[quote]lixy wrote:
Is it bad enough, or should it reach Vietnam proportions to get people to pay attention?[/quote]
Pay attention to what? The year to year variation is not statistically significant.
It’s not a factor in the Iraq war; soldiers killing themselves is not affecting the American effort any more or less than the average.
You can take any yearly statistics about just about anything and you’ll get spikes occasionally. Here, it’s more of a bump than a spike, but the the point remains.
There might be some concern if the trend was that the number had been doubling every year since 2003, or at least steadily increasing, but all we have here is a number that’s slightly higher than the yearly average of the past 4 or 5 years.
This is the type of thing that has a lot of people questioning your motivations.
Insignificant news being “spun” to somehow try and make it into a consequence of the Iraq war when it actually has no relation, or one so tenuous as to be unprovable, encourages people to dismiss you outright even if you later bring up something more substantial.
Eh? The only conclusion I came to was that it’s not possible, with the data presented so far, to come to any sort of conclusion other than the basic premises.
Also, I was unaware that listing a series of criteria under which a conclusion, that I’d be satisfied with, could be drawn denotes a fact-based analysis in the first place.
So please, don’t drag me into your little hate-fest, Rainjack.
That is a bold statement. Iscariot’s analysis is better.
rainjack wrote:
Only because it comes to the conclusion that agrees with you.
He has no factual basis for his analysis. Ergo, far too many assumptions.
Eh? The only conclusion I came to was that it’s not possible, with the data presented so far, to come to any sort of conclusion other than the basic premises.
Also, I was unaware that listing a series of criteria under which a conclusion, that I’d be satisfied with, could be drawn denotes a fact-based analysis in the first place.
So please, don’t drag me into your little hate-fest, Rainjack.
[/quote]
I don’t even know who the fuck you are, nor have I read any of your posts that I am aware of.
So run along. Come back when you have something coherent to babble about.
Don’t try to portray it as a non-issue that I tried to spin off.
The Pentagon report’s own fuckin’ words were that there was “limited evidence” to suggest the spike was caused by the war. I don’t know about you, but when some pro-war institution renown for its minutiae uses the expression “limited evidence” instead of “little” evidence" or “no evidence” bells start ringing. So much so, that it made BBC News front page.
Now, whether the BBC editor had some ulterior motive for biasing the story, or whether he’s simply a dumbass who can’t figure out what numbers are is irrelevant. The fact remains that a heck of a lot of people will read the story and see things from the the biased viewpoint presented in the article.
Thanks to the additional input and analysis from the smart people around here, we have established that the article was a piece a turd. Did I know it from the onset? Hell no. But at least, now we’re more informed and will bring up those new things we learned if, at a party, a friends tries to pass that article at face value.
What’s more dangerous? Keeping such mainstream abuse unchallenged or putting it out in the open?
And I don’t see anything wrong with people questioning my motivations. If anyone wants to dismiss me because they can’t assume good faith, so be it.
[quote]iscariot wrote:
You know, I hope you’re not a bodybuilder as it would take years of training to get the rest of your body in proportion with your head…
[/quote]
Oddly enough - this is a bodybuiding site. If you look at my rating you will see that I am a level 5.
Those are facts. One could take those facts and reasonably conclude that I do indeed train. One could also look at my stats and see that I am larger and leaner than most people on this site.
I hate to dash your hopes,but I have a size 71/2 head, and it is the smallest part of my body - excepting calve.
I love the RJ haters. Why are they all mental midgets, though?
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
You contradicted yourself a few times. If your history has nothing to do with your argument why did you bring the history of the author into the discussion on the Fighting Irish thread.
Pay some attention for crying out loud!
Here, I’ll paste the part where I answered that in the previous post for your convenience.
[i]You seem to have problems with basic logic.
My history on this site, what I “did on another thread”, the number of kittens I have dismembered alive, my CD collection of the “Dave Matthews Band”, and how many grams of creatine I put in my shake have absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented in the article. It’s data straight from the DoD, that a journalist at the BBC has used to write a piece. [/i]
You’re attacking the messengers to discredit whoever issued the message. Surely you must have enough brainpower to see the distinction between the arguments of the BBC crew and my own.[/quote]
The meltdown continues. You are a walking contradiction.
Basic logic. You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you in the ass.
[quote]iscariot wrote:
Now: Either you didn’t read the post (which you said I had no factual basis for) and simply said it to piss Lixy off - and also makes you a liar.
or
You did read it and you have either the attention span of a hummingbird and the retentive abilities of a goldfish (and a liar for saying you didn’t)
[/quote]
I apologize for not paying attention to your post. I went back to see what you posted and in fact your post was not bad. I actually agreed with what you said - that nothing can be drawn from the numbers presented other than those are the facts while standing at that data point.
Anyhow - lixy said she agreed with you. I thought she was referring to the guy that wrote the article. It doesn’t make sense for the propaganda queen to agree with someone saying the numbers mean nothing. She goes on to say that when the military says there is limited evidence, they must be lying.
I was not paying attention. I have no idea what the retentive abilities of a goldfish are, but if they can remember names, they are ahead of me.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for the propaganda queen to agree with someone saying the numbers mean nothing. [/quote]
And yet, there I was on record, not only agreeing with him but clearly restating Iscariot’s point that it is inconclusive.
It’s not “it doesn’t make sense” you should have written. Try “it doesn’t make sense in my head”. That would have been more accurate.
I most certainly said no such thing.
No, Goldfish can’t remember names. But, goldfish are still ahead of you in the sense that they don’t have prejudice, nor do they delight in doing destructive things.
“What we’ve got here is…failure to communicate.”
This is not a case of confusing names. You didn’t do the board the courtesy of reading the post before replying. Had you not stopped at the first sentence, you’d see that I reiterate Iscariot’s position, detail it, and clearly state that the data are inconclusive.
You call me a girl. Fine.
You consider me a propagandist. Fine.
I even try to overlook your “Al-Qaeda-are-Lixy’s-pals” comment for the sake of keeping a civilized debate.
But for heaven’s sake, pay some attention to what I write. Not doing so greatly disrupts the flow of the thread. If you have neither the will nor the patience to do so, you should consider abstaining from hitting the replying button on my threads. And if you really really feel the urge to call me names, I invite you to flood my inbox.
[quote]lixy wrote:
But for heaven’s sake, pay some attention to what I write. Not doing so greatly disrupts the flow of the thread. If you have neither the will nor the patience to do so, you should consider abstaining from hitting the replying button on my threads. And if you really really feel the urge to call me names, I invite you to flood my inbox.[/quote]
Sadly - I read most of the crap you type.
I made 1 mistake. Nothing I have said about you is a lie, or an insult.
You sympathize with our enemies. You seem to find joy in what you want to be our failures. I have said it before, and i will say it again now - I don’t like you, or your propagandist bullshit, and I reserve the right to call your bullshit every time you log on an start yet another pro-terrorist assault.
I have no use for you. I don’t really care about a civilized anything with you.
I most certainly am not going to waste my time PMing you.
I will say though, that I have no idea what sex you are. You act like a pre-menopausal woman in dire need of HRT. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I don’t really care about a civilized anything with you. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but you made it pretty clear that you “don’t really care about a civilized anything with” anyone in here. By your own words, you consider this a “fight”.
Well, you’re using your time and mine anyway. PMing me will not waste everybody else’s time reading quarrels with zero added value.
Do you think anyone is learning anything by reading this childish exchange we’re having here? Do you think anybody’s interested in reading a name-calling exchange?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
As I just said - I have no idea what sex lixy is. It’s avatar is that of a black girl. “Lixy” sounds like a very feminine name.[/quote]
I see the avatar as a kid in a parka (kinda like Kenny on South Park). Maybe because it gets damn cold here for half the year and I see a lot of parkas…
Some avatars are tricky. Ever since I saw a startled turkey in vroom’s avatar, I cannot see the light bulb anymore.
One could also get the impression that this site is visited by a bevy of large-titted, attractive babes, when in reality it’s a bunch of undersexed pervs.
Still, I fail to see the relevance of someone’s gender when discussing opinions and viewpoints.
To you, they’re “fights”, so maybe fighting with girls makes a difference to you…
“Sound like a premenopausal woman in need of HRT” is not to be taken as an insult?
You must be quite the charmer.
Maybe you should assign less importance to the names and avatars, and just address the ideas.
I mean, what does “pookie” and a big startled panda say about me?
Or your own avatar of a guy who seems to have had all genitalia removed and is walking around with an icepack/diaper combo?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Maybe you should assign less importance to the names and avatars, and just address the ideas.[/quote]
I’m not the one that cares enough about names to hijack a thread over them. I think my attention to the issues is just fine, and have no idea what the use of pronouns have to do with it.
But, maybe if lixy were to post outside this forum, it would be a little more clear as to whether to refer to him as a male, or female.
[quote]
I mean, what does “pookie” and a big startled panda say about me?[/quote]
That would be between you and your therapist.
It’s a bullet proof cod piece. Its from the movie Super Troopers. Like you - the message it conveys is between me and my psychiatric caregiver.
