Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » 655,000

That’s the number that the fishwrap “medical journal” The Lancet claim that have died brutally as a result of our Evil NeoKKKon Invasion of Iraq.

Of course, that would be the same Lancet that previously proclaimed that 100,000 had died, only to have to admit later that what they meant to say was “somewhere between 8,000 and 192,000, we’re not sure.”

The same Lancet, “coincidentally”, whose editor likes to hang out with and give speeches alongside of George Galloway.

The same Lancet whose publishing deadlines always seem to magically coincide with U.S. elections.

In other words, a load of steaming bullshit stacked so high that you have to bring your own oxygen to climb the foul mound of mendacity.

The biggest howler, however, has to be their claim that there were almost no deaths due to violent causes under Saddam.

And, as a commenter to this post by the author of Iraq the Model (who delivers a justifiably pissed off “bite me” to the propagandists of The Lancet) notes, once you start running their numbers and claims through the calculator, it gets really funny:

Did you know that, according to The Lancet, 200,000 people have been killed in Coalition air raids? Damn, we must be using nukes after all!

Would somebody please tell those propagandizing medicos to stick to their jobs?

101 Responses to “655,000”
  1. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    “For Burnham’s study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure.”

    In plain English:

    “We listened to the folklore for a while then pulled some numbers out of our ass.”

    This is another example of why real scientists often roll their eyes and snicker when a “study” is published in a “major medical journal.”

    Most of the medical literature is based on consensus, meaning: We learned physicians think this is probably true, therefore it must be. Consensus, of course, is the enemy of critical thought and science at large. (It’s also the reason that, after ~50 years of “research,” we’re still trying to decide whether a low-salt diet is a good idea.)

    Which is to say - take anything you read in a medical journal with a grain of salt.

  2. Krondax Comment by Krondax UNITED STATES

    Would somebody please tell those propagandizing medicos to stick to their jobs?

    wait, i thought that thier job was to make all the good guys, including us to look bad, so that the “uneducated masses” so to speak woudl put someone in charge who would be more than happy to drop trou, bend over, and take it in the arse with those who want to destroy us…..

    The grocery store i work at is hiring, maybe i should send them all job apps so thtey can get out of that job and into a real one….

  3. LCBrendan Comment by LCBrendan AUSTRALIA

    The morgues and hospitals would have been overwhelmed..we’re talking over 500 dead PER DAY.

    That is flatly IMPOSSIBLE.

    I call BS.

  4. maxxdog Comment by maxxdog UNITED STATES

    It’ll make for a great DUmmies funnies post! The brainless maroons will have a party with it.

  5. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    LCBrendan (#3) notes: “The morgues and hospitals would have been overwhelmed..we’re talking over 500 dead PER DAY.

    That is flatly IMPOSSIBLE

    Well it seems that Brendan isn’t alone in that thought…

    Iraq the Model responds to the Lancet Lies

    Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.

    Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.

  6. MasterGuns Comment by MasterGuns UNITED STATES

    With about a zillion members of the esteemed(barf), unbiased(puke), press in Iraq, one can only wonder how they manage to get any reporting done whilst avoiding tripping over the vast number of bodies that are laying around. It is truly a puzzle that the leftist loons actually can accept this study as anything resembling serious.

    Semper Fi

  7. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    “Our goal was not to produce the most precise number possible but rather to suggest the scope of war-related deaths,” said lead author Gilbert Burnham, co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at Johns Hopkins.

    (Translation: We made up the numbers to give you a sense of the unspeakable horror of the US-led invasion.)

    Later…

    From these it was determined that the annual death rate had risen from 5.5 people per 1,000 before the war began to 13.2 per 1,000 since, accounting for 654,965 “excess deaths” through July 2006. Of these, 601,027 were said to be due to violent causes.

    (Translation: Now we’re using “precise number[s]” to try to fool you into believing we used something resembling a valid methodology. We really used a modified computer simulation for predicting fortunes by scatology, written by a college freshman.)

    Statistics don’t lie. Statisticians lie, especially when they’re hate-driven, leftist agenda holders who find a voice in once-respectable publications, like Science, Nature, JAMA, the New England Journal and The Lancet.

    Unfortunately, this is prime example of the same rotten trend that’s sweeping through certain branches of science. Welcome to the New Dark Ages, folks.

    BTW, the exact number of deaths to date in Iraq is 23,164.

    Because I said so.

  8. LC HOGHEAD Comment by LC HOGHEAD UNITED STATES

    Two points.
    First, by its own admission (READ it) the Lancet says its margin of error is plus or minus 800,000 (eight hundred thousand), meaning the entire 655,000 estimate could be (is) bullshit.
    Second, by its own admission, it states over 70% of the casulaties are NOT caused by coalition forces, meaning,even IF (unlikely) the estimate was correct, 460,000 of the deaths were NOT caused by US.

    Clearly this study is BULLSHIT.

    MISHA FOR SENATE!!!!!

  9. LC 0311 crunchie Comment by LC 0311 crunchie UNITED STATES

    So these idiots just basically went door to door, asked hown many people had died (does any one else see Monty Pyhtons “Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!”), then multiplied, divided, square rooted, cosigned or whatever the fuck they did and came up with 655,000. Sure, sounds like an accurate cound to me, plus or minus 800,000.

    So, if there count was off by 800,000, byh their own admition a very likely case, does that mean that we could have actually increased the population by 145,000 or so?

    Reminds me of a story my old company gunny told me. He was coming back from his third tour in Viet Nam, Republic of, when he was accosted by a hippie in the airport. The pretty little thing screamed at him “How many babies did you kill?”, to which he replied “None that I know of, but I there are a few more crawling around because of me and some cheap PX rubbers.” :wub_tb:

  10. LC 0311 crunchie Comment by LC 0311 crunchie UNITED STATES

    PIMF, sorry, long day on the range in 95 degrees +.

  11. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Well, about half the violence has been in Al Anbar, so by the Lancet figure they’ve probably lost 300,000 people out of their population of slightly over a million, and this in just the two years since the last study, so I figure their life expectancy has dropped from 67 to about 7 without the Iraqis or humanitarian NGO’s noticing. Yeah, the Lancet is that stoooopid.

  12. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy UNITED KINGDOM

    trollThe methodology of this assessment is pretty straightforward. They picked about 1800 families at random and interviewed one member of the family about recent deaths before and after the invasion. In about 80% of the cases they were able to confirm what the family member was telling them with a death certificate. They used that information to calculate the yearly mortality rate in Iraq. It came to 13.3 deaths per 1000. The pre-invasion mortality rate was calculated to 5.5 deaths per 1000, which apparently closely matches pre-war assessments from other sources. The 655,000 figure is a nation-wide extrapolation based upon the difference between the pre- and post-war death rates. It includes not only those who have died violently but also those who have died due to lack of access to clean water or medical facilities.

    Unless someone can demonstrate a major flaw in the methodology of this study I’m more inclined to believe it than previous assessments that rely on counting every dead body everywhere in Iraq. Many dead may overlooked by the authorities, but the families know they’re gone.

    And as for the charge that “it’s just politics” … EVERYTHING is politics. If it damages the Republicans, tough shit.

    And I also want to see a cite for the claim that the margin of error on this study is 800,000. I read the entire study last night and couldn’t see hide nor hair of that particular caveat.

  13. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Muzzy, if they could confirm 80% of the 655,000 deaths with a death certificate, then somebody could’ve just tallied how many death certificates have been issued. Gee, don’t you wonder who’s issuing those?

  14. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Pull up the Lancet article, table 2 – section 2, post invasion mortality by cause.

    In the Lancet sample car bombs killed no elderly, 3 children, 5 women, and 28 men. Now how does a car bomb know not to kill old folks, women, or children, especially when the car bombs are targeting random clusters of civilian shoppers? If the data was valid shouldn’t the deaths from car bombings show a fairly equal number of male and female victims?

    Look at their airstrike data. The Lancet survey says that air strikes killed one elderly person, two women, but thirteen children and twenty three males. How can we manage to kill children but miss their moms? If we were carpet bombing whole cities the ratio of children 0 to 14 among the victims would be roughly what the Lancet claims, 33% of total victims, yet somehow we just can’t hit their mothers.

    Looking at the detailed data at Iraq body count, from mid-April 2003 until the start of this year, known airstrikes killed a maximum of 1,536 people. The Lancet survey says airstrikes caused 7% of the total deaths, but 1,536/0.07 = 21,932 deaths, not 655,000. But that would include deaths from all causes. The Lancet says only 55% of the deaths were from violence, and airstrikes represent 12.7% of this total. Based on that the Lancet figures predict only 12,068 total deaths by violence.

