Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd2o2$8qk_003@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <L5CdnYoOFOhLa6XYRVnyrA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehabhc$8qk_003@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <z7ednZWcEbePHqvYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Not relevant, they are ingredient for the creation of CW. Breaking it
down
into the common elements is truly pointless and nothing but a
distraction.

This point is not irrelavent.

It is.

I am trying to get you to think with
more than ball-influenced brains.

No, you are trying to divert into a strawman - as usual. You claim to be
trying to make other people think yet you resolutely refuse to do so
yourself.

A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons. The
engineers next door are ones who figure out how to deliver it.
The biolgists across the hall figure out its efficacy.

Irrelevant.

You created a strawman - claiming I was trying to blame the US for
everything - and when challenged you say "I am not reading any of this."

Despite your claims of an open mind, willingness to learn etc., you really
do have your head buried in the ground.

You make multiple claims to justify your standpoint and ignore their
mutual
contradiction. In one post (the bits you snipped) you claim both the US
supported Iraq as a proxy in the Iran-Iraq war and that the US never
supported Iraq.

Amazing. I love your line of logic.

Feel free to snip and ignore everything you find difficult.

I know I do not write clear enough for all values of IQs. You
have the annoying habit of misreading what I write. I've figured
out that you do this on purpose.

You have demonstrated an almost complete inability to respond to my posts in
a meaningful manner - normally accusing me of things other people have said
or what you imagine I am thinking - and then you say "I" misread what "you"
write on purpose.

Amazing.

I actually go out of my way to try and comprehend your point of view. You
obviously choose not to show me the same courtesy and, when your standpoint
becomes untenable, you fall back on accusing me of deliberate
misunderstanding.

Well done.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4o6$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


I'm not going to deal with this one.

So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?

 

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:19699$453974ae$49ecfc2$31364@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:


"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:3afe9$4538c549$49ecf72$25771@DIALUPUSA.NET...

T Wake wrote:

If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue
largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!

Proof, please.

Pay attention to what's happeing in the world right
now and read some non-western history.


A few wackos are attacking innocents. How exactly does that equate to
"Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing brothers"? You need
to learn to think critically, and not tar an entire society by the actions
of a few.

You cited half a million Iraqui dead.

How many were killed by the west, and how many by
your terribly mischaracterized "a few wackos?"

The fact is those "few wackos" tend to kill off a lot
of their own brothers whenever they strap on a
bomb vest and blow themselves up.

The discussions by the Mullahs have offered that killing
Muslims as part of the greater ideal of killing westerners
is perfectly acceptable. That's grown into it being OK
to kill your brothers if they're of a different sect.

Clearly your statement is a lie. Whether you know it
to be a lie, as you post it, is the only remaining
question.

Either all of history, or your rendition of an ideal
world, is a lie. I've my thoughts on the matter and
have no further need of yours.

Oh, goody, another "kill 'em all, because they all wanna kill you" enters
the fray.

The nice thing is that you're entitled to be as demented
as you wish to be.

As are you.

I forgot, your metric is all there is!

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:

T Wake wrote:


If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would

continue largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!


No it isn't.

This sort of denial is meaningless.


It's definitely as valid as your daft assertion !



I was used to
hearing it from very young school children who
didn't like the facts they were denying byt had
absolutely no grounds for argument.

It is obvious you have no knowledge of history.


Au contaire, my knowldege of history is very good.



Brother killing brother was not stopped by
conversion to Islam. It remains prevalent in
the culture.


OK then. Cite please.

google islam killing 8,370,000 hits (arguments both ways)

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd506$8qk_005@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <LKydnafehvClGavYRVnyrQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

These teachers should be fired.

They are if they don't preach the Bible, too.

If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If
Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be fired.

the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Only in the mind of fundamentalists.

You need to listen more.

Stop being so patronising and read what I wrote.

CSPAN aired some convention that
was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science
teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes,
kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution."

Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting
evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful
way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess.

Like I said, only in the mind of fundamentalists. If you spent less time
trying to be patronising and imagining half the conversation you would be
able to appreciate what I actually wrote.

Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. If someone reads that
as saying "I believe in evolution THEREFORE I cant believe in the Bible"
that is the fallacy.

I believe in Newtonian Gravity. It works fine. It explains why I am sitting
in my chair. I also believe in GR. It works fine. It explains why massive
objects distort the path of light.

Should be all start accepting alternative theories of gravitation so we can
ensure balance?

If the fundamentalists are so poorly educated that they can not understand
the terminology used in science (i.e. what laws and theories are apart from
anything else) then they really do have NO place in trying to determine what
is taught.

