Jihad needs scientists

[unsettled]

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de@4ax.com...

while the Gym teacher covers Mathematics.

Certainly the mention of mechanical advantage, momentum, friction,
things like that could be very useful in sports. Why select a light or
heavy bat? How does a curve ball work? What's the best way to throw a
football? That could create a lot more interest in physics than
sitting in a classroom grinding out equations.

Very true and real world examples are great. I said mathematics not physics
though as I suspected that would happen.

There is no physics without mathematics. "Pure math" isn't merely
turning the crank and isn't generally available to young students.
Beginning with high school algebra what you call examples are
included, reasoning given below.

All subjects need cross domain
applications, this is as close to a "fact of life" as anything else I can
think of.

The reality though, and especially at pre-university level, is people need
the basic groundings in a subject before they are opened up into cross
domain work.

This is more a teacher problem than a student one. Mathematics
models just about everything, so attempting to teach it in
isolation is usually a disservice to the student. The sooner
the student understands various "formal discipline" correlations
the more quickly they advance.

There is a difference between showing how a subject can be applied in
different ways and teaching a different subject.

The examples I used were Science teachers _teaching_ religion and religious
education teachers _teaching_ science. Not anecdotes.

The education degree should be eliminated.

It is clear you don't have a reasonable grasp of mathematics
and science let alone their interrelationships.

<snip> further nonsense

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news2glj292d915vbpvtc9fg80nkglu3fu5rl@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:02:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:10:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:69lkj218m8l6errb5fr0lnsb658moc7s8o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:08:55 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


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

Right, keep all things in their rigid compartments where God intended
they stay.

Interesting argument. You create the fallacy that supporting the
separation
of subjects into discrete categories for the education of children is
actually supporting the doctrine of Christianity. Nicely done.

I assume then, that you feel Biology teachers should spend their time
teaching their student Spanish,

If the teacher has a couple of Spanish-background kids in class, it
would be appropriate to mention the Spanish names for things, or
comment on critters that live in the kids' home countries.

Nothing wrong with this, with the exception of a Biology teacher who
starts
to teach the kids the wrong Spanish grammar - which is more appropriate
to
the examples. Teaching ID as science is bad science.

ID isn't bad science or good science. It's faith. Perhaps you don't
understand faith.

I fully understand faith. Should I have wrote "Teaching Faith as Science is
bad science?"

I am not dismissing peoples choices or faiths. I am dismissing attempts to
insert a particular faith into a science lesson.

People who have real faith in their beliefs do not need to create a
scientific "proof" or rationale for them. There are evolutionary biologists
who are committed Christians.

To redefine the meaning of science in order that _a_ faith can be taught in
the science class strikes me as an act by people with little real belief in
their faith and a need to "brainwash."

But it still falls foul of todays society. If the teacher is wasting time
teaching a subject they shouldnt be it is wrong. Why should they be paid
to
teach (for example) biology if all that happens is the children come away
knowing Spanish?

My example was not about bringing out interesting anecdotes or using
teaching techniques.

Obvious.

So why did you head down the road of using anecdotes to teach as a counter
example?

while the Gym teacher covers Mathematics.

Certainly the mention of mechanical advantage, momentum, friction,
things like that could be very useful in sports. Why select a light or
heavy bat? How does a curve ball work? What's the best way to throw a
football? That could create a lot more interest in physics than
sitting in a classroom grinding out equations.

Very true and real world examples are great. I said mathematics not
physics
though as I suspected that would happen. All subjects need cross domain
applications, this is as close to a "fact of life" as anything else I can
think of.

The reality though, and especially at pre-university level, is people need
the basic groundings in a subject before they are opened up into cross
domain work.

Not obvious.

Ok. USENET is full of people who have a limited understanding of several
subjects and try to conflate them. Multiply this to the entire school
population and you can see that without the basic grounding you could waste
the entire lifetime of the universe heading down dead ends.