    The same IBC data says car bombs killed over 3,000 people, twice as many as airstrikes, yet extrapolating from the Lancet survey’s car bomb data would still only give about 23,000 total deaths by violence.

    Yet deaths by car bombs and airstrikes are the most likely ones not to be missed or undercounted, and indeed are the most open to exaggeration on an event by event basis. Given the two sets of numbers, the Lancet’s claim is exaggerated by a factor of thirty to sixty from their own data.

  15. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    Muzzy,

    There are things called “construct” and “face validity” they apply to all aspects of the scientific method, including survey research.

    By extension they imply that if you start with an absurd a priori, no amount of methodological legerdemain is going to validate it.

    Burnham, et al. should remain thoroughly discredited since their last attempt at statistical gymnastics, in which a confidence interval of 95% was abused to arrive at a figure of 100,000 - just in time for a 2004 “October Surprise.” (That such garbage passed peer review and was published at that particular time in the clearly politicized Lancet speaks volumes. JAMA’s George Lundberg was fired for much less.)

    Burnham and The Lancet are back at it, again with CIs of 95% and a new number of 655,000 (and again, conveniently just before an election.)

    (I’d point out to the editors of The Lancet that their “credibility capital” is being rapidly expended, so far as their public health articles are concerned. Fewer and fewer of my colleagues take them seriously anymore, a trend that will be very hard to reverse.)

    Believe what you like. 655,000 deaths is an extraordinary claim, especially when other, credible evidence is at variance by nearly an order of magnitude. When someone (other than Burnham and The Lancet) arrives with extraordinary, corroborative evidence, I’ll change my mind. Else, it’s just one more disgustingly transparent attempt to sway public opinion with a failing appeal to authority and prestige.

  16. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    Here’s the link to the other credible evidence. I couldn’t get it to insert before.

    There’s something about the Lancet articles that’s been bothering me for a while. I finally realized what it was.

    Back in ‘82, mathemetician Rudy Rucker wrote a novel called Software. In it, a human visitor to the Moon inquires as to the population of a city built and inhabited by robots (”boppers”) who are inherently annoyed with and snotty to humans. The discussion runs approximately so:

    Human: How many boppers live in Disky?

    Robot: What degree of precision is required?

    Human: I don’t know… Zuh.. zero precision. Does that make sense?

    Robot: Thank you. With zero precision, is no boppers living in Disky. Or ten to the sixty-third power.

    You can say anything you like, as long as you set your confidence intervals broadly enough.

  17. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    Rats.

    That should read:

    again with CIs of 95% (393,000 - 943,000)

    When your interval is that large, your research approaches meaninglessness.

  18. Unregistered Comment by drjuluka

    1) Your understading of CI is childish. CI amounts only to the confidence that a repeat study would find a value within its bounds. CI has nothing whatsoever to do with meaning. In this study, the CI was established at 95%, a very demanding value that expands the CI width.

    2) When you begin your comments with “These idiots…” you tend to lose your credibility. Ad hominum fallacies can be recognized by children as young as 5.

    3) If you are challenging the editors of The Lancet for their political leaning, you may have a point, though since the “Sokal Affair” in 1996, most editorial boards have become distinctly conservative about what they let through.

    4) Denial is the core of the neocon movement. It is comical to read. Keep it up.

  19. Princess Natasha Comment by Princess Natasha UNITED STATES

    And here comes, right on schedule, a snot-nosed, lecturing troll. Condescending tone? Check. Pseudo-intellectual smugness? Check. Misspelled words? Check. (It’s ad hominem, cupcake). Memorized meaningless terms, such as “neocon”? Check.
    Result: a pissy little libtard with delusions of adequacy. How sweet!

  20. Unregistered Comment by drjuluka

    Dearest princess,

    What’s your point? You mudsling exceptionally well, and your capacity for spelling is impressive. I take offense, however, at the “pseudo-intellectual smugness” characterization. I simply paid attention to science in school, and I find the kindergarten quality of what passes for political discourse about scientific issues ludicrous – on all sides of the fences. I might add that “neocon” is a lot easier to type than “new conservative philosophy that is ripping the soul out of rationality.” It’s nothing personal.

    In all sweetness, sincerely,
    Dan

  21. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    I simply paid attention to science in school, and I find the kindergarten quality of what passes for political discourse about scientific issues ludicrous

    Hmmm, was that attention paid to science in school before or AFTER it was determined that the earth wasn’t flat and calculus had yet to be invented?

    Just asking…

    Oh and one more thing drjuluka your supposed grasp of “CI” is at least as flawed as you have accused others of being…

  22. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    CI is a customary value in my profession. For the sake of being concise, one might have to forego the math regarding reliability, sample size, and other features. CI is an easy thing to review and evaluate at about half a million websites dealing with statistical issues, but I’ll stick with my original statement in the post above in regard to the nature of the argument on this blog.

    I might also postulate that the obtained value of 655K is probably elevated if one considers the staistical “true estimate” that would be found below 655 (that is not addressed in the study), and then placing the CI around that value. I can’t make a statement about this, because I don’t know the mean mortality rate for Iraq, though I imagine that is it far below the 13.3 per 1000 per year mentioned in the study, and probably even below the 5.5 per 100 per year under Sadam also noted in the study.

    I wonder if you’d like to comment, juandos, on my flaws so I might be better educated about what I assert. I am always eager to learn. Also, I am old, but not so old as calculus or flat earth. In my spare time, I like to generate integrals for calculating percentiles from z scores at abs(SD)>15. It is quite fun.

    DannyBoy

  23. Unregistered Comment by fast_rope71 UNITED STATES

    Two things.
    1. It is no surprise to me that there are waiting list that stretch into ludicrous territory in great britain for simple and complex medical procedures alike.

    2. The tragic thing about the term neocon, is that it is truly meaningless. Conservatism hasn’t changed a whole hell of a lot. That is the POINT! You find what works best, and you stick with it. Progressive, on the other hand, tends to mean that we (they) will stir the pudding as often as often as we (they) like, as long as there is a grant in it for some professor who maximizes his efforts at brainwashing all who enter their realm of existence. Change for change’s sake is counter-productive.

  24. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    In actuality, I am simply a doctor in the field of public mental health service. Beginning in 1980, I watched the tragic decline in services for ill people. I saw those services expand again in the 90’s. I have watched the precipitous decline once again over the past six years.

    So, from my view point, things are not working; and in fact, are on a terrible course of blind neglect for the human condition. Our leaders appear to have no souls though which to experience empathy. Adherents and supporters of that leadership style seem to have foregone their souls in sheepish alliegance, thinking all the while they are bullish on some notion that all will be right and good in the world once all those who do not share their view are annihilated, and once the less able are allowed to exit the gene pool through a cute political Darwinian trick.

    It is a destructive attitude that will have disaterous consequences.

    I have received no grants for pudding or in support of change. I am looking for a grant, however, that is supportive of rational discourse.

    Change for change’s sake is, as you say, fast_rope, counter-productive. No quibble here. I think, however, that if you reduce the world to an either/or conservative and progressive, then you are miopic toward the broad range of ideas that may eventually lead to solutions.

    Ludicrous medical procedures? This straw man argument does not merit any comment.

  25. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Dan, using the Lancet’s method you can accurately establish the price of the Brooklyn Bridge based on the range of responses given by pedestrians in the Bronx.

  26. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Sir George,

    Such a methodology would likely provide an estimate, given inflation, that would be within a reasonable factor of an expert cost analysis. I believe Douglas Hofstader did a math analysis of lay numerical guessing in his column in Scientific American about 20 years ago.

    Personally, I think the 655K is high. Is the methology robust? Probably not the best that could be done. I suppose, though, under the circumstances and in lieu of an alternative estimate, it has to stand as a point from which gravitate toward precision.

    We must wait for precision in the value of collateral deaths, as those in charge don’t really seem to give a hoot about this. When our (US) president went on record with the 30K value a few months ago, my hunch is that the realization that it would be higher influenced the locking-in of the lower value. But that is just a guess.

    In the end, I think it is fair to say that the value of civilian deaths directly related to the Iraq war is greater than the 2700 US military deaths + 3000 911 deaths + the ‘03 thru ‘06 vehicular deaths in the US. Put another way, it is probably close to the number of folks whose deaths are attributable to cigarettes or alcohol abuse (but not both) in a given calendar year.

    Perhaps death is not avoidable in the quest for democratizing the world, but I wonder if a few bucks might be tossed at cars, and cigs, and booze. This will not be the case, because these don’t have the same moral priority as democracy. Especially not in a culture that promotes a revamped military hummer vehicle that is a glutton for fuel as a statement of social success.

  27. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    As a final post (for me at least), it might be useful to review the Iraq Body Count analysis of the Lancet study. Rather than an explosion of bewildering affective displays, it dispassionately comments on a variety of pitfalls, and such argument is both educational and convincing to me.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

  28. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    The key point to my comment, Dan, is that no matter how sound your statistical analysis, you’d still be trying to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from a smelly homeless guy.

    Iraq Body Count’s methods are likewise flawed, since if their procedure is correctly followed they’d double count all deaths.

  29. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Sir George,

    It was not “my” statistical analysis. I might have designed the study differently, and a priori to the invasion, but I don’t work at that level of government or research.

    Stat is a tool, like any other, and can be used quite effectively to look at the clockwork universe. But stat, like a hammer, as any other tool, can be held wrong and swung poorly. This does not convict the hammer of fakery, but rather the user as misguided or distracted or having carple tunnel syndrome.

    There is a beauty in the normal curve, and it is the normal curve that is represented by CI (as was my original point way back when). If the Lancet study was conducted in the same way repeatedly ad infinitum, the results would mark the normal curve, ostensibly with 655K in the middle, but then it might not and the objective observer would then, in that case, change his/her reasoning in accord with the observation.

    If the method was flawed (as appears to be the case, or at least questionable), then so be it. An objective observer would await a better method, and withold judgment. At this point the Iraq Body Count page seems to hold trump on the matter. And so the civilian count is approximately equivalent to the loss of US military in all of Viet Nam.

    I still say “ouch!”

  30. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Actually the civilian casualties in Iraq don’t come close to our losses on 9/11. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I lost one point five million cousins when the North Tower collapsed. I said as much in a phone poll, so it’s a scientifically accurate figure. The lower casualty estimates overlooked my cousins to make 9/11 seem like less of a tragedy. I blame the oversight on racism and lemon moon pies.

    The fundamental flaws in the Lancet survey’s method are pronounced. If applied in the aftermath of WW-II they’d have concluded that hundreds of Jews died during the Holocaust because almost no Jews were left alive to be surveyed, resulting in a monumental undercount. As Saddam tended to wipe out whole families and whole villages, the Lancet’s estimate for pre-invasion casualties is very likely wrong for just that reason.

    For their post-invasion figures they haven’t shown that their interviewers were without bias, and have freely admitted their own bias. On top of that they’re sending “teams” into neighborhoods to ask about relatives who’ve been killed since the US invasion. This is done amongst a very poor population that knows that the Americans grant wrongful death payouts to families of those who died as a collateral result of US actions.

    The assumption underlying almost all population surveys is that the interviewers and interviewees aren’t all lying their asses off. The Lancet survey didn’t employ the slightest cross-checks to see whether that was the case.

  31. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Sir George,

    I can understand the methology flaws. I can appreciate how they impact the reliability of the conclusions. I think I can even appreciate your point, maybe, perhaps. I can’t, however, understand the presumptuousness in the attitude of your response. I can’t predict the behavior of my dog, much less give intent to a group of researchers applying current stat techniques to 60 year old events. Was that supposed to be methophor? A different kind trope? It is this hype-ish Shawn Hannity-esque psuedo-schizoaffective reasoning that makes it so hard to have a rational discussion with the conservative movement. Even without the caps, I can hear you screaming through my monitor. Again, I’d reference Iraq Body Count for a level-headed discussion of Lancet.

    Population sample surveys have methods and usefulness. Skew is accounted for. Variation in continuity is anticipated. Transformations are applied. Loads of ways to squeeze meaning from numbers. Your cavalier dismissal means you are either a sociology prof passed over for tenure or a scientist in a bad marriage.

    I’ve got an intern this year working on a survey-based dissertation dealing with spirituality. I have taken a strong dislike to the study he is doing. I see the flaws, I feel skeptical of the data. I’ve found his methology weak. I will evaluate his results knowing this. Unfortunately, I am not on his dissertation committee, and so I will not be formally blessing his work, but I will know its worth — not through somebody shouting it at me about how it would have screwed up our historical understanding of Nazi behavior during WWII, but on it’s own merits.

    Slow down and have a cup of tea or something.

  32. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    Again, I’d reference Iraq Body Count for a level-headed discussion of Lancet.

    And we’d continue to assert that you have your head firmly ensconced up your ass.

    And we’d be right.

    Again.

    Having read your bullshit now for 4 or 5 posts, I’m forced to disagree with you regarding Princess Natasha.

    She was too nice to you.  You’re not much more than a shit-faced fuckhead pretending to be an erudite elitist snot-nose.

    You now have our leave to sod off.

  33. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    I did have a cup of tea. Forty eight of them! How much calmer can I get?! :)

    You misread me. I mostly amused by these examples of science from the fringes where nobody does any reality checks. A good scientist may not know the answer when he starts out, but he knows a few of its general features, otherwise scientific papers would read like a Netflix commercial. I’m reminded of an bio-medical engineering student in a lab where I worked. He had spent months building a mechanical analogue to a circulatory system to study oxygen transport in the bloodstream. His first results were pretty good but worsened as the weeks wore on. He kept at it for months, producing beautiful charts and graphs but at a loss to explain why he couldn’t get good oxygen tranport in his system. Finally, in exasperation, he asked the medical doctors to review his results and see if they could spot something he missed. One of them asked, “Have you changed the blood?” The bio-engineering student said, “No, I thought of that, and it’s exactly the same batch I started with.” The doctor replied, “Well there’s your problem. Blood dies.” The engineering student had been thinking of blood as a semi-newtonian fluid similar to motor oil.

    Anyway, for all the years of multiculturalism and ethnic-diversity seminars our colleges have indulged, you’d think the first step in such a survey of Iraq would be testing people’s responses against known data sets to see how and if societal differences influence particular survey results in a non-Western country. In many cultures “family member” means “tribe member.” I take it their original survey was critiqued on just this ground because they had they now emphasize “family member living in this household.”

    Another problem is that the causes of death they list should bear quite a close resemblance to the IBC’s huge sample set. For example, the ratio between deaths by IEDs versus airstrikes should be in very close agreement across the two different sampling methods. Yet they are not. In fact, as I mentioned in a previous comment, based on the Lancet’s ratio of airstrike deaths to total deaths their survey should only show about 12,000 to 20,000 total deaths in Iraq, not 665,000. To show a high number of under-reported deaths their ratio of airstrike deaths to total deaths should be vastly lower, since an airstrike draws lots of press attention (like the wedding bombings) and creates lots of paperwork.

    Another red flag is that their own survey takers claim that 80% of the households presented a death certificate. As the IBC article mentioned, there’s no way that many death certificates have been issued. This indicates that either the families or the survey takers were lying, or the families were not chosen at random, which means that the survey takers were lying.

    So instead of establishing that the Iraq war has killed around 600,000 people, the paper merely established that Arabs lie and the Lancet is staffed with hacks and morons.

  34. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Sir George,

    This I can readily accept, and I thank you for your lengthy response. I am not a fan of multiculturalism, political correctness, or post modern deconstruction; and so we have at least that link through which to issue meaningful exchange.

    The only halt in my reading came right at the end, where I would have somehow used a less deliberate method of describing Lancet staff as “hacks and morons” (because they are surely not any more than we are in the work that we do) — I might have used the term “confirmatory bias” which is a pitfall all of us are susceptible to… and I, for one, try to work very hard to avoid that pitfall as, I guess, the Lancet staff and researchers did. Why else would a reputable journal toss out to the wolves such an easily skewered study? I can only think that a slippery slope of confirmation bias kicked into gear.

  35. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    The phrase “hacks and morons” has way more zing! :D

    Anyway, that they wouldn’t run a few simple reality checks on the article makes me question their editorial process.

    My favorite article from the Lancet was one that had my whole lab cracking up back in the 1980’s, once I’d explained their error. Some British researchers decided to use bodies in a London morgue to measure the correlation between the length of the lifeline (as known to palm readers) and lifespan. To their chagrin they found a very strong positive correlation. So they wrote up their result and the Lancet, also lacking an explanation, published it.

    The reason for the correlation was that they were measuring the length of the lifeline at the end of life. The older people get, the wrinklier their skin, and thus their lifeline. The researchers should’ve measured college students and then tracked them until death instead of checking the bodies in a morgue.

