Comments on: A good face for radio http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:15:54 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: brooksfoe http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176699 brooksfoe Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:28:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176699 Dear Daniel Davies, you have no business attempting to participate in public media discourse. Your arguments are rational, coherent, and based on an adequate knowledge of the subject at hand. Nobody is going to listen to stuff like that. Dear Daniel Davies,

you have no business attempting to participate in public media discourse. Your arguments are rational, coherent, and based on an adequate knowledge of the subject at hand. Nobody is going to listen to stuff like that.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176696 abb1 Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176696 According to http://iraqmortality.org/iraq-mortality <blockquote> The [UNDP] estimate is a measure of all deaths (civilian, military and insurgent) that are ‘war-related’ in the narrowest sense. The choices in the section of the questionnaire devoted to ‘mortality’ are: ‘disease, traffic accident, war-related deaths, during pregnancy/childbirth/within 40 days of childbirth, other (specify)’ </blockquote> Lancet study, otoh, counts everything - 'disease', 'crime', 'other' - all together - and then compares the current death rate with the pre-war death rate. It's simply a different characteristic. According to http://iraqmortality.org/iraq-mortality

The [UNDP] estimate is a measure of all deaths (civilian, military and insurgent) that are ‘war-related’ in the narrowest sense. The choices in the section of the questionnaire devoted to ‘mortality’ are: ‘disease, traffic accident, war-related deaths, during pregnancy/childbirth/within 40 days of childbirth, other (specify)’

Lancet study, otoh, counts everything – ‘disease’, ‘crime’, ‘other’ – all together – and then compares the current death rate with the pre-war death rate. It’s simply a different characteristic.

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176694 bi Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:31:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176694 engels: Given the number of ad hominem attacks that have been flung at the Lancet study, you'd think that this proves that they're very very very very very correct indeed. But wait, when "they" do it, it's not an ad hominem attack, it's being patriotic. engels:

Given the number of ad hominem attacks that have been flung at the Lancet study, you’d think that this proves that they’re very very very very very correct indeed.

But wait, when “they” do it, it’s not an ad hominem attack, it’s being patriotic.

]]> By: Lopakhin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176693 Lopakhin Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:16:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176693 Why not, abb1? Isn't it the claim of proponents of the Lancet/JHU surveys that all the excess deaths are related to the war? Why not, abb1? Isn’t it the claim of proponents of the Lancet/JHU surveys that all the excess deaths are related to the war?

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176691 abb1 Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:11:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176691 2004 UNDP survey of Iraqi living conditions reported 24K <i>war-related</i> deaths in Iraq, which is, of course, not at all the same as <i>excess</i> deaths reported by Lancet. 2004 UNDP survey of Iraqi living conditions reported 24K war-related deaths in Iraq, which is, of course, not at all the same as excess deaths reported by Lancet.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176674 engels Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:54:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176674 <i>the usual marxist scum is slinging ad homs against Moore</i> "Scum" is a little over-the-top, isn't it, Jake? But I'm sorry if I offended you by calling Moore a "big, fat, stupid Republican hack": I'll admit I'm not certain that he's fat. the usual marxist scum is slinging ad homs against Moore

“Scum” is a little over-the-top, isn’t it, Jake? But I’m sorry if I offended you by calling Moore a “big, fat, stupid Republican hack”: I’ll admit I’m not certain that he’s fat.

]]> By: Jake http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176617 Jake Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:10:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176617 From the WSJ's debunking of Lancet: "What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points." Taken as a whole, that appears to be a refutation (and more evidence that it might be true: the usual marxist scum is slinging ad homs against Moore and the WSJ writers). Now, are the various soccer-mommy liberal sites--like Holbo's little pop manga site--to be held responsible for promoting such rubbish? Javoll. From the WSJ’s debunking of Lancet:

“What happens when you don’t use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP’s survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths—four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.”

Taken as a whole, that appears to be a refutation (and more evidence that it might be true: the usual marxist scum is slinging ad homs against Moore and the WSJ writers). Now, are the various soccer-mommy liberal sites—like Holbo’s little pop manga site—to be held responsible for promoting such rubbish? Javoll.

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176576 bi Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:55:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176576 Seriously. I want to know what they mean by "devastating". Seriously. I want to know what they mean by “devastating”.

