or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › OT Is anyone really surprised?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OT Is anyone really surprised? - Page 2

post #16 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 9:45 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45dc1d62-5d22-4395-accd-488aae628e7c@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > 1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
> > 2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding.

>
> I suggest you don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Soros
> needed only say that he would donate money later to start such a study. But
> that sure wouldn't stop you from claiming otherwise.


You can suggest that but not only is there no evidence of this, the
head of the MIT program that commissioned the study already denied
this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...comment-707686


> Here's a clue you nitwit - [...] Tell me you spineless coward -


Oh, Tom, there you go again.
post #17 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
> > issues surrounding this issue.

>
> He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some
> of us to learn.


What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?
post #18 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b287493f-6b2b-4b11-a7cb-83b4e6cbf0dc@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> > I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
>> > issues surrounding this issue.

>>
>> He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
>> some
>> of us to learn.

>
> What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?


I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
number that would?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
post #19 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 10:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b287493f-6b2b-4b11-a7cb-83b4e6cbf0dc@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
> >> > I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
> >> > issues surrounding this issue.

>
> >> He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
> >> some
> >> of us to learn.

>
> > What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

>
> I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
> into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
> of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
> 650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
> difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
> detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
> number that would?


Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the
discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or
methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological
issues discussed.
post #20 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fa55139-f653-4393-be5d-8e564105a61e@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 10:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b287493f-6b2b-4b11-a7cb-83b4e6cbf0dc@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>
>> >> > I do not think you know anything about the technical or
>> >> > methodological
>> >> > issues surrounding this issue.

>>
>> >> He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
>> >> some
>> >> of us to learn.

>>
>> > What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

>>
>> I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever
>> looked
>> into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that
>> sort
>> of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
>> 650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
>> difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if
>> you're
>> detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with
>> a
>> number that would?

>
> Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the
> discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or
> methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological
> issues discussed.


I was replying to someone else's remark, and probably not accurately. What
I've learned so far is that neither study offers anything that would change
my mind about the value and costs of going to war with Iraq, since both
suggest numbers that are well above any sort of threshold I might wince at.

I'm probably better off not replying at all to such discussions and keep to
cycling conversations.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
post #21 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

In article
<ujBij.85218$Um6.81086@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
> >Bill C

>
> I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
> don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
> without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
> views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
> cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
> surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
> not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
> need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
> them.


Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies
that support our point of view.

--
Michael Press
post #22 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html
>
> "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
> result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
> the antiwar billionaire George Soros.



<snip>



Dumbass -


The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure.

The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it
only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US
troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore,
sectarian violence was included in US military figures.

The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian
violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort
of thing under control.

The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved
US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the
upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar
figure to the Lancet Study.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
post #23 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:52:52 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
>650,000.


Yeah. And many times the White House has refused to provide their own
estimates. After the Lancet study came out Bush was asked about it and
he said it was not credible but couldnt' say why he felt that way.
post #24 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 13, 11:39 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Mike
> >  I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
> > They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
> > brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
> > commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

>
> I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
> issues surrounding this issue.


We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.
Bill C
post #25 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:35:07 -0800 (PST), rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
wrote:

>1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
>2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. Soros gave money to MIT
>in the Spring of 2006 -- after the study had already been commissioned
>and was underway -- for public education purposes, not for the study.
>Burnham was not told that Soros had donated funds to MIT for the
>purposes of public education.
>
>2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
>MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
>invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
>causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of
>"excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within
>the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000.
>
>3. The 2006 Burnham study was an update of a 2004 study whose lead
>author was Roberts, that had produced an estimate of all-cause excess
>deaths from the invasion in March 2003 to September 2004 of 98,000.
>The WHO/MoH study produces an estimate of excess deaths for that same
>period of (drumroll) 100,000.



Who is funding you to post all this?
post #26 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 14, 5:06 am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

>
> > "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
> > result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
> > the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure.
>
> The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it
> only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US
> troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore,
> sectarian violence was included in US military figures.
>
> The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian
> violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort
> of thing under control.
>
> The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved
> US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the
> upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar
> figure to the Lancet Study.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.


And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.
Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate,
but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning
house saying I didn't start the fire.
Bill C
post #27 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

In article <g8hmo3peuhngu1i4shcanmjf1kpjv3usd8@4ax.com>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:35:07 -0800 (PST), rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
> >2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. Soros gave money to MIT
> >in the Spring of 2006 -- after the study had already been commissioned
> >and was underway -- for public education purposes, not for the study.
> >Burnham was not told that Soros had donated funds to MIT for the
> >purposes of public education.
> >
> >2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
> >MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
> >invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
> >causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of
> >"excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within
> >the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000.
> >
> >3. The 2006 Burnham study was an update of a 2004 study whose lead
> >author was Roberts, that had produced an estimate of all-cause excess
> >deaths from the invasion in March 2003 to September 2004 of 98,000.
> >The WHO/MoH study produces an estimate of excess deaths for that same
> >period of (drumroll) 100,000.

>
>
> Who is funding you to post all this?


Greg and Tom.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
post #28 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Jan 13, 4:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to
>> be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists
>> almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name
>> is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat
>> (small d).

>
> "Soros whose real name is Schwartz"
> Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you
> think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness
> are worth mentioning.
>
> Wikipedia says:
> "The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from
> Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews."
>
> George was, at the time, six years old. Is Schwartz
> still his real name? My grandfather was from Russia
> and the name got changed when he emigrated. Is my
> real name in Cyrillic? That would explain a few things.



Some of the Soviet Jews who came over in the '70s and '80s had their
names significantly "Russified" compared to the old-timers. For
instance, I knew someone who spelled his name "Veynshteyn". Of course,
I also knew a professor at my dental school who spelled his name "Alain
Roizen" (a-'LAN roy-'ZAN)--tres continental. Transliterations can be funny.

Steve
>
> BTW, radio personality Michael Savage's real name is
> Michael Weiner (no relation). Do you suppose he changed
> it because of the Fascist threat? (Maybe the Liberal-Fascist
> threat?) Or because his target audience thinks that's
> a funny commie name?
>
> Ben
> p.s. So if 150,000 people died in Iraq instead of 600,000,
> that makes it a success, right?



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
post #29 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

Tom Kunich wrote:


Tom, I'm going to restrict my comments not to the substance, but to the
tone of your postings to Robert. This is afterall, RBR.
Besides being offensive to me, I see no way that your discursive style
is likely to convince anyone that you have something to say.
IMO if you have a shred of judgment you'll think a bit before you hit send.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
post #30 of 222

Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 14, 5:03 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> > Who is funding you to post all this?

>
> Greg and Tom.


Please don't step on the punchlines.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › OT Is anyone really surprised?