Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:27 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfn55$8qk_011(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)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.
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:27 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfn2c$8qk_010(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data. >> >> >>....and because you have absolutely no background in or understanding of >>statistics, your "common sense" would be wrong. Please do learn whereof >>you >>speak, before you speak. The gaps in your knowledge in areas that are key >>to a lot of the points you insist are right, is phenomenal and appalling. >> >> >>> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >>> never show any statistical significance. >> >>Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of >>their data than *you* are, > > Nope. Not when it's for the BBC comsumption. It wasn't. >> since your understanding of statistics is >>essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed >>the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad >>more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? > > This is not a question of ability of applying statistics. It is > a question of the agility of applying statistics. I am sceptic > of the agility. You are skeptical of something which you choose to find out nothing about. <snip>
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:25 In article <453A32E2.142B2513(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> What is really frustrating about these people is that >> they don't have to know any history. > >I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours >into the proverbial cocked hat. Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history. ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power in Germany? Do you not get that deja vu feeling all over again? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:30 In article <uX6_g.16008$vJ2.15728(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehac96$8qk_007(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eh5ek8$8b4$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <45355C57.28A8837D(a)earthlink.net>, >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)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
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:34
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfndt$8qk_013(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <453A5164.754CBC24(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)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? |