A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT Is anyone really surprised?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 14th 08, 08:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 10:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
wrote in message

...

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?


I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
number that would?


Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the
discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or
methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological
issues discussed.
Ads
  #22  
Old January 14th 08, 08:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Donald Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,811
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?


I learned that Soros posts to rbr and that he must be evil
because he created Kunich.
  #23  
Old January 14th 08, 09:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,452
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 10:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
wrote in message

...

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?


I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever
looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that
sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if
you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with
a
number that would?


Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the
discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or
methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological
issues discussed.


I was replying to someone else's remark, and probably not accurately. What
I've learned so far is that neither study offers anything that would change
my mind about the value and costs of going to war with Iraq, since both
suggest numbers that are well above any sort of threshold I might wince at.

I'm probably better off not replying at all to such discussions and keep to
cycling conversations.

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


  #24  
Old January 14th 08, 10:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Michael Press
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,202
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

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
  #25  
Old January 14th 08, 11:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 3:25*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
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.



snip



Dumbass -


The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure.

The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it
only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US
troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore,
sectarian violence was included in US military figures.

The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian
violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort
of thing under control.

The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved
US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the
upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar
figure to the Lancet Study.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
  #26  
Old January 14th 08, 12:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
John Forrest Tomlinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,564
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:52:52 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000.


Yeah. And many times the White House has refused to provide their own
estimates. After the Lancet study came out Bush was asked about it and
he said it was not credible but couldnt' say why he felt that way.
  #27  
Old January 14th 08, 12:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 11:39*pm, wrote:
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.


We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.
Bill C
  #28  
Old January 14th 08, 12:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
John Forrest Tomlinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,564
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:35:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. Soros gave money to MIT
in the Spring of 2006 -- after the study had already been commissioned
and was underway -- for public education purposes, not for the study.
Burnham was not told that Soros had donated funds to MIT for the
purposes of public education.

2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of
"excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within
the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000.

3. The 2006 Burnham study was an update of a 2004 study whose lead
author was Roberts, that had produced an estimate of all-cause excess
deaths from the invasion in March 2003 to September 2004 of 98,000.
The WHO/MoH study produces an estimate of excess deaths for that same
period of (drumroll) 100,000.



Who is funding you to post all this?
  #29  
Old January 14th 08, 12:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Donald Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,811
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

Bill C wrote:
We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.


But tenderized horse meat tastes good. Ask the mongols.

  #30  
Old January 14th 08, 12:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 14, 5:06*am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:25*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

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.


snip

Dumbass -

The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure.

The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it
only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US
troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore,
sectarian violence was included in US military figures.

The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian
violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort
of thing under control.

The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved
US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the
upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar
figure to the Lancet Study.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.


And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.
Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate,
but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning
house saying I didn't start the fire.
Bill C
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who's Surprised? [email protected] Racing 39 October 22nd 07 05:38 PM
I'm surprised... MagillaGorilla Racing 3 September 5th 06 03:50 AM
Surprised it hasnt been said but... [email protected] Racing 0 February 20th 06 12:07 AM
Surprised, not surprised db. Recumbent Biking 0 January 23rd 06 11:48 PM
Surprised you people aren't talking about this Lame Acer Racing 1 August 20th 04 06:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.