Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[agent00f]

You will bring up anything and say anything to not admit you were wrong. You said that all the studies agree on excess violent deaths. They do not and I think you know that at this point but your ego won't let you admit it.

Also, you have no idea about buckshot. If you did then you would know the incident and that it involved me doing to him what I did to you. He tried to claim something that evidence did not support. You also made a claim that evidence does not support.

For some perspective, buckshot was the sort to pretend to have read studies he couldn't even being to understand (though I suspect even he could find them using google, without instruction), which he somewhat got away with by reading some dummy version elsewhere. This was why even smart people arguing with him wouldn't get anywhere, because there's a major language barrier so to speak to how he understood things.

Now, between that sort and the sort to write such papers there's maybe 10+ levels. On that scale, where would you grade yourself? Let's say 5 is about were someone can read academic papers, 2 is where they would consider three or so pages of such reading very long, and 0 is where they would "discredit" a paper they've never even seen for months on end then pretend it was too long.

 

[realibrad]

For some perspective, buckshot was the sort to pretend to have read studies he couldn't even being to understand (though I suspect even he could find them using google, without instruction), which he somewhat got away with by reading some dummy version elsewhere. This was why even smart people arguing with him wouldn't get anywhere, because there's a major language barrier so to speak to how he understood things.

Now, between that sort and the sort to write such papers there's maybe 10+ levels. On that scale, where would you grade yourself? Let's say 5 is about were someone can read academic papers, 2 is where they would consider three or so pages of such reading very long, and 0 is where they would "discredit" a paper they've never even seen for months on end then pretend it was too long.

I would say I am at a level that allows me to to understand that not all studies agree on excess violent deaths and that the variance is non trivial.

Let's accept your premise that I don't know how to use a search engine, I don't know what I'm reading, and that I'm a right wing racist. What would that have to do with your claim that all the studies agree (roughly) on the numbers of excess violent deaths?

 

[bshole]

Maybe Agent00f & realibrad should just get a room...

This was a fun thread with an astounding amount of right wing conspiracy theory, speculation & innuendo, basically the full Monty of Benghazification of the right wing mind set. I mean, these guys were practically finger painting the walls with their own shit but you spoiled it...

What are they arguing about? I read a couple pages of it and it was still not clear to me. I wish we had a prize for pedantry cuz this has it in spades.

 

[realibrad]

What are they arguing about? I read a couple pages of it and it was still not clear to me. I wish we had a prize for pedantry cuz this has it in spades.

Pretty much it goes back to a few post between you and me. You said that you thought the US had bagged about 100k people, but were unsure. I said it was not 100k but still sickeningly high. Agent jumped in and said that all studies found a few hundred thousand violent excess deaths, which was not true. He then said he used the Lancet study to validate his claim. I provided multiple papers which dispute the number and do not find the number of excess deaths of a few hundred thousand.

Excess deaths are deaths that occur outside what is expected for a normal set of time. Its not even causal. Pretty much everything you see him saying now is his way of not admitting that his claim was wrong.

 

[agent00f]

I would say I am at a level that allows me to to understand that not all studies agree on excess violent deaths and that the variance is non trivial.

Let's accept your premise that I don't know how to use a search engine, I don't know what I'm reading, and that I'm a right wing racist. What would that have to do with your claim that all the studies agree (roughly) on the numbers of excess violent deaths?

I wouldn't say you're any better at understanding numbers or much else than your compatriot, and seems you agreed he was pretty terrible.

That "much else" would include whether hundreds of thousands have died due to violence in iraq because of the war, which all the studies you brought up later completely agree with. Even if we only use IFHS which is rather picky about its count, 150k from 2003-2006 is rather more given it's no longer 2006. No amount of pedantry is going help you here any more than it did ol buck.

Another comedy moment here is your source before I taught you how to google for better studies on the internet was iraq body count. If the lancet is shit as you say, how did it feel to swim in an ocean of raw sewage? Truly no good deed goes unpunished.

What are they arguing about? I read a couple pages of it and it was still not clear to me. I wish we had a prize for pedantry cuz this has it in spades.

