Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:25:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
265 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 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.
>
> I don't see "who knows" as *accepting* anything.
"of course that cite just shows production capability"
You are squirming.
The "who knows" does not question the data, only Iraq's culpability. At
least that is how it reads to me.
>
> > 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*.
>
> No I wasn't, just that I was willing to quote it to shut YOU up because YOU
> accept those statistics apparently without question.
Can you justify why you thought this? BTW : I accept no statistics without
question.
> Doesn't mean *I* do.
I think otherwise. Feel free to talk me around.
>
> But I think UN statistics on the demographics of an open country are a bit
> more likely to be accurate than some of the much more hard to measure ones.
So now some UN stats are ~OK~?
Remember, you said this:
==+==
> > I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
> > independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement.
==+==
>
> I guess I can't believe that you dredged up the White Mans Club lie again,
> didn't you get enough ridicule from everyone last time you tried that lie?
I'm not going to let you muddy the waters. As you know, I am not lying but
if you want to suggest I am I ask you reply to the relevant message.
>
> > So which of the above opinions is the correct one?
>
> All of the statements I made that you cite are correct, and non conflicting.
ROFL!
>
> > Have you experienced a
> > change of opinion on this?
>
> No.
>
> > Perhaps you can explain?
>
> Yes. I can explain. You're confused because you have trouble with reading
> carefully and thinking about what is said and tend to shoot your mouth off
> without thinking about what your own words imply.
Sling mud. Avoid the issue. I almost envy your outlook!
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
