.:.:.:.:
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:429771"]1) Saying something is definitely in between 8,000 and 194,000, or in between 8% and 94%, is total unreliable garbage in terms of finding the final results, regardless of whether it's raw numbers or percentages. Regardless of which number came first, the fact is the certainty of it within a range is completely unreliable, too. 2) The reason why the numbers are in such a high range is when the people did the study, they surveyed people from certain areas, then assumed that the rest of the country was exactly the same. In other words, they assumed that the entire Kurdish North was exactly the same in terms of violence as Falluja. That's a ludicrous way of doing studies. Should I assume that the entirety of Massachusetts is as violent as Roxbury? Westborough is as violent as Springfield? Ridiculous. 3) Of course there would be a higher range if you want the certainty to be greater. But you have to have some point where you say "ok, maybe this range is too great." If their certainty was in a range of 30,000, there wouldn't be nearly as much criticism.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][