|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
wrote in message
... "Soros whose real name is Schwartz" Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness are worth mentioning. I find jackasses such as yourself to be entirely laughable. My grandfather was Jewish. Wikipedia says: "The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews." As my grandfather worked his way across the country from his POE to Cripple Creek he changed his name a dozen times to prevent anyone from ever finding out he was Jewish. Why do you suppose that was? After all, it was 1899 and everyone was so pro-Jew. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
wrote in message
... 1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of 2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. I suggest you don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Soros needed only say that he would donate money later to start such a study. But that sure wouldn't stop you from claiming otherwise. 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. Here's a clue you nitwit - such a "study" that proclaims "excess deaths" is a complete and utter fraud. Entire tribes were being wiped out in secret by Hussein's regime and lousy left wing cowards such as yourself would gladly claim otherwise despite huge projects such as the swap draining and testimoney from the swamp arabs that they were being murdered en masse. Tell me you spineless coward - what were the excess deaths from the American Revolution - or the Indian Wars? You seem to think that freedom isn't worth "excess deaths" so perhaps you ought to return to China and live out your life of luxury there. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article , "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote: wrote in message ... "Soros whose real name is Schwartz" Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness are worth mentioning. I find jackasses such as yourself to be entirely laughable. My grandfather was Jewish. Are you sure he didn't work at a company that invented Judaism? Wikipedia says: "The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews." As my grandfather worked his way across the country from his POE to Cripple Creek he changed his name a dozen times to prevent anyone from ever finding out he was Jewish. Why do you suppose that was? After all, it was 1899 and everyone was so pro-Jew. And your point is... what??????? -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 9:45 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message ... 1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of 2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. I suggest you don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Soros needed only say that he would donate money later to start such a study. But that sure wouldn't stop you from claiming otherwise. You can suggest that but not only is there no evidence of this, the head of the MIT program that commissioned the study already denied this: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...comment-707686 Here's a clue you nitwit - [...] Tell me you spineless coward - Oh, Tom, there you go again. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article , "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote: Here's a clue you nitwit - such a "study" that proclaims "excess deaths" is a complete and utter fraud. Entire tribes were being wiped out in secret by Hussein's regime and lousy left wing cowards such as yourself would gladly claim otherwise despite huge projects such as the swap draining and testimoney from the swamp arabs that they were being murdered en masse. Then why haven't they found the bodies, Tom? They've certainly found many, but not even close to the number that war-mongers like you like to cite. To use your phraseology, "here's a clue": what Saddam managed to do in decades, the war that Bush started managed to do in only 4 3/4 years. If we consider that US soldiers are wounded on a ratio of about 2.5 to 1, compared to deaths, we ought to be able to equate that to the Iraqis: that means that there are likely 377,500 wounded Iraqis. Add in the 4 million refugees. Does that look like a great thing to you? That you can't acknowledge this is a good clue about your levels of moral degeneracy. By the way, where's your proof about that giant chipper you claimed that Saddam used to grind people up? I guess it's with the missing WMD. perhaps you ought to return to China and live out your life of luxury there. Ahh, the REAL Tom Kunich rears his ugly ****ing head. -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
"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? Well, it seems pretty straight forward to think that, for those who clamored for the war, a smaller number of casualties is easier to defend than a big one. Of course, some people who clamored for the war aren't all that concerned with any number. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 19th 06 11:07 PM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 10:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |