Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfllq$8qk_005@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Then nitpick it. You are correct that if it was important some one else
could deal with it. Do you think you are the only rational reader in this
thread and that you have to pass judgement on other people's posts?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfm39$8qk_006@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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...

<snip non-answered questions and evaded comments>

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...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

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.

It may happen but it is a fallacy, and a fallacy on behalf of the person who
has interpreted it as that not the person who spoke. Think a bit more about
what the words mean and what the interpretation is.

There are only three things in their list
that are to be believed. Adding evolution to that list is
heresy.

Yet saying (for example) "I believe my wife loves me" or "I believe the US
is doing the right thing in Iraq" or anything along those lines is not
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.

Yet the science lab is home to beliefs of all types. What evidence do we
have which properly supports the strong equivalence principle? Science is,
IMHO, more rigourous in that things which are believed are tested for as
much as possible but there is still a time of belief.

snip deliberate disingenuousness

Well.... what can I say to that. You think I am being disingenuous, yet I am
not. You think I am deliberately misreading you, yet I am not. Your beliefs
are flawed.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfmrv$8qk_009@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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...
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.

Apparently it was.

<snip>

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn55$8qk_011@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

All three are sciences.

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

IT and computers are a science field.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn2c$8qk_010@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

It wasn't.

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.

You are skeptical of something which you choose to find out nothing about.

<snip>

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfndt$8qk_013@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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?

Pre 2003. The CIA published lots of sets of figures regarding this. Most of
it is used as evidence against Saddam.

And there aren't death certificates for those
in hidden mass graves.

So what? You do not question the numbers of deaths which cant be accounted
for - you accept these as fact and evidence of Saddam's regimes wrong
doing - yet you refuse to accept the collected figures post Saddam when
there is greater accounting of the deaths.

Interesting double standard.

Based on your reasoning there is no way Saddam could be guilty of killing
thousands of his own people as they dont have death certificates.

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?

You haven't read the report. You do not know what methodology was used. You
have not read how they are accounting for the possibility of multiple
reports.

You are trying two lines of defence here. One is rubbishing the data by
creating all manner of "reasonable doubt" situations. The other is saying
that the deaths aren't due to the US.

The second appears to accept the deaths exist so, surely, this contradicts
the first?

 

In article <4539D17B.F0B57FEC@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections. They have made it clear to the extremists that nothing
will be done to curb the extremists goals.

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

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

Bush is having to deal with next month's elections. Republicans
who want to get reelected next month have to take an anti-war
stance because it is now politically incorrect to be "for" the
Iraqi War. It's Vietnam all over again. In a couple years,
the soldiers who come home will be spit upon because the blame
will be transferred from Bush, who is no longer in power, to
the grunts.


/BAH

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfnmn$8qk_014@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

You appear to misunderstand the terms used. I will try to explain better. I
have starred a bit you seemed to have ignored.

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.
***********

There is no implication there. The rate of deaths since 2003 (as in deaths
per year) is greatly increased over the rates pre-2003. Even with large
error bars it is still greater.

The US-led occupation has resulted in more deaths than Saddam's regime did.
The direct causal agents are different and range from disease, malnutrition,
insurgent actions and coalition military action.

There is still no implication.

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

People die from a variety of causes. Some are shot / mortared / bombed etc.
Some die from illness. Some die from RTAs. Some die from disease. Some die
from accidents.

Since the US-led occuptaion the death rate and number of deaths has
increased.

_You_ take that to mean it can *only* be true if all the deaths are direct
result of US military action. This is not the case and was not implied by
either my post or the report.

Notice, also, I said US-led. The deaths have gone up in areas _not_
controlled by the US. The deaths are a result of a variety of immediate
causes but the primary one is the problems caused since the US-led
occupation.

When Saddam was in power people died. People were killed and buried in mass
graves. Lots of bad things happened.

The occupation has not improved things.

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?

Are you talking about yourself or the people in Iraq here? I am less and
less sure of your grasp of logic.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfnvh$8qk_015@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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?

