.:.:.:.:
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 PatMeebles.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="PatMeebles:428240"]ShadowSD said:[QUOTE]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] Didn't I say the median? And I already explained why anybody would say 120,000. It's because since the lancet study was done a while ago, of course people are going to add numbers to it. Can you name a single other study that is used as a source for 100,000? Does McLaughlin do his own death toll studies?[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.013 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][