Congratulations Dave. Just as I predicted you have successfully derailed this unfortunate thread. And just as I imagined it was through denial. But it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Dan. On Mon, March 23, 2015 5:11 am, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/22/2015 3:53 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: >> If you haven't realized that non-governmental committees to >> deal with harassment in their organizations have been greeted >> with quite a few false accusations of late then you PROBABLY >> aren't paying attention. >> >> Furthermore, if you haven't realized that when these committees >> dispense justice it sometimes violates due process and opens up >> those organizations to great risk then you are the focus of why this >> discussion is happening. > > >>From the Lisak study: > > "A recently published comprehensive review of studies and reports > on false rape allegations listed 20 sources whose estimates ranged from > 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, when the sources of these > estimates are examined carefully it is clear that only a fraction of the > reports represent credible studies and that these credible studies > indicate far less variability in false reporting rates." > > The 'of late' in your text was an interesting stylistic touch, adding a > sense of immediacy and a sense of growth in mis-reporting, neither of > which was supported by the citations you provided. > > Adding to Brian's counter to the interpretation you chose for the > citations: > > The citations refer to rape, not harassment. They are dramatically > different behaviors and occur in dramatically different contexts. > > Attempting to apply statistics about one to the other is grossly > inappropriate methodology. > > The first citation's own study has a number of unfortunate > assumptions, such as: > > "its police agency is not inundated with serious felony cases > and, therefore, has the freedom and the motivation to record and > thoroughly pursue all rape complaints." > > The presumption that the agency has motivation, given that it has > freedom, is without basis. > > "investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious > offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects." > > I wonder how intimidating this 'offer' is likely to be, for a victim, > serving to alter their choice of making an accusation? > > The list of biasing factors in that study goes on. Yet it still > produces a result that 95% of rape claims in that small mid-western town > were valid. 95 fucking percent. > > Then, of course there are quite a few counter-citations available from a > simple web search on false felony charges, such as: > > http://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297 > > (It is almost interesting that searching for items on false accusations > seems to produce google results only concerning rape and no other pages > or articles on statistics for other kinds of false felony accusations. I > was looking for a baseline, so that a statistic on false rape > accusations could be compared against reports on other kinds of false > felony accusations. The rate of 1, 5 or 10% might be higher than for > other crimes, or lower.) > > > Besides the problems with the meager citations you offered -- while > ignoring material against your claim -- all of this, as others have > noted, is secondary to the irrelevance of your original posting, to the > discussion at hand. The proposed procedure includes assessment of > validity. (It's handling of that phase of processing could be written > more clearly, but that's a different discussion.) > > Equally unfortunate is your responding to criticism by making a direct > and vigorous ad hominem attack. That's against IETF rules, Dan. > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >