Who was this ballot cast for?
Norm Coleman, right?
No, this is not a trick question. Unless your name is John Lott, Jr., Ph.D. and you just published an analysis at FoxNews.com.
The ballot in question, from Minnesota's 4th Ward, 8th Precinct, was originally cast and counted for Norm Coleman. It was challenged by the Franken campaign, which claimed that it was a duplicate ballot, and designated as the 3rd challenge from that precinct. The challenge was subsequently withdrawn, as the Franken campaign withdraw essentially all of his challenges on supposed duplicate ballots. And appropriately, the Canvassing Board added the vote back into Coleman's column (.xls).
So where did Lott get the idea that the vote had been counted for Franken? Apparently from the Star Tribune's website, which had it listed it that way. The Star Tribune, keeping an unofficial tally of more than 6,000 challenged ballots, apparently made a boo-boo.
This possibility appears not to have crossed Lott's mind. Faced with two alternatives...
1. The Canvassing Board somehow determined that this was a Franken ballot;
2. The Star Tribune screwed up.
...Lott took Occam's Razor and cut himself with it, and concluded that the former must be true, using it as his primary piece of evidence to allege the recount was slanted in Al Franken's favor. The ballot is now featured prominently on the front page of the FoxNews.com website:
It's been a bad day all around for the mainstream media. We can only assume that an upstanding organization like Fox News will be quick to post its retraction and apology...
12.22.2008
Fox News Finds Typo, Blames Liberal Conspiracy
@ 7:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
113 comments
lemme guess...."first" right?
First!...aww dang it
John Lott lying? That's unpossible!
I'm more confused by the Ellison vote. How do you go from voting for Coleman (who, granted, is fairly centrist) to Keith freaking Ellison and then back to the Republican column?
Perhaps I'm looking at this too ideologically, but damn.
John Lott Jr is, of course, the utterly incompetent "researcher" whose studies show that easy access to handguns reduces crime. This research is regarded as Holy Writ by everybody on the right, but regarded as laughable by people who know a chi-square from a T-square.
I'm not interested in his Second Amendment views here, but only his failure to understand the difference between "having a lot of data points" and "statistical power".
I think it's good that he's applying his keen analytic skills to problems where errors won't lead to people being killed.
You know what it is? Those X'd out ballots that went to Franken were withdrawn challenges from the Coleman campaign. The original election judge ruled the vote for Franken, Coleman representative challenged it. Coleman lawyers withdrew challenge. Just cross check the ballots against the official document: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/challengedballotsmasterwithboardactions_122208_3pm.xls
Some examples:
Lakeport Twp Challenge 1
Sargeant Twp Challenge 14
St. Anthony Challenge 5
All withdrawn. This is not only bad reporting, but bad lawyering by the Coleman campaign
Fox News apologize for bad reporting? Ha! Classic...
took Occam's Razor and cut himself with it
Too bad he missed the jugular.
FOXNEWS continues to amaze me- I bet they wish they could revive Lee Atwater. He was far more telegenic and charismatic than Rove. I bet he would have his own 2 hour variety show on FauxNEWS if God had not seen fit to strike him down.
again NATE congrats on TED2009
WV dogiest- best denomination goin'
We can only assume that an upstanding organization like Fox News will be quick to post its retraction and apology.
Al Franken will be doing the ridiculing of FOX News, thank you very much, Nate.
Having a Ph.D. (whether or not Lott has one) is no guarantee of smarts or sanity.
Oh my God Faux...how low will you go?
Low enough to get OWNED by Nate, apparently!
I think that it's useful how he pointed out inconsistencies in applying the rule and some cases where it seemed like the wrong call was made. However, I am in no way convinced that he went through the entire stack of ballots or a random sampling of them before writing this article. He simply mentions that occasionally there was a mistake in Coleman's favor, but far less frequently than in Franken's favor. How are we supposed to know that? What were his methods?!
John Lott, Jr., Ph.D A.K.A. BillO
I can add a little more on the "Star Tribune boo-boo" over what I wrote (in-parallel with Nate) here. I'm a CS professional, and while security and databases are not my specialty, I've seen enough examples from colleagues and visitors in those fields to say that () avoiding such screwups is doggone hard, () computer geeks start life with much more skill at doing stuff than avoiding stuff, () you have to pay $$$$ for people trained to avoid stuff, and () newspapers are hard-pressed for that kind of $$$$---they're not banks! I'm saying this not to criticize the Star Tribune---their Ballot Challenge has been a wonderful thing for an open society---but to raise consciousness about the public-policy parameters of my field. There needs to be a computer-science version of this book about physics, and more-general attention to things like The ACM `RISKS' Forum.
There was a Verizon ad on the page when I looked at it. So I will be contacting Verizon. I suggest that everyone do the same & be sure to cc Fox News.
FOX is not upstanding, nor does it retract, nor does it ever apologize. It's right wing pablum; always has been, always will be.
Never try to teach a social conservative to think. It just frustrates you and annoys the social conservative.
From the Fox article:
"Here is an example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for Franken. Voters are supposed to fill in the small oval next to a candidate’s name to vote for that candidate. The board explains its decision as there being "No Dup" (presumably meaning that there was no duplicate ballot), but it is not clear how that would switch what looks like an obvious Coleman vote to a Franken vote."