I wasn't arguing about anything other than maybe if the number of clues a person is said to possess can be negative. I also wouldn't say demonstrating someone lacked the tools for much more than pedantry is in itself pedantic.

 

[realibrad]

I wouldn't say you're any better at understanding numbers or much else than your compatriot, and seems you agreed he was pretty terrible.

Be direct man, what compatriot are you talking about?

That "much else" would include whether hundreds of thousands have died due to violence in iraq because of the war, which all the studies you brought up later completely agree with. Even if we only use IFHS which is rather picky about its count, 150k from 2003-2006 is rather more given it's no longer 2006. No amount of pedantry is going help you here any more than it did ol buck.

See, those pesky facts are getting in the way again.

"Based on the responses from adults in the surveyed households who reported on the alive-or-dead status of their siblings, the researchers estimated the total number of deaths among adults aged 15–60 years, from March 2003 to June 2011, to be approximately 376,000; 184,000 of these deaths were attributed to the conflict, and of those, the authors estimate that 132,000 were caused directly by war-related violence."

You see, you did it again. You want so badly to claim that the studies agree with you, but each time I give you the data from the studies, you dismiss me instead of the data. I see why. Its because the studies make black and white claims and those claims do not match what you're saying. You see, 132k over 8 years is not the same as 150k over 3. Further, if your argument is that the trends of those studies would have eventually gotten to a few hundred thousand, then back up that claim. The PLOS study which went on for much longer than the IFHS survey and the Lancet survey shows that the trend is not consistent. But, none of that matters because as I have said over and over, your claim that all studies show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths is false.

Another comedy moment here is your source before I taught you how to google for better studies on the internet was iraq body count. If the lancet is shit as you say, how did it feel to swim in an ocean of raw sewage? Truly no good deed goes unpunished.

Another deflection. I said the Lancet study was shit, not the Journal.

I wasn't arguing about anything other than maybe if the number of clues a person is said to possess can be negative. I also wouldn't say demonstrating someone lacked the tools for much more than pedantry is in itself pedantic.

You were arguing about anything you could other than your original claim which challenged. Its okay princess.

 

[agent00f]

Be direct man, what compatriot are you talking about?

At this point I'd say you're in a class of your own.

See, those pesky facts are getting in the way again.

"Based on the responses from adults in the surveyed households who reported on the alive-or-dead status of their siblings, the researchers estimated the total number of deaths among adults aged 15–60 years, from March 2003 to June 2011, to be approximately 376,000; 184,000 of these deaths were attributed to the conflict, and of those, the authors estimate that 132,000 were caused directly by war-related violence."

You see, you did it again. You want so badly to claim that the studies agree with you, but each time I give you the data from the studies, you dismiss me instead of the data. I see why. Its because the studies make black and white claims and those claims do not match what you're saying. You see, 132k over 8 years is not the same as 150k over 3. Further, if your argument is that the trends of those studies would have eventually gotten to a few hundred thousand, then back up that claim. The PLOS study which went on for much longer than the IFHS survey and the Lancet survey shows that the trend is not consistent. But, none of that matters because as I have said over and over, your claim that all studies show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths is false.

Seems that PLOS study shows the IFHS study you were championing all this time for "discrediting" the Lancet one was complete shit, too.

Let's recap here. The IFHS shows the Lancet is shit, the PLOS shows the IFHS is shit, and presumably the IBC with a lower number (your #1 choice in the first place) show the PLOS is shit. But the PLOS direct war number might be even lower, so the PLOS shows the PLOS is shit, too.

Guess those teachers who marked you down for 2+2=22 are just jealous they couldn't figure out how easy it was.

Another deflection. I said the Lancet study was shit, not the Journal.

This is the level of dumb that can only be reached with an exact opposite self-belief.

You were arguing about anything you could other than your original claim which challenged. Its okay princess.

Have you ever met someone much dumber than you? Would you say they acted different than you are right now when this was pointed out?

 

[realibrad]

At this point I'd say you're in a class of your own.



Seems that PLOS study shows the IFHS study you were championing all this time for "discrediting" the Lancet one was complete shit, too.

Let's recap here. The IFHS shows the Lancet is shit, the PLOS shows the IFHS is shit, and presumably the IBC with a lower number (your #1 choice in the first place) show the PLOS is shit. But the PLOS direct war number might be even lower, so the PLOS shows the PLOS is shit, too.

Guess those teachers who marked you down for 2+2=22 are just jealous they couldn't figure out how easy it was.



This is the level of dumb that can only be reached with an exact opposite self-belief.



Have you ever met someone much dumber than you? Would you say they acted different than you are right now when this was pointed out?

First, let me again point out that your original claim is still wrong. But, I will comment on the other parts. I just don't want you to forgot that you have still not yet admitted your claim was wrong.

Did you read the discussion section of the IFHS? If you had, you would have seen this.

"The estimated number of deaths in the IFHS is about three times as high as that reported by the Iraq Body Count. Both sources indicate that the 2006 study by Burnham et al. considerably overestimated the number of violent deaths. For instance, to reach the 925 violent deaths per day reported by Burnham et al. for June 2005 through June 2006, as many as 87% of violent deaths would have been missed in the IFHS and more than 90% in the Iraq Body Count. This level of underreporting is highly improbable, given the internal and external consistency of the data and the much larger sample size and quality-control measures taken in the implementation of the IFHS."

That is to say that they were in a very nice way saying that the Lancet survey had problems with their data. If the underlying data is a problem, then the statistical analysis of that data becomes rather useless. I spoke to my math professor and asked him what he thought of using only 47 clusters to represent the entire population and he laughed. But hey, just another person to dismiss right?

 

[agent00f]

First, let me again point out that your original claim is still wrong. But, I will comment on the other parts. I just don't want you to forgot that you have still not yet admitted your claim was wrong.

Did you read the discussion section of the IFHS? If you had, you would have seen this.

This is endlessly comical given I've literally mocked you several times already for not discovering this section of your own link, which also explains some issues with that study which all studies have, but regrettably you have zero clue how to understand any of them. I bet you're going to tell me next the Lancet paper is only a few pages of actual reading.

"The estimated number of deaths in the IFHS is about three times as high as that reported by the Iraq Body Count. Both sources indicate that the 2006 study by Burnham et al. considerably overestimated the number of violent deaths. For instance, to reach the 925 violent deaths per day reported by Burnham et al. for June 2005 through June 2006, as many as 87% of violent deaths would have been missed in the IFHS and more than 90% in the Iraq Body Count. This level of underreporting is highly improbable, given the internal and external consistency of the data and the much larger sample size and quality-control measures taken in the implementation of the IFHS."

For example in that section is criticism the IFHS uses IBC data to fill in high mortality zones too dangerous to visit, data which the very authors claim in what you quote is 3x lower than their own study, criticism which the authors were rather silent on. You're literally too goddamn stupid to even begin to understand what you quoted, yet here you proclaiming this and that about entire academic studies.

That is to say that they were in a very nice way saying that the Lancet survey had problems with their data. If the underlying data is a problem, then the statistical analysis of that data becomes rather useless.
I spoke to my math professor and asked him what he thought of using only 47 clusters to represent the entire population and he laughed. But hey, just another person to dismiss right?

Really? Maybe he can show you how to calculate the mathematical benefit of more samples. Consider recording that process as a shoe-in for a comedy award.
-
On second thought, he said the most clever thing possible to rid himself of the moron. I bow to his genius.

 

[realibrad]

This is endlessly comical given I've literally mocked you several times already for not discovering this section of your own link, which also explains some issues with that study which all studies have, but regrettably you have zero clue how to understand any of them. I bet you're going to tell me next the Lancet paper is only a few pages of actual reading.

Wait, so you are shifting again. So when you said that all agree on the same number of excess violent deaths, what you now meant to say is that their numbers are not perfect so they can be drastically different. Even though one says 600k excess violent deaths for 3 years, and another says 132k excess violent deaths for 8 years, that is really just the same number because of the situation? Huh, that is a very interesting way of saying all the things are the same because they all find different results.