    Maybe if they’d tallied their results as something like:
    12 young and smooth ones.
    47 old and wrinkly ones.

    then they would’ve seen the obvious error in their approach.

    A similar check would’ve made the Lancet wonder how our airstrikes managed to kill children but almost no mothers, or why these staggering numbers didn’t cause NGO workers to comment on the lack of living males in the Anbar province. Sometimes you have to do such math to see if you’re being fed horse hockey, such as in the dramatic series Over There. If you watched the show you’d notice that each week the show portrayed each unit of soldiers killing more Iraqis than were in the unit. If that were remotely close to reality then we’d be killing over 150,000 Iraqis a week, which is 7.8 million a year, or about 28 million Iraqis since the invasion. Iraq wouldn’t have any people left if that were true.

  36. Unregistered Comment by CharlesKennedy UNITED STATES

    Wow, some mindless stuff here. Outside The Beltway has some fair dialogue on the stats, better than here. I’m at least glad to see some apparently fellow scientists/doctors commenting here, if largely irresponsibly. Just because we share a profession doesn’t mean you aren’t vulnerable to the sort of confirmation bias you claim to loathe.

    I find several mistakes are critical here:

    1) Iraq Body Count profoundly underestimates the number of dead. It’s only those covered in the media, and if you think it unlikely that only around 1 in 13 deaths are reported, I’d find it unlikely that you understand how developing countries operate, let alone during a brutal 3-year civil war. Especially when the media hardly leave the Green Zone. It is guaranteed to be a much more biased, less precise, and less accurate measurement. Enough already.

    2) Boy George, I mean Sir, Arabs don’t just lie. Racist claims won’t get us anywhere. And it’s ridiculous to think that these CRAZY TOWEL-HEADS!!! are manufacturing fake death certificates just in case American soldiers are handing out loot! How desperate can you get, Boy?

    Also, women should be expected to show fewer deaths than children or men. They don’t go to school (except if teaching), and men dominate public life.

    Learn a little about people and cultures outside the States, eh.

    3) Given that Arabs cannot be consistently said to be lying, cheating, State Department dollar-scheming ruffians, the study’s 95% CI DOES in fact mean something — that the death toll does indeed linger around 600,000. Of course, perhaps it is somewhat biased (a measure can never be perfect, especially in such an imperfect “laboratory”), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t far off from the truth.

    Sir George and L.C. Moriarty, you ought to be ashamed of your rumor-mongering in the name of science.

    Cheers!

  37. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Charles,

    Nice points. The Lancet study does have problems, and the Iraq Body Count is very likey low. So we are left with 50K-600K.

    Personally, I think 1 is too much, but I’m a doctor, and so very tragically bleeding in my heart.

    Regards!

  38. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    No, the IBC figure is high. They tally a death everytime the media or the military reports a death, such as with incident reports. The IBC tallies that same death again by going through the morgues once every month or so and asking, “How many people died violently?” About half of their tally is based on an estimate given by somebody in a morgue, and those tallies are always rounded to the nearest hundred. If the morgue workers were actually counting bodies then they’d present a number like “237.” Intead it’s always shown as “x00.”

    The IBC wouldn’t knowingly double-count the dead unless they were deliberately trying to exaggerate the numbers, but even they think the Lancet figures are total BS.

    Look at it this way. To produce numbers like what the Lancet claims, every time an IED blows up one of our jeeps and kills its four occupants, their buddies have to mow down over a thousand Iraqis and somehow keep their retaliatory strike out of the press in a country where the slightest abuse of a Muslim fills the streets with protesters. As we’ve seen, even 13 Iraqi deaths at US hands makes headlines, yet somehow none of the Iraqis are bothering to tell Western or Arab reporters about the thousand people getting killed every day. So maybe you think their bodies were secretly buried, but if that were the case how could their families have death certificates? Is there some death certificate black market over there?
    As the IBC mentioned, there’s no way that many death certificates have been issued. Do you really think it’s a vast conspiracy and all the Iraqis are in on it?

  39. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Charles,

    You do know that Iraqis have telephones and newspapers, don’t you? Do you really think that somehow a person can pull out a machine gun and kill a bunch of people in a market in some sleepy Arab town without it making their local papers?

    What the Lancet data would require us to believe is that all Iraqis are lying about the deaths, whereas I only hold that the Iraqis working for the survey were lying about their methods.

  40. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    3) Given that Arabs cannot be consistently said to be lying, cheating, State Department dollar-scheming ruffians

    You mean, despite the fact that that’s what their (hack, spit) Qu’ran (hack, spit) explicitly tells them to do, Chelsea?  You know - lie to the infidels?

    Or did they miss you on the cc: list of that particular memo, dumb fuck?

    the study’s 95% CI DOES in fact mean something — that the death toll does indeed linger around 600,000. Of course, perhaps it is somewhat biased (a measure can never be perfect, especially in such an imperfect “laboratory”), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t far off from the truth.

    All right, Chelsea, you shithead.  Put up or shut up.  The names of all  655,000 of ‘em.  Right here, right now, let’s have ‘em.

    Do some research  down there in your mommy’s basement for a change, instead of wanking to pics of Pee Wee Herman.

    Eh, dickweed?

  41. Unregistered Comment by CharlesKennedy

    Boy George,

    You need to do some reading before you comment further. You do not understand what the report is about.

    IT IS NOT an estimate of coalition-caused deaths. It is an estimate of total deaths, whether caused by kids from Ohio, death squads (sometimes including kids from Ohio undoubtedly), or ied’s.

    It includes civilians, fighters — everyone.

    And no, I think you’re terribly unrealistic to think that every newspaper in Iraq has 1) the funds, 2) the capability, and 3) the freedom to print whatever they want about what’s going on. They are often targeted, as reported recently in the New York Times.

    (oh, I forgot the NYT is a lefty rag, Fox News is SO much more reliable, right???)

    Spatula, I will produce said names only upon hearing your confession of being a towel-head lover.

    Cheers!
    Charles

  42. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    You need to do some reading before you comment further. You do not understand what the report is about.

    You need to do some reading before you open that skanky piehole of yours, chump.  The masthead, for instance.

    IT IS NOT an estimate of coalition-caused deaths. It is an estimate of total deaths, whether caused by kids from Ohio, death squads (sometimes including kids from Ohio undoubtedly), or ied’s.

    It includes civilians, fighters — everyone.

    But not Iraqi mothers, apparently.  Or did you miss that while wanking to Pee Wee?

    And no, I think you’re terribly unrealistic to think that every newspaper in Iraq has 1) the funds, 2) the capability, and 3) the freedom to print whatever they want about what’s going on.

    No more unrealistic than the suckweasel sycophants of an asshatted medical “journal” that bloviates about 655,000 dead without the hard evidence to back it up, eh, Chelsea?

    They are often targeted, as reported recently in the New York Times.

    Oh, yes - that bastion of accurate journalism

    (oh, I forgot the NYT is a lefty rag, Fox News is SO much more reliable, right???)

    Helluva lot more reliable than the NY Slimes,  dumbass.

    Spatula, I will produce said names only upon hearing your confession of being a towel-head lover.

    Yeah, I didn’t think you had the proof.  Guess you’re a fucking liar, then, aren’t you, chump?

  43. Unregistered Comment by CharlesKennedy

    troll[So long, chumpette.  -The Management™]

  44. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    IT IS NOT an estimate of coalition-caused deaths. It is an estimate of total deaths, whether caused by kids from Ohio, death squads (sometimes including kids from Ohio undoubtedly), or ied’s.

    And that’s where you’re seriously mistaken, because the idiots were dumb enough to tally the deaths

    by cause

    , and I don’t recall the insurgents using airstrikes. By the IBC’s count, which includes “shock and awe”, our airstrikes killed about 2,000 civilians. According to the Lancet survey our airstrikes killed about 45,000 civilians, so somehow the world’s entire press corps has been unable to uncover physical evidence, receive a report, or even form a suspicion about the 43,000 other subsequent deaths from large bombs dropping on towns and making really big explosions. If that’s the case then how do you know the US Air Force hasn’t been bombing Toronto for the past three years? Maybe the Lancet should go ask around up there.

  45. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    …and so, ratonal discussion breaks down… Does anyone anywhere read Downes? For Christ’s sake, put it to rest, please.

    Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
    Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality, political affiliation, or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

    There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
    (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

    (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.

