Others also think you suck. You obviously think highly of yourself from the tone of everything I've ever seen you write. Not that it much matters excepting I'd expect you to attempt to be honest and your previous post to me was obviously not. That's decent, but I don't think you're an honest person, so I don't really believe you. You're simply incorrect. I don't think I've once condemned something just because it goes against Bush OR the GOP. I often choose to defend those who aren't present defend themselves from unfair horseshit as I see it. As far as I can tell this round, the dems in America are the least fair group I've ever encountered. Last presidential elections, it was the republicans. They were almost as bad as the dems now, but every round it gets cranked up a notch. Actually though, this round started 4 years ago when Gore filed the law suit in Florida, so it's also had more time to build. I'd imagine the next round's ugly bunch, packing life with lies will flow from the losers of this election. If I were a registered republican, I would have an affiliation with the GOP. (so the answer is no, and ) Voting for Bush does not indicate affiliation with the GOP. I voted for Gore, does that make me a democrat? (so yes, I'm voting for bush) You first. Don't you mean "one Iraqi dead is too many for me"? If so, then you are entitled to your opinion. I think it's ridiculous, but I respect your right to it.
Others also think you suck. No question about that, of course there will never be one truth. Like I said we cannot know one thing for certain. Of course the proportion to those who think I suck is relatively small to those who think I don’t suck. Want evidence? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41471 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32278 Also being nominated twice by the TFH awards, while you concurrently was dropped off because the calibre of your posts had degraded to that point. That’s as objective as I can get with you, the facts do not favour those who consider me “sucky” You obviously think highly of yourself from the tone of everything I've ever seen you write. Or maybe could it be that what I write makes sense? I am sure that hasn’t passed your mind because you have so many vendetta’s with so many posters that you get lost in your own world of politics instead of reading what is actually being read. That's decent, but I don't think you're an honest person, so I don't really believe you. That’s fine nor do I care about your opinion, because again the ratio of Wes to reality is quite stark shall we say. You don’t think I am an honest person because I don’t subscribe to the cult of Wes. You're simply incorrect. I don't think I've once condemned something just because it goes against Bush OR the GOP. Well of course that position cannot be taken seriously by anyone looking at your tone, your rebuttal arguments, and your style of unbridled and undeserved arrogance when defending obviously wrong situations that the GWB regime, and GOP have gotten the US into. I was hoping you would a intellectually honest individual and just admit you pander to the GOP. Voting for Bush does not indicate affiliation with the GOP. I voted for Gore, does that make me a democrat? (so yes, I'm voting for bush) No voting for Bush indicates so much more, so much more. It indicates that you have indeed fallen into the disease that is Americana, oh yes the rotten tortured soul of ideological jingoistic nationalism that has killed so many great nations in the past. The disease that pervades through the minds of millions and controlled by few, no critical analysis, and no cognitive thought. Now don’t get me wrong Kerry is not much better but he is better. You wes are sadly part of the problem not part of the solution. Living in Missouri I think it is? You are uniquely sheltered from the reality that is the world. I find quite funny that the states with the most exposure, most educated, wealthier, and more diverse…seem to vote Democratic most of the time. While in the deep cold hinterland (talk about ironic metaphor!) of Middle America the reality is only presented is swallowed as fact like a rundi at a brothel. You first. I haven’t lied…I have merely presented a alternate form of reality to yours…needless to say. Don't you mean "one Iraqi dead is too many for me"? If so, then you are entitled to your opinion. I think it's ridiculous, but I respect your right to it. Well of course you consider it ridiculous consider it was Iraq that attacked America right? Keep on swallowing...
I'm voting for Badnarik, and i think the report is ill-bred and dishonest research. I notice that you didn't even bother responding to my posts either because your ego contest with wes got in the way, or you were too busy comparing e-penii.