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd2gp$8qk_001@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Most net based discussions ignore the history of the region

Most do but not, generally, the ones I participate in.

Oh, look, now the crazy lady has a sycophant.

Eric Lucas

I have severe problems figuring out the culture differences.

Yes, you do. So why not listen to those who have an understanding of the
Middle Eastern Muslim cultures, and stop spouting this "they grew up on a
cuture of killing" crap?????

It is one thing that I know I probably will not be able to
do well. My visit to China taught me this. All I can do
is be aware that I have a problem putting myself within
that context. I haven't figured out another way to deal
with this problem I have. I rely on people bopping
me over the head I'm way off.

Sorry to say, hon, but we've been bopping you over the head because you've
been way off for quite a while, and I can tell you definitively, it doesn't
work.

Some people also seem to think they're equipped to enter
into discussions like this merely because they believe
they have a grasp of "how to discuss." The discussions
they provide end up being futile because they're arguing
by method and gut feel instead of by logic based on
well grounded facts.

No gut feel here, I'm attempting to discuss based on an understanding of
Middle Eastern Muslim cultures gleaned through conversations with actual,
real-life mainstream Muslims. What's your source?

I can deal logical discussions when they're not based on fact.
I have problems with people who take pride in the ability
to not learn on purpose.

You mean, like you? You seriously need to visit some of the mainstream
Muslims living in this country, and make a serious attempt to learn what
their culture is all about. Or are you afraid that your house of cards will
come tumbling down?

No, the rate will increase logrithmically.

And you still need to understand the difference between the phrases
"increase logarithmically" and "increase exponentially". Sounding stupid
really does take away from your message.

Actually, I just had an epiphany. Is this a Bushism? Did Bush (mis)use the
phrase "increase logarithmically" when he really meant "increase
exponentially"? It sounds a lot like a Bushism, and would explain your
inability to use the phrase correctly...you're just parroting another
Republican campaign soundbite, aren't you?

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4e0$8qk_001@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <8_CdnfSowYEpP6rYRVnygg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Yes, and you accept this is a necessary bad thing to keep yourself safe.
Part of the problem is Christianity has historically removed the "life"
from
groups that people were allowed to kill. Early followers of Jesus were
100%
pacifists, dying before killing another human.

No, they weren't.

Yes they were.

People thought that Jesus was David come again
and would lead an army to defeat the Romans.

They were the Jews. The ones who followed Jesus' teachings became the
Christians. These were the ones who refused to allow the Roman Emporer to be
a "God" and refused to fight in the Roman army as Jesus had re-asserted the
commandment Thou Shall Not Kill.

Jesus was the son of God (Part of God if you belive in the holy trinity). He
gave his life rather than kill. This is the basic tenet of early
Christianity. It was modified significantly over the next three to nine
hundred years until by the end of the first millenium, Christianity was a
war like religion which appealed to the Scandinavians.

He died because
he disappointed people by not starting a fight. Paul, formerly Saul,
was the one who stopped killing Christians and started changing
the rules. He was no pacifist.

Early Christians were. The one who remained pacifists were eventually
persecuted sufficiently that the ones who modified their beliefs and did
kill survived. Evolution through natural selection if you ask me.

As Christianity evolved
various reasons to kill others were introduced ranging from "killing to
protect myself" to "killing to protect my family," "killing to protect my
property" and even simply killing because the Pope declared the other
person
Heretic so it is now ok.

Wow [awed emoticon]

Killing Animals is a good example. The whole "not having a soul" thing all
help to skirt round the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rule.

Humans are good at finding loopholes to exploit.

[emoticon rereads post] Yep.

I am glad you agree. Now, tell me again what is "Christian" about killing to
defend property or lifestyle?

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:39a8b$45395c28$49ecfc2$30835@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


T Wake wrote:


If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would

continue largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!


No it isn't.

This sort of denial is meaningless. I was used to
hearing it from very young school children who
didn't like the facts they were denying byt had
absolutely no grounds for argument.

It is obvious you have no knowledge of history.

Brother killing brother was not stopped by
conversion to Islam. It remains prevalent in
the culture.

No more or less prevalent than in any other culture.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd6dv$8qk_012@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <39a8b$45395c28$49ecfc2$30835@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


T Wake wrote:


If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would

continue largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!


No it isn't.

This sort of denial is meaningless. I was used to
hearing it from very young school children who
didn't like the facts they were denying byt had
absolutely no grounds for argument.

It is obvious you have no knowledge of history.

What is really frustrating about these people is that
they don't have to know any history.

This is a line you really do not want to take. You cherry pick segments of
history which you hope will support your viewpoints.

All they have
to do is notice what goes on in countries that are
currently ruled, or recently ruled, by these extremists.

Are you talking about yourself here? Are you saying that because the Turks
killed the Christians in Anatolia they will all do it again? Which ignore
both the recent treatments in Islamic countries _and_ the treatment of
Christians by the likes of Salah Adin.

_You_ are the person who is using Afghanistan under the Taliban as an
example of what would happen.

Wow.

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd31a$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons.

Of course, but then again there's a vast difference between knowing how,
and
actually being able to do.

Whew.

Knowing how doesn't make it practical or easy

Sigh! It doesn't have to be practical nor easy. Why do you
think every other country has OSHA rules in place?

It certainly has to be practical. Learn the definition of the word:
capable of being practiced.

to
do, or even possible to do without the US State Department and various
other
agencies knowing about it.

What? No governemental department has the ability to know
what is happening at all times everywhere. For some strange
reason, you and other Democrats seem to believe this (or at least
try to sell this to their consumers).

Look, you brainless git. In case it's not mortifyingly obvious, I work in
the chemical industry (and yes, I do frequently work near the places of
production, as you implied I didn't in another sorely misinformed post), and
I'm telling you, one branch or another of the Federal government knows
exactly what every single chemical plant that produces more than a few
pounds per year in this country is making, and who they are shipping to.

I'm starting to think you and your useless sycophant are nothing more than
trolls to keep the discussion rolling, and rack up as many postings as
possible.

Eric Lucas

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been created by
the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

google "Battle of teh Bulge"

In warfare things don't always go "well." It is
only the final result that matters. If you don't
understand that then you have no grounds for
being involved in this discussion.

The death rate in Baghdad is up 22% this month
and the coalition recently lost control of 2
major cities Amara and Ramadi.

What was the civilian death rate in Germany
during WW2?

Even Bush is having to reconsider his options or
hadn't you noticed ?

That's an ongoing process during any military action.
The only difference is that this one is, for local
political reasons, announced to the public.

What did you think? They sit down at the beginning,
create an agenda, and never alter or deviate from
it?

This post of yours is especially foolish.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

Who ever morphed into "unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com>, sat, farted and
wrote in message news:e729a$4539601a$49ecfc2$30924@DIALUPUSA.NET...

sock puppet T Wake complains:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:3afe9$4538c549$49ecf72$25771@DIALUPUSA.NET...

T Wake wrote:



If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue
largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!


Nonsense.


Either all of history, or your rendition of an ideal
world, is a lie.


Nonsense.


I've my thoughts on the matter and
have no further need of yours.


Ok. Why post on USENET then?


Good God, you'd have us believe usenet is all about
you and no one else matters!

Really? Nice line in strawmen but my post was because I assume I didnt
matter and your reply was generic.

If you have no further need of _my_ thoughts, why reply to my posts?

LMAO

Well done.

Your "nonsense" dismissals are the only retort
available from your position which is lacking
any validity. That's precisely why I wrote I
have no further need of your "thoughts."

Ok, your claim that "Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism" is completely wrong and can be falsified
by looking at any Islamic state. There is no greater rate of "brother
killing brother" in them (except Iraq and that has largely been since the
occupation) than in comparable Christian cultures. Even Buddhist and
Communist countries manage it.

You are creating a strawman argument with no basis, which is then backed up
with ad hominems and dismissals.

In a nutshell, your post was nonsense and nothing more needed to be said. It
has already been debated in this thread and if _you_ cant work out how to
read that, it is not my fault.

You're clearly a sock puppet adhering to
someone else's agenda.

Hahaha. Nice one. You are a funny guy. Whose agenda am I adhering to? Are
you JoeBloe? (I doubt it because you can use more than two or three words at
a time).

Generally speaking, your posts are meaningless and full of badly thought out
comments. Good work all round really.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd69c$8qk_011@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <acGdnTunitrAPqrYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7odg$8qk_006@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <HItZg.15972$e66.4379@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53u8$8qk_009@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that
are
not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should
not
be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so
than
their
Muslim counterparts.

Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.

Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin.

So did Islam.

Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. It also helps get
rid of the young males, making the world safe for lecherous old-fart
polygamists.

Now think again. Christians admire and praise people who are
martyrs. It doesn't take an IQ of greater than 60 to figure
out how to turn that one into making suicide bombers heroes.
Islam has figured out how. You need to listen to some
of Falwell's speeches. Turn to that religious channel that
is on your cable, arm yourself with a 10 gallon barf bag,
and listen to what those believers are getting told.


Now you're finally starting to catch on. There are far bigger dangers,
both
ideological and potential physical threats, within our own borders than
without.

