Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 11

Billo_Really · 01-29-08, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Very well Billo. An all-inclusive and collective responsibility. If that's the position you embrace, then of course it must be uniformly applied. To do less would amount to hypocrisy.

Let me remind you then that in 1948 and in subsequent wars, Israel was invaded by numerous Arab countries. According to the all-inclusive and collective responsibility position you have embraced, those invading Arab nations must be solely responsible for all Israeli, Arab, and Palestinian deaths that occured in the war zones. Moreover, they must also be held accountable for the myriad post-war developments that those aggressive invasions occasioned.

You see Billo, you can't have it both ways. If America is responsible for everything untoward that has happened in Iraq because of the invasion, then the same all-inclusive and collective standard must also apply to other aggressor nations.

Don't change the subject!

Start a thread about that and we'll discuss it.

Shayah · 01-30-08, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Don't change the subject! Start a thread about that and we'll discuss it.

Tash is right. You only see what you want to see, only where you want to see it, and only when you want to see it. Your hypocrisy is exposed.

Hundebolg · 01-30-08, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Very well Billo. An all-inclusive and collective responsibility. If that's the position you embrace, then of course it must be uniformly applied. To do less would amount to hypocrisy.

Let me remind you then that in 1948 and in subsequent wars, Israel was invaded by numerous Arab countries. According to the all-inclusive and collective responsibility position you have embraced, those invading Arab nations must be solely responsible for all Israeli, Arab, and Palestinian deaths that occured in the war zones. Moreover, they must also be held accountable for the myriad post-war developments that those aggressive invasions occasioned.

You see Billo, you can't have it both ways. If America is responsible for everything untoward that has happened in Iraq because of the invasion, then the same all-inclusive and collective standard must also apply to other aggressor nations.

Did the arabs disband the israeli army ? Where is the paralell ?

Tashah · 01-30-08, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

Did the arabs disband the israeli army ? Where is the paralell ?

Nice try but no Havana. Unforseen consequences (defeat) do not expunge the precursor event nor the all-inclusive and collective responsibility for initiating aggressive warfare.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-30-08, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I'm not your little dancing bear!

I've answered and addressed all your queries.

If there is one in particular that you feel wasn't addressed, then step up and produce it.

I'm not going to play your stupid little game!

If you were a "dancing" animal, Bear would not come to mind. See below for that.

"Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
And you expect them to answer honestly enough not to skew the results?"

And you responded that this statment "makes no sense" trying to avoid the obvious flaw in your belief in phony facts for an agenda.

"Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
Wait so it is just as hard to ask people about deaths in thier families as it is to be a basketball player in the NBA?

Is this really your logical argument as to how we don't know because we are stupid argument?"

You responded to this by attacking my "english" and calling me names.....

Then I responded to KC's

"Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
They don't!

6 in 10 Iraqis favor attacks on US troops."

Since it actually demonstrates motive as to "why they would lie" I responded with:

"Cool, if that is true then you just provided motive as to Billio's question as to "why they would lie" or if not true how surveys can screw up......"

You responded with the same peurile nonsense about my point not making any sense.

Reminding me of the see no evil monkeys one can google to describe your lame arse avoidance technuiques.....

So maybe before you ask if someone is "too stupid" perhaps punchy you should be able to answer questions and not fail basic comprehension skills.

Have a nice day lib.

Billo_Really · 01-30-08, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

If you were a "dancing" animal, Bear would not come to mind. See below for that.

"Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
And you expect them to answer honestly enough not to skew the results?"

And you responded that this statment "makes no sense" trying to avoid the obvious flaw in your belief in phony facts for an agenda.

It had nothing to do with avoiding anything. I was making the point you had nothing to base "dishonest" answers on. Why would someone lie about a death in their family? And why would people who we are there to help, "skew the results"? That's what made no sense!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

"Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
Wait so it is just as hard to ask people about deaths in thier families as it is to be a basketball player in the NBA?

Is this really your logical argument as to how we don't know because we are stupid argument?"

You responded to this by attacking my "english" and calling me names.....

That wasn't the analogy at all. I was making the point that you were questioning the judgement of experts in their field of expertise. Do you know how to play basketball better than Michael Jordan? Would you question his advice? Why do you question Lancets'? They are the Michael Jordan of their field. You're just a layman, not an epidimologist. It is one thing to be apprehensive, it is another to be arrogantly critical as if YOU KNEW the right answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Then I responded to KC's

"Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
They don't!

6 in 10 Iraqis favor attacks on US troops."

Since it actually demonstrates motive as to "why they would lie" I responded with:

"Cool, if that is true then you just provided motive as to Billio's question as to "why they would lie" or if not true how surveys can screw up......"

You responded with the same peurile nonsense about my point not making any sense.

Reminding me of the see no evil monkeys one can google to describe your lame arse avoidance technuiques.....

Why is being fed up with the occupation reason to lie about deaths in their families?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So maybe before you ask if someone is "too stupid" perhaps punchy you should be able to answer questions and not fail basic comprehension skills.

Have a nice day lib.

I never failed comprehension skills. I got A's in english. But I'm glad you've admitted the "stupid" comment was a question and not a statement denoting a personal attack.

Billo_Really · 01-30-08, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayah

Tash is right. You only see what you want to see, only where you want to see it, and only when you want to see it. Your hypocrisy is exposed.

I disagree...

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-30-08, 05:13 PM

Ok the "lancet" is not the "michael Jordan" of polling.

People lie for various reasons. People in warzones will exagerate for a myriad of reasons, ask any vet here who served in a war if you don't believe me. It is common knowledge.

But when you are a polster with an agenda you can get whatever results you want.

So you don't believe people lie on polls:

The Denver Post - The myth of polls

Want more? I have a whole google search full.

Billo_Really · 01-30-08, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Ok the "lancet" is not the "michael Jordan" of polling.

People lie for various reasons. People in warzones will exagerate for a myriad of reasons, ask any vet here who served in a war if you don't believe me. It is common knowledge.

But when you are a polster with an agenda you can get whatever results you want.

So you don't believe people lie on polls:

The Denver Post - The myth of polls

Want more? I have a whole google search full.

So you're saying Lancet is NOT a highly esteemed medical journal. And that John's Hopkins and Columbia University don't know what their talking about? And that I should really take your word (and opinion of polls) over what they have said?

Is that what you're saying?

Hundebolg · 01-30-08, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Ok the "lancet" is not the "michael Jordan" of polling.

The Lancet IS the michael jordan of public health, it's the world's leading medical journal. Even Dr. Frankenstein reads it while travelling by train in "Young Frankenstein" .

Another Survey has been released by a very reputable polling institution stipulating even higher numbers. There's already a thread on it : http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...n-victims.html