As is typical of you, your evidence does not weigh to the claim. That people didn't want to ban you doesn't mean they don't think you suck. I have voted not to ban a number of people who I do indeed think suck, and so have many other sci members. I believe there is plenty of evidence to support that people DO think you suck in those threads, but they didn't think you should be banned for whatever reason - even though you have been more than once if I'm not mistaken. That you might consider Fhead's opinion of the caliber of my post as representative of anything beyond his opinion of the caliber of my posts is yet another case of you citing evidence that doesn't weigh toward the conclusion you draw from it. You're a liar, or terminally confused. Occasionally yes, but this post as I've pointed out serves as a classic example of your posting. You bring up a whole slew of crap and draw unrelated or unfounded conclusions from it. It seems the typical world-view of an angry youth with more information in his brain than he can really make sense of. You're an encylopedia and little more. I will credit you with some decent points regarding economics from time to time. LOL. Yeah I have SO many vendettas. That's classic. There are two or three people on this site who continually make me sick. You are one of them. You draw from that "so many vendettas"? More of your baseless horseshit. Why don't you shutup while you're ahead? I think it's because you're an angry child. LOL. You are only qualified to assert reality as you see it, which of course you've just done - but you imply that you are somehow a form of authority on a more objective version of it - which you are obviously not from the lacking quality of your analysis. You aren't arguing issues, you'e attacking me. Isn't this where if I were you, I'd start whining about fallacies? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why don't you shutup about me and argue the issue? The rest of your rant simply exposes the depth of your hatred and inability to approach this situation rationally. It's not worth the time to address it.
As is typical of you, your evidence does not weigh to the claim. That people didn't want to ban you doesn't mean they don't think you suck. That is true, but it is the closest measure we have to discern the reality isn’t it? Also if you were to read the responses to the thread overwhelmingly there is support for the non-sucky side of the isle. Merely looking at the colours (yes they are distracting) and not the context says a lot Wes. That you might consider Fhead's opinion of the caliber of my post as representative of anything beyond his opinion of the caliber of my posts is yet another case of you citing evidence that doesn't weigh toward the conclusion you draw from it. You're a liar, or terminally confused. Where and how did I lie? The only victim here Wes was the English language through the inappropriate use of the word liar. Now it is true that TFH’s threads were overly subjective to that there is no question but generally speaking that is the only measure on sci we had to determine the quality of posts. Is it perfect of course not, is it accurate no, but is it valid. Surely…no one ever contested my nomination. Meanwhile your nomination was dropped because of a marked decline in the quality of your posts, which continues. Occasionally yes, but this post as I've pointed out serves as a classic example of your posting. You bring up a whole slew of crap and draw unrelated or unfounded conclusions from it. It seems the typical world-view of an angry youth with more information in his brain than he can really make sense of. I note that this is one of the talking points used against me by the “haters” out there, that I am a youth and I have too much info to discern the reality…etc. Well sadly the facts simply don’t bore out with that assertion. My conclusions are generally well supported, generally uncontested, and generally accepted. That I have no control over, nor am I wiling to state that I know for certain how people feel. But the general perception here on sci seems to indicate that I am one of the more respected and wiser members regardless of my age. Remember Age is but a number. You're an encylopedia and little more. Quite possibly so, but an encyclopaedia does know one thing…connecting the dots to a logical conclusion. A conclusion I can’t say bodes well in your case. LOL. Yeah I have SO many vendettas. That's classic. Was that a nervous laugh? Me thinks so, it’s obvious why because you know it’s true. You have vendettas against those of us whom you consider “liberals”, and who aren’t stupid people. Although you do put up valiant fights they usually end in you calling me and others names. [There are two or three people on this site who continually make me sick. You are one of them. You draw from that "so many vendettas"? More of your baseless horseshit. You do realize those statements are inherently contradictory correct? Why don't you shutup while you're ahead? I would actually vouch for you do the same thing, because the last quote of yours shows your intellectual dishonesty. I think it's because you're an angry child. I am angry…I am angry that my bus takes 15 minutes in the morning. LOL. Let’s not be so petty as to use this constantly, says a lot about how your feeling (insecure). which you are obviously not from the lacking quality of your analysis. My analysis is surely much better then your ad homs ,no matter how “lacking” they may be. You aren't arguing issues, you'e attacking me. This whole conversation is predicated on a attack from you to me…everytime I discuss anything with you (which I generally avoid because of the issue of ad homs) they usually degenerate into a screaming match because u habitually look…useless very quickly. Why don't you shutup about me and argue the issue? Say that comment and look in the mirror next time…that’s the problem here. The rest of your rant simply exposes the depth of your hatred and inability to approach this situation rationally. It's not worth the time to address it. The only thing I hate is ignorance which you personify so well.