John Lott got his Ph.D. in 1984, and is still trying to get tenure somewhere.
LOSER!
Here is a picture of John Lott. Would you trust this man with a gun, or near your children?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
@Mark Grebner: Lott is clearly worse than the rest.
For those who don't know, Mark's own famous bumper sticker/campaign slogan in his elections as a county commissioner is "Vote for Grebner: No Worse than the Rest."
Lott's piece is outrageous. Kudos to Nate for pointing out his error. Please comment on John Lott's Blog!
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
Fox and Lott won't back down. They are "fair and balanced." Since everyone else posts the truth, in order to be "fair and balanced" they post the lies.
Sorry, but I meant to provide a link to Mark Grebner on Wikipedia.
Jake,
How could you tell from the spreadsheet those challenges were withdrawn?
As I posted in another thread, most of the supposed inconsistencies are in fact consistent. Lott didn't look at the entire ballot.
For example, he complains that an "X" through an oval was counted for Franken, but not Coleman. But only in the Franken case, there were other races that also has Xs through ovals. The board consistently said those were votes.
fox is being fox. but good work nate in finding this. if nothing else fox can amuse.
what really bothers me is now that i have finally somewhat figured out challenges (withdrawn, reinstalled, rewithdrawn), rejected absentee ballots, the MN supreme court ruling, the coleman petitions, the duplicates, the lingo-
THE DARN RECOUNT IS NEARING ITS END!*
*but i also have figured out that as yogi would say "it aint over til its over"
this MN flying spaghetti monster still has some fight in it
Fox News continues to dominate the ratings game... This is from Friday's Ratings:
Primetime:
FNC: 445
CNN: 287
MSNBC: 241
HLN: 437
The good news for the FOX haters, finally CNN and MSNBC have combined more viewers than the most powerful name in news... FOX.
Want to talk biased, I'll gladly rip apart the bums over at MSNBC.
Shouldn't those Friday night viewers be out getting drunk or something?
Miraculously, the FReeptards haven't jumped all over this stellar piece of journalism from FOX as proof that Franken is swiping this thing.
Speaking of FReeptards, here's a couple of choice comments on Cheney being polled as the worst VP in history:
by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "Give me liberty or give me a government check!")
I wish he’d have been President. We’d be in much better shape now.
by popman
I watched Fox news interview last night with Disk Cheney.
To think we are trading a mans man, gentleman, statesman, patriot, straight shooter, defender of America for an ass clown like Biden is simply mind boggling.
I wish he would have run for POTUS instead of that POS McCain.
WOW!!!!!
And those were among the first half-dozen comments. If you have the stomach, you should check out the hatred directed at Obama for saluting HIS (soon to be) troops after emerging from a morning workout. The amount of misinformation and bile inside these fuckwits is astounding. Like I said, you should check it out to get an idea of just how insane these wingnuts are. Seriously, they're like a bunch of friggin jihadists.
Lott's work on guns was incompetent, but his analysis of the Florida 2000 vote was worse.
Have not been here in a while but it seems very little has changed. Any new polls out for 2012
To think we are trading a mans man, gentleman, statesman, patriot, straight shooter, defender of America for an ass clown like Biden is simply mind boggling.
And yet this moron doesn't see the irony in that he calls Cheney a "straight shooter" despite accidentally shooting his friend in the face while out hunting quail-tards.
Those 'freeptards' should be a great comfort to you porridgegoon, there are actually people dumber than you on this planet- be happy about it!
In addition to commenting on Lott's blog about this (which is a good idea), how about also telling the Tribune to fix their online database and remove the typo that caused this whole mess. Until that happens the right wing commentators will continue to point to that one typo as evidence of widespread fraud.
Does anyone know why African American voters in Indiana suported Kerry by a larger margin than Obama. The overall margin in Indiana changed by 22% since 2004 in the democrat's favor. This is based on cnn exit polls.
@holy crapo
Please tell me you're a Democrat. It'd make it more interesting than if you were a libertarian or a Republican.
Fox News continues to dominate the ratings game... This is from Friday's Ratings:
Primetime:
FNC: 445
CNN: 287
MSNBC: 241
HLN: 437
The good news for the FOX haters, finally CNN and MSNBC have combined more viewers than the most powerful name in news... FOX.
Want to talk biased, I'll gladly rip apart the bums over at MSNBC.
December 22, 2008 7:41 PM'
------------------------------------
If we are to believe that everyone in the news business is liberally bias and fox is the only station that isn't then the numbers are understandable. Liberals have more options to watch the news from a variety of different stations and see their point of view whereas conservatives have only one option which is fox. So If all conservatives go to one sources and liberals are divided on the sources they choose that is how you get a skewed number for fox. Similar to Lincoln winning the election with 39% of the popular vote because democrats split their vote between several candidates. However, if they had consolidated their vote they would have won.
Does anyone know why African American voters in Indiana suported Kerry by a larger margin than Obama. The overall margin in Indiana changed by 22% since 2004 in the democrat's favor. This is based on cnn exit polls.
