Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:28 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)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."
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd5ug$8qk_010(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45378D92.1903B626(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)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.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:34 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> lparker(a)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
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:35 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)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.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:36
Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)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. |