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: 27163
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
Comments (1-195) not displayed.
.
.
.
#196. To: christine, ALL (#191)
What is it about FD4UM posters (and owners) that makes facts so frightening? I find it laughable that someone can BOAST about not listening to both sides of a debate ... as if that's a laudable approach to decision making and truth seeking. ROTFLOL!
I find it redeeming that you stomp your feet and scream censorship when the general public laughs at you. Does my heart good.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****. - Tom Frost
There's no censorship on this site except the censorship of covering your own eyes. And that's laughable.
Do you collect Star Wars glasses from Pizza Hut?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****. - Tom Frost
And we all hold collective responsibility to insure... Where have I heard all this before?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****. - Tom Frost
What the fuck do you know about "the truth," BAC??
BeAChooser: What is it about FD4UM posters (and owners) that makes facts so frightening? I find it laughable that someone can BOAST about not listening to both sides of a debate ... as if that's a laudable approach to decision making and truth seeking. ROTFLOL! I swear, BAC, you continually show yourself to be an unparalleled numbskull. How can you be so thick not to see the stupidity of your latest "observation?" Christine is demonstrating open mindedness to the extreme by letting a reichwingbot like yourself post the spam drivel and propaganda that you do on 4um. And just because she exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd ( ie. you), it doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. Grow up and show some gratitude why don't you? And btw when was the last time you were begged for cash by Christine or Zip for the opportunity to post your bot crap here? Huh? Think about that why don't you? At 4um you have free speech with no strings attached, no hidden agendas of the mods. Buy a clue. So are you still posting at freak republic or elpee? How much $ did you invest in both of those political discussion forums over the years?- I'll bet far more $ than some small change. And look where you ended up posting today. Thank your lucky stars for open minded generous people like christine and zipp or you'd be muttering to yourself in your closet instead of having a legitimate internet political forum-platform to disperse your smelly stuff on the net to other 4umers and lurkers alike. Gack - speaking of which - christine, zipporah - do we posters get 4um-issued gas masks to be able to handle all this gassy petoowy free speech from the likes of oozer???
I agree that she's proving there is no censureship at FD4UM and I thank her for that. No. If I were, you'd see a posts from BeAChooser.
Look oozer I would rather walk into traffic than "give up" to a tardbotshill like yourself. You boozer have zero credibility - what's your field of expertise? Do you have an MD? Do you have a PhD? Yes, no...uh huh I thought so. You are a net troll and a sad little specimen of a troll at that, I might add. Where do you get the authority to call Dr. Roberts ( PhD) a LIAR (those were your trailer park trash talk exact words)? What credentials empower you to sit in judgement of Dr. Burnham, MD? You think it's soooo evil for Dr. Burnham to support Dr. Roberts because Dr. Roberts is a Democrat( eeeek! keep your distance, BAC, you may catch Democrat cooties!) and because in an interview Dr. Burnham made this outrageous, scandalous statement: "Gil Burnham stated in an interview with The World Today before the study even began that, "we wouldn't go to the effort of doing something like this if we didn't feel that here was a situation that was egregious and, you know, there really needs to be some attention to what we can do to better protect the civilians." I take no joy in telling you this, BAC, but the fact that you take offense to such a caring human statement from Dr. Burnham reflects very poorly on you. You may be a darker individual than merely a sad little specimen of a troll. As for your spam quotes from that joke of a biased website called "Magic Statistics" ...harharharhar...did you think that I would not double check the "credibility" of this information "source?" You under estimate my intelligence and that of other 4um posters. Here's the bio of the website owner http://magicstatistics.com/about/ Let's see...hmmmm...: Perpetually perplexed Christian statistician, Scott Gilbreath, aka StatGuy, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. Happily married to the wife of my youth (Prov 5:18). Okay okay - I'll keep my guffaws to a minimum - anyways, I have travelled to Canada on business in the past - to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and you know, "Whitehorse, Yukon" is not where the big fish of any profession live - Yukon is like next door to "the Northwest Territories" ie the Siberia of Canada frankly speaking - it's where teeny tiny minnows are FORCED to live because they can't get a job in the Canadian big cities - so in addition to your source being a rapture nutter he's also - let's put this politely to your tender BAC bot ears - your source is not a Canadian statistician success story. Do you get the picture, BAC? For a giggle I checked out at random what "your" statistician posted under Israel - what a joke - I think his Israel thread of articles and comments makes a definitive statement about his bias and credibility: http://magicstatistics.com/category/asia/middle-east/israel/ "Israeli Jews use Christian donations to help Muslims" "UN official praises Israel" "Israel to begin producing energy from oil shale" Ouch! Are you calling uncle yet, BAC? I'll stop now - I don't like poking fun at single focused israelfirster statisticians forced to live in Canada's Siberia. As for your hero, Kaplan...he lives in Brooklyn with his wife, Brooke Gladstone...sounds like he may have some vested personal interests in down playing the numbers of civilian Iraqi Muslims killed for lies. Also, Freddy does not have a stats degree or an MD does he? So the long and short of it is that Freddy Kaplan is basically a layman, an artsy amateur. So when Freddy the music critic for Forward magazine doesn't "connect" or get a response he's expecting from Drs. Burnham, M.D. and Roberts, PhD...it could be that Drs. Burnham and Roberts can't be bothered to answer a biased isrealfirster shill. Anyways, time for you BAC to go back to your closet, plug into your Botenergizer, and try again tomorrow. It's late for your botbunny self. The adults are talking now.