Yes, people who come up with a great new idea which joins (for example)
mathematics and art enjoy great success. But teaching art to a maths class
of 10 year olds is not the way forward.

Teach the subject. Nurture the student to learn the subject. Nurture the
student to learn lots of subjects and then their imagination will join them.

There is a difference between showing how a subject can be applied in
different ways and teaching a different subject.

The examples I used were Science teachers _teaching_ religion and
religious
education teachers _teaching_ science. Not anecdotes.

While we are at it, why have job titles at all. Why don't we all just be
"do
what you wanters."

Why don't we all know and think about a little more than our
specialty? Must an English teacher be deliberately ignorant of
science? Must an engineering professor be uninterested in History?

I am not asking for a lack of interest or ignorance. I dont know why you
read that into my posts.


Hmm. Sounds familiar.


Depressingly so. Crossing disciplines can result in great revelations,
but a lot of people refuse to do it. No problem, I'll do it for you.

In my experience people who refuse to cross disciplines tend to either
know
very little about their discipline and are frightened to look outside it
or
know too much about it and are frightened to look outside it.

When it comes to teaching a subject, teach the subject. When it comes to
encouraging post graduate students, encourage. When it comes to finding a
real world application, find a real world application.

Children only spend a finite time in education systems. Broad education
can
come afterwards when the grounding is known.

Or do away with subjects all together and teach jack of all trades. Then
those who specialise will do well, unlike today when (generally of course)
those who can cross disciplines do well.


I'm not as dismissive about the imagination of kids, or people without
advanced degrees.

I am not dismissing their imagination or capabilities, as I said there is
the option to not teach any "subject" and have a world full of generalists.

In your approach, the imagination is not the driving force for
breakthroughs - they are being taught it.

 

In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

I would assume
that this would actully be hell for males.

You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females.

There is not. Now, think about that in combination with the tactics
that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media.

I wish people
would think a little bit more.

So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't
keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse
of being the smartest person in the world.

You don't even approach the smartest. You certainly aren't any
where near as smart as the person known as JMF in my login name.

/BAH

 

[T Wake]

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161478704.971665.99350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fu7lj2t874oat4omh23ub487ft86nmnf4t@4ax.com...
[....]
So far, we've found that we have a two-tiered gravitational system.

We're currently being blue-shifted into our Great Attractor, while
the Great Attractor is being red shifted into the wall.

Comments?

When you say "we" do you mean Earth, the solar system, the milky way or
the
universe? Which direction is the Great Attractor in?

Things are sort of like this:

Milky Way + Andromeda galaxy = Local Group

Local Group + (M84 +M86) + some others = Virgo Cluster

Each of these is contracting and all of that is going in the
Hydra-Centaurus direction.

Yes, thank you for that although I was looking for clarification in the
context of the rest of the post.

Redshift, from cosmological expansion, occurs outside large scale structures
and as a result there is no major anomaly in the actions within the local
group or the cluster. The oddity is the mass required to create this
blueshift, given the lack of anything "visible."

As for the "Great Attractor" being red shifted to the wall - it is no more
red shifted than would be expected for its distance.

Does this support a Big Bubble universe? Maybe. Off the top of my head I
cant immediately fault it as a theory although the Big Bang is itself a
misnomer and was never meant to imply a huge explosion at the t=0 event.

 

In article <T5idnaxgJN-lqKfYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd3s8$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <74kcj2dtgob35abvm2tucgiuim8r3mot3e@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 07:23:46 -0700, the renowned "MooseFET"
kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161093895.152327.297830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

unsettled wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

/BAH

What's the reward for virgins? 1/72 of some hirsute dude? Hmmm...
could have used that line in HS..

You aren't thinking. This portrays to all women that women
don't matter. Their only role is sex slave.

This is not the image Islam portrays to its women.

Perhaps not to moderates. Now think a little bit more
about an interpretation that is trying to become the
one and only sect in the Islamic world.

/BAH

 

In article <z2u_g.14848$GR.12277@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4lp$8qk_003@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <eh5f79$8b4$7@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

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

It isn't. It's taught in science class as a scientific fact, which it is.

