molson_golden2002 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 No, he's just using the most obvious example of idiocy on this board. You don't have much competition for the top spot. Says the little troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I love it when you are wrong. I said "probably." That is hardley definitive. Was just making an educated guess. Talk about talking out your azz! LOL, Tom, you really are an idiot An "educated guess"? You had no knowledge of the subject. There was no education to guess by. You stated a wild-ass assumption. And you did it when you simply and reasonably could have asked "Did she say 'killed'" or 'casualties'?" Instead of getting information, you CHOSE to make a definitive statement about a subject you had know knowledge of. This is why no one takes you seriously. Ya, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died according to very credible sources. I believe even the Pentagon puts it at 80k killed, so you know it must be much higher than that Once again, talking out of your ass. Never mind the a priori assumption that any number you hear from a source you don't like is automatically wrong...but "hundreds of thousands killed" according to "sources"? Name two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 LOL, you seem to be a little obsessed with me When people who agree with you think you're a raving lunatic, you think maybe it's time to start reevaluating how you present yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 When people who agree with you think you're a raving lunatic, you think maybe it's time to start reevaluating how you present yourself? Look at the bright side. When was the last time everyone on this board agreed on something? Molton's borderline retardation is a unifying force! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 An "educated guess"? You had no knowledge of the subject. There was no education to guess by. You stated a wild-ass assumption. And you did it when you simply and reasonably could have asked "Did she say 'killed'" or 'casualties'?" Instead of getting information, you CHOSE to make a definitive statement about a subject you had know knowledge of. This is why no one takes you seriously. Once again, talking out of your ass. Never mind the a priori assumption that any number you hear from a source you don't like is automatically wrong...but "hundreds of thousands killed" according to "sources"? Name two. Wow, you have really gone off the deep end! Yes, educated guess, based on a common mistake many people make. It's that simple. Get a grip you moron. And how is "probably" "definitive" ???? Name two estimates? The British doctor's thingy for one, and I've seen the Iraqi government report on it too--second hand of course. That good enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 When people who agree with you think you're a raving lunatic, you think maybe it's time to start reevaluating how you present yourself? When a group of largely right wing idiots think I'm crazy, I just consider I'm doing something right. That the leader of the mob--you--hates me, is a source of amusment to me. And boy, are you bent out of shape today in particular <------me <-----you :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Name two estimates? The British doctor's thingy for one, and I've seen the Iraqi government report on it too--second hand of course. That good enough? "British doctor's thingy"? You mean "The Lancet", specifically the paper published in it, which didn't say "hundreds of thousands dead", which you'd know if you read the paper. Ditto the Iraqi government report, which last I checked (a few months ago) said some 150k death certificates had been issued. But then, your misconceptions of both are consistent with your "pulling nonsense out of your ass" methodology. Would you like to cover your ass now by saying they "probably" said hundreds of thousands, therefore your bull sh-- statement doesn't count against you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 When a group of largely right wing idiots think I'm crazy, I just consider I'm doing something right. That the leader of the mob--you--hates me, is a source of amusment to me. And boy, are you bent out of shape today in particular <------me <-----you :lol: RI, bow to me as one of my right-wing lackeys should! Holy Christ, you're delusional. Are you sure you don't need to be institutionalized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Not a party to Eliot Spitzer scandal?Ray Cooklis, Editorial Board Member, Cincinnati Enquirer 03/13/08 "Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat. There. At least somebody's said it right up front. If you're watching the news accounts of the soon-to-be-ex-New York governor's call-girl scandal and resignation this week, you'd be listening in vain to find out what party he belongs to. NBC's Today Show never mentioned Spitzer's party during 11 segments about him on its Tuesday broadcast, according to Media Research Center, which tracks media bias. Neither ABC's nor NBC's evening newscasts Tuesday identified him as a Democrat, but put the party tag on Republicans responding to the scandal. The New York Times' story online Wednesday, for example, identified Spitzer as a Democrat in the 17th paragraph. The Associated Press story that appeared on the Enquirer's Web site buried it in the 18th paragraph. Contrast that with recent stories about Republican Sen. Sen. Larry Craig, whose lawyers are trying to invalidate his guilty plea for soliciting sex in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport men's room last year. The Associated Press noted Craig's political party in the first paragraph of its story, as did the Washington Post. CNN had it in the second paragraph, as did the Minneapolis Star-Tribune."... http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...30310/1090/EDIT Bollocks...the first report I heard of this whole thing, on CNN, not only mentioned his party affiliation, but was immediatel followed by a story about how the Clinton campaign was handling the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 LOL, you seem to be a little obsessed with me Me too, since you remind us of one of those folks that don a clown costume and for a buck donated to charity we can fire a baseball at a target, hitting it resulting in you dropping down into a tank of water while we all laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Anyone notice the irony that the same people screaming "THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS!" are the same ones screaming "WE NEED THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!!!"