I think the closet is where he hides his pics of Jeff Gannon.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. Looser, are you still trying to argue after being so totally destroyed on this thread by Scrapper2's post from Les Roberts totally rebutting all your phony arguments you've posted and reposted dozens of times and wasted hundreds of hours on? What proof do you have of anything you've alleged? How dare you demand that someone else provide proof for you, when you can't provide proof for anyone? You've been completely annihilated, not by a he-said she-said contest of dueling experts, but by basic logic. You started out trying to concoct a case - with deceptive intent - by trying to link 2 totally separate and distinct events. (1) A survey taken throughout Iraq, and (2) An attempt at the central government level to keep track of some paperwork during chaotic times. Then, when it's conclusively proved these events are in fact separate and distinct, because doctors also issue death certificates in Iraq besides hospitals and morgues, because the Iraqi central government and the LA Times never claimed to be trying to collate death certficates issued by doctors, and because even before the war started the central government was unable to match its numbers with the real deaths, you stomp your feet and call his source a liar. Then you huff and puff and demand further proof. Poor, poor Looser. You're second-hand goods now. What are you going to do? You can't very easily adopt another screen name. Your posting style will give you away in an instant, and then your humiliation will be even worse. Now tell me Looser Les Roberts says that even before the war started the Iraqi central government was unable to track the actual deaths throughout the country from Baghdad. So how many of your ***missing death certifiates, ROTFLOL*** were missing in 2002 before the Americans even attacked and invaded? They're obviously talking about hospitals, which also employ doctors. Individual doctors handing out death certificates are not an "overblown bureaucracy." So, more of your same-o, same-o, spam.
Note how the person who makes his living impugning amateur 911 detectives, brings out an anonymous internet blogger calling himself "Stat Guy" to make his case on this thread.
Call it what you will, I call it a bozo. He's done communicating with you. More than Bush, Cheney, the GOP and corporate AmeriKa, its party flacks like you who have this nation at war and on the verge of becoming 1/3 of the NAU. It's your support of party before country that allows this invasion of illegal aliens and the accompanying destruction of our culture. Computers are good for folks like you because were you alone, face to face with many here, you'd keep your thoughts to yourself. Don't bother responding back, I won't see it.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It's only an *expert* when BAC says it's an *expert*...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Short rant, but excellent and correct. ANYONE that buys into the whole left/right, conservative/liberal, dem/rep (the '2 party' thing is a fraud - it's all one big happy family of NWO criminals intent on seeing their goal come to fruition) paradigm is kidding themselves and stumbling through life with their eyes closed. Unfortunately, that describes about 95% of Amerika's population.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
It's astounding watching the damage that strict adherance to party doctrine can do to a man(?). He's incapable of thinking beyond the cage they erect.
Having a little problem satisfactorily addressing the issues I and many others have raised about the John Hopkins studies? At least you got the name right, this time. Mind telling me why Dr Burnham hasn't resolved the factor of 3 discrepancy between peer reviewed estimates of pre-war infant mortality by one of the report authors and Roberts' *peer* reviewed estimate? Mind telling me why Dr Burnham didn't resolve the discrepancy between Lancet blessed estimates of pre-war mortality (by the UN and WHO) and John Hopkins numbers? You see, the pre-war mortality is a rather important number when estimating excess deaths caused by the invasion and alone could explain why the John Hopkins estimate for excess deaths is so outlandishly high. Mind telling me why Dr Burnham told Congress that "at the end of that survey where there was a death in the household, we asked, "By the way, do you have a death certificate?" And in 91 percent of households where this was asked, the households had death certificates." That sure borders on lying when he was supposedly part of the study and should know that description is false. Is it professional for a researcher to make public statements like he made before beginning the research? Don't you think the large contributions he made to a highly partisan democRAT candidate (who just happened to be lead researcher on the first report) might suggest a *little* bias on his part when he led the second effort? Do you think *Dr* Burnham did his job when he allowed such an obviously partisan and defective report to be published? I don't. ROTFLOL! Having a little problem satisfactorily addressing the questions that Dr Burnham simply ignored or was dishonest/misinformed about in his public interviews? Having a little difficulty with the issues and points made at by that writer? Hmmmmmmm? You ignored the most important part of that bio, scrapper. Occupation: STATISTICIAN. He works for the Yukon State Bureau of Statistics in Canada. He got his masters in the Department of Economics at the University of Washington in 1981. That being the case, he might actually have something credible to say about John Hopkins' methodology. But I'm sure you won't bother reading or trying to understand any of what he has to say. Because you already know the answer ... just like Burnham and Roberts knew the answer before they began their research. You can't face the probability that they fabricated their data, can you? And since you seem to want to use nothing but adhominems to defend YOUR two John Hopkins "heros" from specific complaints about their report methodology, bias and dishonesty, perhaps you'd like a few more names to smear: How about smearing the authors of this UN report: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf ? Dr Jon Pedersen, who headed that study, is quoted in both the NYTimes and WaPO saying the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much." Here is more on what Dr Pedersen thinks about the John Hopkins work (http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/11/26/conversation-with-jon-pedersen-on-iraq-mortality-studies/ ) Debarati Guha-Sapir (director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels) was quoted in an interview for http://Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. (http://www.prwatch.org/node/5339 ) And according to another interviewer, "She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people — who might have opposed the occupation — as interviewers. She also points out that the result does not fit with any she has recorded in 15 years of studying conflict zones. Even in Darfur, where armed groups have wiped out whole villages, she says that researchers have not recorded the 500 predominately violent deaths per day that the Johns Hopkins team estimates are occurring in Iraq." Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist and public health researcher at King's College London in the U.K., says she "simply cannot believe" the paper's claim that 40 consecutive houses were surveyed in a single day. "There is simply not enough time in the day," she says, "so I have to conclude that something else is going on for at least some of these interviews." Households may have been "prepared by someone, made ready for rapid reporting," she says, which "raises the issue of bias being introduced." (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5798/396 ) Dr. Hicks published a clarification of these concerns titled "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Were valid and ethical field methods used in this survey?", which concluded that, "In view of the significant questions that remain unanswered about the feasibility of their study’s methods as practiced at the level of field interviews,it is necessary that Burnham and his co-authors provide detailed, data-based evidence that all reported interviews were indeed carried out, and how this was done in a valid manner. In addition, they need to explain and to demonstrate to what degree their published methodology was adhered to or departed from across interviews, and to demonstrate convincingly that interviews were done in accordance with the standards of ethical research. If the authors choose not to provide this further analysis of their data, they should provide their raw data so that these aspects can be examined by others. Even in surveys on the sensitive and potentially risky subject of community violence, adequately anonymized data are expected to be sufficient for subsequent reanalysis and to be available for review. In the case of studies accepted for publication by the Lancet, all studies are expected to be able to provide their raw data." But as some of these sources have noted, they've refused to do so or they can't. Beth Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies, after reading the Lancet article told Fred Kaplan "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here." Go ahead, scrapper, smear her: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1818 "So the pre-war CDR that the two Lancet studies yield seems too low. It may not be wrong, but the authors should provide a credible explanation of why their pre-war CDR is nearly half that of the UN Population Division. If the pre-war mortality rate was too low and/or if the population estimates were too high – because, for example, they ignored outflows of refugees from Iraq – the resulting estimates of the number of Iraqi "excess deaths" would be inflated." Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times, in an interview with PBS, questioned the study based on their earlier research in Iraq, saying, "Well, we think -- the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers kill. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts." Let's hear your smear about Steven E. Moore, who conducted survey research in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority. In an article titled, "655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties", Moore wrote, "I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points. Neither would anyone else...". Professor Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway's Economics Department, and physicists Professor Neil Johnson and Sean Gourley of Oxford University have published a highly detailed paper (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/BiasPaper.html ). They claim (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/messages/press/message.asp?ref_no=367 ) the John Hopkin "study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq. The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed. Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings, artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighbourhood types that the researchers surveyed." More on their work can be found here: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/index.html . And then there's an article in Science magazine by John Bohannon which describes some of the above professors criticisms, as well as the response from Gilbert Burnham. Burnham claimed that such streets were included and that the methods section of the published paper is oversimplified. Bohannon says that Burnham told Science that he does not know exactly how the Iraqi team conducted its survey; and that the details about neighborhoods surveyed were destroyed "in case they fell into the wrong hands and could increase the risks to residents." Michael Spagat says the scientific community should call for an in-depth investigation into the researchers' procedures. "It is almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," says Johnson. In a letter to Science, the John Hopkins authors claim that Bohannon misquoted Burnham. Bohannon defended his comments as accurate, citing Burnham saying, in response to questions about why details of selecting "residential streets that that did not cross the main avenues" that "in trying to shorten the paper from its original very large size, this bit got chopped, unfortunately." Apparently, the details which were destroyed refer to the "scraps" of paper on which streets and addresses were written to "randomly" choose households". Such a well conducted survey. ROTFLOL! How about Alastair Mackay (aka AMac) (see http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006577.php and http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006694.php ) Surely you can find something nasty to say about him? And how about some of the members of Iraq Body Count? How about John Sloboda or Joshua Dougherty (AKA joshd)? They've made pretty strong criticisms of the John Hopkins' work. I posted some of them earlier on this thread. Want to smear them too, scrapper? Want to try connecting them to Israel? Or would like to actually address the many specific criticisms that have been raised in this thread. Stick to the facts and logic or smear?
Can't you stick to the facts and logic, IndieTX ... or is unfounded smear the only thing FD4UM'ers as a rule know?
Ping to Post # 212. You haven't proven this. And you certainly haven't proven that they issued half a million death certificates that the *system* is completely unaware of, AGAviator. Any direct quotes from some of those doctors in Iraq? Hmmmmm? Or just more CLAIMS by Les Roberts?
He's not anonymous. His name and many details of his life are widely available. Including the fact that he's a STATISTICIAN who works for the government of Canada.
ROTFLOL! That doesn't mean I won't communicate with him should he post some more misinformation.
BeAChooser: He's not anonymous. His name and many details of his life are widely available. Including the fact that he's a STATISTICIAN who works for the government of Canada. You are right - "stat guy" makes very clear everything there is to know about him. He's a christonutterisrealfirster who is such valuable respected stats guy that he works for the Cdn gov't in their Siberian hinterland outpost. And this stat guy is challenging the likes of the internationally respected Johns Hopkins public health center and 2 similarly respected professionals Dr. Roberts and Dr. Burnham. Comparing the curriculim vita of Drs Burnham and Roberts to "stats guy" in the Yukon, and it doesn't take genius to recognize who is more credible.
He [Stats Guy] works for the Yukon State Bureau of Statistics in Canada. He got his masters in the Department of Economics at the University of Washington in 1981. That being the case, he might actually have something credible to say about John Hopkins' methodology. You can't face the probability that they [ Drs. Burnham and Roberts]fabricated their data, can you? Here's the credentials of Dr. Les Roberts: In former work, Roberts was a Director of Health Policy at the International Rescue Committee. In 1994 he worked in Rwanda for the World Health Organization, and performed a similar study to estimate the number of Rwandan refugees. In 2000, he performed a similar study which estimated 1.7 million deaths due to the war in the Congo [1]. This study met with widespread acceptance when published [2], and resulted and was cited in a U.N. Security Council resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo, a United Nations request for $140 million in aid, and a pledge by the US State Department for an additional $10 million in aid. In 2007, Roberts is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Roberts did post-graduate fellowship work with the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. He obtained a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins University in 1992, and has been a regular lecturer there, teaching courses in numerous semesters. He obtained a masters degree in public health from Tulane University in 1986, and an undergraduate degree at St. Lawrence University in 1983 Here's the credentials of Dr. Burnham: Academic Degrees MD, Loma Linda University, 1968, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 1977, Ph.D., University of London, 1988 Research and Professional Experience Dr. Gilbert M. Burnham is the co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at Johns Hopkins. He has extensive experience in emergency preparedness and response, particularly in humanitarian needs assessment, program planning, and evaluation that address the needs of vulnerable populations, and the development and implementation of training programs. He also has extensive experience in the development and evaluation of community- based health program planning and implementation, health information system development, management and analysis, and health system analysis. He has worked with numerous humanitarian and health development programs for multilateral and non-governmental organizations, regional health departments, ministries of health (national and district level), and communities in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. A major current activity is the reconstruction of health services in Afghanistan. Drs. Burnham and Roberts credentials experience int'l reputation TRUMP your stats guy from Yukon with a Masters in Economics from U of Washington hands down. Furthermore, Drs. Burnham and Roberts did not rise to the international stage of epidemiology, which is where they are now, by lying, oozer. As for ad hominems about Kaplan - what the heck is that about? Kaplan writes music related articles for The Forward magazine and he contributes journalistic pieces to Slate. He's an artsy kind of guy - and it's odd that with his academic background and professional interests thusfar that he'd bother to challenge a research study done by MD's/epidemiologists unless Kaplan had a personal interest in having the Muslim casualties down played. Isn't that a reasonable observation to make?
Which has what to do with the specific criticisms he outlines in detail in his blog articles? Any lurkers or visitors to FD4UM by now will observe that you don't want to discuss the details of the criticisms ... not by Mr Gilbreath or any one else. How about Burnham and Roberts versus Dr Jon Pedersen, Debarati Guha-Sapir, Dr Madelyn Hicks, Beth Daponte, Steven Moore, Professor Michael Spagat ... shall I go on? You see, scrapper, it's not just about credentials. It's about professionalism and addressing specific shortcomings in the methodology. It's about having good answers to what many highly qualified people see as red flags. It's about letting your biases get in the way of good research. Sadly, Drs Burnham and Roberts have demonstrated what not to do if good science is your goal.
b. How about Burnham and Roberts versus Dr Jon Pedersen, Debarati Guha-Sapir, Dr Madelyn Hicks, Beth Daponte, Steven Moore, Professor Michael Spagat ... shall I go on? You see, scrapper, it's not just about credentials. It's about professionalism and addressing specific shortcomings in the methodology. It's about having good answers to what many highly qualified people see as red flags. It's about letting your biases get in the way of good research. Sadly, Drs Burnham and Roberts have demonstrated what not to do if good science is your goal. a. That stat guy is a religious idealogue has everything to do with his bias. That his credentials both academic and experiential pale by comparison to those of Drs. Burnham and Roberts has everything to do with stat guy's lack of professional credibility. b. The fact that 26 medical field professionals signed a petition in support of Drs. Burnham and Roberts study - its methodology and findings - trumps any internet opinions of the people you cite. Did "Dr Jon Pedersen, Debarati Guha- Sapir, Dr Madelyn Hicks, Beth Daponte, Steven Moore, Professor Michael Spagat" sign a petition and stake their own reputations and those of the institutions they represent to support their opinions?
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/reports/lackdiversity.html "Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities, August 28, 2003 ... snip ... we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans: ... snip ... Columbia, Yale 14-1. He should be right at home. By all means, scrapper ... ignore the rest of what I posted in #212. Ignore the SPECIFIC and DETAILED criticisms levied by all of those folks. Ignore the fact that Roberts and Burnham continue to wave their hands at those criticisms. Ignore that not one argument put forth to explain the missing death certificates is defensible. It'a all par for the course here at FD4UM. Perhaps because "ignore" is the root word of ...
You asked me if there was anything that you could do for me...well, can you write a script to euthanize an entire thread from our screens? Thanks.
I had an idea for a "bozo thread" function, where you could elect to bozo an entire thread which would last for a week or so. If after a week it was still active, you could just rebozo it. It would be handy for threads you wish would just go away. Something like that?
b. By all means, scrapper ... ignore the rest of what I posted in #212. Ignore the SPECIFIC and DETAILED criticisms levied by all of those folks. Ignore the fact that Roberts and Burnham continue to wave their hands at those criticisms. Ignore that not one argument put forth to explain the missing death certificates is defensible. It'a all par for the course here at FD4UM. Perhaps because "ignore" is the root word of ... a. What does your laughably biased "study" by a throughly discredited neocon war monger punk named DAVID HOROWITZ, a former communist and Black Panther wannabe, have to do with the validity and credibility of the Johns Hopkins research study on Iraqi civilian deaths? BAC, your back is to the wall now if you resort to quoting anything with DAVID HOROWITZ's name on it. HAHAHAHAHAHA. I love it. Thank you BAC - you've just added 6 feet to the hole you've dug yourself in. DAVID HOROWITZ - oh my - tears are rolling down my face. b. You are coming undone, BAC. Call your therapist. I have not ignored any of the crap you have posted. Other 4um posters, like AGAviator, have not ignored what you have posted on this thread. What we have done is systematically discredited your arguments, your sources, and that's what has you unravelling at the seams. It's not about ignoring you. It's about answering you. It's about burying you.
Thanks. I think this thread has come to its natural conclusion. BAC did his swan song in #221.
rebozo flashed me to Bebe Rebozo - but that's another story from the past. I was thinking along the lines of banned to perdition, gone to hell, never to be seen again in this computer's lifetime type of bozoing...if that is possible, or you could have the time limit thingie, also...I would most often check eternity. Not wanting to stop anyone from participating or mindlessly bantering, I just don't want to waste my time, or disc-space from viewing it.
Technically, going the permo thread bozo route is just as easy to create, but needlessly puts a little more overhead on the system since it would always need to filter threads that have long since died off. Since persistent threads do die on their own sooner or later, it would be "cleanest" to just have it block the thread until it likely does. Balancing the desired features with overhead considerations helps keep the response time for all as speedy as possible.
Thanks for the explanation - just do what is best for all concerned. Stay safe down there. Cheers.
BAC, If you can't admit that even "YOUR" number of civilian deaths is testimony to the Bush Cabal War Crimes; you have nothing viable to contribute. You're just another Next-Generation Nazi, doing Tel Aviv's bidding.
Let's take a closer look at that so-called petition (btw, it's an internet petition, scrapper): **************** The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct October 21, 2006 LAST week, the medical journal The Lancet published the findings of an important study of deaths in Iraq. President George Bush and Prime Minister Howard were quick to dismiss its methods as discredited and its findings as not credible or believable. We beg to differ: the study was undertaken by respected researchers assisted by one of the world's foremost biostatisticians. Its methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously. Professor Gilbert Burnham and colleagues from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and Al Mustansiriya University School of Medicine in Baghdad measured deaths in Iraq between January 2002 and July 2006. They surveyed 12,801 individuals in 1849 households in 47 representative clusters across the country. Their study is important in providing the only up-to-date, independent, and comprehensive scientific study of mortality after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The study found that mortality had risen alarmingly since March 2003 and continues to rise. The number of conflict-related excess deaths, above and beyond those that would normally occur, was estimated at 655,000. While precision about such figures is difficult, we can be confident that the excess deaths were above 390,000, and may in fact be as high as 940,000. The vast majority (92 per cent) of the excess deaths were due to direct violence. The cross-sectional household cluster sample survey method used is a standard, robust, well-established method for gathering health data. A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion (92 per cent) of deaths. Conservative assumptions were made about deaths of uncertain cause and about the small areas not sampled. Except in situations of highly reliable, well-maintained, comprehensive vital statistics collection — clearly not the case in Iraq at present — such surveys have been repeatedly demonstrated to be the best method for establishing population rates for key health indicators such as deaths, disability and immunisation coverage. Where passive information collection (such as death counts in morgues or hospitals) are incomplete, as is the case in Iraq today, population-based survey methods can be expected to find higher rates — often considerably higher — but that more accurately reflect the true situation. Conducting such a rigorous study within the constraints of the security situation in Iraq is dangerous and difficult, and deserves commendation. We have not heard any legitimate reason to dismiss its findings. It is noteworthy that the same methodology has been used in recent mortality surveys in Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo, but there has been no criticism of these surveys. THE SIGNATORIES ... snip ... ***************** First, one can't help but notice that these doctors signed this within one week of the latest report being published. Not very much time for them to ponder the implications and methodology. And certainly a lot of potential defects have been pointed out by many since then. I wonder whether the doctors have ever defended the study from any of those specific criticism ... or if all they did was sign a petition and like you base their opinion solely on the credentials of the researchers. The second thing to notice is that the petition doesn't address a single one of the complaints I've pointed out in this thread. They point out that "A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion (92 per cent) of deaths" but apparently miss the implications of this if death certificates don't turn up with anywhere near the same regularity in the general population. Certainly their claim "We have not heard any legitimate reason to dismiss its findings" is interesting. In one week could they really have had time to carefully read the study, ponder its methodology and potential shortcomings, pay attention to what others had to say about it (a debate that actually took some time to mature), put together a petition and publish it? No. What their petition looks like is a rush to judgement. Now why would they do that? Well let's look at some of the names. According to this, "James Angus was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences at the University of Melbourne in July 2003. Before becoming dean, he was Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacology and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences. He has extensive research experience in pre-clinical pharmacology in relation to cardiovascular and antinociceptive drugs." Now just what does he know about statistics and surveys ... compared to say Dr Pendersen or Dr Hicks? And has he written ANYTHING about the study, Iraq or mortality since then? No. According to this, his interest is "cancer causes and control, measuring and improving the performance of cancer services". Again, where does it suggest he know anything about proper surveying methodologies for problems like war related dead? He's a skin cancer expert. Has he written anything since about Iraq? No. This gentleman actually does have survey experience similar to Roberts' and Burnham's. He even teaches a course that "Provides a theoretical introduction and is followed by practical experience in critically appraising both published research findings and proposals for new research." So you'd think he'd have asked a few questions like those I and others have been asking before putting pen to virtual paper. Has he written anything since about Iraq? No. Again, outside of signing that petition he hasn't written anything about Iraq or the John Hopkins' studies. According to this, "he is a paediatric infectious disease specialist with extensive experience working with Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory; established research record in the field of Group A Streptococcal disease covering all aspects from molecular biology to epidemiology and public health; involved with the current international effort to develop an agenda of research to support pneumococcal vaccine introduction in the developing world." I wonder why he felt so certain about the statistical methodology and results to sign that petition so quickly? But again, he's written nothing about Iraq before or since so it's hard to know. According to this, "Ben Coghlan is a medical epidemiologist and public health physician trainee. e has worked for a variety of organisations (Australian Red Cross, MSF, IRC and WHO) providing assistance to refugee and displaced populations in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. He is an honorary lecturer with Monash University’s Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine and teaches for the International Health stream of the Master of Public health degree, the Master of International Research Bioethics and for the undergraduate medical course. He has also taught epidemiology, communicable disease control and refugee health courses in Uganda, PNG, and Cambodia." And unlike the others "He has conducted cross-sectional surveys in conflict settings assessing mortality, nutritional status and immunisation coverage." And unlike the others, he apparently wrote something about Iraq and the lancet study back in October 2006, about the time he signed the petition. http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=1942 Too bad I can't read it because you have to subscribe to read it and I don't care to do that right now. But I gather its because he says the Burnet Institute (where he works) used the same methodology (clustering) in a study that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of that conflict. Ergo any study that uses clustering must be right. I gather Duabe is an expert on tobacco, smoking and cancer. But other than his signature on the petition, I don't see anything written on Iraq or the Lancet reports. Although I hear he is concerned about its use of cigarettes. You know ... I don't really care to spend more time on this. I think readers will get the ghist of what I'm noting about these doctors. I am beginning to think Australian universities are even more liberal than ours. Certainly there appears to be a tendency in that direction amongst the signatories of this petition. I wonder if one could find a correlation between them in terms of who their friends are? ROTFLOL! PS ... I don' t know if you're aware of this but some of these doctors signed a previous petition in September of 2004, condemning the Iraq war. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/04/1094234080677.html Among them was Bruce Armstrong, Rob Moodie and Anthony Zwi. Does that suggest they might have a preconceived bias and just like to sign petitions? They did more than that. They actually got themselves quoted in the mainstream press. And many of them wrote whole articles on the topic. I'd say they put a whole lot more on the line than your fabulous 26, scrapper. ROTFLOL!
Isn't it amazing the lengths to which certain people would go to hide from facts?
Yeah, this thread is chock full of your 10,000 word, 36 image attempts to hide from facts.
And isn't it interesting that this *Hit Thread* on me turned into something else ... so now certain FD4UMers want it to go away. ROTFLOL!
Ping to #230, scrapper.
No one is making you read this thread, lodwick. Have you no will power?
You've been doing a song and dance for months now, on 2 websites, on dozens if not hundreds of posts, about how an LA Times article explicitly saying that morgue and hosptital death totals were "grossly undercounted" somehow impugns a statistical study which says there've been 655,000 excess deaths. As part of that song and dance you've been supplying arm-waving numbers you make up yourself, about how the difference between the LA Times "gross undercount" of death certificates, and the estimated 655,000 excess deaths of the survey, couldn't possibly be so "gross" as to exclude a 600,000 difference t hat you claim exists. No, instead you argue that "gross," can't be more than "double," or at most, three times. Even though your only proof for your definition of "gross" [on this issue only] is that "The media hates Bush." But in your "gross" [haha] ignorance, you never bothered to consider that in addition to "gross undercounts," there are also more sources of death certificates than hospitals and morgues - namely individual doctors. That fact alone blows all your phony numbers completely out of the water. And even more so when you consider there are far more individual doctors than there are hospitals and morgues. And that these individual doctors are far more likely to immediately come to scenes where people have been killed or injured, than the people are to try to cart dead bodies across entire cities to the nearest morgue or health care facility. I've never seen somebody's claims been so completely annihilated by one simple, and overlooked, fact. Now before we go any further, put some of your extensive speculative abilities to work and tell me how many individual doctors there are in Iraq writing death certificates, compared to how many hospitals and morgues there are in Iraq writing death certificates. And how that number of death certificates written by individual doctors affects your thoroughly-debunked claims there are "hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates" that the LA Times survey never attempted to count to begin with. And *try* come up with something good, because you're hardly worth even bothering to reply to any more, you've stepped in it so bad. Yes, the troll's mantra. "You haven't proven it!" "Liar!" "I haven't lost, I can still post!" ROTFLAMO!
Comments (237 - 375) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest it's actually enjoyable to read everyone else's posts with BeAChooser bozo'd. ;)
#197. To: BeAChooser (#196)
#198. To: Dakmar, ALL (#197)
I find it redeeming that you stomp your feet and scream censorship when the general public laughs at you.
#199. To: BeAChooser (#198)
#200. To: BeAChooser (#198)
There's no censorship on this site except the censorship of covering your own eyes. And that's laughable.
#201. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#196)
..... and truth seeking.
#202. To: BeAChooser, christine, zipporah, All (#196)
(Edited)
christine: it's actually enjoyable to read everyone else's posts with BeAChooser bozo'd. ;)
#203. To: scrapper2, christine, ALL (#202)
Christine is demonstrating open mindedness to the extreme
So are you still posting at freak republic or elpee?
#204. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, All (#193)
(Edited)
Give it up, scrapper. The John Hopkins studies on Iraq mortality are BOGUS.
#205. To: scrapper2 (#204)
Anyways, time for you BAC to go back to your closet, plug into your Botenergizer, and try again tomorrow. It's late for your botbunny self. The adults are talking now.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#206. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#180)
(Edited)
You have NO PROOF they stayed in the Green Zone and didn't interview doctors
Here's another interesting article by the LATimes.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0518-02.htm
It's on Baghdad's death toll and dates from May of 2003. It states that "meticulous record-keeping was the norm in Hussein's Iraq, which for decades sustained an overblown bureaucracy.
#207. To: scrapper2 (#193)
#208. To: BeAChooser (#194)
I WILL NOT REPLY TO YOU AGAIN. - innieway
#209. To: AGAviator (#207)
Note how the person who makes his living impugning amateur 911 detectives, brings out an anonymous internet blogger calling himself "Stat Guy" to make his case on this thread.
#210. To: Jethro Tull (#208)
More than Bush, Cheney, the GOP and corporate AmeriKa, its party flacks like you who have this nation at war and on the verge of becoming 1/3 of the NAU. It's your support of party before country that allows this invasion of illegal aliens and the accompanying destruction of our culture.
#211. To: innieway (#210)
#212. To: scrapper2, all (#204)
You boozer have zero credibility - what's your field of expertise? Do you have an MD? Do you have a PhD? Yes, no...uh huh I thought so. You are a net troll and a sad little specimen of a troll at that, I might add.
