.:.:.:.: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:429223"]PatMeebles said:[QUOTE]Didn't I say the median?[/QUOTE] Median - The middle value in a list. You only gave two numbers: 8,000 and 196,000. There is no middle value in a list of two numbers. So if what you're trying to say is that the although the mean of those numbers is 102,000, the median is 100,000. I don't see how that makes any sense. PatMeebles said:[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] But they're going add numbers rounding accurately to the nearest hundred to a number that was only rounded to the nearest ten thousand? What would be the point of that? Statistically, it makes no sense. Also, how come they are able to determine deaths down to the nearest hundred since the study, but at the time of the study, they could only guess within a margin of error of over ninety-thousand people? That's quite an overnight improvement in information gathering tactics, wouldn't you say? PatMeebles said:[QUOTE]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] No, of course not, and unfortunately McLaughlin has not posted those numbers since we began debating this topic, so I haven't been able to post his source for you. But I will point out again that conservative Tony Blankley, who has argued pro-Bush and pro-war arguments every week for years, has NEVER taken issue with the veracity of the numbers McLaughlin has presented. [/QUOTE]

top [Vers. 0.12][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][refresh][