer. The article doesn't support your notion.

Oh, now it's from "Oklahoma law". Was it used when it was explained to people what a DGU was? No. Ergo, it is irrelevant, and flat out wrong to use it.

Again, I am not ignoring anything, quite contrary. I am pointing out that your explanation (be it from Oklahoma or not) was not the explanation people got.

I was answering two questions you posted. I gave you the answer for what a DGU was quoted from Kleck. You have completely ignored the quote the 3 times I have posted it. The statement you are talking about was about what a DGU could prevent. I gave that answer because the article doesn't address that issue. I have explained this at least twice now and you ignore it every time.

Are you really that afraid to look into this?

I am not going to prove your claim.

Not at all. We can't find these dead bodies. That's the key issue here.

No this is your unsupported claim. So me some evidence.

Yes, yes, you keep repeating things (even demonstrably false) instead of engaging in a debate.

You are the one with the inconsistent claims and making it up as you go.

As is obvious, I don't ignore anything. You, OTOH, ignore the missing pile of bodies that we should have, were the number of DGUs correct.

If you don't want to investigate this issue, fine. But it does raise serious questions about your ability to look at an issue from a skeptical POV.

You have ignored a lot of things and I have had to repeat serveral things more than once. You still keep ignoring them. Just like I have had to repeat about the "pile".

The "pile of dead bodies" is your claim. You refuse to show any evidence that this "pile" even exists. (Or should exists) Then you expect me to prove a negative by showing that your "pile" doesn't exists. First you claim there should be a huge number of dead people from an claim on the data that wasn't possible. When I showed your guess wasn't possible you forgot all about it and started in on this "pile" as if your claim were true.