Wow. This one was easy. YOu just demonstrated what I wrote.

If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better
be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational
sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history
of science. And, oh, since computers are based on the theories of solid
state physics, which you seem to think are "just beliefs", you'd better stop
typing, you wouldn't want people thinking you're actually taking that belief
seriously.

You have almost earned the label of 'fucking idiot'; my definition
of this are those people who know the correct choice and the worst
choice but choose the worst choice on purpose. This is what you
just did when you read my post and interpreted what I wrote
in the most-incorrect way.

/BAH

 

In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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?

It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread.
If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was
important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept
is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik.

/BAH

 

In article <X5KdncZfhOmVpafYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

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

It is not a fallacy. There are only three things in their list
that are to be believed. Adding evolution to that list is
heresy. The word belief implies faith that passes all understanding.
This means that no evidence is required. No evidence has no
place in the science lab.
<snip deliberate disingenuousness>

/BAH

 

In article <p2glj292d915vbpvtc9fg80nkglu3fu5rl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:02:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:10:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:69lkj218m8l6errb5fr0lnsb658moc7s8o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:08:55 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


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

Right, keep all things in their rigid compartments where God intended
they stay.

Interesting argument. You create the fallacy that supporting the
separation
of subjects into discrete categories for the education of children is
actually supporting the doctrine of Christianity. Nicely done.

I assume then, that you feel Biology teachers should spend their time
teaching their student Spanish,

If the teacher has a couple of Spanish-background kids in class, it
would be appropriate to mention the Spanish names for things, or
comment on critters that live in the kids' home countries.

Nothing wrong with this, with the exception of a Biology teacher who starts
to teach the kids the wrong Spanish grammar - which is more appropriate to
the examples. Teaching ID as science is bad science.

ID isn't bad science or good science. It's faith. Perhaps you don't
understand faith.
snip

I might as well write up my nitpik . A logical first step
of the Scientific Method is to identify what can be studied
using the Method and what cannot be studied using the Method.
One of the things that cannot be studied is anything that
requires faith.

/BAH

 

In article <453A2959.8CD5152D@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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.

Maybe they're afraid ppl will see that science disproves God ? That's what
happened to me actually in a rather amusing way.

Then you were not taught the Scientific Method...or rather,
you did not learn the Scientific Method.

I learnt that ppl weigh more than air.

My 'Bible Teacher' tried to teach that the ascension was real. I pointed out
that humans can't rise up to heaven because they weigh too much. She said
they
could so I knew thereafter that Christian teaching was based on lies ( aged
~
9 ) .

You didn't have a clever Sunday School teacher. We had it
beat into our heads that, with God, all things are possible.
Thus, only God can make anti gravity.

YOu also weren't clever enough to really stymie the most
intelligent of your instructors. For instance, there
wasn't any answer to my question about the pastor breaking
the commandment to not labor on the Lord's Day. This
was the lesson where we were getting taught that buying
gas, thus making the gas attendant work, was a sin.

/BAH

 

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

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?

I tried to explain why. Apparently it was written in Martian.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.


....and because you have absolutely no background in or understanding of
statistics, your "common sense" would be wrong. Please do learn whereof you
speak, before you speak. The gaps in your knowledge in areas that are key
to a lot of the points you insist are right, is phenomenal and appalling.


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

Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of
their data than *you* are,

Nope. Not when it's for the BBC comsumption.

since your understanding of statistics is
essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed
the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad
more knowledgeable of statistics than you are?

This is not a question of ability of applying statistics. It is
a question of the agility of applying statistics. I am sceptic
of the agility.

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

Yes. A long time ago.


Then you've clearly forgotten everything you learned.

I can certainly open my stat books and yak a good game of
presenting the same data point as a dozen. In the olden
days, I'd just dup 12 cards.


/BAH

 

In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

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

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

Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of
their data than *you* are, since your understanding of statistics is
essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed
the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad
more knowledgeable of statistics than you are?

