<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Warren Throckmorton&#8217;s Response To Paul Cameron</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:03:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phillips</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317/comment-page-1#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator>Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 06:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317#comment-119</guid>
		<description>ha, or maybe it should have posted this here. You really do persistent posts on this guy:

Everything people are complaining about was noted at some time in the report. This is what science is, or rather, what is should be. Work with the data you have, while noting any variables. The scientific method requires that studies be replicable. FRI has done this with gay obituaries in the U.S. and age distributions reported in sexuality studies from 1858 through 1993 (published in Omega, 1994), as well as 4 other lines of evidence published in Pyschological Reports, 1998 - 1) additional obituaries from the gay press, 2) findings from two national random-samle surveys, 3) the age distributions of registered homosexual couples in Scandanavia, and 4) the age distributions oh homosexuals and drug-abusers taking HIV tests in Colorado. As recent as &#039;02, FRI published another study in Psychological Reports using additional obituaries from the gay press and findings from two large, nationwide random sexuality surveys - both of which were consistent with a shortened lifespan (in one of these, the CDC study, the oldest woman who reported sex with a woman in the previous 12 months was 49 yr., the oldest man who reported sex with a man in the previous 12 months was 54 yr.) No one has produced any empiracle evidence to refute their conclusion, only complaints, and I predict no one will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ha, or maybe it should have posted this here. You really do persistent posts on this guy:</p>
<p>Everything people are complaining about was noted at some time in the report. This is what science is, or rather, what is should be. Work with the data you have, while noting any variables. The scientific method requires that studies be replicable. FRI has done this with gay obituaries in the U.S. and age distributions reported in sexuality studies from 1858 through 1993 (published in Omega, 1994), as well as 4 other lines of evidence published in Pyschological Reports, 1998 &#8211; 1) additional obituaries from the gay press, 2) findings from two national random-samle surveys, 3) the age distributions of registered homosexual couples in Scandanavia, and 4) the age distributions oh homosexuals and drug-abusers taking HIV tests in Colorado. As recent as &#8217;02, FRI published another study in Psychological Reports using additional obituaries from the gay press and findings from two large, nationwide random sexuality surveys &#8211; both of which were consistent with a shortened lifespan (in one of these, the CDC study, the oldest woman who reported sex with a woman in the previous 12 months was 49 yr., the oldest man who reported sex with a man in the previous 12 months was 54 yr.) No one has produced any empiracle evidence to refute their conclusion, only complaints, and I predict no one will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317/comment-page-1#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317#comment-118</guid>
		<description>There are so many flaws in the Cameron obituary analysis that it was impossible for them to construct a scientific study based on the criteria in selection they used. But worse, the amazing lack of information about even the simplest process in reporting an obituary for even a regular, mainstream newspaper seems to elude these charlatans. There is simply no academic excuse for such lame investigation.

It doesn&#039;t even matter if every &quot;gay&quot; newspaper had some means of publishing every obituary in the community. Because of the way laws are constructed and varied in various states in regards to funeral arrangements, reporting procedures vary for even the mainstream newspapers. In some places, ONLY the recognized relative is granted the legal authority to provide information to the funeral practioner, who is often the one doing the reporting via an obituary form at the funeral home. These forms are either processed through a computerized system to the newspaper or faxed. And that is only ONE method in which obituaries are reported to regular, COMMUNITY dailies which attempt to publish ALL of them.

The editing process for those obituaries rests with the newspaper staff person, but it is usually performed by the funeral practioner, rather than the reporter in some cases. In other newspapers, obits are taken by multiple persons - meaning there can be ten obits for the same person if friends/relatives are willing to pay for each submission.
Newspapers who take the obituaries as advertisements are more likely to name a same-sex partner - hell, most are likely to allow a sentence or two describing how much you loved your dog or your goldfish.

And that is only TWO methods of obituary gathering used in the community newspaper business - and these are the regular, &quot;mainstream&quot; newspapers, not even the gay press.

It is painfully obvious that the Camerons did not do enough initial background research into the use of obituaries in studies to even begin to create a controlled model to study.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are so many flaws in the Cameron obituary analysis that it was impossible for them to construct a scientific study based on the criteria in selection they used. But worse, the amazing lack of information about even the simplest process in reporting an obituary for even a regular, mainstream newspaper seems to elude these charlatans. There is simply no academic excuse for such lame investigation.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t even matter if every &#8220;gay&#8221; newspaper had some means of publishing every obituary in the community. Because of the way laws are constructed and varied in various states in regards to funeral arrangements, reporting procedures vary for even the mainstream newspapers. In some places, ONLY the recognized relative is granted the legal authority to provide information to the funeral practioner, who is often the one doing the reporting via an obituary form at the funeral home. These forms are either processed through a computerized system to the newspaper or faxed. And that is only ONE method in which obituaries are reported to regular, COMMUNITY dailies which attempt to publish ALL of them.</p>
<p>The editing process for those obituaries rests with the newspaper staff person, but it is usually performed by the funeral practioner, rather than the reporter in some cases. In other newspapers, obits are taken by multiple persons &#8211; meaning there can be ten obits for the same person if friends/relatives are willing to pay for each submission.<br />
Newspapers who take the obituaries as advertisements are more likely to name a same-sex partner &#8211; hell, most are likely to allow a sentence or two describing how much you loved your dog or your goldfish.</p>
<p>And that is only TWO methods of obituary gathering used in the community newspaper business &#8211; and these are the regular, &#8220;mainstream&#8221; newspapers, not even the gay press.</p>
<p>It is painfully obvious that the Camerons did not do enough initial background research into the use of obituaries in studies to even begin to create a controlled model to study.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynn David</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317/comment-page-1#comment-117</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/24/317#comment-117</guid>
		<description>To bad that peer review wasn&#039;t forthcoming before the Poster Session at EPsyA. Someone in that Association dropped the ball at just even a cursory look at the presenters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To bad that peer review wasn&#8217;t forthcoming before the Poster Session at EPsyA. Someone in that Association dropped the ball at just even a cursory look at the presenters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

