Hey Chung

On Mar 4, 12:45 am, "Robert Chung" wrote:
Phil Holman wrote:
There are lots of questions that could have been better than the one
that was asked, but the startling thing was that the responses
received from the bloggers were 59 to 0.

Extreme but what would you expect from an extremely biased sample
selection.

Well, the interesting thing isn't that biased samples produce odd results:
it's that the sample was selected according to position on a political, not
scientific, spectrum. One could easily expect that opinions on the war, on
the President's performance, or on Democratic legislator's motivations would
be affected. That's dog bites man stuff. But what was the a prior
expectation about their position on a scientific topic? I wouldn't have
expected this litmus test to have performed so well.

But I guess I'm naive because I was also pretty surprised about the divide
on the estimates of excess mortality in Iraq. Those estimates appear to have
about as much support as the AGW stuff does by professionals in their
respective fields.



Dumbass -

The discrepancies between the Lancet Study which claimed 650,000
deaths and the DoD figures was about 12 to 1. Look at what the Iraq
Study Group found.

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec...igence,00.html

The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.

"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."

snipend


There is also about a 12 to 1 ratio there. Explains it. If the
incident doesn't involve US personnel, it doesn't count as a death.

BTW, I put in a report from Faux News just so the idiots in here don't
start screaming about the evil, inaccurate liberal media.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Mar 4, 7:01 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:45 am, "Robert Chung" wrote:





Phil Holman wrote:
There are lots of questions that could have been better than the one
that was asked, but the startling thing was that the responses
received from the bloggers were 59 to 0.

Extreme but what would you expect from an extremely biased sample
selection.

Well, the interesting thing isn't that biased samples produce odd results:
it's that the sample was selected according to position on a political, not
scientific, spectrum. One could easily expect that opinions on the war, on
the President's performance, or on Democratic legislator's motivations would
be affected. That's dog bites man stuff. But what was the a prior
expectation about their position on a scientific topic? I wouldn't have
expected this litmus test to have performed so well.

But I guess I'm naive because I was also pretty surprised about the divide
on the estimates of excess mortality in Iraq. Those estimates appear to have
about as much support as the AGW stuff does by professionals in their
respective fields.

Dumbass -

The discrepancies between the Lancet Study which claimed 650,000
deaths and the DoD figures was about 12 to 1. Look at what the Iraq
Study Group found.

From:http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec...igence,00.html

The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.

"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."

snipend

There is also about a 12 to 1 ratio there. Explains it. If the
incident doesn't involve US personnel, it doesn't count as a death.

BTW, I put in a report from Faux News just so the idiots in here don't
start screaming about the evil, inaccurate liberal media.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not new news. I think that's more crap that I didn't post weeks ago
from a miltary source. Fox is just as disgusted with Bush and Co. as
anyone else, excepting the nutjobs like Hannity, Malkin, and Coulter.
Bill C

On Mar 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" wrote:

Not new news.



Dumbass -


I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
estimate discrepancy.

And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. ****ing O'Reilly still
talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
the real business of killing each other.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Mar 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:
On Mar 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" wrote:



Not new news.

Dumbass -

I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
estimate discrepancy.

And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. ****ing O'Reilly still
talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
the real business of killing each other.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

No ****! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
million more dead.
Iran's military purchases are way up. The Saudis and other Sunni
states are expected to set records. The Saudis have said they will
fight if the US leaves.
Can you say Regional War?
Support the AFSC, support Hitler, Stalin, and every dictator ever.
They are just misunderstood.
Bill C

On Mar 4, 8:27 pm, "Bill C" wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:





On Mar 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" wrote:

Not new news.

Dumbass -

I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
estimate discrepancy.

And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. ****ing O'Reilly still
talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
the real business of killing each other.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

No ****! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
million more dead.
Iran's military purchases are way up. The Saudis and other Sunni
states are expected to set records. The Saudis have said they will
fight if the US leaves.
Can you say Regional War?
Support the AFSC, support Hitler, Stalin, and every dictator ever.
They are just misunderstood.
Bill C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The American Friends Service Committee fought against the US fighting
Hitler. They fought against fighting the Korean war. Contrast N.
Korea, which they fought to protect with S. Korea. They never fought
Castro, Mugabe, China, etc...We are following their policy in Sudan.
As hindreds of thousands die they fight to make sure NOTHING other
than speech is done to oppose it.
That's the policy Howard Dean wants to bring to the US because
"patriotism" is evil and war is the ultimate evil, if the US fights.
Bill C

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
ups.com:
The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.

"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."

Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
hates America! The official reports are just focusing on the positive as
the White House says they should, and 93 attacks is much more positive than
1,100.

NS
asst to Tony Snow

"Nev Shea" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
hates America!

We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,
maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.


https://tips.fbi.gov/

On Mar 4, 5:27 pm, "Bill C" wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:





On Mar 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" wrote:

Not new news.

Dumbass -

I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
estimate discrepancy.

And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. ****ing O'Reilly still
talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
the real business of killing each other.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

No ****! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
million more dead.


Dumbass -

I think we should get out. They really, really want to kill each
other. There's been so much bloodletting, so much that under their
cultural obligation to avenge the dead . . . it's just an irresistable
force at this point. There's nothing we can do to stop it. The best we
can do is try to pressure the other regional players to keep the
bloodshed contained within Iraq.

Oh ya. We gotta remember to declare victory before getting out.
Mission Accomplished!


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On 3/4/07 8:18 PM, in article HSMGh.1237151$R63.160745@pd7urf1no, "Jack
Maars" wrote:


"Nev Shea" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
hates America!

We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,
maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.


https://tips.fbi.gov/



http://www.ice.gov/pi/investigations.../robert_ma.htm

ALIAS:
Bao Ping Ma, Robert Ping Chung Ma???

On Mar 5, 12:11 am, ST wrote:
On 3/4/07 8:18 PM, in article HSMGh.1237151$R63.160745@pd7urf1no, "Jack

Maars" wrote:

"Nev Shea" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
hates America!

We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,
maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.

https://tips.fbi.gov/

http://www.ice.gov/pi/investigations.../robert_ma.htm

ALIAS:
Bao Ping Ma, Robert Ping Chung Ma???


BMI 22