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176575 bi Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:51:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176575 Well, Ryan certainly uses the word "devastating" in a sense that's different from what we use. And Functional uses a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28internet%29#Strawman_sockpuppet" rel="nofollow">strawman sockpuppet</a> to make a point! And it's a devastating point too, if I may say so myself! Here's a theory I have: perhaps, if we understand what's Ryan's understanding of the word "devastating", it may be a crucial first step towards National Civility(tm). After all, they are the experts in "devastation" -- while "we" were happily running off to pursue namby-pamby things like science, maths, and history, our Bush-supporting brethren were laying down the theoretical foundations of the construction of Writings of Mass Devastation (WMD). When it comes to devastation, they clearly are the experts, and we should definitely defer to their opinion. Well, Ryan certainly uses the word “devastating” in a sense that’s different from what we use. And Functional uses a strawman sockpuppet to make a point! And it’s a devastating point too, if I may say so myself!

Here’s a theory I have: perhaps, if we understand what’s Ryan’s understanding of the word “devastating”, it may be a crucial first step towards National Civility™. After all, they are the experts in “devastation”—while “we” were happily running off to pursue namby-pamby things like science, maths, and history, our Bush-supporting brethren were laying down the theoretical foundations of the construction of Writings of Mass Devastation (WMD). When it comes to devastation, they clearly are the experts, and we should definitely defer to their opinion.

]]> By: Alex http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176562 Alex Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:31:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176562 Ah, the Internet. Makes the people who shout at you in the street look coherent, a major contribution to social solidarity. Ah, the Internet. Makes the people who shout at you in the street look coherent, a major contribution to social solidarity.

]]> By: Functional http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176550 Functional Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:11:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176550 Here's a better defense of the Lancet study: http://iraqwarwrong.blogspot.com Did you every do a Lancet study people Before I get onto talkign about the implemications Lancet study (650000 extra Arab's deaths from are bomb's), we need to take a step back. Because of recent I was shock to saw some bloggers questioning the results and thinking about whether there right or wrong. Folks thats totally unscientific. This is a study. A Lancet study. Did you every write a Lancet study(didn't thing so). So how you can even talk. You can't that's how. Did you even read the article. No. (Thought not) So how can you even raise a single question as to its veractiy. When you haven't even read a single page of it(how pathetic BWT) let alone all 24 or 47 or however many pages it actually is(can someone in comment's find the study to check how many pages it is pls. I think its in Nature or some journal like that). When theres a study publish you have to say its true until you can prove otherwise. Because however many page's it is its PEER REVIEWED people. Peer reviewed. Say it with me. (Peer reviewed). Guess what that means its right and your wrong. Please stop talking/thinking about it your just embarrass yourself. PEERS IS ALREADY REVIEWED IT. That's the way we make decide whats right and whats not. Is when a journal article is submitted and than peers sign of on it acceptable for publish. This is not jsut aThis is the process treied and true and once a paper is through that process well thats it. Its all true in it(the paper). You can't go off to a library or wherever and think about the contents of the paper after that or something(I cracked myself up just now just thinking about this that I got Powerade all over ROFTFLFL). Hey buddy check the history- there was peer review so its a done deal. Just take the number on face value and eat it. Bam there it is (6555000). Do you even know what how airtighted Peer Review is. I mean it's not like you can just anyone make a paper and than send it in and then the paper get's publish without the peers saying comment's as applicable. Heck even I, each time I tried to get a article in some Journal I had to get all these FREAKING ANNOYING email's out of the way first from the Journal saying that the peer reviewists wanted me to make Minor Corrections or whatever there call. And ONLY AFTER I did the Correction's and resubmit the new PDF"s did the paper's get out there. Every time. So what are you talking about even. To think that after my papers got through that stirct process there might of been someone out there who actually read them and said(after the Peer Review mind you) "this is full of crap/bunch of unsupported fluff" or whatever other negative with no regard to the fact that it ALREADY GONE THROUGH Peer Review just make's me cinge with irate at the unscientific attitudes of some ignorant peoples. Here’s a better defense of the Lancet study:

http://iraqwarwrong.blogspot.com

Did you every do a Lancet study people

Before I get onto talkign about the implemications Lancet study (650000 extra Arab’s deaths from are bomb’s), we need to take a step back. Because of recent I was shock to saw some bloggers questioning the results and thinking about whether there right or wrong. Folks thats totally unscientific. This is a study. A Lancet study. Did you every write a Lancet study(didn’t thing so). So how you can even talk. You can’t that’s how. Did you even read the article. No. (Thought not) So how can you even raise a single question as to its veractiy. When you haven’t even read a single page of it(how pathetic BWT) let alone all 24 or 47 or however many pages it actually is(can someone in comment’s find the study to check how many pages it is pls. I think its in Nature or some journal like that).