For example in that section is criticism the IFHS uses IBC data to fill in high mortality zones too dangerous to visit, data which the very authors claim in what you quote is 3x lower than their own study, criticism which the authors were rather silent on. You're literally too goddamn stupid to even begin to understand what you quoted, yet here you proclaiming this and that about entire academic studies.

Lol look at you. The IFHS explained before that the IBC does not include combatants in their figures. They used IBC data to derive counts in their format. They did not simply plug in numbers from the IBC into their gaps.

"Since past mortality is likely to be higher in these clusters than in those that were visited during the IFHS, we imputed mortality figures for the missing clusters in Anbar and Baghdad with the use of information from the Iraq Body Count on the distribution of deaths among provinces to estimate the ratio of rates of death in these areas to those in other provinces with high death rates. Data from the Iraq Body Count were used to compute ratios for death rates in Anbar and Baghdad, as compared with the three provinces that contributed more than 4% each to the total number of deaths reported for the period from March 2003 through June 2006."

They did not plug in low numbers. Lol dummy.

Really? Maybe he can show you how to calculate the mathematical benefit of more samples. Consider recording that process as a shoe-in for a comedy award.

Oh, so your argument here is that unless you can give a quantifiable value, that 47 clusters is just as good as 1000. Its not like its an accepted principle that more detailed analysis is better for data collection. No no, instead I have to give you exact numbers as to the impact of using less details.

On second thought, he said the most clever thing possible to rid himself of the moron. I bow to his genius.

Which is why he spent the next 30min talking to me and telling me stories. He was in such a rush that he forgot he wanted to get rid of me. Just another insult instead of admitting you are wrong.

 

[agent00f]

Wait, so you are shifting again. So when you said that all agree on the same number of excess violent deaths, what you now meant to say is that their numbers are not perfect so they can be drastically different. Even though one says 600k excess violent deaths for 3 years, and another says 132k excess violent deaths for 8 years, that is really just the same number because of the situation? Huh, that is a very interesting way of saying all the things are the same because they all find different results.

Lol look at you. The IFHS explained before that the IBC does not include combatants in their figures. They used IBC data to derive counts in their format. They did not simply plug in numbers from the IBC into their gaps.

"Since past mortality is likely to be higher in these clusters than in those that were visited during the IFHS, we imputed mortality figures for the missing clusters in Anbar and Baghdad with the use of information from the Iraq Body Count on the distribution of deaths among provinces to estimate the ratio of rates of death in these areas to those in other provinces with high death rates. Data from the Iraq Body Count were used to compute ratios for death rates in Anbar and Baghdad, as compared with the three provinces that contributed more than 4% each to the total number of deaths reported for the period from March 2003 through June 2006."

They did not plug in low numbers. Lol dummy.

Oh, so your argument here is that unless you can give a quantifiable value, that 47 clusters is just as good as 1000. Its not like its an accepted principle that more detailed analysis is better for data collection. No no, instead I have to give you exact numbers as to the impact of using less details.


Which is why he spent the next 30min talking to me and telling me stories. He was in such a rush that he forgot he wanted to get rid of me. Just another insult instead of admitting you are wrong.

You know what readibrad, I've reconsidered my position and figured out that you were always the smartest and correctest one here. All my life I've tried to read diligently and figure out how things work, but you've shown that the true path is to find bliss instead.

Not only am I wrong on all this iraq stuff, but literally everything I've ever mocked you mercilessly over. Little did I know that you packed such wisdom from your teachers. I might as well shoot myself from the shame but regrettably do not own a suitable firearm, but then I remembered true zen is without shame. Hamburger should know that I am not worthy of the true scot title.

P.S. Give my warmest regards to Professor Math, he might not be smart or corrects as you but that pedagogical experience reflects in the confident brilliance of his students.

 

[realibrad]

You know what readibrad, I've reconsidered my position and figured out that you were always the smartest and correctest one here. All my life I've tried to read diligently and figure out how things work, but you've shown that the true path is to find bliss instead.

