See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: BeAChooser Bozo Count at 40 Plus and Counting - A Possible Site Record
Source:
Minerva
URL Source: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45820&Disp=409#C409
Published: Feb 19, 2007
Author: Minerva
Post Date: 2007-02-19 21:59:28 by Minerva
Keywords: None
Views: 23332
Comments: 375
Last night I took a guess at Beachy's bozo count. Today he spilled the beans and indicated that the number I guessed, between 40 and 50, was substantially correct. What does this mean? Well .... it means he is a piss poor excuse for excuse for an advocate. Nobody takes him serious. This is probably why Goldi booted him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Minerva (#0)
Ignore him to death and he'll fade away like a bad fart.
"First I'm gonna bother everybody I meet, and then I'll probably go home and get drunk."
kooks like this kind of stuff. it's easier for them than making sense.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
We should just say that he holds the site record and then post a dead link in support. Beachy would be proud.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
no, you need to post a link selling magazine supscriptions. that's what beachy does when he doesn't have a source.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
BAC is the guy on the left. BAC has provided facts confirming that this is his picture.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ron Brown himself probably has Beachy on bozo.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
It is pretty fucking sad that this, of all forums, has come to this 'back and forth sniping tripe'.
the facts are as follows. the allies bombed Dresden during WW2. therefore, the John Hopkins study projecting that 650,000 Iraqis died as a result of the invasion is false. and it follows logically that ron brown has put BAC on bozo. BAC only deals in facts. this is what he's said, this is what's true. I will NEVER put BAC on bozo - NEVER!!!! he's the most entertaining person here.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
But isn't BAC a special case?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
yes bac is a special case, we won't do it to anyone else. promise.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Wow, he comes in a special koOk action case? Does he com with batteries too? ;-D
Yep, if he was a movie he'd be called 'Bac to the Futile.'
we want him to do his ron brown impersonation for us. so far he has been holding out.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
maybe this will inspire him: This is Bill Clinton arriving at the funeral of one of his fundraiser stooges, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. You can see him laughing it up with his buddy Tony Campolo as they're walking towards the funeral service, but then Slick Willy catches the camera and starts tearing up. Pretty good acting job. ...
lol!
"1928, Wilhelm Ackermann observed that A(x,y,z), the z-fold iterated exponentiation of x with y, is an example of a recursive function which is not primitive recursive."
Yea - Freeper like mentality by people who hate being exposed to anything not part of the echo chamber they want to live in. Anyone who places anyone on bozo for non harassment reasons on a forum is an intellectual coward.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I think BAC may have put me on bozo! and I really miss the intellectual discussions that I had with that guy!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I don't use the bozo filter, Red. But I do ignore certain posts.
He should go to DU, it's a larger forum and he could feed his ego more, though they'd probably throw him off really quick. I can see why Goldi finally got tired of his nonsense and dishonesty. He's a bad egg.
That was pretty funny, and he even tried to spin that mistake.
There is no intellect present in an exceedingly dishonest poster with a very questionable agenda. You should know better than that. And his behavior IS a form of harassment, he twists the words of other posters, will not debate honestly, constantly infers others are stupid, etc. He's a classic narcissist, therefore impossible to reason with or get along with.
I don't think he can be reasoned with either. He hasn't posted for as long as he has to be swayed from his opinions of 9/11 just because someone finally posts something that should make him think, "hey, maybe these kooks are right after all about 9/11." I doubt that will ever happen. Nevertheless to leave his stuff posted without any rebuttal makes it look like he has won the argument to a lurker, which is not a good idea. Calling him names only helps his side of the argument for an impartial lurker.
God is always good! He's too self-assured, and that is what gets him trapped. I think lurkers can easily see how he spins and bobs and weaves and will not debate honestly. It's almost like a 3 yr old trying to lie to his parents thinking he will get away with it. So I think most lurkers are smart enough to catch onto that, plus it's obvious he has a very difficult time getting along with others. His behavior speaks for itself, loud and clear.
BAC has provided facts confirming that this is his picture. Ah so he does have an after-hours WH pass.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell This is a good example of how he operates.He said few Iraqis are dying because there is no hard evidence for all those killed (typical BAC spin/logic). I wrote this post to him after he made the claim that there are few photographs, videos or death certificates of dead Iraqis: ****** "Uh.... Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates. In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice." ****** And this is what he wrote in response to that post: ****** "It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?" ****** You see what he is doing here? If you go through his post carefully, you can see how many inflammatory accusations he is making. A person has to decide whether they are willing to put up with that kind of dishonest and potentially harmful behavior.
Les Roberts Answers Your Questions Juan Cole: 655,000 Dead in Iraq since Bush Invasion There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible? There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed. If 470 were dying every day, what would that look like? Or let's take the city of Basra, which is also roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. Proportionally speaking, you'd expect on the order of 40 persons to be dying of political violence there every day. We don't see 40 persons from Basra reported dead in the wire services on a daily basis. But last May, the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now So if 24 Iraqis can be shot down every day in Basra for a month (or for many months?) and no one notices, the Lancet results are perfectly plausible.
eeww.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I'm not bothered by so many FD4UMers using the bozo filter, Destro. It says much more about them, than me.
Diana, you forgot to mention that you said this: to explain away the discrepancy of the 600,000 or so missing bodies, missing death certificates, and missing news reports. Now since you appear to be denying that you believe large numbers of US soldiers were involved in this massive genocide and coverup (which, by the way, involves more than twice the dead Saddam is accused of putting in mass graves ... which they have found by the hundreds), perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us who you think did carry it out and how they managed to keep it secret from the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who are in and have been to Iraq so far during this war? Will you answer or have you bozo'd yourself, too? ROTFLOL!
Readers ... note that not one of the following verifiable facts and concerns about the Les Roberts study is addressed in Mr Coles article: ********************* 1. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate out there (and there are about half a dozen others). Those other estimates were more like 50,000 at the time the John Hopkins study was published. Are they all wrong and only John Hopkins right? Even various anti-war groups such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount have indicated the John Hopkins' figures are outlandish. So why are FD4UMers so voraciously defending JH's estimates? 2. The report and the peer reviewer of the report (the Lancet) ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimates derived by other organizations such as the UN and WHO. The UN and WHO, in largers studies, came up with rates between 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkins rate of 5-5.5 per 1000 per year. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had previously endorsed as accurate. This pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less, perhaps a tenth as much. 3. A recent UN Development Program study, http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf, states that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level) during the time covered by the Hopkins report. This is approximately ONE-FOURTH the number of excess deaths that Les Roberts' 2004 John Hopkins study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set than John Hopkins. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report (which claims its results verify the first JH report)? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet *peer* reviewers? 4. According to the latest John Hopkins report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even if that investigation were off a factor of two, there is still a huge discrepancy. To take the Johns Hopkins results seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle. And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample happened to get 92 percent by pure chance. 5. A principle author of both John Hopkins studies, Les Roberts, has publically stated he disliked Bush (not unexpected given that he is an active democRAT) and the war. He has admitted that he released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP. And he has admitted that most of those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. None of that is a good basis for conducting a non-partisan study. 6. Nor is the behavior of the Lancet. They've not only failed to ask important questions during their *peer* reviews, they admit they greatly abbreviated that peer review process for the 2004 report so the results could be published in time to influence the 2004 election. They also reported on their own website in 2004, that the deaths estimated by John Hopkins were comprised solely of civilians. But the study made no such claim. In fact, it clearly states that the investigators did not ask those interviewed if the dead were civilians, Saddam military or insurgents. Which leads one to wonder if the Lancet actually read the report they claimed to review. 7. When media interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. This is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of the deaths. And Les Roberts did the exact same thing in another interview. 8. In the Garfield interview mentioned above, he stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Let me repeat that figure ... 200 A MONTH, in one of the most populated and most violent regions in the country during the time in question. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 (on average) were dying each month in the country since the war began. How could Garfield not have questions about this new estimate given his previous statement? 9. Richard Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts/John Hopkins interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent. That is compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Roberts or Garfield address this disparity? And note that the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Roberts' study? 10. There is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. 11. Dahr Jamail is an example of the above. He is viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents and arabs. So look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day on average back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq, which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. 12. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. 13. But the discrepancy is even worse than that. As noted by the author of this blog, http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" 14. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (note who he uses to get his message out), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, instead he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses." Then why didn't they keep the Fallujah data point? 15. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and according to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report killed an estimated 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire rather than bombs, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years, as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities which completely flattened entire cities? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (for example, Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and his crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq ... where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths? **************** Number 4 is particularly damning.
That sounds just like him, that's exactly what he does. That's why as Red Jones said it's impossible to win an argument with him.
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates. In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice. This has to be some sort of stunt to get me to answer because otherwise it would imply........ You're NUTS!! What do you think I wrote above ?? Just that!
I have only '0' bozos on my account, but I am not very active at this site. I have 6 at LP but I used to have 12 or 14 at one time.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Referrring to what I posted in post #25 and again just now, I will play you. I never referred to any nation, any army in that post. Actually, I was talking about the Armenian genocide where many innocent civilians were killed and their bodies disposed of. Untold thousands died at the hands of the Turks. Again, I'm surprised you're not aware of this practice, which occurs in ALL wars.
Then he should be easy to debunk.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It doesn't quite work that way when he switches facts for falsehoods and vice versa, leaves some facts out altogether and twists and weaves until the opponent throws their hands up in the air in dispair. If he were on the up and up your statement would be true.
You are mistaken Destro. BAC has never lost an argument.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
In addition to that, as poster ... points out, he pulls facts that don't exist out of dark places.
And never will.
Neither he nor you are here to have legitimate discussion. Your agendas are quite simply to disrupt any cogent thread with your nonsense. Why bother debunking nonsense. Until you and the others are bozoed and eventually banned, you are being very effective, especially for lurkers and newcomers.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Comments (42 - 375) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Minerva (#0)
#3. To: Morgana le Fay (#2)
#4. To: Minerva (#3)
#5. To: Minerva, BeAChooser (#0)
#6. To: Red Jones (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: Minerva, christine, zipporah (#0)
#8. To: Minerva (#6)
#9. To: Brian S (#7)
It is pretty fucking sad that this, of all forums, has come to this 'back and forth sniping tripe'.
#10. To: Brian S (#7)
#11. To: Minerva (#9)
"But isn't BAC a special case?"
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#12. To: Morgana le Fay (#10)
"yes bac is a special case, we won't do it to anyone else. promise."
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#14. To: Morgana le Fay, BeaChooser (#13)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#15. To: Morgana le Fay (#4)
no, you need to post a link selling magazine supscriptions. that's what beachy does when he doesn't have a source.
#16. To: Brian S, Minerva, christine, zipporah, Morgana le Fay, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, HOUNDDAWG (#7)
It is pretty fucking sad that this, of all forums, has come to this 'back and forth sniping tripe'.
#17. To: Minerva, BeAChooser (#0)
#18. To: Red Jones, ALL (#17)
I think BAC may have put me on bozo!
#19. To: Minerva (#0)
#20. To: Morgana le Fay, ... (#4)
no, you need to post a link selling magazine supscriptions.
#21. To: Destro (#16)
Anyone who places anyone on bozo for non harassment reasons on a forum is an intellectual coward.
#22. To: Diana (#21)
He's a classic narcissist, therefore impossible to reason with or get along with.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#23. To: RickyJ (#22)
#24. To: Red Jones (#5)
(Edited)
BAC is the guy on the left.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#25. To: RickyJ, All (#22)
#26. To: Diana (#25)
(Edited)
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
"Not to mention that for substantial periods of time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the country just to move around, much less to move around with dead bodies.
#27. To: Red Jones (#5)
BAC is the guy on the left.
#28. To: Diana (#25)
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
#29. To: Destro, ALL (#16)
Anyone who places anyone on bozo for non harassment reasons on a forum is an intellectual coward.
#30. To: Diana, RickyJ, ALL (#25)
You see what he is doing here? If you go through his post carefully, you can see how many inflammatory accusations he is making. A person has to decide whether they are willing to put up with that kind of dishonest and potentially harmful behavior.
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice.
#31. To: AGAviator, Diana, ALL (#26)
Les Roberts Answers Your Questions
Juan Cole: 655,000 Dead in Iraq since Bush Invasion
#32. To: angle, Red Jones (#28)
Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
#33. To: BeAChooser (#30)
Diana, you forgot to mention that you said this:
#34. To: Minerva (#0)
#35. To: BeAChooser (#30)
to explain away the discrepancy of the 600,000 or so missing bodies, missing death certificates, and missing news reports. Now since you appear to be denying that you believe large numbers of US soldiers were involved in this massive genocide and coverup (which, by the way, involves more than twice the dead Saddam is accused of putting in mass graves ... which they have found by the hundreds), perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us who you think did carry it out and how they managed to keep it secret from the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who are in and have been to Iraq so far during this war?
#36. To: Diana (#21)
There is no intellect present in an exceedingly dishonest poster with a very questionable agenda.
#37. To: Destro (#36)
#38. To: Destro, Diana (#36)
Then he should be easy to debunk.
#39. To: Destro (#36)
#40. To: Red Jones, Destro (#38)
You are mistaken Destro. BAC has never lost an argument.
#41. To: Destro, christine (#36)
Then he should be easy to debunk.
.
.
.