To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 14096
14095  |  14097
Subject: 
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:28:22 GMT
Viewed: 
176 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
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...

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 to produce answers that are politically
correct rather than actually correct.
==+==

You *rejected* UN data.

You never justified that, but nothing new there.

But then late this happened:

Scott A (quoting the a text in the Guardian):
==+==
In May 1989, large-scale anthrax production began at a factory constructed
at Al Hakam. Unscom estimated that Al Hakam manufactured 8,425 litres of
anthrax bacteria during the course of 1990.
==+==


Larry:
(...)
(of course that cite just shows production capability, it could still be in
production, or Iraq could be totally innocent of this particular perfidy and
the site destroyed or out of production for years. Who knows?)

You *accepted* UN data. This apparent dichotomy worried me. So I did a quick
search for "UN Larry Neanderthal" and I got this (from a LP spam thread):

==+==
Scott A:
This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from?

Larry:
Not going to play this game any more, sorry. I've justified my assertion
that LUGNET members are more white and more male than the averages to my
satisfaction,

Scott A:
Like I say Larry, you are full of opinion which you just cannot justify. All
I am asking for, on this one, is a simple reference – but you are simply
unable to mange it.

Larry:
Oh, I'm able, all right. I could just go to the UN site or wherever and
quote demographics.
==+==

In the text above you appear to be saying that the UN is a *valid data source*.

So which of the above opinions is the correct one? Have you experienced a
change of opinion on this? Perhaps you can explain?

Scott A



Message has 2 Replies:
  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: 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

26 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR