Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:41:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
347 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > If you think the UN stats lack rigour. Show us.
> >
> > I did. Go to the top of the thread and *read* the article I cited.
>
> I have not read it yet.
Hmm. The word “impartial” does *not* come to mind. Is this the best you can do?
Even if you are correct. You have produced a report which suggests that one
statistic may be wrong. Your argument alleges that the UN systematically
produces duff statistics. I’m not clear how you have reached that
conclusion. Perhaps you could explain?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) I have not read it yet. You said you found it yesterday. What was your basis before then? When you said (04.10.01): "I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a blanket (...) (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
|
|
|
|