AA's in Indiana could be a small sample size, so it's volatile. I highly doubt that's true despite what the exit polls say.
Does anyone know why African American voters in Indiana suported Kerry by a larger margin than Obama. The overall margin in Indiana changed by 22% since 2004 in the democrat's favor. This is based on cnn exit polls.
------------------------------
I take it you read it wrong or there was a mistake with their polling data.
I watched Fox news interview last night with Disk Cheney.
To think we are trading a mans man, gentleman, statesman, patriot, straight shooter, defender of America for an ass clown like Biden is simply mind boggling.
I wish he would have run for POTUS instead of that POS McCain.
---------------------------------
Dick Cheney?? The original chicken hawk who received, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six deferments to avoid service in the Vietnam War? That is a man's man?
Ralph Nader cost Obama the state of Missouri
Obama: 1,441,911
McCain: 1,445,814
MARGIN: 3903
Nader: 17,813
Barr: 11,386
If this was a close election McCain could have won thanks to Nader since Nader took more votes from Obama than barr did from McCain.
NOBODY has talked about this?
Anyone know how likely Nader is to run in 2012?
Let me tell a personal story about online database errors that's also relevant to Nate Silver's original biz. In 2004 I was in one of MLB.com's fantasy-baseball leagues, hosted that year by TSN if I recall. In August I noticed small undercounts in innings-pitched totals for several teams in my league. My back-of-the-envelope calculations made me pretty sure that what was happening was IP totals displayed as (e.g.) "2.3" for 2-1/3 innings or 0.7 for 2/3 of an inning were being added up as decimals. What got me excited was that this could be a simple case of Benford's Law, one which might be easier to explain intuitively than ones in that reference. I've actually never gone and combed thru a season's worth of game-by-game totals to see if I'm right, but here's the intuition: The opportunity for a manager to take a picture out after X-and-1/3 innings always precedes the opportunity to take em out after X-and-2/3 innings, for any whole-number value of X. The guy allowed to pitch X-2/3 had to survive a time when the manager thought about lifting him after X-1/3, which the guy lifted after X-1/3 didn't have to do, so the "X-2/3" event is a-priori less probable. (Mind you, this may also be obscured by the systematic factor of pitchers starting and finishing whole innings.)
I wrote with this to MB/TSN support, and got back the reply that it was a "display bug". Now I didn't believe that, because my calculations looked pretty consistent. My first thought was to pursue it---and if I was thoroughly right, wouldn't it make a glorious 2 minute spot on NPR Science Friday! But then came my second thought: even if I was right, behind the curtain was not glittering MLB.COM but probably some twentysomething kids working 10-hour days who took a shortcut. I've taught many hundreds of such kids---and even though a few of them have really long Wikipedia pages now, what I wrote above still applies! Even if I got a free World Series trip for my family out of it, we'd have been too busy to go. So I just dropped it...
...which means to say, I certainly didn't get the story plastered on the Fox front page!
I tried to post a comment on Lott's blog about the error's in his article and surprise surprise, he chose to not approve the comment.
The single mistaken ballot discussion was corrected on my website before your post. Fox News has also corrected the mistake.
Oh my! John Lott corrected his mistake! You better delete this article, Nate!
Fuck you, John. Get the fuck outta here.
John,
When are you going to correct the other errors:
1) You didn't evaluate the ballots in their full context.
2) You have other examples in which you claim Franken won a vote he did not win.
3) 270 additional votes were not gained by Franken by canvassing board decisions
4) The only commonality between the 171 and 133 votes decisions was not that the outcome benefited Franken.
If we are to believe that everyone in the news business is liberally bias and fox is the only station that isn't then the numbers are understandable. Liberals have more options to watch the news from a variety of different stations and see their point of view whereas conservatives have only one option which is fox. So If all conservatives go to one sources and liberals are divided on the sources they choose that is how you get a skewed number for fox.
Exactly, and that's even if you accept the garbage being spewed by the likes of Brent Bozell that there's a "librul media". Progressives certainly don't, that's why they avoid 80% of cable news and instead rely on alternative sources for the news. Wingnuts, I think it's safe ton say, get their information from the FOX Propaganda Network and the Hillbilly Heroin Addict.
Soooo Lott and Fox corrected their error. Nate had posted a screen capture of the original above, for anyone who wants to compare.
wv: impresto (presto chango, "Dr" Lott)
John Lott -- or maybe one of his webdoppelgangers like Mary Rosh or A Reader has responded. The guy is still a complete hack and right wing sycophant, pretending to be an academic. Sadly, he has his Ph.D. from the alma mater of my bachelor's degree.
Google him but don't look at the Wikipedia article, which he probably had a "friend" write. He apparently likes to have his "friends" and family -- including his wife and minor sons -- write about him and puff him up. A narcissistic egomaniac of the first order. A real loser. Now apparently plying his lies, er I mean trade, at a second leven educational institution. Maybe he can get a job replacing Zogby as a pollster. Or become John Ziegler's pollster and analyst.
AA's in Indiana could be a small sample size, so it's volatile. I highly doubt that's true despite what the exit polls say.
The margins of error I caculated for 2004 and 2008 were 3.7 and 2.3 respectivly. Since the poll showed a 4% difference, the combined margins could give Obama a 2% gain. But this still seems low. My math could be wrong because its been a while since I took stats.
e3323 said...
Ralph Nader cost Obama the state of Missouri
Obama: 1,441,911
McCain: 1,445,814
MARGIN: 3903
Nader: 17,813
Barr: 11,386
If this was a close election McCain could have won thanks to Nader since Nader took more votes from Obama than barr did from McCain.
NOBODY has talked about this?
Anyone know how likely Nader is to run in 2012?
An absolute certainty. Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom literally hours after he won the presidency, on FOX News, no less.
I can't believe Nader got more votes than Barr. You're right, this should be picked up by the liberal blogs. Obama won every battleground state he was seriously contesting, with the exception of Missouri, and perhaps Montana.
BTW, I have no problem with Ralph Nader being on the ballot and taking votes from Dems, and he certainly wasn't responsible for Bush getting into the White House. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman (who was likely in on it) are to blame for not fighting the coup that took place in 2000. But Nader has become increasingly unhinged and delusional in recent years. He still actually believes there would have been NO difference between a Gore and Bush presidency.
John Lott hasn't "corrected" his blog article. I just read it. It's the same article with a vague link saying that article has been "updated" or "corrected" ...I forget which. The link doesn't mention that the original premise of the article is completely false. In the same amount of time that it took to post the link, Mr. Lott could have easily have added a simple sentence at the top of his blog stating that the "mistake" with the ballot was merely a typo made by the newspaper. He did not. Meanwhile, crazed conservatives continue to leave comments on his blog, confirmed in their belief that -- among other things -- Franken is slime, Franken is a liar, the United States is turning into the U.S.S.R., the Democrats are facist dictators, and that the evil DNC controls the world, etc, etc...
I had never heard of Mr. Lott before tonight, but I just looked him up on Wikipedia. As another commentarer has mentioned, he has already been found guilty of falsifying two academic studies, and of writing comments under fake names in order to praise his own blogging/writing. Ick.
I left a comment on his blog, but somehow, I doubt that he'll approve it...
Okay, Lott has now actually legitimately corrected his blog... and is currently getting in fights in the comment section... Good times; write to him now, and he'll either delete your comment, or reply to it personally with his unique brand of arrogant defensiveness.
wv: cones. Cones is actually a word. There's nothing funny about that.
@ John Lott: ...mistaken ballot discussion was corrected on my website...Fox News has also corrected the mistake.
Nate Silver/538: 1*
John Lott/Fox: 0
*actually more like 9274, but that would just be running up the score.
*
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN LOTT!!
oliver said...
Good times; write to him now, and he'll either delete your comment, or reply to it personally with his unique brand of arrogant defensiveness.
Sounds like the freaks at "Talk Left"
@PorridgeGun: I was thinking maybe Nader wouldnt run because he would be 78 in 2012. He might not be up to making a presidential run (even as a 3rd party candidate). Or he could....you know...die.
Ether way Nader running in 2008 really was GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN! M I RITE?
It really sucks because Nader ruined the Missouri bellwether. :(
Regarding this reply by Lott, let me testify that when I read his first piece last Friday, I skipped over the first ballot as my eye was caught by sequences of 3-4 in a row where he quoted the CB as saying the ballot was "clearly for Franken" and "clearly for Coleman", with the quoted words being links to the ballots on the STrib site. Indeed this is corroborated by David Brauer's original item, which is what led me to Lott's item in the first place. Currently the page has "for no one" or "clearly for no one" in most of those places, with no two-in-a-row of "clearly for Franken" as Brauer wrote. (Counting the "dupe" ballot which I skipped, the sequence is currently "clearly for Franken", "clearly for no one", "for no one", "clearly for Franken", "for no one" four times, "for Coleman", and "here" (also Coleman).
I recall clearly that I was able to verify that at least 3 of those ballots---ones which were not with 2 ovals filled---were for no-one and could not have been ruled votes for the other guy, by () viewing the ballot itself to ascertain the nature of the challenge, and in at least 2 cases, also by some supplementary information. In one of those cases, I recall the "X" was already under "Other/no one" on the STrib site. What I do not recall is whether the other case was the same, or whether I looked in the SoS spreadsheet to find the ballot. The Franken sheet of resolved challenges was already available---indeed I had been commenting on it here---and St. Louis County Duluth P-32 challenge 2F is in it, ruled "NO ONE/INTENT".
What was certainly on my mind was shock that a fellow tenured professor at a peer institution had simply not checked his work, and had not gotten informed about things like identifying marks. Those phrases where the body of the short and pointed comment I submitted in his moderated blog item, where it does not appear. It is an inversion of common sense that people in my line can blast self-styled original findings on blogs without even their own review, while we're supposed to submit our findings in papers for peer review. The rest of my comment was a call for an apology and a clearly highlighted amendment. Silently editing pages with neither a revisioning history indicated nor time-noted updates does not qualify.
Commenter "just_looking" made a note of more mistakes here, logged at 5:08pm CST which is even before Nate's post. He also reached the conclusion, "I just took a closer look at Lott's ballots and found Lott didn't look at the entire ballot."
