Lott not satisfied by disclaimer

Lott has a posting on his blog where he insists

few will think that the site was set up with the intention of making others think that it was a parody.

I don’t agree, but you can judge for yourself.

Jeff Johnson has another overblown story about askjohnlott.org. From the story:

“That’s like stealing money and then, when you get caught, saying you won’t steal anymore,” Lott said of the disclaimer Tuesday. “They’re not giving the money back that they have already stolen.”

No, it’s like telling a joke and then when some people don’t get it, explaining that it was a joke.

“They’re using my name, they’re taking it and using it in a way that I don’t agree with,” Lott said. “I think stealing is what it is.”

Well, that or parody.

Lott said Tuesday that posting a disclaimer after more than a month of misrepresentation “to cover their tracks” should not absolve the website’s creator, or anyone associated with it, from responsibility for their actions.

“I think it shows they realize that the secretive things they were doing are wrong,” he explained. “I don’t think that corrects the problems they’ve created by sending around these e-mails and having the misinformation up on the website for that period of time.”

Lott’s hardly in a position to talk about responsibility. Four months ago Ayres and Donohue found serious coding errors in Lott’s data. Lott will not take responsibility for these errors or admit their existence or importance. And as for misinformation, look at the extent to which Lott has spread misinformation about defensive gun use.

“They were obviously doing this to get people to help fight certain policies that are going to be voted on in Congress,” he speculated, “and using my name to do it.”

Alternatively they did it to get a rise out of John Lott. The site was getting four or five hits a day last month. Now, thanks to the publicity Lott has given it, they’re getting 500 hits a day.