Nico, your first line addressing me in this thread was an ad hom: "Wes, you have yet to show intent, other then bleating the GOP line. Prove how this study is incorrect, enough on the political warfare games." The adhom was from the phrase "bleating the GOP line". Thus, you are shown to be the confused liar that you are: "This whole conversation is predicated on a attack from you to me"
Well, to sum it all up, this sample study has been released, rather like the kind of polls taken a while before an election. VArious people say "wow, thats bad", others say "HHmm, thats bad, but like the guy who did it says, we need to do some more studying, then we'll have a better idea of how bad things are." To which the response so far has been "well, its a small study, not very representative", and "I think its politically motivated for being released just now" Now, anyone want to start pressuring the "responsible" people for repeat sampling across a wider range of the populace? or how about recognising that just about everything has a political connotation, and we can't comment on the authors intention properly without asking him. (i'd prefer face to face) mind you I dont see how its ill bred and dishonest research, any more than political polling and drugs company research is.
Actually wes I did not attack you, I was questioning your intent for your unsupported statements…in essence you throw crap expect it back in return you kuti. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wesmoris, i thought you were smarter than getting into [yet another] ciricular fight with the specialist of circular fights
It's kind of amusing to see this statistic taken as gospel on a forum whose primary focus is science, then turned into a bantering shitfest thanks to nico's incessant trolling. Interesting information, and definitely worth a second look, but I'll await a peer review on this. You know, like real scientists do.
little you know about the real scientists. Rule #1 (or close to #1) for the real modern scientists: plausible means true. If not for that rule, the amount of garbage published in journals each year would shrink by at least 50%.
Perhaps I get a kick out of it? I'd say that's obvious or I wouldn't do that would I? It's sort of fun sometimes to sort out other people's messes right in front of their faces while they keep pretending it isn't happening. In a lot of ways, it's like mental wrestling. Gotta give a punk a shot at taking down the old man's argument. *snort* Maybe one day he'll manage. I'm doubtful at this point. Something like that anyway. Shit man, breaking it down, I just do what I do. Sometimes if he makes some retarded charge I don't bite. Other times I do because I feel like it. I'm somewhat easy troll-bait half the time at least. It's not too difficult to get me to respond to retarded allegations because I'm somewhat naive. Bah, enough psycho-analysis. Nico is a punk, and sometimes I have fun sparring with punks. Though his content is empty, his visciousness and intensity are interesting. You pick it apart and still find nothing there. Then I'm all "isn't something there" and he switches the charge and puts another ridiculous item to be picked apart. Seems like good mental excercise to pick apart the ridiculous. (okay so I didn't stop the analysis) Being the somewhat random guy that I am, I'm not so good at making myself excercise... but it's easy if someone motivates me, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Well, whatever, but I enjoyed exposing him as I did above. It may not be particularly impressive, but I certainly found satisfaction in putting his horseshit to bed, even if he doesn't admit it, or agree with the result. Thus it must be that I enjoy the gratification of thinking I've shown my clear superiority over his sorry ass. In a sense, knowing asshats like him act the way he does reminds me of why I find satisfaction in acting the way I do. Some might argue they're the same. In my mind, there's a clear difference - but maybe there really isn't. I suppose in the end of the analysis I'm going to bother with at the moment, I must do it because I enjoy it. I guess I just can't relate to someone who would intentionally argue in circles, so it's easy