|
 | | Re: Anyone else think this is a bad idea?
|
| (...) Because, warts and all, some countries are better, some are worse. Or do you really think that all countries are the same across the board, all are equally culpable? No matter HOW many examples of US malfeasance you post you are never ever (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|  
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | Re: oops, my bad!!
|
| (...) Hi Kirby, You don't really need to be sorry. So maybe you made some confusions... it happens to us all sometimes. Nothing to worry about - I just feared you were wanting to re-write history! :-) If you want to refresh your history knowledge, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) (UN Population Division, 1998)"), which are not linked to and not presented. How you see this as rigorous is not clear to me. No evidence of the veracity of those statistics is given. No discussion of them is given either. So if you think this (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) No, what I am doing is returning the word to its base definition... it's original meaning. Terror Terrorize Terrorist Terrorism Terrible All of the above mean; to frighten For you to say that the bionicles are *terrible* is fine, unfortunately (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) They could just be multiplying by two and it would fit that critereon. (...) I'm not sure of that...we're rather busy with our own pet projects. (...) Sort of...we don't pay our dues. (...) Just for the record, I'm one of the paranoids who is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.227)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
|
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) No, at least I don't parse it that way. Feel free to diagram the sentence though, so I can see it! (...) The world is a complicated place. Or would you rather Truman hadn't considered all those factors? You can handle the complexity, I think. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
|
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| I have not read your link, but I think it was unnecessary to bomb Japan to win the war. I expect your link will say that the USA knew that the Japanese wanted peace as they had broken Japanese codes, and that dropping the bomb was all about (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
|
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) The allies were all fighting together. I dare say ANZAC didn't consult FDR on all movements involving US troops either. (...) The same old "it was war" excuse. Winning the war wasn't terrorism, dropping the bombs was. One was just a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.226)
|
