Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group

[gejohnston]

46. OK, other than

Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 02:53 AM - Edit history (2)

regurgitating your hero, sure. I don't have time or the inclination for regurgitating in the interest of pomposity (it is evident in your language. You can learn a lot about people not so much what they say but how they say it.) I prefer the original writers speak for themselves.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

I also don't have the time to waste on someone who claims to be interested in debate but spends much of the time making personal attacks and rude condescending remarks. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=422017&mesg_id=422300
one of the few the mods didn't zap. And to think it all started when I questioned your hero's.
The the link in your post was one of the few, perhaps the only, exception.
I asked a simple question, was the situation in the OP improper. Instead of a reasonable answer and rationale you give some defensive nonsense about American Cancer Society. ACS funds research, some to Nobel Prize winners. They also do things like give accurate information about screenings, prevention etc. VPC and Brady? They complain about safety programs and falsely compare Eddie Eagle with Joe Camel. There is no comparison.
As I told another poster, it gives the appearance of some economist getting an award from API after writing climate change denial papers. At the risk of being a bit of a prig, I would not have shown up in that situation.
But of course, as usual, you will whine that I made the whole thing up and make up stupid lies. Even when I provide links and proof you still whine because you don't like having your assumptions challenged.

As for your fact free "you accept Kleck because he tells you what you want to hear" and "those are the only criminologists you heard of" is total bullshit. I'm guessing you are pretty selective in what academic lit. you read yourself. Assuming you actually read it. I think you accept what is supposed to be the "liberal" position without much critical thought behind it. You make baseless assumptions about me.