My point is, there were many more mistakes, so that Dr. Lott's comment above, and "corrections" on his site that are not true rectifications, are disingenuous.
To clarify my "picture" (I meant "pitcher") above, exactly what I believe I saw happening was MLB/TSN adding up your team's IP totals for each day, which were displayed as numbers like "8.0" or "2.3" or "12.7", to get the season's totals, counting against a year-long limit on innings you could pitch. Since you could drop/add and bench pitchers, they couldn't just add the pitchers' official season totals, so they were working with their own derived stat---which is why and where I think the fudge took place. Since usually you'd just have 1-3 pitchers appear on a given day, the (hypothesized---I didn't prove any of this) preponderance of "X.3" over "X.7" in individual appearances would carry over to the daily sums. Over months, the 0.033 errors maintained in decimal notation could accumulate enough to drop 1/3 or 2/3 off the season-to-date total, which is what I observed.
And to answer this request in the other thread, to link other comments (and etc.) you right-click the log date, "Copy link location" (or similar), and then type <-a h-r-e-f = "[paste link]"->words<-/-a->, deleting my hyphens. (They're there so Blogger won't treat this as an attempted link.)
Ralph Nader is a COMPLETE joke.
Check out this clip of Triumph the Insult Comic Dawg bitch slapping him.
http://snipurl.com/90sla
You can't even tell John Lott corrected the article on his blog; he just blandly references the "error" made by the Star Tribune (while continuing to include an image of the ballot in question along with a link to the erroneous Strib page).
This isn't about academic interest or the pursuit of truth for Mr. Lott, only cheering for his "team." He embodies all that is wrong with American political discourse.
@Robby - Worse. Lott is a right wing hack who uses phony data to push his right wingnut agenda. He usually uses (or makes up) questionable statistics. Which is his field.
A real pro. He makes it up and it's his proof. And, of course, even though he's no longer academically respectable, Fox "News" gives him a figurative blow job on its site.
He's probably following along here and whacking himself off. Much like Ziegler did. Another attention whore.
He'll probably make the Fox "News" rounds next. Sean Inanity. The Spin Zone. And he'll go on the radio with Rush Slackjaw. Yet another right wingnut job who can convince his fellow wingnuts that the election was stolen from them.
At my university, if I made up data, I could get in a bit of trouble. Tenured and everything, you would still be in a shit tonne of trouble.... I'm just saying..
@Dave Brodbeck
He wrote a book a decade ago about guns and their availability stopping crime. And cited to an amazing study that his critics have claimed was made up. (The statustics were the amazing part and they supposedly showed that in most cases -- 98%??? -- merely displaying a gun was enough to deter a crime.)
When asked to show that the study was legit, he claimed the digital equivalent of the dog eating one's homework. His hard drive had crashed. And he couldn't remember who worked with him on the study. Right. Sure. You betcha.
For several years he had teaching jobs at some prestigious schools. Nowadays he's a "researcher" and at a less prestigious school. What does that say?
He also puffed his own book on Amazon using pseudonyms, and elsewhere in discussion groups. He didn't know enough about the Internet to realize that he was leaving IP address tracks everywhere. One of the pseduonyms he used was Mary Rosh, which is the first two initials of each of his four sons. So he got caught and exposed publicly.
To try to give his story that his wife or minor son were posting on his computer as "Mary Rosh" rather than him, he has put out his most recent fairy tale on Fox by using one of his sons as a co-author.
The guy is a shameless charlatan.
@STepper that would get me fired, and I am a tenured professor.
Nadir (deliberate spelling) was my hero back in the day. I worked for his CAL-PIRG organization when I was in the Cal State University system in the 70's.
In 2000, I learned much about him that was troubling. The awful way he treated his employees and supposed best friends. (Union busting in his own organization). The cooking of the books in his own organization. This, all, from very reputable sources. Very disappointing. And telling. And sad.
Lott's sockpuppets have done repeated whitewashes of his Wikipedia entry. Commenters here might want to make some corrections.
Dave Brodbeck wrote
that would get me fired, and I am a tenured professor.
That would get anybody fired. Except at Fox "News" it gets you attention if it's for a good "cause" -- the right wingnuts.
Not to mention, Nadir's promise in 2000 not to campaign in the battleground states, and then doing EXACTLY that.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE what he proposes. It just that he doesn't walk the talk, he's, unfortunately, a hypocrite like so many others.
Just as Nate exposed John Ziegler for the fraud he is, Nate has now exposed Lott for being the same thing. But with a veneer of education.
As far as cleaning up Lott's entries on Wikipedia, he can probably revise faster than we can correct. And Wikipedia won't blink an eye. But it's worth a try.
Amazon hasn't completely cleaned up his self-congratulatory blow jobs to himself on its website, although it did shitcan the Mary Rosh sockpuppet. He simply posts now anonymously or through a group of right wingnut surrogates. He's got a lot of fans out there who don't care about the truth. All they care about is the right wingnut movement.
To KWRegan (and others),
John Lott is not a "fellow tenured professor." He is a "Visiting Senior Research Scientist." Usually a "research scientist" is a soft money research position. In this case, as the appointment is visiting, it may just be a courtesy title without salary. Not really sure, but it's not a professorial position and it's certainly not a tenured professorial position.
Possibly the saddest thing about this disgusting Lott fraud is that by using his son as his co-author (in order to hide behind his son's diapers as it were), Lott is damaging his son's future. In much the same way the toothless moron has ruined the life of the son he named "Adolf Hitler Campbell."
Stupid, feckless parents who care only about themselves. Despicable.
In much the same way the toothless moron has ruined the life of the son he named "Adolf Hitler Campbell."
Oh, his life's not TOTALLY ruined - at least he can still get a personalized birthday cake at Wal-Mart.
Thanks, Mark---I stand corrected: I thought that the "senior" on his Wikipedia page implied tenure (from somewhere). The designation is strictly non-tenure-track, as understood on pages from mine and several other universities.
little Adolf will be damaged not only by his name [which he can change latter] but also his parents have him looking like a little girl so he will probably have many issues to deal with...
how many people have already said, "what a cute little girl" to him I wonder
Yay Fox!
W.V. hugly: what all Fox News commentators are. :-)
On a slightly different note, apparently some republicans (emails I get forwarded by relatives) are claiming McCain really won the election because McCain's voters, in aggregate, own a couple times more land than Obama's , as well as a much higher rate of Obama's voters living in government tenements than McCain's. So, while they are calling Obama's election the beginning of the end for American democracy, they are also advocating the disenfranchisement of tenement dwellers, and anybody that pays rent. And if that wasn't enough, in the midst of all the figures (murder rates in counties won by dems vs. repubs etc.) they pass of the fact that McCain won 30 states to Obama's 20. Incredible.
I think the dictionary entree for "deluded" should be: "Far-right wingnuts after legitimately losing an election."
I have to say, it is kind of amazing how many people eat it all up.
w.v. "dweli" <-- One of those government tenements from which apparently came 75% of Obama's votes.
Obama's election the beginning of the end for American democracy, they are also advocating the disenfranchisement of tenement dwellers, and anybody that pays rent.
They could always try to amend the Constitution to make these people's vote only count for 3/5th of a person.
What?
WV: "eliste"- a dyslexic elitist
IAN
well your GOPer emails are off on many levels, but the worst is the claim that McCain won 30 states...
he carried only 22 states [including MO by a whisker]
Obama won 28 + DC
funny math & trickle down econ & delusional analysts like Lott et al
DCM in FL
Actually, it's 28.3 (or some other ridiculous fraction), because Obama won NE-02.
Dear ones,(“ tomorrow people”, according with Bob Marley )
Here I am to say a simple thing:
Feliz Navidad,
Bonne Noel,
Buon Natale,
I wish you all a merry Christmas,
to pass in happiness with your family and your loved ones!
Greeting from Italy,
Ciao.
:)
wv:new.year.and.Obama.are.coming...
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up, but what's the deal with John Lott's eyebrows?
He kinda looks like David Ferrie!
http://snipurl.com/90y16
ROBBY
that's true about NE
boy, Nate got props again on Countdown tonight
I think the dictionary entree for "deluded" should be: "Far-right wingnuts after legitimately losing an election."
Yeah, pretty amazing; apparently they don't know that we have a secret ballot even though they theoretically participated in it. I bet the person who originated the "McCain voters own more land" based it solely on the fact that more of the map is red.
(Not to mention that the whole thing is racist claptrap, but that hardly stands out in Republican rhetoric these days.)
No, thats not true about NE-02.Omaha is not a state. Nebraska is, and McCain won Nebraska by a clear margin. Otherwise we had to split up EVERY state by congressional district...
My first exposure to Lott was when I heard him speak -- er, quack -- at my law school a few years back (sponsored by The "Federalist" Society, of course). Not one faculty member showed up. After the first couple minutes, I fully understood why. He spewed fallacy after delusion after absurd historical revision, and seemed utterly convinced that his (fake) "research" proves all of it. The man needs help.
Eugenian said...
since you saw him up close (in a lecture hall), what was the deal with his eyebrows?
Are they some kind of skin graphs/hair transplant?
Nothing ridiculous. Obama won 28.2 states and DC. He won one of the five Nebraska electoral votes.
Over at swingstateproject.com they're working on dividing the vote up by congressional district. Obama's electoral vote lead under Nebraska/Maine allocation rules is currently 171-135. They have McCain winning Florida (where the required info is available early) by a count of 15-12. The closest district computed so far is NV-02 where McCain has 88 more votes out of 344,129 votes cast. The most lopsided is WA-07 where Obama has 253,026 more votes. MT-AL has by far the highest vote total at 491,092.
I am curious here of how the votes by which the Board is deciding to classify various contested ballots -- Are they 5-0 assignment (everybody agrees) or do they include a large number of splits where some Board members (presumably Democrats) vote to assign a vote to Franken (or throw out a Coleman vote) while there other members (Republicans on the Board) clearly want to award to Coleman. Are we getting a lot of discussion around votes when there are "issues" or is the Board pretty much disposing of challenges in a smooth, concensual fashion?
All-time low for Fox? Matt Drudge didn't pick up the story. When has that happened to a trash right-wing provocation piece?
