.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:428006"]Aside from ignoring what I said, that just doesn't make sense. You said that Lancet got 100,000 because it was the average of 8,000 and 196,000; first of all, that math is incorrect, the average of those two numbers is 102,000. That means that the number must have been rounded down to the nearest ten thousand to become an even 100,000. However, the numbers I remember seeing on the McLaughlin group were rounded down to the nearest hundred, which would be an impossible determination had they used or built such approximations. That suggests that they did not use the Lancet Study, which means there must be numbers above 100,000 from other sources.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][