Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:49 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfnvh$8qk_015(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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? 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.
From: unsettled on 22 Oct 2006 09:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? 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.
From: unsettled on 22 Oct 2006 09:59 T Wake wrote: > <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. Only as a misnomer.
From: lucasea on 22 Oct 2006 10:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfmrv$8qk_009(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <IKudnYawzLIroafYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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. >> >>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
From: lucasea on 22 Oct 2006 10:30
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw(a)pipex.net... > > <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. 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 |