? Different animal entirely. I'm sure there are zealots that overlap in their causes but it's too wide a brush you paint with re the Fairness Doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 "British doctor's thingy"? You mean "The Lancet", specifically the paper published in it, which didn't say "hundreds of thousands dead", which you'd know if you read the paper. Ditto the Iraqi government report, which last I checked (a few months ago) said some 150k death certificates had been issued. But then, your misconceptions of both are consistent with your "pulling nonsense out of your ass" methodology. Would you like to cover your ass now by saying they "probably" said hundreds of thousands, therefore your bull sh-- statement doesn't count against you? You mean the study published in Lancet, which the authors refuse to divulge the data behind the research? The one which trumpeted the 600,000 deaths number, which sticks to inert brain matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 molton...listen carefully. Its not a "right" or "left" thing. EVERYONE thinks you are a delusional retard. EVERYONE That's pretty presumptuous of you don't you think? I consider him a delusional !@#$stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Typically yes, but not in my case. Once again the thread title was MEDIA BIAS, the radio is a form of media, her comment was biased to her thoughts on the war in Vietnam that leans towards the liberal therefore that is the reason for my posting it in this thread about the liberal bias in the media as opposed to starting a new thread. After yesterday bandwidth appears to be precious here. To which, I would reply, so what if an entertainment program is biased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 To which, I would reply, so what if an entertainment program is biased? Then it is a biased form of media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 You mean the study published in Lancet, which the authors refuse to divulge the data behind the research? The one which trumpeted the 600,000 deaths number, which sticks to inert brain matter? No, they divulged the data. The problems were: 1) the methodology they relied on - cluster studies - is pretty reknown for overestimating demographics by several hundred percent. If you compare cluster studies of bombing casualty estimates in WWII to actual numbers, they're usually off by a factor of four. 2) the data sample was far too small for the methodology anyway, resulting in 3) their ACTUAL result: the number of dead in Iraq was somewhere between 110k and 1.2 million...not only didn they never state a concrete number of dead (that was some media outlet's fault, where some (*^*&%^$^#editor average 130k and 1.2m), they couldn't pin it down within a factor of 10. Which leads to... 4) serious nonsensical flaws in their analysis. For example: they claim that in interviews were the respondent claimed to know or be close to someone dead, they were able to back it up with a death certificate 84% of the time. By the "650k dead" number, that would mean the Iraqi government issued about 540k death certificates by that time. They'd actually issued about 120k, which is not even remotely reconcilable with the data collected. Also not reconcilable is the overall demographic data in Iraq - given the demographics of the deceased, Iraq should be showing a contraction in the number of males aged 12-35 if the death toll were as high as molson claims (I refuse to attribute that claim to the Lancet authors, who never made it). Instead, that demographic is growing. Now, of course, one could note that 650k/4 (as per point 1) is roughly 150k, and that if the 120k death certificates represent 84% of overall deaths the total deaths would be about 140k, and that kill ratios in asymmetric conflicts historically run in the area of tens to one favoring the organized force, all of which are well in line with the range the Lancet paper established. And noting that one could realize that hey, that's a pretty consistent number across a bunch of different analyses confirmed a couple of different ways. Or one could be molson, and pull number out of your ass without understanding sh-- on the subject. Either way's good, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Then it is a biased form of media. Which is a commonly accepted fact, no? (Rush, Olbermann, Hannity & Colmes, etc. etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Which is a commonly accepted fact, no? (Rush, Olbermann, Hannity & Colmes, etc. etc.) Yes, and in my opinion none of those shows have any credibility and the reason I never listen/watch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 No, they divulged the data. The problems were:1) the methodology they relied on - cluster studies - is pretty reknown for overestimating demographics by several hundred percent. If you compare cluster studies of bombing casualty estimates in WWII to actual numbers, they're usually off by a factor of four. 2) the data sample was far too small for the methodology anyway, resulting in 3) their ACTUAL result: the number of dead in Iraq was somewhere between 110k and 1.2 million...not only didn they never state a concrete number of dead (that was some media outlet's fault, where some (*^*&%^$^#editor average 130k and 1.2m), they couldn't pin it down within a factor of 10. Which leads to... 4) serious nonsensical flaws in their analysis. For example: they claim that in interviews were the respondent claimed to know or be close to someone dead, they were able to back it up with a death certificate 84% of the time. By the "650k dead" number, that would mean the Iraqi government issued about 540k death certificates by that time. They'd actually issued about 120k, which is not even remotely reconcilable with the data collected. Also not reconcilable is the overall demographic data in Iraq - given the demographics of the deceased, Iraq should be showing a contraction in the number of males aged 12-35 if the death toll were as high as molson claims (I refuse to attribute that claim to the Lancet authors, who never made it). Instead, that demographic is growing. Now, of course, one could note that 650k/4 (as per point 1) is roughly 150k, and that if the 120k death certificates represent 84% of overall deaths the total deaths would be about 140k, and that kill ratios in asymmetric conflicts historically run in the area of tens to one favoring the organized force, all of which are well in line with the range the Lancet paper established. And noting that one could realize that hey, that's a pretty consistent number across a bunch of different analyses confirmed a couple of different ways. Or one could be molson, and pull number out of your ass without understanding sh-- on the subject. Either way's good, I guess. Oh, that "British doctor's thingy." Nice to see Molson's ideas are as well-researched as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Yes, and in my opinion none of those shows have any credibility and the reason I never listen/watch them. But they can be entertaining. Last time I saw O'Reilly, he was trying to explain why Arianna Huffington and the people at her website are "just like the Nazis." Actually, I don't think he was trying to explain why, he just said it a couple times and pretended it made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts