  ::::The LOTS association has been remarked on by several reliable (and unreliable) sources: ::::*http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html#more ::::*http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/21/last_of_the_confederates/ ::::*http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo91.html ::::*http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5246&R;=EBF7EA ::::*http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_4.pdf ::::*http://www.reason.com/news/show/36170.html ::::*http://www.reason.com/news/show/32253.html ::::*http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/01/31/3995/ ::::*http://atheism.about.com/b/a/143957.htm ::::It would be a disservice to the reader to exclude all mention of LOTS. Instead, there should be a a short mention of the matter, giving the subject's explanation as well as referring to the controversy that his limited involvement has generated.    