Wow. Fox News is even more pathetic than I thought. As journalists shouldn't they get their own sources, especially before running a front page story on it? Just going with what the Star Tribune said is remarkably lazy and unprofessional. Obviously they're just looking for whatever agrees with their biases.
Step 1: Accuse Democrats of shady tactics.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
wv: deddyar. How I feel after reading conservative rantings.
You deranged libs are pathetic. John Lott's dog has more intelligence than most of you - but when it comes to getting a bitter clown into office, you're smart enough to cheat your way to victory!
Perusing this comment list is like watching gang members tagging up on the side of a house - senseless bravado colored by one-eyed devotion. The only solace is that most of you are too stupid to vote!
A clown leading the clowns. LOL!!!
"Shane" - formerly known as Mary Rosh
Judging by the overwhelmingly liberal, and as usual, name-calling comments here, I'm quite sure the poster is completely accurate and without bias....not.
When John Lott's credentials are disputed with such things as "he's still trying to find tenure" and "idiot," it's clear that there's little credibility here.
If you want to dispute, do it with facts. Oh, I forgot...you're liberals.
http://poorrepublican.today.com/
Nate, I'm going to write a fairly long comment about John Lott, with a serious suggestion that I hope you will give some thought to.
In 2003, his book The Bias Against Guns was published. Among other things, Lott claimed that there are 2 million cases of "defensive gun use" per year. This would suggest that, each year, 1% of the adult population brandishes a firearm to keep from being a crime victim.
Now, let's take that to the city level, and to get reasonably pure numbers let's use a city that has no restrictions on gun ownership, like Houston, Texas. Houston's city population is about 2 million, with 1.5 million being adults. There are another 2.6 million people in the metro area outside the city, with 2 million being adults.
According to Lott's numbers, there should have been 15,000 defensive gun uses in Houston last year, and another 20,000 in the metro area outside of the city. That would be 41 per day in the city, and 54 per day outside the city.
Now, it'd be reasonable to assume variation in the defensive gun use rate. Higher in areas with high crime and higher social acceptability of gun ownership, for example. You'd figure that the numbers would be higher in Texas in general, given that its crime rate is much higher than in say, North Dakota.
You'd also figure that the rate would probably be somewhat higher within the city of Houston than in its outlying areas, although I'm not all that familiar with the Houston area so maybe that's wrong. In any case, there should be at least 100 defensive uses of guns per day in Houston, and probably a lot more than that to balance off safe and peaceful cities like, say, Lake Forest, Illinois or Newton, Massachusetts.
In Texas, the defensive use of a gun ought to be an occasion for at least a minor celebration. That's a place where people love to hear about the 80-year-old lady who pointed her .45 at the robber and scared him away. Even if you figure that some cases might never get reported, wouldn't you think that a rate of 100-plus defensive gun uses in the Houston area would leave a paper trail in police reports and news stories?
I bring all this up because John Lott is cited as a statistician. The right wingers promote his pro-gun propaganda all the time. But anyone with common sense can see that it's laughable, and that in fact John Lott simple made up his numbers on guns, which is what gave him his "credentials" as a statistician to begin with.
So, my suggestion is this, Nate: Now that the election is over, devote some time to examining John Lott's pseudo-scholarship on guns. It has been pretty influential, and in my opinion it is as phony as phony gets.
Lott's pseduo-scholarship has been challenged elsewhere, but Nate, I think you just might have the credentials to deliver the coup de grace on this lying phony.
It goes without saying that Mary Rosh (aka echonewb) is in full agreement with Lott's assessment.
@echonewb and Shane,
Can you provide us with some more insight about why you think any of Lott's claims are true? As many people have posted and as far as I've seen when you look at each ballot that Lott presented you can see that the CB rulings were well thought out and consistent. In fact, Lott's chief piece of evidence was withdrawn... by Lott himself!! I'm afraid I don't see anything there except a poorly researched partisan article that was designed not to get at the truth but to attempt to discredit the CB. I must admit, I don't like the name calling from the Franken side but on the other hand, I do understand the feelings of anger that arise when lies like Lott's are published as news.
John Lott isn't a scholar. I understand that the U of Chicago hasn't granted tenure. I think they should go further and investigate his "research" with an eye toward complete disassociation with him and his fraud. The "defensive gun use" claims have formed the basis for Lott's claim to be a scholar, but those claims are utterly preposterous. I really think that he could be demolished, once and for all, by a thorough inquiry by someone whose statistical expertise is broadly recognized.
So, Nate, that is your mission, should you choose to accept it ...
There are numerous mistakes in Silver's post. See here:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/12/angry-commentators-get-discussion-of.html
Let me summarize Lott's new blog post's comments on Nate:
1. "Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight claims in the title of his post that my piece 'blames liberal conspiracy.' My piece didn't mention the words 'liberal' or 'conspiracy' (nor did it say that Democrats or Franken were involved in some secret conspiracy or use any similar synonyms).
Wow, Nate wasn't quoting Lott with "liberal conspiracy", he was synthesizing Lott's argument. Allow me to provide support for Nate's impression of Lott's piece:
The post's title from johnrlott.blogspot.com: "New Op-ed piece at Fox News: The Minnesota Recount Bias" (emph mine)
Discussion of treatment of blocks of votes: "The only commonality in these two decisions was that the outcome benefited Franken. When the recount is in Franken’s favor that is used. When the original machine tally works best that is used."
To claim bias in the title of the piece, and then to say that the process is one where decisions are always made to benefit Franklin is to claim that there is intentional bias in Franken's flavor. To back off from that is just the weakest cop-out.
2. "Nor did I say that people had made mistakes intentionally (unlike Nate, I don't claim to know what is going on in people's minds)."
See above; Lott clearly claimed the bias was intentional.
(And as to the snide parenthetical, Nate only said "this possibility appears not to have crossed Lott's mind." Nate in no way claimed to know what was going on in Lott's mind, he merely made a guess based on facts in evidence. The word "appears" makes it clear that Nate does not claim his guess to be fact.)
3. "Instead, he focuses on the fact that the Star Tribune data base made a mistake in classifying one of the ballots ... he also incorrectly implied that I hadn't double checked that number, but he didn't make any telephone calls or check this point either."
Wow, I can't believe Lott is going to bring this back up - you'd think he'd be too embarrassed.
Okay, I see three possibilities:
a. Lott didn't double-check the Star Tribune
b. Lott did double-check the Star Tribune, but did a poor job of it and failed to catch the S.T.'s obvious mistake
c. Lott did double-check, and caught the mistake, but knowingly and fraudulently posted the "problem" ballot anyway
I would consider alternative a. to be MUCH less embarrassing to Lott than b. or c.; I can't believe he's disputing Nate's claim. Since he openly says that Nate is wrong, I'd LOVE to hear which is correct -- b or c.
4. "He obviously misstates what I wrote and uses terms such as conspiracy to inflame readers. "
As mentioned above, Nate accurately synthesized what Lott wrote. I can't believe Lott's backpedaling from it now. I'd love to see the follow-up piece posted on Fox news: "Lott clarifies 'No liberal conspiracy, just a few mistakes in ballot tabulation. Move along, nothing to see here.'"
Hi Everyone,
I think I actually found one ballot that Lott may have been correct about. That was hard work!! It is a single oval/X in the Senate race. No other race has an oval/X in it. The CB has ruled consistently that these ballots are votes for 'Other'. In this case it is listed as Franken (assuming STrib is accurate). I'd be interested to hear your take on this.
Should not be Franken Vote
Of course, here are 3 of the same types of ballots that were ruled Other, so the charge of bias is totally bogus, but there may have been one inconsistency, maybe Al should really be up by 45 now.
OvalX Franken only 1
OvalX Franken only 2
OvalX Franken only 3
This is interesting, another site that has the bogus claim that the Coleman ballot went to Franken. Dated 12/26.
Lies Propogate
I met John Lott about 20 years ago. Even then he was well-known to be a charlatan. But I have to say he does a really nice tap dance whenever you try to pin him down on his crappy methodology.
He's obnoxious, dishonest, and a crummy econometrician, and everybody in economics knew it even back then. The only way I can account for his job history -- the astounding fact that he has usually had a job -- is that he's backed by hard-core Olin or Scaife money that makes him a net bargain to the institution willing to tolerate him.
And he's revealed himself to me to be a complete joke on his blog. I wrote no fewer than four cordial yet probing comments in response to his various recount blogs, and he refused to post any of my comments. (Note: the tone of those comments was much more even-handed and open-minded than my comment here on Nate's post about Lott).
Now, days later, he writes "Comments are closed" on those same blog posts.
He must, at this point, realize that he was completely wrong in his understanding of the rules used by the canvassing board when determining whether a ballot should count.
I must say that I'm extremely pissed that this sloppy "expert" got so much play in the mainstream media. The fact that he refuses to retract his mistakes amounts to libel of the Minnesota canvassing board, and it just serves to poison public opinion on the validity of the recount. Unfortunately, even though Lott was wrong, he was loud enough to convince people that fraud is being perpetuated.
There are already enough real issues out there for reasonable people to disagree on -- we absolutely do not need Lott's mistakes to contribute to the divisiveness of our political process. I can do nothing other than continue to hope that Lott will take his lumps and fix his errors.
I also tried to post a couple of comments on his blog. Heck, I even pointed out one ballot that I thought he got right, so you'd think he'd want to publish that comment. Evidently he's more interested in creating propoganda than an honest discussion of the facts. The man has no integrity.
Wow...This website went from being a "statistical inference" site to a "DailyKos Jr." site in about 3 months. Sad. Just another political hack. I wonder who Soros's folks paid off? Hmmm...
And...Chris...believe it or not, some of us Americans are not ideologues who vote one party ticket. I believe that there are good and bad in all political parties and therefore vote as such. Obviously, you come from one of those areas that keep voting Democrat - regardless of how corrupt the city is, a la Detroit, Wash DC, New Orleans and now Chicago. Nice.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成人網,免費視訊,微風成人區,尋夢聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,情色網,女優,AV女優,UT聊天室,自拍,豆豆聊天室,18成人,免費A片,做愛,成人貼圖,美女交友,視訊做愛,做愛,日本AV,080聊天室,本圖自拍,A片,免費A片,成人論壇,一夜情聊天室,情人,12星座情人,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment