From: edmunds.david@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, June 9, 2013 at 6:40:31 PM UTC+1, David Edmunds wrote:   
   > On Saturday, June 8, 2013 7:28:48 PM UTC+1, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   > > David Edmunds  wrote:   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > >On Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:48:04 AM UTC+1, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   > >    
   > > >> David Edmunds  wrote:   
   > >    
   > > >>    
   > >    
   > > >> >On Friday, June 7, 2013 3:21:39 PM UTC+1, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   > >    
   > > >> >> David Edmunds  wrote:   
   > >    
   > > >> >> >   
   > >    
   > > >> >> >2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by   
   the denialists   
   > >    
   > > >> >> >   
   > >    
   > > >> >>    
   > >    
   > > >> >> That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely   
   ignored   
   > >    
   > > >> >> as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed   
   > >    
   > > >> >> methodology.   
   > >    
   > > >> >>    
   > >    
   > > >> >   
   > >    
   > > >> >Not that preposterous Fred,    
   > >    
   > > >> >   
   > >    
   > > >>    
   > >    
   > > >> Yes, that preposterous, David.   
   > >    
   > > >>    
   > >    
   > > >> Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant.  What's relevant is   
   > >    
   > > >> that their methods are suspect.   
   > >    
   > > >>    
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > > >Sorry to be always disagreeing with you about something or other -    
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > > >As to their methods being "suspect", I would be more inclined to describe   
   them as being loose or imprecise ...   
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > In other words, as a statistical analysis trying to show something,   
   > >    
   > > their study is shite.  It's all political with practically no   
   > >    
   > > underlying science.  'Suspect' is a kind description of it.   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > > >and comparing their estimations/calculations against the IBC (Iran Body   
   count) people I would be comfortable with a figure less than their's but still   
   in the hundreds of thousands. The IBC figure is only for "violent deaths" not   
   "excess deaths" so    
   comparing only the Lancet's violent deaths figure results in at least 30%   
   disparity.    
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > And where are you getting your selected floor value of "hundreds of   
   > >    
   > > thousands"?  Statistical analysis doesn't let you just pull things out   
   > >    
   > > of your ass.   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > > >The American public also fared rather poorly in their awareness of the   
   death toll in the war, I read somewhere that a poll by AP in 2007 resulted in   
   a median figure of 10,000 when asked how many civilians had died in the Iraq   
   war?   
   > >    
   > > >   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > If it was asked that way, that's not that unreasonable an answer.  If   
   > >    
   > > someone asked me that question, I would give a number DURING THE   
   > >    
   > > ACTUAL WAR, not all deaths since from whatever cause.   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > >    
   > > --    
   > >    
   > > "Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."   
   > >    
   > >                            -- Confucius   
   >    
   > I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was the   
   colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless Fred, Trying   
   to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so I would have   
   preferred it if you had used    
   the Scots word which is "Erse".    
   >    
   > David Martin Edmunds   
      
   Correction Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkin   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)