    (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

    Examples:
    (i) You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)

    (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won’t be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

    (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.’s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

    (iv) You say I shouldn’t drink, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

    Proof: Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended. (Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80)

  46. Unregistered Comment by Roger that UNITED STATES

    trollYes Dan, it’s pathetic isn’t it.

    And while I’m not sure Charles is right, I see he’s been silenced by the site administrator. I think that’s unfortunate.

    All viewpoints should be allowed, and political correctness rejected.

    [Sock puppet much, Chelsea?  We can dump ‘em as fast as you can create ‘em, asswipe.  -The Management™]

  47. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    So would you say Spats fell back on the ad administratorem fallacy? It does seem to take the fun out of shooting fish in a barrel, doesn’t it?

    In any event, Charles Kennedy’s argument that the local papers in Iraq would be intimidated into silence by the very terrorists who seek maximum publicity for their terrorist attacks strikes me as rather absurd.

  48. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    And while I’m not sure Charles is right, I see he’s been silenced by the site administrator. I think that’s unfortunate.

    All viewpoints should be allowed, and political correctness rejected.

    Only if he wants to make cogent arguments, instead of play sock puppet, throw insults and make fun of folks’ names (he did none of the former and all three of the latter)

    And George, you can still shoot fish in a barrel.  Dr. DannyBoy’s still around, isn’t he?

  49. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    Oh, and Dr. DannyBoy?  This is a blog that prides itself on going all ad hominem  on liberals and other Idiotarians - if not by the site admin, then by the regular commenters here, yours truly included.

    If you don’t like it, the door’s over there. ——->

    Don’t let it hit you in the ass on the way out.  We paid a lot for the door.

  50. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Lord Spat,

    If that be the case, then I’ll gladly glide out the door. I see no purpose in the tenor, pitch, tempo of your strategy of persuasion, or for that matter your logical development of ideas. It is like looking at a cardboard cutout of a notion after being sprayed with buckshot. Just too many holes in the arguments, and just no fun to play. Creative anacronysm, or whatever this site is about leaves me colder than frost on a witches clitoris, and I can only think I’ve stumbled upon a site driven only by youthful exuberance, and little substance.

    My bad. To bad. Badness.

    Adios.

  51. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    If that be the case, then I’ll gladly glide out the door. I see no purpose in the tenor, pitch, tempo of your strategy of persuasion

    Let me guess:  You’ve never read this site’s FAQ.

    or for that matter your logical development of ideas.

    This from someone that buys into 655,000?  You really are  a dumbass, aren’t you?

    To bad.

    Oh, and do us a favor:  Before you try to impress us all with your particular level of eruditeness (eruditity?) - learn the fucking difference between “to”, “too” and “two”, mkay?

    Asshatted poser.

  52. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Spat -

    I no read FAQ. You got me. I am moron. Borat was my father.

    I do not accept 655K, but my numbskull pea brain thinks the 50K is low.

    As for the “to” vs “too” I can only guess that you do not play footbag, and so my very small attempt at humor in declaring my apology at “dropping the ball” on my knowledge of your site missed its mark and only stimulated further lordly indignation. You should seriously do a youTube search for “vasek klouda” — take a break from the routine of slinging your fecal lexicon, and view of couple of minutes of pure excellence of mind and body in a game where the word “sorry” is outlawed.

    Off with my head!

    Peace.

  53. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    I no read FAQ. You got me. I am moron. Borat was my father.

    Probably the closest thing to the truth you’ve uttered in this entire thread.

    Oh, well - blind pigs, truffles and all.

    I do not accept 655K, but my numbskull pea brain thinks the 50K is low.

    Ah, yes - the “we’ve killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians” meme.  Yes, believing that would  make you a numbskull & a pea-brain.

    Unless, of course, you have the names of every single one of them…

    As for the “to” vs “too” I can only guess that you do not play footbag, and so my very small attempt at humor in declaring my apology at “dropping the ball” on my knowledge of your site missed its mark and only stimulated further lordly indignation.

    Here’s another clue for you, O Deprived One:  This isn’t a footbag blog.  We speak English here.  We don’t speak “footbagese”.  We speak “+1337″ here sometimes, but only when we make fun of those who play footbag.

    You should seriously do a youTube search for “vasek klouda” — take a break from the routine of slinging your fecal lexicon, and view of couple of minutes of pure excellence of mind and body in a game where the word “sorry” is outlawed.

    Thanks, but I have plenty of ways to spend my free time.  They usually involve brass, lead, a delivery system, and pictures of morons who play footbag.

  54. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Spat-

    The use of emoticons provides me all I need to know about a person’s mind set and intellectual capacity. I thought only children still used those.

    Poof…

    [Seeing as you’ve now managed to smear not only all the commenters on this blog who use them, sir, but the site admin who wants them there and his technical wizard who put them there…

    …another comment like that will be your last on this site.  Capíce, Dan?  -The Management™]

  55. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    The use of emoticons provides me all I need to know about a person’s mind set and intellectual capacity. I thought only children still used those.

    My, my, but you’re awfully brave while hiding behind that keyboard over there in Arizona.

    18959 Lina St, #601
    Dallas, TX

    How about you come down here and say that to my face, chickenshit?  Let’s see how much of a bad ass you really are, pussy.

    C’mon fagboy, let’s see what you’ve got!

  56. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Dear Lord,

    I am a psychologist. It is my job to understand and recognize strange things and goings on in the lives of people.

    In the gibberish above, I have been referred to as a dickhead, chickenshit, asshole, dumbass, snot-nosed troll, delusional libtard, and a pussy. I am not, in my daily personal or professional life accustomed to such high level discourse; and I should add that I work in jails, juvenile detention centers, and psychiatric acute care hospital units. I am quite familiar with stabbings, beatings, missing eyes, slashed throats, mother rapers, drano-drinkers and you name it. But even in my interations with these troubled souls, I have not encoutered the plethora of rude or insane remarks I observe here at the Rottwweiler.

    And then I comment on the immaturity of emoticon use (which really is so totally childish, let’s admit it, tay?), and you have the balls to unplug me. My border collie, speaking on my behalf, couldn’t give a rats ass.

    Adios, Texas and elsewhere… my Rx for y’all is a tad of valproic acid and a bit of seroquel.

    Dr. Dan

  57. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Wow.

    I am gone for a day or two while I install my new computer and I missed this.

    I just spent the past twenty-some-odd minutes reading this entire thread, and I wonder how it managed to get to where it ended up.

    I don’t see where Doctor Dan is saying the figure of 655,000 is correct. In fact, he has gone out of his way to say it is probably high — something you all seem to agree on.

    And Spats, what is accomplished by posting your address and daring someone to show up for an ass-kicking? (Judging by my Google satellite I see you have easy freeway access…) :lol_wp:

    Did you actually expect someone to show up at your door? And what if they did — what would be your first reaction? Surprise?

    I don’t know what Charles said to cause his comments to be scrubbed — and that is sad. If he was so over the top, it might have been worthwhile to highlight it instead of sanitizing the comment.

    I think I have a plugin you might like. Lemme work on it…

  58. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    In the gibberish above, I have been referred to as a dickhead, chickenshit, asshole, dumbass, snot-nosed troll, delusional libtard, and a pussy.

    You can now add “fucking coward”, “wussboy” and “pansy-ass” to that list.

    Oh, and “limp-wrist”.  Can’t forget “limp-wrist”.

    (Ooooooooh - there’s another emoticon.  We’re soooooooooooo  “childish”!!!!!!

    I am not, in my daily personal or professional life accustomed to such high level discourse;

    Nor are we accustomed to such fuckheaded liberal bullshit from you and the Lancet which you seem to support.

    (Well, yeah we are, but we can only hold our noses so much, y’know?)

    and I should add that I work in jails, juvenile detention centers, and psychiatric acute care hospital units.

    Well, at least we know now from whence you get your worldview.

    I am quite familiar with stabbings, beatings, missing eyes, slashed throats, mother rapers, drano-drinkers and you name it. But even in my interations with these troubled souls, I have not encoutered the plethora of rude or insane remarks I observe here at the Rottwweiler.

    You pooooooooooooooor,  fucking baby.  Want a Kleenex©?

    Like I said earlier, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  We paid a lot for that door.

    And the offer still stands, Dr. Dickhead.  Anytime you have the balls to spew your bullshit to my face, you know where to find me.

    Asswipe.

  59. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    And Spats, what is accomplished by posting your address and daring someone to show up for an ass-kicking?

    Where the hell have you been the last two years, Dave?  Don’t get around much, do you?

    (Judging by my Google satellite I see you have easy freeway access…)

    So fucking what?  Are you implying that I’d run or something?  Would you like to test that theory, asshole?

    Did you actually expect someone to show up at your door? And what if they did — what would be your first reaction? Surprise?

    Probably.  Not like I know any liberals that have anything resembling balls.

  60. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    Lord,

    I seriously suggest you get your blood pressure checked. Your arteries might be a bit plugged and puffy. A B12 level, too, might be wise if you are over 35. Pernicious anemia can have neuro effects Also, it would be wise to stay away from the alcohol. It tends to screw with serotonin levels, and that can lead to smatterings of crankiness that can, over time, color the entire ouotlook of a soul in a very dark way.

    I really am sorry that you feel so bad and empty. It’s that pesky empathy gene doing its crazy shit in my brain. I can feel for someone even in the face of humiliating remarks. That is my cortex speaking. My limbic system, however, would love to take you up on your offer. And you know? That’s the difference ‘tixt me and you — i think the word is “insight.”

    Now please, dear Lord and apparently saviour, too (note the spelling), I demand that you ream me a big new hemorrhoid festooned asshole of a kind Mark Foley (and his political cohorts) could drive through/ Pretty please? :flush_tb:

  61. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    Cool Avatar, Dave!

    ++++++++++++

    Dan, since you are a p-sykologist, and not a real scientist, you may have missed the discussion going on about the methodology of the Lancet study.

    The considered opinion of STATISTICIANS is that the Lancet study is a deliberate lie that was accomplished through intentional bad sampling technique. Read around. Google it yourself, I don’t do research twice. (Minor hint; only 47 sample sites. Should have been closer to 4700.)

    Yes, the insults fly frequently here, invitations to pistols and coffee at dawn are common, and we are happy with that. Don’t like that? Tough. Grow a thicker skin, and throw some of your own back.

    Small word of advice, worth exactly what you pay for it - if you decide to stick around and toss insults, don’t go for insulte esoterique, go straight to insulte directe. Won’t improve the atmosphere, but earns more respect.

    Spats is well beyond merely cranky. We like him that way. If you have a problem, then, again, life sucks, then you die.

    ++++++++++++++++

    Spats, methinks you are wasting your time with this one.

    ++++++++++++++++

    Now, if I might be so bold, Gentlemen, this is a ten day old thread. Kindly allow it to die a natural death

  62. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Where the hell have you been the last two years, Dave? Don’t get around much, do you?

    Well, I don’t get down to Dallas much, lately, but I’ll bet I rack up more miles in a year than you do. :tongue_wink_ee:

    So fucking what? Are you implying that I’d run or something?

    On the contrary: I was thinking that it wouldn’t be hard to get to your place with all of that freeway access you have.

    Would you like to test that theory, asshole?

    Dude, if I really wanted to fuck with you, I don’t have to fly down there to do it. You have no idea how easy it is for someone to turn your life upside down and inside out with very little effort.

    I brought this up because I am concerned that you would publicize your address like that. Outside of this website, you have absolutely no idea what some people are capable of — and I speak from experience as a perpetrator of some pretty nefarious deeds.

    The possibilities are mind-boggling, and while the effort in implementation is small, the effort to dig yourself out from under it could take years.

    I am telling you this as a friend, not just to pull your chain. I just want you to reconsider the idea of posting your address in such a public forum for everyone to see. You might think that it is harmless, but the truth is there is a LOT that can be done with an address and a $30 investment.

    Just think about it.

    BTW: I installed that Trollcap plugin I mentioned earlier — just for you. You will see the results on #46. Right now, it is inserted manually, but I am working on a user-interface where you can base the troll on their IP address.

  63. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    OK, time for the impartial Imperial referee to step in. :wink_ee:

    Dave: Charles is/was a useless fucknugget unable to argue his way out of a wet paper bag. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, necessarily, since those sadly intellectually deprived individuals can be a fine source of entertainment as you point fingers at them at laugh, but he was also a sock puppet, and I don’t LIKE sock puppets. I simply can’t be bothered to waste bandwidth on retards still using a technique that even 12-year-olds on USENet decided was below them two decades ago.

    He’s gone, with my blessings, because he doesn’t even approach the level of “amusing” anymore.

    Dan, on the other hand, at least has a way with words. He’s still utterly full of it (and himself), but at least he’s good for a chuckle every once in a while. OK, so he gets a few demerits for resorting to the “Online Psychotherapy” shtick that got old around 1993, but still.

    Oh, and Spats: Don’t take it out on Dave.

    He’s just wondering what the heck it’s all about. And as to who’d be the more surprised if one of the trolls should take you up on the offer… Well, I reckon they’d have a really surprised look on their face right up until the time they figured out that the gun was loaded. Mheh.

    Besides, he really is offering good advice. As a friend. Not as somebody trying to threaten you.

  64. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    And why aren’t the smileys working anymore?

  65. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    And why aren’t the smileys working anymore?

    I know, you would want to blame that on Dan, but you can’t.

    I think it might have to do with a conflict with the Trollcap plugin I just installed. I am working on it right now — right after I email you…

  66. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    The plug in is PRICELESS! Can the rest of us play, too?

    (Dad, can I borrow the car keys? I promise, I won’t allow Jimmy to bring the Jack Daniels this time, and no more used propylactics under the seat.)

  67. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    Dan? Heck, that pretentious pussbag couldn’t hack his way out of a boiled cucumber. I blame YOU. And global warming. And Diebold. And Canada.

    Or something.

    I’m sure I blame SOMETHING.

  68. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    FYI -

    I landed on this site through sheer coincidence from exploring Google news of the Lancet study. I did not read the FAQ until today. And so now I can understand the tenor of the remarks, and I have sort of taken a liking to Spat. In fact, in my yoga class today with all my libtards surrounding me, I contemplated Spat and his insistance on the 655 being high.

    I agree that 655 is high. My reasoning follows the Body Count analysis of the Lancet study… a nice dispassionate chunk of discourse. I reserve judgment on the question of intentional bad methodology, and instead lean toward confirmatory bias and the nature of chance in this dice game of estimation.

    As to the psychology-science thing, my intern last year conducted a dissertation on popular notions and misconceptions of psychology. There are many and varied ideas on what we do. In fact, there is tremendous disagreement within the field inself on what we do. A chunk of us split off from the Amer. Psych Association a few years back into the Amer. Psych Society. The society tries to apply sound research methods to practice. We are not all Bob Newhart or Dr. Phil. Many of us abhor some of the common methods of psych.

    Misha, I blame myself for not reading the FAQ. Afterwards, I concluded that Spat and a few others are really George Carlin clones taken from a DNA swab of Carlin’s toe jam circa 1971 during his 7-dirty word shtick days.

    In fact, I have come to love Spat. I truly enjoy his way of eating into the flesh of us libtards. It toughens my soul and gives me comfort in the knowledge that the human spirit is alive and well in all of us, such that we get to play with ideas, juggle them, eat them, fart them… and in the end make decisions on the first Tuesday of November on a regular schedule. I can only imagine that Spat & I cancel each other out on some important things, but I don’t think we cancel each other out on the notion of freedom of speech.

    I’ve enjoyed this thread, and I send a big fat Lancet-Foley kiss to Spat for his entertaining use of language.

    Dr. D

  69. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    In fact, I have come to love Spat. I truly enjoy his way of eating into the flesh of us libtards.

    Stop it, now that’s just becoming creepy…

  70. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    As to the psychology-science thing,

    If it can be described with mathematics, it is science. If not, it is art. Psychology cannot be described mathematically. Therefore, p-sykology is not science. See Asimov.

    Dan, you are entertaining. Entertaining and three bucks gets you a cup of coffee. Beware - The Rott is not for the fainthearted. You show great fortitude coming back for more. You have been warned. Liberals take lots of abuse for small reward, but if you are brave enough to face the challenge, all are welcome.

  71. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    See, Dan?

    You can actually be funny and creative in your insults.

    Now, if you’d only lay off the whining about ad hominems when you get the same treatment thrown back at you, then we might get along famously.

    We’d never agree on a single thing, but we might be able to provide one another with a few good laughs as well as a few colorful slams in the process.

  72. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    LC-

    I wish I could show you the math behind what I do (Competency to Stand Trial evaluation, for instance, based on Tom Grisso’s work through the McArthur Foundation). But I will simply give you the formula for the normal curve:

    h=(1/sqrt(2*pi))*(pow(e,-pow(z,2)/2))

    This is a clip from RealBasic, so sorry for the esoteric tone. In reality, there is a beauty to the formula when plotted. Turned on its side err 90 degrees, it resembles the breast of my first love many decades back, but I am not yet at the point of requiring viagra. Just the normal curve turns me on anymore.

    Misha -

    Believe me, I can take it. If you’vbe ever testified in court on a capital case, you understand the notion of impeachment of an expert witness. I’ve been skewered so many time that I can see through myself when I look into a mirror.

    Lastly, I got a bad LASIK job on my eyes a few years back. So, when I type, I can make errors because I can’t see the fucking keyboard. Lest I paste my shit into word for self correction and zoom to 200%, I am inclined to fuck with my fingers in the bad lighting in my home consequent to the high price of energy thanks to our moron president and his vice… president. But that will be another story, I am sure.

    Question: How do I get to new threads hereabouts?

    Regards, Sissy Hankshaw

  73. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Liberals take lots of abuse for small reward, but if you are brave enough to face the challenge, all are welcome.

    You call this abuse? I had worse than this on the grade school yard.

    Question: How do I get to new threads hereabouts?

    Dan, the easiest way is to just click the banner at the top of the page. THAT will take you to the front page

  74. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    For what it’s worth, I like Dan.

    As for the Lancet figures, I don’t think anything can be based on them because the sources of error can’t be nailed down. I’d say that the lower bound for cicvilian casualties is about roughly 1/2 of the IBC’s estimate, since that part of their count is an actually tally of people killed by incident and location. Determining the upper bound would be difficult, and the best method might be a study, by location, of how often the IBC’s count needed amending based on bodies that they missed until found later, giving us an idea of the percentage of violent deaths that are escaping notice. To me, the lack of a huge number of such inevitable discoveries does more than anything to undermine the Lancet’s figures. If 90% of the bodies really are getting missed by the IBC, then an occassional find in just a part of one province should ocassionally double the IBC’s estimate. Nothing remotely like that has ever happened.

  75. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    Question: How do I get to new threads hereabouts?

    Top, left side of the page, 8 lines down, see the word “Home.” Click here. Alternatively, go to the URL on the top of the page, and delete everything after “http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/” hit “enter,” and prepare for the apocalypse.

    Info only - LC means “Loyal Citizen.” The name is Wil. Not complaining - you are new here.

    Welcome aboard, and hang on for the ride. Like I said, the Rott ain’t for the faint hearted.

  76. Unregistered Comment by Sir George UNITED STATES

    Egads, a bad LASIK?! I’ve heard that people with dialated pupils and thin corneas are bad candidates for LASIK, and that many LASIK centers don’t take sufficient care to carefully evaluate each patient, which is why I’ve avoided the procedure. To damage someone’s once acceptable vision in a manner that can’t be corrected by glasses or contacts is really horrifyingly bad medicine.

  77. LC Ranger 6 Comment by LC Ranger 6 UNITED STATES

    Psychology cannot be described mathematically

    I know. I wasted a year on Psychological Statistics. Theoretical math is just that… theoretical. Highest dropped class (statistically) of any psychological undergrad class.

    h=(1/sqrt(2*pi))*(pow(e,-pow(z,2)/2))

    Nice try dan. And as soon as I locate your address you’ll be hearing from my lawyer for posting my secret family recipe for Ass Burning Chili Pie™

  78. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Top, left side of the page, 8 lines down, see the word “Home.” Click here. Alternatively, go to the URL on the top of the page, and delete everything after “http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/” hit “enter,” and prepare for the apocalypse.

    And that is easier than just clicking the top banner?

  79. LC Ranger 6 Comment by LC Ranger 6 UNITED STATES

    And that is easier than just clicking the top banner?

    C’mon DJ!! We have a scholar here!!! It would be an insult to dan to give him the easy way, don’t ‘cha think?

  80. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    And that is easier than just clicking the top banner?

    Confusing Libruls is FUN, Dave! C’mon!

  81. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    This is a clip from RealBasic, so sorry for the esoteric tone. In reality, there is a beauty to the formula when plotted. Turned on its side err 90 degrees, it resembles the breast of my first love many decades back, but I am not yet at the point of requiring viagra. Just the normal curve turns me on anymore.

    See?

    Now that there is funny, I don’t care what your politics are. And to think of all the years I’ve wasted trying to convert people to appreciate the beauty of mathematics by showing them a Mandelbrot set.

    I mean, the usual response is: “What’s THIS? One of those head-shrinker ink blot tests?”

    Show ‘em something that resembles boobs, on the other hand…

    Why didn’t I think of that?

    Sorry to hear about your LASIK experience, though. That’s one of the reasons I haven’t yielded to the temptation myself.

    My pitch goes along these lines:

    “If my sight gets better, I’ll have your address so I can send you Christmas cards for the rest of my life.”

    “If my sight stays the same, I’ll have my money back.”

    “If my sight gets worse, I’ll have your external genitalia, pickled in a jar, and I’ll remove them myself, right here, with my pocket knife.”

    So far, I’ve found no takers.

  82. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    No, Dan, indeed we aren’t all bad, just very strong minded. I like it that way, and admire these people here at the rott I call my friends. We share a powerful belief. As to statistics….I once knew an actuary, he showed me some of his math……….now I know why he made the money he did. Also as for vision difficulties? I was pissed today at the firing range, suffice it to say I had better days shooting. How does one keep from developing a bad case of monitor mind?

  83. Lady Heather Comment by Lady Heather UNITED STATES

    I vote Dan stays too.

    He obviously can take the heat around here, and I want a bit of the “old Rott” back, which I know is a selfish desire of mine too.

  84. Lady Heather Comment by Lady Heather UNITED STATES

    And as to Mr Kennedy, sir, I heard that you fell off the wagon again. Any truth to this?

  85. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    Ted Kennedy falling off the wagon would cause a crack in the earth…

  86. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    I’m still trying to figure out the blog thing, and so I’ve responded by email to a few remarks thinking that they would be posted.

    First, get 20 feet of distance from a computer monitor at least 5 minutes per hour.

    Second: Is Libruls Latin? Now I realize that the response will be smartass, so let me beat you to the humiliation. Libruls is Latin for “library of raucous bullshit.” I will hope to convince readers otherwise, or to be swayed to the dominant view.

    Finally, I’ve not seen a wagon in many years.

    DrD

  87. Lady Heather Comment by Lady Heather UNITED STATES

    Ted Kennedy falling off the wagon would cause a crack in the earth…

    I follow Brit politics, and this guy was the leader of the Communist Party of the UK, cleverly disguised as the “Liberal Democrats”.

  88. Krondax Comment by Krondax UNITED STATES

    First, Dan made me laugh my ass off, a lot, even if half of it was from the responses that our good lord spatz made

    My, my, but you’re awfully brave while hiding behind that keyboard over there in Arizona.

    18959 Lina St, #601
    Dallas, TX

    How about you come down here and say that to my face, chickenshit? Let’s see how much of a bad ass you really are, pussy.

    C’mon fagboy, let’s see what you’ve got!

    and spatz, this is why i love you man.

  89. Unregistered Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Announcing: Troll UNITED STATES

    […] If anyone was following the 655,000 thread today, you might have noticed a couple of comments with a dunce cap that looks like this: […]

  90. lc ima mommy, Imperial Handmaid Comment by lc ima mommy, Imperial Handmaid UNITED STATES

    HAHAHA!! I looove the troll thing Dave!! That’s hilarious…and I second Lady Heather’s vote to keep Dan around. This thread definitely reminds of the old days :)

  91. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    This was a pretty good hoot! Anytime Spats throws a TITMF is a good time. Your’re right Lady H, it does remind me of the Olde Rott. Sorry to have missed ya Dan, there’s potential here, you have a sense of humor. I work in a DA’s Office; anyone who goes through the anal exam known as expert witness must develop a thick skin or change professions. Just don’t go telling us that you testify on behalf of child molestors and cop killers…

  92. Unregistered Comment by Draven32 UNITED STATES

    Sir George said:

    Sometimes you have to do such math to see if you’re being fed horse hockey, such as in the dramatic series Over There. If you watched the show you’d notice that each week the show portrayed each unit of soldiers killing more Iraqis than were in the unit. If that were remotely close to reality then we’d be killing over 150,000 Iraqis a week, which is 7.8 million a year, or about 28 million Iraqis since the invasion. Iraq wouldn’t have any people left if that were true.

    This operates under the assumption that the soldiers are only killing Iraqis, who at times have represented as little as 15% of the insurgents terrorists.

    Something to think about when someone talks about ‘the Iraqi insurgents’.

  93. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    CI has nothing whatsoever to do with meaning.


    Au contrair
    e estimable colleague, it has everything to do with implied meaning in this context (but not validity, which is my point.)

    Adios, Texas and elsewhere… my Rx for y’all is a tad of valproic acid and a bit of seroquel.

    Meaning… “bipolar I”? — or that your understanding of psychopharmacology is… let’s see, I think “childish” is a word you use with fondness. (Thankfully, Arizona won’t license you to write a script for ibuprofen, much less psychoactives.) I can but hope your grasp of Blalock exceeds that of Goodman and Gilman, but I see no cause for optimism.

  94. LC 0311 crunchie Comment by LC 0311 crunchie UNITED STATES

    OK, gone for few days and when my cables back up we have a new libtard to play with.

    Welcome to the Rott Dan. The Rotties play rough but anyone who can hack it is welcome.

    I’m with Lady H and the others. It IS just like the old Rott. I vote we keep our new chew toy.

  95. Unregistered Comment by Dan

    LC-

    Thank for your vote to “keep” me. I’m a chew toy into which some scoundrel inserted, a la halloween candy, a few razor blades, but mostly, I can be quite fun to chew on. I’ll do my best to live up to the libtard name.

    The depakote and seroquel were the first things that popped into my mind, and I was actually thinking more on the order of schzioaffective d/o, but then reducing etoh may be all there is to it. You are correct that I do not script, but I do recommend scripts — all in good fun, of course.

    d

  96. Unregistered Comment by TheNewCharles

    trollHey y’all

    I was gone for a bit but I’m back to talk just a little more smack before I get canned again.

    And by the way, tracking by ISP won’t get you very far if you live in a city like I do that has plenty of internet cafes. Nice try.

    So, any PC lame-asses who think I or Dan fear you (we’ve both seen more life, and death, than any of you I’m sure), can kiss my sweet ass.

    Yeah, I said PC. Don’t worry, I won’t get a chance to debate you b/c I’m not inventing another damn email to get back in here.

    Misha and her cronies fear the truth I speak, and I don’t care if you don’t think it’s funny. The truth is nothing to scoff at. Hah! I know I’m good at sanctimonious. At least it beats spittling all over your computer screen because I actually mentioned the word, “racism”!!!

    “Oh my god, I thought we got rid of that when slavery ended!” cry the LC’s.

    That clearly cannot be tolerated here. So, I bid adieu, to the 3 people who will see this message before Meshits cuts me off again.

    I say, good riddance.

  97. Unregistered Comment by TheNewCharles

    trollBy the way, paranoids, I am not the Charles Kennedy of the Lib Dems. I said I’m an ecologist, you hear?

    Sheesh.

  98. LC 0311 crunchie Comment by LC 0311 crunchie UNITED STATES

    Misha and her cronies fear the truth I speak, and I don’t care if you don’t think it’s funny.

    First off, Misha is a dude (don’t ask how I know, I just do and it’s a very painful memory OK?). As far as fearing the truth, hehe, they revel in it and use it as cudgel (get it, “cluebat”) to beat moonbats into blabbering piles of whiny ooze. As far as you being funny or not, we don’t really give a rats ass either. It just usually makes the moonbats “funner” to play with for awhile if at least they make an effort to “fit” in.

    So, any PC lame-asses who think I or Dan fear you (we’ve both seen more life, and death, than any of you I’m sure), can kiss my sweet ass.

    Quite a few combat vets here from at least three or four wars. You may want to research a bit before opening yer suck. Also, please don’t presume to speak for Dan. He is quite literate and dare I say erudite hisself and has been accepted here by the LC’s. (Dan you’ll find that we defend our own regardless of whether their a libtard chewtoy or not. It CAN get messy though, some of the Rotties are just fucking vicious).

    By the way, paranoids, I am not the Charles Kennedy of the Lib Dems. I said I’m an ecologist, you hear?

    Sheesh

    No one said you were fucknozzle. Just noting the similarity and commenting on your possible motivation on choosing the name. Shoe fits and all that.

    So, I bid adieu, to the 3 people who will see this message before Meshits cuts me off again.

    I say, good riddance.

    Door, ass, don’t let it hit ya, expensive door and all that.

    Ya’all come back when ya grow a pair now, ya hear.

  99. DJ Allyn,  ITW Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW UNITED STATES

    Did you think we track you by your email? :lol_wp:

    But you’re right, tracking by IP is so misunderstood. I have a different method.

    All that said, there is an easy way to participate here and a hard way. Dan discovered the easy way — and I suspect it comes natural to him. It doesn’t mean you won’t get verbally abused from time-to-time, and it doesn’t mean you can’t give back what is given to you. But you first have to earn that. After all, this is their site, just as DU and KOS is more your site.

    I think I am the longest-running Liberal on this site, and not because I do all of the design and technical work here, but because I talk to these people — not at them.

    Yes, I disagree with a lot of what is said here. But there are many more areas and subjects where we agree. Not everything in life is political. We all have basically the same dreams and goals in life — just different roadmaps to get to them.

    Try tolerance. Find the areas where you can agree.

    Above all, have some fun.

  100. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    Well said, Dave….. Indeed, some trolls just like to tie up threads, an attention getting device I suppose. Or perhaps seeking an odd sense of control. Others simply cannot stand being ignored or ostricized. It must be understood they do not set the tone of the debate, tantrums to the contrary. That can be done on their sites. I could not help but note the similarity to the following link……if you shit on the rug, you will be cleaned up and removed. Dave is right, we do not always agree. But I do respect him and his abilities enormously. I would suggest he not be underestimated. As for the link….I can definitely think of some past trolls this would apply too…..
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1929486,00.html

  101. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    I was gone for a bit but I’m back to talk just a little more smack before I get canned again.

    Oh wonderful. I hope you’ve actually risen to the level of inadequacy in your absence.

    And by the way, tracking by ISP won’t get you very far if you live in a city like I do that has plenty of internet cafes. Nice try.

    And, once again, my hopes were brutally dashed against the hard, ragged rocks of imbecility.

    Chuck, do you mind if I call you Chuck?, if anybody wanted to track you, I assure you that there’d be much better ways of doing so. But it’s against policy, you see, not to mention that one has to rate that kind of attention, which you most emphatically don’t.

    So, any PC lame-asses who think I or Dan fear you (we’ve both seen more life, and death, than any of you I’m sure), can kiss my sweet ass.

    What Crunchie said: If you’re going to speak, at least have the courtesy to speak for yourself only. Dan is quite capable of speaking for himself, and he does so more that just a little bit better than you. Better than most, actually, seeing as how comparing anybody or anything with you isn’t much of a compliment.

    He can dish it out and he can take it, and he can be funny while doing so too.

    You fail on all three counts. Miserably, I might add.

    Yeah, I said PC. Don’t worry, I won’t get a chance to debate you b/c I’m not inventing another damn email to get back in here.

    Ferchrissakes, go ask your mommy for a glass of milk and a cookie, because all of your sobbing is making me all verklempt here.

    Misha and her cronies fear the truth I speak, and I don’t care if you don’t think it’s funny.

    “Her?”

    Either that is the most pathetic attempt at an insult that I’ve seen in 29 years, or you’re just an idiot. Pick one.

    Oh, and it isn’t “it” that isn’t funny, whatever “it” might be. It’s you. You couldn’t be funny if your life depended on it, we’ve already figured that much out. No need to prove it any further, Chuck.

    The truth is nothing to scoff at. Hah! I know I’m good at sanctimonious.

    No, Chuck. You aren’t. Dan is good at sanctimonious. I’m good at sanctimonious when I want to. You’re just sad.

    Think of it as friendly advice. I’d really hate to see you waste your life trying to be something that you’ll also fail pathetically at.

    Well, not really, but I get a kick out of pretending to be compassionate from time to time.

    At least it beats spittling all over your computer screen because I actually mentioned the word, “racism”!!!

    If any spittle flew, it was part hysterical laughter, part utter surprise that you knew how to spell it correctly.

    “Oh my god, I thought we got rid of that when slavery ended!” cry the LC’s.

    That clearly cannot be tolerated here. So, I bid adieu, to the 3 people who will see this message before Meshits cuts me off again.

    Wrong again.

    It’s much more fun to keep your comment on display to demonstrate the unfathomable depths of your ineptitude, ignorance and general lack of all redeeming features.

    I say, good riddance.

    And what, again, gave you the mistaken impression that anybody cares about anything you have to say?

    I mean, other than as target practice.