to rope me into it because I like to argue. I like to dissect thought. It doesn't matter if it's round, square or a blob. I like to compare it to my own. I wonder if I'm doing the same shit. I wonder if I'm valid. I wonder if my opponent is. I wonder why I argue. I wonder why I enjoy it. I wonder what motivates someone to be like nico. I wonder if he's as much of a moron as he seems. Blah blah blah, I'm just a terminally indulgant thinker, who will pretty much bite at whatever you throw out if the mood and content command it. If you're a manipulator, I'm an easy mark to some degree. I try to be honest and generally think I'm as honest as anyone you'll ever meet, but that as with everything - has opportunity costs. One of them is that a really dishonest person (like someone who is willing to purposefully troll) has me at an advantage in some ways. All in all, I feel that no matter what - I win. If I lose the argument, I gain a lesson. If the argument is pointless, I gain the interaction. Generally I hope it's a win-win scenario, and I'm sure ultimately it is. The person on the other end of the dishonesty, gains safety from having to face whatever it is that keeps them dishonest - and I (at least eventually) gain insight into the kind of thing that keeps them that way.
As much as I disagree with Wes's politiks, I'm going to agree with him and Arditezza, and say that this is indeed shitty, partisan science. The report sampled a very small number of people, meaning that the amount of std. error must have been huge. I bet he didn't publish his standard error. Secondly, it was a cluster sampling, meaning that this study would pick clusters of families. These clusters would be expected to all share high mortality rates; bombs aren't terribly accurate, so a bombed out neighborhood would certainly have a cluster of families with high mortalities. Whether or not this is descriptive of all of Iraq is doubtable. Any further speculation though, is just specualtion. Until we get a copy of his technique and methods, we're not really suited to judge his method. And third, the time of release makes it suspect. I'm not sure the phrase "women and children" imply hackery– the study could have indeed found that women and children suffered higher death rates than men. In fact, that's what this study claims. There could be several reasons for this. The first is simply a small n-value. Perhaps all suffered similar casualty rates. The second– perhaps the men were busy being insurgents, not civilians. Thus they would not count as civilian deaths. The third, and perhaps most likely, is that women and children stayed indoors (like all good Muslim women should), while they got the fuck bombed out of them. American missile systems are not as accurate as the DoD would like you to think. 10-30k innocent deaths is still a heap of deaths. In terms of modern conflict, this is the most bloody, with about 9 civilians dying for every soldier/fighter; far greater than those of WWI or II. 100k seems absurd, especially with the small sample size and the cluster collection method.
There is a simple way to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties of occupation. Go to bbc website, find Iraqi related news mentioning casualties for the past 3 months (or whatever number of months "scientist" has time for). Do the same with an arab news cite. The average of two numbers will be sufficiently close to the truth. My news impression is that roughly 20-40 Iraqis die each day from occupation related causes (like insurrection or being in the wrong place). Also, if one pays attention to the number of killed insurgents announced by USA military, one will get an impression that all young Iraqis are dead already. Military guys rarely mention less than 50 militants killed per engagement.
100 000 is still nothing compared to vietnam, or any war in history that went on for this long. Life went on after all those wars, almost like the deaths were insignificant, funny that isn't it? And they'll seem even less significant when everyone who was alive during the vietnam war is dead. The mind boggles. Wouldn't it be wierd if their deaths really were insignificant and not a cause for concern from anyone? Man that would so strange.