What credentials empower you to sit in judgement of Dr. Burnham, MD?
I take no joy in telling you this, BAC, but the fact that you take offense to such a caring human statement from Dr. Burnham reflects very poorly on you. You may be a darker individual than merely a sad little specimen of a troll.
As for your spam quotes from that joke of a biased website called "Magic Statistics"
Here's the bio of the website owner
Kaplan
#213. To: IndieTX, scrapper2, ALL (#205)
I think the closet is where he hides his pics of Jeff Gannon.
#214. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, ALL (#206)
Looser, are you still trying to argue after being so totally destroyed on this thread by Scrapper2's post from Les Roberts totally rebutting all your phony arguments you've posted and reposted dozens of times and wasted hundreds of hours on?
doctors also issue death certificates in Iraq besides hospitals and morgues,
#215. To: AGAviator, ALL (#207)
brings out an anonymous internet blogger calling himself "Stat Guy" to make his case on this thread.
#216. To: Jethro Tull, innieway, ALL (#208)
Call it what you will, I call it a bozo. He's done communicating with you.
#217. To: BeAChooser (#215)
AGAviator: brings out an anonymous internet blogger calling himself "Stat Guy" to make his case on this thread.
#218. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#212)
BeAChooser: Or just more CLAIMS by Les Roberts?
#219. To: scrapper2, ALL (#217)
He's a christonutterisrealfirster
Comparing the curriculim vita of Drs Burnham and Roberts to "stats guy" in the Yukon, and it doesn't take genius to recognize who is more credible.
#220. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#219)
a. He's a christonutterisrealfirster Which has what to do with the specific criticisms he outlines in detail in his blog articles? Any lurkers or visitors to FD4UM by now will observe that you don't want to discuss the details of the criticisms ... not by Mr Gilbreath or any one else.
#221. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#218)
In 2007, Roberts is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
Drs. Burnham and Roberts credentials experience int'l reputation TRUMP your stats guy from Yukon with a Masters in Economics from U of Washington hands down. Furthermore, Drs. Burnham and Roberts did not rise to the international stage of epidemiology, which is where they are now, by lying, oozer.
#222. To: Neil McIver (#221)
#223. To: lodwick (#222)
#224. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, christine, robin (#221)
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/reports/lackdiversity.html "Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities, August 28, 2003 ... snip ... we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans: ... snip ... Columbia, Yale 14-1.
#225. To: lodwick, Neil McIver (#222)
You asked me if there was anything that you could do for me...well, can you write a script to euthanize an entire thread from our screens?
#226. To: Neil McIver (#223)
Something like that?
#227. To: lodwick (#226)
#228. To: Neil McIver (#227)
#229. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#221)
#230. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#220)
The fact that 26 medical field professionals signed a petition in support of Drs. Burnham and Roberts study - its methodology and findings - trumps any internet opinions of the people you cite.
THE SIGNATORIES
Professor James A Angus, dean, faculty of medicine, dentistry and health sciences, University of Melbourne
Professor Bruce Armstrong AM, director of research, Sydney Cancer Centre; professor of public health and medical foundation fellow, University of Sydney
Dr Jim Black, head of epidemiology, Victorian Infectious Diseases Service
Professor Peter Brooks, executive dean, faculty of health sciences, University of Queensland
Professor Jonathan Carapetis, director, Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin
Dr Ben Coghlan, medical epidemiologist, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute
Professor Mike Daube, professor of health policy, Curtin University
Did "Dr Jon Pedersen, Debarati Guha- Sapir, Dr Madelyn Hicks, Beth Daponte, Steven Moore, Professor Michael Spagat" sign a petition and stake their own reputations and those of the institutions they represent to support their opinions?
#231. To: Neil McIver, lodwick, ALL (#223)
I had an idea for a "bozo thread" function, where you could elect to bozo an entire thread which would last for a week or so. If after a week it was still active, you could just rebozo it. It would be handy for threads you wish would just go away. Something like that?
#232. To: BeAChooser (#231)
Isn't it amazing the lengths to which certain people would go to hide from facts?
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#233. To: Neil McIver, ALL (#223)
#234. To: scrapper2, ALL (#225)
BAC did his swan song in #221.
#235. To: lodwick, ALL (#226)
Not wanting to stop anyone from participating or mindlessly bantering, I just don't want to waste my time, or disc-space from viewing it.
#236. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#214)
(Edited)
Looser, are you still trying to argue after being so totally destroyed on this thread by Scrapper2's post from Les Roberts totally rebutting all your phony arguments you've posted and reposted dozens of times and wasted hundreds of hours on?
Ping to Post # 212.
You haven't proven this. And you certainly haven't proven that they issued half a million death certificates that the *system* is completely unaware of, AGAviator. Any direct quotes from some of those doctors in Iraq? Hmmmmm? Or just more CLAIMS by Les Roberts?
.
.
.