When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really closed
minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea about
the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know that
bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing she
does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one she
wants.

Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all.

I don't. Biology and math were my majors; chemistry was my minor.

I didn't work in the science field. I thought I made that clear.

/BAH

 

In article <453A326F.6680CA41@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

How odd.

/BAH

 

In article <453A5164.754CBC24@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

The figures for the pre-war era encountered by the group tally with CIA
figures !

What era? And there aren't death certificates for those
in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people
they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate.
This person who disappeared could have been reported by
10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected
unique datums?

/BAH

 

In article <C6ednV0xVsTyoKfYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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?

It has everything to do with it since you are using
the report that rate has increased since the US went into
Iraq. See your comment below. I shall star it so that
you cannot miss your implication.

Have you read the posts you are replying to?

Yes. Now read your words below.

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.

Now here you go..implying that the US has caused more deaths
than Saddam would have if he had remained in power.
***********

Since the US-led occupation
both have gone up.
***********

I have starred your statement so that you can tell why
I'm objecting to your usage of statistics in this discussion.

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.

Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains?

/BAH

 

In article <453A32E2.142B2513@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany? Do you not get that deja vu feeling all over
again?

/BAH

 

In article <uX6_g.16008$vJ2.15728@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehac96$8qk_007@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <eh5ek8$8b4$4@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <45355C57.28A8837D@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip


You mean Kent State in Ohio, where outside agitators stirred up the
students and told them, "Your parents are rich! You can do anything you
want, the soldiers won't shoot at you?!"? The one where someone is
reported to have fired at the National Guard,

I suggest you read the report as to what happened.


and someone yelled "Fire"
immediately afterwards? The one, where after numerous nasty incidents
at US colleges all over the country where drunken idiots threw rocks at
the National Guard troops, and local police while they burnt buildings
and demanded their rights? I may have.


It was on the local Cincinnati and Dayton TV stations for days, and
discussed for months. You may also remember that it brought an almost
immediate stop to the campus riots all over the country.

This is not true. It did not stop the sitins. It did stop
the governors from calling in the National Guard every time there
was a sitin or some demonstration.

Good lord, the obtuseness is getting deep in here. He said "riots", not
"sitins". *Huge* difference.

Kent State was not a riot. It was a demonstration. There were
a few that day at different campuses. Kent State was the only
that killed people based on a trigger-happy governor.

I'm starting to see that it is your inability
to discern even huge differences like this that is responsible for your
disproportionate fear. You really should think about getting help (and I'm
not being facetious.)

Since you keep reading what I write incorrectly, I'm not the one
who needs help.

/BAH

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehflan$8qk_003@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <T5idnaxgJN-lqKfYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd3s8$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <74kcj2dtgob35abvm2tucgiuim8r3mot3e@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 07:23:46 -0700, the renowned "MooseFET"
kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161093895.152327.297830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

unsettled wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western
civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

/BAH

What's the reward for virgins? 1/72 of some hirsute dude? Hmmm...
could have used that line in HS..

You aren't thinking. This portrays to all women that women
don't matter. Their only role is sex slave.

This is not the image Islam portrays to its women.

Perhaps not to moderates. Now think a little bit more
about an interpretation that is trying to become the
one and only sect in the Islamic world.

Perhaps among extremist minorities. Now think a bit more about the reality
of Islam and how it is interpreted.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfl72$8qk_002@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed.

I would assume
that this would actully be hell for males.

You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females.

There is not. Now, think about that in combination with the tactics
that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media.

Stop being so patronising and trying to be vague. Say what you think.

Your assumed interpretation of Heaven is not the same as the one put forward
by Islam.

"There is not" makes no sense.

I wish people
would think a little bit more.

So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't
keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse
of being the smartest person in the world.

You don't even approach the smartest. You certainly aren't any
where near as smart as the person known as JMF in my login name.

Your sense of humour is failing rapidly.