Perhaps I get a kick out of it? Out of being one of Sci’s most pathetic trolls? Yes I would think you would. I think most members of the community understand the psychosis that you suffer when you talk to individuals who are unquestionably more intelligent, and more worth of air and food. I'd say that's obvious or I wouldn't do that would I? In a lot of ways, it's like mental wrestling. Gotta give a punk a shot at taking down the old man's argument. Well apart from the homoeroticism of the wrestling, I would like to go back and say that this isn’t a wrestling match because I am not the one who is fighting with you I am merely sitting back in my chair…contemplating (nor would I want to touch you in anyway). Is this the best the American education system can come up with? I wonder to myself why you weren’t sterlized, your poor children have to live with the garbage you habitually throw to the world. You see Wes you throw a lot of shit but expect diamonds in return. The only reason why you consider me a troll and “empty” is because my analysis doesn’t fit into the world of a self-absorbed pseudo-Intellectual like yourself. I am sure you are used to this line of argumentation because its true. Or Something like that anyway. Shit man, breaking it down, I just do what I do You flatter yourself oh to very much; you did nothing but break down the walls of ignorance in the thread. Note that rather then you breaking down things, I totally destroyed your assertions. Now you may hate me all you want, but that just shows how very petty, and sad you really are. Sometimes if he makes some retarded charge I don't bite. The reason I suspect is because possibly you can’t bite, your all bark. Bah, enough psycho-analysis. Nico is a punk, and sometimes I have fun sparring with punks. Though his content is empty, his visciousness and intensity are interesting. You pick it apart and still find nothing there. I would contend that this psycho-analysis is actually your own, you are merely transferring your inadequacy on someone who you think is a relatively easy target. Instead of admitting your human failures, you instead attack others for things that you do. I know what you are doing, you are attacking others to mask your own petty existence, attack me for things that I don’t do so we can’t attack you for what you do which is what you are saying that we do. Looking at your posts, all I can see is baiting, insults, etc. I suspect most members of the community who aren’t “haters” blinded by their inferiority will also concur with those statements. Well, whatever, but I enjoyed exposing him as I did above. It may not be particularly impressive, but I certainly found satisfaction in putting his horseshit to bed, even if he doesn't admit it, or agree with the result. You misunderestimate how very impressive it actually was, it was impressively disgusting comment on who you are. You exist merely to bait others, you even imply it in your post here: You don’t post because you have an opinion, you post because you have so much pent up hatred and possibly jealousy that you feel motivated to “attack” the person who you feel inferior to. Simple psychology… Thus it must be that I enjoy the gratification of thinking I've shown my clear superiority over his sorry ass. A truly superior person would not have to say it for it to be known…you pathetic excuse of a human being. I’ll leave it that…university does the mind good…
Just pointing out the obvious. Trust me, I think wesmorris isn't the brightest bulb, and even had him on ignore for awhile simply because I think his posts are bottom of the barrel. But you are just as bad, and this thread is a blatant example of that. You are both tards.
Well, the thread is clearly titled: So, with your numbers, 100,000 civilian deaths would be incorrect. I agree that the estimated amount of civilian deaths is high. And in reality, I'm sure there have been many civilian deaths. The Iraqi citizens can thank the terrorists for these high tolls, for choosing their towns to use as their battlegrounds against the 'infidels'. Do you wonder why the Iraqi civilians don't rat out the terrorists? They are being threatened by death if they assist the 'infidels', and the males are told their families will be killed if they refuse to fight with the terrorists. But I guess that is the point. It makes the 'infidels' look bad, when in reality it is the terrorists putting the civilians at risk by fighting in populated neighborhoods.
VAKEMP: Using the word “terrorist” is intellectually dishonest, firstly the people who are fighting the US in Iraq have every right (legal, and moral) to fight an illegal occupationary force, and since the war was immoral by the moral standards that we regard war. Those people are insurgents at the very least, the US in the 80’s call these same people “freedom fighters, or mujahideen” against the USSR, now that they are fighting against the US they are “terrorists” very nice try but it’s not fooling anyone. I will quote Reagan on what the US is facing in Iraq: That is the great irony of history, and some ppl in this thread who will remain nameless are completely ignorant of history and it shows. So from Reagan own words he should be supporting the “freedom fighters” in Iraq as well.
