OT Is anyone really surprised?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000
cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet,
the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher
than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar
campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster
caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and
President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of
Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a
quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the
invasion in 2003"

The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to
be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists
almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name
is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat
(small d).

But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy ANY
government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course he's
never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things he
cannot himself build.

"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.


Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that
funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco
industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with
that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies
that showed otherwise.

So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even
neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study
challenging the previously-claimed death figures?

I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will
suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to
question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

So what exactly was your point again?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000
cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet,
the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher
than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar
campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster
caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and
President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of
Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a
quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the
invasion in 2003"

The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed
to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic
terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros
whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open
society democrat (small d).

But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy
ANY government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course
he's never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things
he cannot himself build.

On Jan 13, 7:25*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that
funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco
industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with
that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies
that showed otherwise.

So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even
neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study
challenging the previously-claimed death figures?

I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will
suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to
question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

So what exactly was your point again?

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ...



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.
We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the
rest of them are.
They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous.
That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the
bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country,
but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give
them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find
irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above.
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
them.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Bill C" wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 7:25 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that
funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco
industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED
with
that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies
that showed otherwise.

So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even
neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study
challenging the previously-claimed death figures?

I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I
will
suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people
to
question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method
deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

So what exactly was your point again?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
...



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.
We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the
rest of them are.
They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous.
That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the
bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country,
but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give
them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find
irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above.
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it.

One might extend this a bit by noting that scientific studies are
independent of the reporting on scientific studies. If a biased media
outlet quotes a study in support of their pet positions, it doesn't
necessarily mean that the cited study supports their conclusions.

In article
,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
them.

Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies
that support our point of view.

--
Michael Press

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I
just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in
ALL
cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least
bit
surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an
issue,
not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
them.

Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies
that support our point of view.

--
Michael Press

Absolutely!!! Self-doubt is not always a bad thing. And always, always,
ALWAYS, it's those times I think I'm most-right about something that I'm
likely to be wrong. Because what's make me feel most-right about something
may very well be that I've squeezed those dissenting viewpoints out of my
mind, thinking they're not worthy of consideration.

I've recommended this before, I'll recommend it again. If you haven't see
it, rent "The Fog of War" about Robert McNamara's personal reflections on
what he/they did wrong in Vietnam. There are lessons for us all in that
movie. You'd never think a subject like that could be so riveting, but it
is.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote:

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote:

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some
of us to learn.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some
of us to learn.

What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?