You are wrong. It is a secondary danger. If Islam wins, the
internal danger won't exist because none of those people
will be alive. Neither will you be alive so the internal
danger is a null job.

False conclusion drawn on an inaccurate assumption. There is no
competition
for Islam to "win" in that sense.

If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue largely
as normal.

I know you think this. I realize that all anti-Bushers
believe this. You are wrong.

I know you think I am an anti-Busher. You believe this because you can not
accept that there is more than two sides. You are wrong.

I am not an anti-Busher. I was not anti-War in Iraq. I was not anti-Invasion
of Afghanistan. My main entry to this thread was the farcical nature of
calling anything a "War on Terror" and the problems with making too many
assumptions.

You make false assumptions constantly.

You constantly prove the problems with making assumptions about people.

By the way, it seems from today's news the Occupation forces are doing their
utmost to develop an urgent exit strategy from Iraq, realising their current
policies are doomed to failure. (And this was from CNN not the BBC)

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I know I do not write clear enough for all values of IQs.


Mine's 152.

What's yours ?

You're good at taking IQ tests. Doesn't actually
mean you're "smart."

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5rn$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <eh80lh$26o$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh7mj3$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh2qeu$c28$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the
British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of
finding
out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the
demographic data).

But there is a control on the data collected for the census.
The data given is limited to people living in one house and
not a count of everyone they know.

The sampling was done in such a way as to take this into account, but it's
also why the confidence interval is wide.

Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.

Eh? Why would common sense demand this?

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?


They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died.

So you haven't read the study, yet you claim to know it's wrong.

I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will
never show any statistical significance.


Adding these up will not
give a correct count. I don't know enough about counting
but I would guess that the reliablility of the count
would be 1/x, where x=number of people asked. They are
going to report anybody who is rumored to have died.

Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data
analysis?

Yes. A long time ago.
/BAH

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5ug$8qk_010@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <45378D92.1903B626@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
give a correct count.

The 'news' was wrong then.

In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown.

And the death certificates said that all the deaths were
due to US killing them?

What has the US killing them being the cause of death got to do with
anything? Have you read the posts you are replying to?

If the US attacks destroyed a water pipe and someone died from drinking
polluted water, what would the cause of death be recorded as?

The study looked at numbers and rates of deaths. Since the US-led occupation
both have gone up. Is that an indicator of causal forces? You are now
heading into the argument that unless every death was the result of a _US_
soldier it had nothing to do with the occupation. This is nonsense.

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:


They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
give a correct count.

The 'news' was wrong then.

In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown.

And the death certificates said that all the deaths were
due to US killing them?


Not at all.

The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post
war. Quite simple really.

Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or
any insurgents.

And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical
records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


What is really frustrating about these people is that
they don't have to know any history.


I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

History has two distinct parts:

1) Knowledge of facts

2) Understanding historical facts in context

You lose.

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems
to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time.

Now stop to think what else might be based on popular myths ?

One of them is that Europe doesn't teach history their kids any
better than the US.


Eh ? I assume English isn't your first language.

The reasons for your conclusion are flawed.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd1jc$8qk_005@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <XrqdncxDzeX1ZqXYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehacqm$8qk_009@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453642C1.5D38F093@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not start listening to and watching the BBC
?

I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which
slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they
are taking that day.

Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please?

Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start.

Like which ones? I am looking at the BBC site today and there is nothing
which looks like "surrender to Islamic Extremists."

Here are some of todays Middle East highlights, can you please show me what
is "surrender to Islamic extremists" from this:

"US President George W Bush is holding a video conference with his senior
generals in Iraq to discuss the escalating violence there.
Mr Bush has said they may focus on changing tactics to combat the unrest,
but not the overall military strategy.

In his radio address, he said that he would employ "every necessary change"
to quell the surge in attacks. "

##

"Israel's ambassador to the UN has accused Iran of paying Hamas $50m to
block the release of an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants.

The ambassador in New York, Dan Gillerman, made the claim without giving any
further evidence or details.

The payment, which Iran denies making, allegedly went to the head of Hamas'
political bureau Khaled Meshaal. "

##

"Hezbollah has denied accusations from a human rights group that its
fighters used cluster munitions against Israel.

Both Hezbollah and Israeli forces fired cluster munitions during the recent
conflict in Lebanon, according to the group Human Rights Watch (HRW).

HRW said Hezbollah made two strikes with Chinese-made Type-81 rockets -
their first recorded use."

##

"Iran must stop banning students from university because of their political
views, a human rights group has said.

Human Rights Watch says some students have been barred from registering for
university places despite passing the relevant entrance exams.

It said others have been offered places only if they promise to refrain from
peaceful political protests."