 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) I agree with all of this, but even still tend to accept statistics unless I have a reason to not. I suspect that the UN rarely lies in it's reporting of statistics. I think accidental inaccuracies are more worrisome. In the page Scott recently (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the beef (was: What's the beef?)
|
|
(...) Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Oh, and another thing... nice tangent. Why not actually think about what was written, the way Christopher did, and respond with a reasoned, well thought out reply that shows that you aren't posting first and thinking later. That is a bit (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) I don't see "who knows" as *accepting* anything. (...) No I wasn't, just that I was willing to quote it to shut YOU up because YOU accept those statistics apparently without question. Doesn't mean *I* do. But I think UN statistics on the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips)
|
|
(...) Gosh...I've eaten beef more recently than that and I'm vegetarian. (...) There's a lot to be said for growth hormones. Chris (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Put three libertarians together in a room and they won't be able to agree where to go for lunch...
|
|
Larry, 5 Points on this 1) A point of integrity : I think the description you give of who was intended to take part in the survey is misleading (I base this on the link you give). 2) A point of integrity : You describe the survey as "totally (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
(...) Indeed. And rather than answer it - Larry deletes it! He needs to get his head out of the sand. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for *your* mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba is a terrorist state (was Re: Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
|
|
(...) Yep. You last comment is old news in the UK. A few years ago we literally caught a boat load or arms (inc SAMs) from Libya. I think since then, Libya told the UK just what it had supplied to help counter the IRA. See: (URL) the help the IRA (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What, no answer? (Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good)
|
|
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:<GL3oK6.4E4@lugnet.com>... (...) us (...) What, no answer? (...) was (...) the (...) What, no answer? (...) imposed, (...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Hmm. It looks like it does not agree with you view, so you start throwing mud. For the record, I think that is the 1st time Arundhati Roy (a booker prize winner - so no fool) has written for the Guardian. (...) Show us where the distortion is. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "humility"
|
|
(...) I was not aware that there was a competition for the "best country in the world". If I were to choose, I doubt it would be the UK or the USA. I'd probably choose some small state which did not bully anyone, support human rights abuses - but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | How odd ? (Re: A N T H R A X - ... )
|
|
(...) As it uses UN data, I did not think it would show anything as far as you were concerned? Is your head out of the sand now? Larry: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yep, that is correct: (URL) A (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) But you did once say one side was “far worse”. You never retracted that comment, but you never justified it either. As far as I can remember? (...) I hear what you are saying Larry, but I'm sure to most people it does look like you defend (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) That's right, you don't like UN stats do you? You said this: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus is highly politicised and tends (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips)
|
|
Perhaps you may have been here long enough to catch "mad cow disease"? Does your brain feel a little spongy? :-) I have not eaten beef more than ~12 years now due to BSE. Needless to say I have never eaten any beef from the USA, as it is unfit for (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
|
(...) I think we touched on this before. I think the 1st step in understanding your stats is to know what each country defines as a violent crime *and* what proportion of crime is reported – but these factors may well have been taken into account in (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) Larry, Read the article. Read my message. Then come back and tell me my description is inaccurate. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) I neither have one, nor do I have any intention of getting one. When cities in the US start having castles like this in their city centre, I may consider getting one: (URL) neanderthalls say I am anti-US, I just like to make it clear that the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Good summary Larry, I've been thinking about these issues a lot lately and agree with a lot of what you have said in your post. I think some of this is covered in the book called "how to lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. I've never read (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) If I remember right, these images may be released at a later date after the goverments use period is over (i.e. we are not at war). However, the article says: "According to reports, the decision to shut down access to satellite images was (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
I have already disclosed my poor knowledge of the English language with emarrasing results, but yet I can't stay off this definition debate. The words terror and terrorism are obviously from the same root, but to me, they have different meanings. I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
Atomic bombs on cities Hijacked planes into towers In my opinion both are equally terrifying. I will stand by my analysis of the word *terror* and apply it to both acts. We praise the pilots as patriots who flew over Japan. We denigrate the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
I was doing some Googletrolling with various search keywords, looking for some scholarly work on the accuracy of UN statistics. It's a relatively tough search... I ran across this tidbit: (URL) this is anecdotal of course, but there is a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment (was a slur of a subject line
|
|
(...) Well it could just be those pesky UN statistics... but I just went to the Red Cross site to check on blood donation criteria and they don't want your blood if you have spent more than 3 months total in the UK or Ireland since 1980 (or 6 months (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
|
(...) Interesting. A) Does the difference in these stats and the ones I cited suggest that one set is incorrect, or do you think the difference between violent crimes (my stats) and murder (your stats) is really that lopsided? It makes it sound like (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) He'd have a case if the contract he signed guaranteed accuracy. But of course I suspect whatever court he tried to sue in would soon be host to a *host* of suits against HIM. Friedman tangentially touches on this in Machinery of Freedom, if (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) The result of course would be that I wouldn't want the judge's job, nor any part in the jury :) Honestly, I think it would depend on the company's honest intent, the ability to prove that intent, the measurment of the damages resulting to bin (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) Here's a hypothetical: what if some company sells bin Laden et al bogus but real-seeming photos giving false information? What if, afterward, bin Laden would seek damages from the company for its deceptive product? Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) Maybe we'll even sell them to him :) Of course the price may be non-monetary! And of course, no guarantees on picture quality, either :) DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) It is indeed fortunate for your reputation that you said "may" (nice pre-weasel on your part) because it is in no way censorship to buy up all of some good under the terms of a previously negotiated contract. bin Laden, or the media, are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) The part that confused me was the "we". When did you get your green card? DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) That is why I said *may* Dan. Did you read it all? ==+== However, the move by the Pentagon simply to resort to buying exclusive rights to all the Ikonos pictures could be something of a canny move. Had it just used its legal powers of shutter (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) DanB (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | censoring
|
|
It looks like we may be censoring again: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The actual overall point is that one definition does not apply to both; it it did, there would be no debate. The only way that a single definition of "terrorism" can be made to apply is by reaching into the word's history, rather than by (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
the overall point here is that several people in this debate could not agree with eachother's definition of terrorism. It was my intention to show that there is actually one definition that does apply. in an earlier post a few months ago, I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) That's fine, but your method is also somewhat arbitrary and could border on pedantic. Elsewhere in this debate dozens of posts have been devoted to exactly the problem of dictionary definitions relative to the real world; on paper, the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: oops, my bad!!
|
|
Yup, already looking into it. It's amazing what you think you know sometimes, only to find that you don't really know it at all. I'm still a bit startled that I could confuse two of bloodiest wars in history, boggling!! (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