Yes, it is alarming. Especially as western nations are undermining civil
liberties in the name of "National Security." If less people used phantom
menaces to scare the "ordinary person" right wing extremist organisation
would get nowhere.

That said, Europe of 2006 is *very* different from 1936.

 

[unsettled]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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?

Lucas & Wake's blindness is highly selective.

 

[unsettled]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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?

Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly
functioning neuron between them.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn55$8qk_011@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.


All three are sciences.


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


IT and computers are a science field.

Only as a misnomer.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Dear Bah.... you know knothing.


It is still present, all that Na.. stuff. Ppl are pressing, by mind of
course. There is just a need of some not overseen actions and it gets
stronger, and stronger... like that before ~1920-45
Of course they are moron south-apes, but they forget the clunky body
fromwhere they lookout. That's bad manners.... Na..., what else.

A perfect moron knows about his/her abilities... but can be also
nervouse/annoying, when getting to: "Send the troops" ))))




Fortunately we have good Republicans, called the Red, who made and
installed a great social system (1953-2000), being nearly destroyed in
1999-2006 from your deja-vu types. Thanks.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehflfa$8qk_004@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

You labelled Newtonian gravity and evolution "just a theory". Not much room
for interpretation there.

Your labesl are meaningless to me and anyone but you.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfmrv$8qk_009@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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...
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.

No, it was written with a *complete* lack of understanding of statistics,
especially population sampling statistics.

snip

Getting awful snippy lately, aren't you?

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn2c$8qk_010@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Are you saying science is only valid if it's written for a particular
audience??? How arrogant! Who gives a shit who it was written for? The
fact that you keep ignoring is that it was written by people trained far
more in statistics that you are, and was peer reviewed by people far more
trained in statistics than you are. You have absolutely zero basis for even
evaluating it, let along condemning it.

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.

All that does is show you're a BS artist, can parrot some equations, and
have absolutetly no idea how to apply them correctly.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn55$8qk_011@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

All three are sciences.

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

IT and computers are a science field.

Well, there I would quibble...they're technology, which is very different
than science.

Still and all, she should have a better grasp of the limitations of her
understanding of population statistics.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn85$8qk_012@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

How odd that before we stirred up the hornets nest, there were no hornet
stings? Or how odd that after we stirred up the hornets nest, lots of
people have gotten stung? Or do you really mean how odd that those who
continue to support the administrations untenable policies refuse to see the
causal relationship?

At least not everybody in the Bush administration is as thick-headed as you.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/22/iraq.main/index.html

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfol1$8qk_017@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Bush is having to deal with next month's elections. Republicans
who want to get reelected next month have to take an anti-war
stance because it is now politically incorrect to be "for" the
Iraqi War. It's Vietnam all over again. In a couple years,
the soldiers who come home will be spit upon because the blame
will be transferred from Bush, who is no longer in power, to
the grunts.

I suppose you're going to say *this* has anything to do with partisan
politics and trying to get reelected? Not surprisingly, the WH is trying to
once again "distance themselves"...code for burying their heads in the sand
and refusing to admit the problems they've caused.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/22/iraq.main/index.html

Your ability to rationalize any bad behavior on the part of Republicans,
along with your insistence on excoriating any Democrat that might even think
of stepping out of line, is phenomenal. You are an example of the worst
kind of extremist partisan politician, incapable of understanding other
viewpoints or meeting them half-way...i.e., the type that has unfortunately
taken over both the White House, and much of the Congress these days.
Despite platitudes to the contrary from those who are incapable anything but
parroting platitudes, I am hopeful we'll see the watermark of a change in a
couple weeks.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ugL_g.16511$vJ2.15882@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn55$8qk_011@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

All three are sciences.

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

IT and computers are a science field.

Well, there I would quibble...they're technology, which is very different
than science.

Well, true, but the degree is Bachelor of Science

Still and all, she should have a better grasp of the limitations of her
understanding of population statistics.

Yes.