From: Ken Smith on 19 Jan 2007 10:06 In article <eonvck$8qk_001(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eoiolc$keo$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eoin84$8qk_004(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[...] >>>But it isn't Bush who is talking about atomic bombs in Iran. >> >>The heck it isn't. Him and his staff have been saying it for some time. >> >>> It >>>is Iran who is doing this talk and they've even talked about >>>first and second targets. >> >>This is simply false. The worst they have said was something like Israel >>should be wipped off the face off the earth. When pressed on the matter, >>they moderated a bit. They suggested that they be given part of Germany >>since it was Germany that caused the problem in the first place. > >Israel appears to be number one on their list. Israel is first on their list of jewish occupiers. It is also the last on the list. > I suggest you >pull out your dusty world globe and notice that it is a little >spot. I don't need a globe. I can go look on google if I need reminding. > If you wipe out the little spot, the nearby areas will >also receieve damage. That is not true. It is only if you use out sized arms to do it by violence or if they fight back when the violence in done. If you cantract with a construction company to move it brick by brick elsewhere, you wouldn't have to damage the newrby countries. > Now, take a closer look at your globe. From this point on, you are getting very insulting. If you want to convince people with your arguments, being insulting doesn't work well. In this case even if you had been extremely polite your argument would have been unconvincing. For that matter, it weakens your case rather than strenthens it. You obviously did not read and understand what I had said in the previous post you are refering to. As a result you are making wild assumptions about what it said and drawing irrational conclusions from it. You are like someone who was doing ok explaining that there has been a bank robbery until they said that it was a group of sasquatches that flew in, in their UFO. You claim to see things that nobody else sees. If we assume the claim is true. The most logical explanation for this is that you should seek medical help fo the hullusinations. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 10:01 In article <35a8$45afa609$4fe7416$11910(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >snip > >> The problem that caused 9/11 >> have existed for a century. > >Many centuries. No. This is the death throes of the Ottman Empire. Islam is currently trying to cope with the fact that it hasn't changed with the centuries of industrial, and then technical revolution. Now the regular peoples are able to buy and use technology and products that the Imans or Clerics have not approved. They are resisting the pressure from below to approve stuff; since this stuff is all produced by Western capitalistic enterprises, the normal human reaction of people who have had power for tens of generations would be to destroy the source of the pressure. However, this source would kill them without a bat of an eyelast, so they target the manufacturers. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 19 Jan 2007 10:08 In article <eoqiiv$8qk_003(a)s790.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >Besides the latest agriculture mess, you haven't been listening >to news from California. They've been having a mess since >Jerry Brown. Simply and totally false. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 10:06 In article <45AFA70E.49B8825A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> > >> >You say that others 'decided.' By this, I take it that you mean that >> >anything the US does to respond to 9/11 is justified merely by the >> >fact of it. In other words, the act was horrible, the results were >> >horrible, and therefore anything and everything we do in response is >> >justified. >> >> No, 9/11 was the last wakeup call. The problem that caused 9/11 >> have existed for a century. > >What utter nonsense. > >There was no 'Palestinian problem' as we know it 100 yrs ago You might try to read some of your history. > nor were US troops >stationed in the Middle East. Then these problems cannot be the fault of the US. So why do you keep requesting the US' help to deal with them when it requires killing? > Israel didn't even exist. When did Balfour write his papers. When did Lawrence of Arabia do his work in the Middle East? When was control of the sea lanes of the eastern Mediterranean the cause of of hostile engagements? Look at every colonization fight going on at the turn of that century. /BAH
From: unsettled on 19 Jan 2007 10:14
Lloyd Parker woke up half of a neuron long enough to puke out the following: >>>Here's what the researcher said of the methods: >>>**** begin *** >>> "Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and >>>more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. >>>David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston. >>> >>>The study, published earlier this month by the Lancet medical journal, >>>employed a method known as "cluster sampling" in which data are collected >>>through interviews with randomly selected households. >>> >>>Critics, including President George W. Bush, have said the results are not >>>credible, but Rush said traditional methods for determining death rates, >>>such as counting bodies, are highly inaccurate for civilian populations in >>>times of war. >>> >>>Researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Al Mustansiriya >>>University in Baghdad estimated with 95 percent certainty that the war and >>>its aftermath have resulted in the deaths of between 426,000 and 794,000 >>>Iraqis. >>> >>>***** end **** >>>You will notice that no trusting of the Saddam numbers is suggested in >>>what he said. >>You and BAH went through this discussion a while back. What >>makes "cluster sampling" any more valid than drawing numbers >>out of a proverbial hat? > What makes your opinion more valid than a Johns Hopkins researcher's work in > one of the most respected, peer-reviewed journals in the world? This the classic sort of post from you, explaining why I don't usually bother reading or responding to your crapola. Ken's scribblings place what follows into context: "Here's what the researcher said of the methods:" So the fellow was a researcher discussing a report in The Lancet. Ken apparently didn't read the article itself. Now here's what The Lancet says on their web page: "We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17�8 months after the invasion with the 14�6-month period preceding it." Once again, where did they get their numbers for the period before, and with what realistic level of confidence? What was the design of the study, this is about politics after all, not a hard science. [Lancet] "The risk of death was estimated to be 2�5-fold (95% CI 1�6�4�2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period." Note the ESTIMATED. This "study" is no different from a political poll taken inside the US predictive of an election. [Lancet] "Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes." "Published online October 29,2004" Published results taken from data provided by a population living in the midst of fighting is going on around and above them. Crapola. The Lancet article itself states that the results need further verification, but here's Lloyd Parker, great guru of crapola depending in it as gospel. > Uh, cut and run went out when you lost the election last fall. Get this straight, bub. I always win when any free election is held. You live fads while relying on crapola "studies." The statement "our results need further verification" is the *only* way this article got past peer review. That's what establishes the context of the entire "study". Now let that half neuron go back to sleep. |