Not only am I wrong on all this iraq stuff, but literally everything I've ever mocked you mercilessly over. Little did I know that you packed such wisdom from your teachers. I might as well shoot myself from the shame but regrettably do not own a suitable firearm, but then I remembered true zen is without shame. Hamburger should know that I am not worthy of the true scot title.

P.S. Give my warmest regards to Professor Math, he might not be smart or corrects as you but that pedagogical experience reflects in the confident brilliance of his students.

Why would you rather post all that crap, then simply address the point that you are wrong? If you truly think I have misunderstood the evidence, then explain. You obviously have the time as you have spent pages insulting me, but never explaining how I have misunderstood.

You clearly claimed that all studies agree on the number of excess violent deaths. All the papers are using the same definition of violent excess deaths. Their numbers are not trivially different.

Lancet: 601k violent excess deaths from 2003-2006.

IFHS: 151k violent excess deaths from 2003-2006.

PLOS: 132k violent excess deaths from 2003-2011.

That data should stand no matter your personal opinion about me. These numbers, while being estimations do not support your claims. Each subsequent study was improved when compared to the previous study. I cannot see how you are able to say I am wrong unless you are making the argument that their violent excess death numbers are wrong. those numbers do not look like they agree to me.

 

[agent00f]

No, I truly have much to learn from your professor, for he imparts wisdom in methods far more diverse than mathematics. Truly a man who's apparently invented novel statistics and inspires new generations to really believe in themselves is worth emulating.

Why would you rather post all that crap, then simply address the point that you are wrong? If you truly think I have misunderstood the evidence, then explain. You obviously have the time as you have spent pages insulting me, but never explaining how I have misunderstood.

You clearly claimed that all studies agree on the number of excess violent deaths. All the papers are using the same definition of violent excess deaths. Their numbers are not trivially different.

Lancet: 601k violent excess deaths from 2003-2006.

IFHS: 151k violent excess deaths from 2003-2006.

PLOS: 132k violent excess deaths from 2003-2011.

From your own post: "132,000 were caused directly by war-related violence." I recall hearing a lot about widespread violence due to breakdown of social order, but clearly realibrad has the bestest memory and that must just be imagination. Just further proof that the people who actually read the leftist academic studies are the dummies.

That data should stand no matter your personal opinion about me. These numbers, while being estimations do not support your claims. Each subsequent study was improved when compared to the previous study. I cannot see how you are able to say I am wrong unless you are making the argument that their violent excess death numbers are wrong. those numbers do not look like they agree to me.

 

[realibrad]

No, I truly have much to learn from your professor, for he imparts wisdom in methods far more diverse than mathematics. Truly a man who's apparently invented novel statistics and inspires new generations to really believe in themselves is worth emulating.

Yep 100% spot on. I mean, how else could you interpret me asking my math teacher about the usefulness of 47 clusters to represent an entire population. Sick burn there bro.

From your own post: "132,000 were caused directly by war-related violence." I recall hearing a lot about widespread violence due to breakdown of social order, but clearly realibrad has the bestest memory and that must just be imagination. Just further proof that the people who actually read the leftist academic studies are the dummies.

So are you trying to say that the number is too low and that the authors got that wrong?

Still not sure how this relates to your original claim that all studies agree on the number of excess violent deaths.

 

[agent00f]

Yep 100% spot on. I mean, how else could you interpret me asking my math teacher about the usefulness of 47 clusters to represent an entire population. Sick burn there bro.

How that conversation went:

Professor Math: Oh here comes my star student, the highlight of my day
realibrad: Hey PM, this study which sucks is using math; I don't even have to read it to know this due to everything you showed me, but you probably do so here it is

Professor Math: Hmm they're doing epidemiological statistical analysis, and you said it sucks? Well they're clearly not using enough of these, uh, 47 clusters.
realibrad: Yeah I knew it, thanks to all them l33t math sk1llz.

Professor Math: Why don't you stay for a while, I love just having such a bright confident student around.

So are you trying to say that the number is too low and that the authors got that wrong?

Still not sure how this relates to your original claim that all studies agree on the number of excess violent deaths.

No I'm saying you have the best brain with the best reading comprehension and there's probably only one guy who can match that talent.