When theres a study publish you have to say its true until you can prove otherwise. Because however many page’s it is its PEER REVIEWED people. Peer reviewed. Say it with me. (Peer reviewed). Guess what that means its right and your wrong. Please stop talking/thinking about it your just embarrass yourself. PEERS IS ALREADY REVIEWED IT. That’s the way we make decide whats right and whats not. Is when a journal article is submitted and than peers sign of on it acceptable for publish. This is not jsut aThis is the process treied and true and once a paper is through that process well thats it. Its all true in it(the paper). You can’t go off to a library or wherever and think about the contents of the paper after that or something(I cracked myself up just now just thinking about this that I got Powerade all over ROFTFLFL). Hey buddy check the history- there was peer review so its a done deal. Just take the number on face value and eat it. Bam there it is (6555000).

Do you even know what how airtighted Peer Review is. I mean it’s not like you can just anyone make a paper and than send it in and then the paper get’s publish without the peers saying comment’s as applicable. Heck even I, each time I tried to get a article in some Journal I had to get all these FREAKING ANNOYING email’s out of the way first from the Journal saying that the peer reviewists wanted me to make Minor Corrections or whatever there call. And ONLY AFTER I did the Correction’s and resubmit the new PDF”s did the paper’s get out there. Every time. So what are you talking about even. To think that after my papers got through that stirct process there might of been someone out there who actually read them and said(after the Peer Review mind you) “this is full of crap/bunch of unsupported fluff” or whatever other negative with no regard to the fact that it ALREADY GONE THROUGH Peer Review just make’s me cinge with irate at the unscientific attitudes of some ignorant peoples.

]]> By: david tiley http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176548 david tiley Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:00:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176548 Ha! I was thunderstruck by the tone on of the radio announcers, who sounded as if they were talking to deaf children. Daniel did a very good job in a regional vernacular way, and I don't know where he gets the diffidence about the ums and ahs. Transcribed, it would be lucid and complete, clearly dealing with conceptual material. I guess it is a response to disliking your own rhythm. Ha! I was thunderstruck by the tone on of the radio announcers, who sounded as if they were talking to deaf children. Daniel did a very good job in a regional vernacular way, and I don’t know where he gets the diffidence about the ums and ahs. Transcribed, it would be lucid and complete, clearly dealing with conceptual material.

I guess it is a response to disliking your own rhythm.

]]> By: Z http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176530 Z Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:11:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176530 I thought you did a very good job (it was a pleasant surprise to see a commenter from my favourite blog on my favourite radio show) but was thunderstruck by your accent. My God, we foreigners forget how English can vary. I thought you did a very good job (it was a pleasant surprise to see a commenter from my favourite blog on my favourite radio show) but was thunderstruck by your accent. My God, we foreigners forget how English can vary.

]]> By: Cryptic Ned http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176497 Cryptic Ned Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:00:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176497 As Rumsfeld has taught us, when you create freedom, you create a war of all against all, and wars of all against all are messy. Do you hate freedom? As Rumsfeld has taught us, when you create freedom, you create a war of all against all, and wars of all against all are messy. Do you hate freedom?

]]> By: otto http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-176496 otto Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:07:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/21/a-good-face-for-radio/#comment-176496 By the way, one of the alternative criticisms of the Lancet study is that whatever the number of deaths, the US can't be held responsible for the carnage, because the bombers etc are the ones who are setting the bombs etc. But if you cause a general break down in law and order you are responsible for the chaos that results. If you are prison governor and you don't keep order, you are responsible for the carnage resulting from the riot. By breaking a more or less functioning state apparatus and substituting nothing, as a glance at Hobbes will tell you, you create a war of all against all. By the way, one of the alternative criticisms of the Lancet study is that whatever the number of deaths, the US can’t be held responsible for the carnage, because the bombers etc are the ones who are setting the bombs etc. But if you cause a general break down in law and order you are responsible for the chaos that results. If you are prison governor and you don’t keep order, you are responsible for the carnage resulting from the riot. By breaking a more or less functioning state apparatus and substituting nothing, as a glance at Hobbes will tell you, you create a war of all against all.

]]>