Runaway Global Warming Possible!

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

[discussing the Lancet study]
1) Inadequate sample size (less than 1000 sample points spread over 33
locales), which is why they give the spread they do.

This would just effect the uncertainty range, which you seem to acknowledge
here, not the validity.

2) Only recollection of anecdotal data with little to no verification
of reported facts (only attempted validation of 78 sample points and
only 63 were actually validated).

This issue was acknowledged and discussed in the study.

3) Likely includes a high percentage of combatants.

This is irrelevant to the stated purpose and conclusion of the study.

4) Timing of public disclosure via the web (in October) prior to
actual publication in The Lancet leads one to suspect that this was
largely an attempt to influence the US election.

This says nothing about the methods or accuracy.

5) Results are an order of magnitude higher than other similar
studies, which lends weight to the political motive postulated in 4),
above.

I am unaware of any other similar studies. Body counts and press surveys
are not similar studies. Do you have a reference handy?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:12:22 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Vendicar Decarian" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
You really DON'T read, do you? Rand said he wouldn't consider them
terrorists if they hadn't deliberately murdered a bunch of civilians
in the process.

nothing but collasteral damage...

You're as ignorant of the meaning of the phrase "collateral damage" as
you are of most things.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:23:39 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Vendicar Decarian" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
You're as ignorant of the meaning of the phrase "collateral damage" as
you are of most things.

One wonders when the first AmeriKKKan city will be made to glow in the
dark.

I suspect the time is very near.

AmeriKKKa is now the enemy of all good people.

Many good people will perish with the ongoing death of the Evil AmeriKKKan
state.

Simberg may perish. But he will not be among them.

I guess this is the time for the evil laughter...

What a maroon.

Vendicar Decarian wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .

And do you have any evidence that Richard Nixon was president on that
date?

It's all in the history books Random.

Ahem. Christmas, 1968. Check your history books.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 05 13:35:32 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

So if they had taken a private plane, with just the perpetrators on
board,
and crashed that into the Pentagon, a military target, they wouldn't be
terrorists?

I wouldn't consider them that, no.

So your definition of terrorist just applies when you want it to.

Don't you know how to read? I said I wouldn't consider them
terrorists.

If an Islamonutbag wants to strap a bomb to himself and run up and
blow up next to a US tank, I wouldn't call that terrorism--it's just a
poor man's kamikaze (in this case, Islamokazi) mission.

Isn't the Pentagon a military target?

I already said it was. Just how obtuse are you?

Unfortunately, most of the acts of the so-called "insurgents" (many of
whom are foreign, so I don't know how one can call that part of the
"insurgency") seem to be murdering fellow Iraqis.

Like the French, Poles, etc., who fought for the US against the British
in
1776?

Were they randomly murdering the colonists so they could impose a
totalitarian ideology on them?
A good number of Tories were killed, yes. And if a country wants a
particular type of government, and an outside group is trying to impose
another, what does it matter the type?

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 05 10:05:29 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Like the French, Poles, etc., who fought for the US against the British
in
1776?

Were they randomly murdering the colonists so they could impose a
totalitarian ideology on them?
A good number of Tories were killed, yes.

That's not what I asked.

And if a country wants a
particular type of government, and an outside group is trying to impose
another, what does it matter the type?

Are you saying that Iraq wants a Syrian-backed and Iranian-backed
government? If so, why did they vote against it recently? They could
have put the Ba'athists back in power.

In fact, I suspect that Iraq will soon be punishing Syria for its
interference and murder.

There are a large number in Iraq who want a religious government, one based
on Islam. Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling for
it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?

In sci.space.policy Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

on't forget the old saying; "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
:fighter".

I don't. I simply label it as the bull**** sophistry that it is; a
'catch phrase' used by those who favour terrorists to justify their
acts.

A terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter whose he is. It is the
nature of the acts that is the determinant, not some specious form of
moral relativity.


Now make your own govenrment accept and abide by that.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:

:In sci.space.policy Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Eric Swanson) wrote:
:
: on't forget the old saying; "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
: :fighter".
:
: I don't. I simply label it as the bull**** sophistry that it is; a
: 'catch phrase' used by those who favour terrorists to justify their
: acts.
:
: A terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter whose he is. It is the
: nature of the acts that is the determinant, not some specious form of
: moral relativity.
:
:Now make your own govenrment accept and abide by that.

Why? Governments inevitably call all sorts of things what they
aren't. It's how governments function. They're trying to sway
peoples' opinions, remember? If you sheep would quit being swayed
they would quit doing it.

Get over it.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Mon, 28 Feb 05 10:05:29 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Like the French, Poles, etc., who fought for the US against the British
in
1776?

Were they randomly murdering the colonists so they could impose a
totalitarian ideology on them?
A good number of Tories were killed, yes.

That's not what I asked.

And if a country wants a
particular type of government, and an outside group is trying to impose
another, what does it matter the type?

Are you saying that Iraq wants a Syrian-backed and Iranian-backed
government? If so, why did they vote against it recently? They could
have put the Ba'athists back in power.

In fact, I suspect that Iraq will soon be punishing Syria for its
interference and murder.

On Mon, 28 Feb 05 13:32:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

And if a country wants a
particular type of government, and an outside group is trying to impose
another, what does it matter the type?

Are you saying that Iraq wants a Syrian-backed and Iranian-backed
government? If so, why did they vote against it recently? They could
have put the Ba'athists back in power.

In fact, I suspect that Iraq will soon be punishing Syria for its
interference and murder.

There are a large number in Iraq who want a religious government, one based
on Islam.

"A large number" isn't good enough, just as a "large number" of
Senators isn't sufficient to get a closure vote.

Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling for
it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?

The Iraqi draft constitution, like all good constitutions, defends
minority rights. Any new government has to get buyoff from the Kurds
and other minorities. It's absurd to talk about how "Iraq" wants
anything in particular, other than self determination, and a
government not imposed by its dictatorial neighbors.