UK perception of Iraqi death toll -

[David Edmunds]

A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!


Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.

One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.

Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.


David Martin Edmunds

[Scotty]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT), David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

And what's the correct answer?

[The Other Guy]

Post by Scotty
And what's the correct answer?

The CORRECT answer is NOT ENOUGH!







To reply by email, lose the Ks...

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Scotty
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT), David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

And what's the correct answer?

I'm guessing it's well over 1 million if you count the children who starved to death.

[Scotty]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Scotty
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT), David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

And what's the correct answer?

I'm guessing it's well over 1 million if you count the children who starved to death.

Before or after the invasion? Wasn't there an oil for food scheme that was
scammed by the UN?

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Scotty

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Scotty
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT), David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

And what's the correct answer?

I'm guessing it's well over 1 million if you count the children who starved to death.

Before or after the invasion? Wasn't there an oil for food scheme that was
scammed by the UN?

Does it matter since both are the result of the invasion.
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

[Scotty]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Scotty

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Scotty
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT), David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

And what's the correct answer?

I'm guessing it's well over 1 million if you count the children who starved to death.

Before or after the invasion? Wasn't there an oil for food scheme that was
scammed by the UN?

Does it matter since both are the result of the invasion.
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

From your link:
"The ORB poll estimate has come under strong criticism in a peer reviewed
paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the
ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods.
This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical
inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the
ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to
discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war"

[David Edmunds]

Post by Scotty

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Scotty

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Scotty
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT), David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

And what's the correct answer?

I'm guessing it's well over 1 million if you count the children who starved to death.

Before or after the invasion? Wasn't there an oil for food scheme that was
scammed by the UN?

Does it matter since both are the result of the invasion.
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

"The ORB poll estimate has come under strong criticism in a peer reviewed
paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the
ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods.
This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical
inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the
ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to
discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war"

2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

[David Edmunds]

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred, even the British Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson described the study as "robust". Mind you that towering figure Mr Bush disagreed and estimated the number of deaths as being no more than 30,000.

David Martin Edmunds

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred,

Yes, that preposterous, David.

Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant. What's relevant is
that their methods are suspect.

[David Edmunds]

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred,

Yes, that preposterous, David.
Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant. What's relevant is
that their methods are suspect.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Sorry to be always disagreeing with you about something or other -

As to their methods being "suspect", I would be more inclined to describe them as being loose or imprecise and comparing their estimations/calculations against the IBC (Iran Body count) people I would be comfortable with a figure less than their's but still in the hundreds of thousands. The IBC figure is only for "violent deaths" not "excess deaths" so comparing only the Lancet's violent deaths figure results in at least 30% disparity.

The American public also fared rather poorly in their awareness of the death toll in the war, I read somewhere that a poll by AP in 2007 resulted in a median figure of 10,000 when asked how many civilians had died in the Iraq war?


David Martin Edmunds

As to the

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred,

Yes, that preposterous, David.
Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant. What's relevant is
that their methods are suspect.

Sorry to be always disagreeing with you about something or other -
As to their methods being "suspect", I would be more inclined to describe them as being loose or imprecise ...

In other words, as a statistical analysis trying to show something,
their study is shite. It's all political with practically no
underlying science. 'Suspect' is a kind description of it.

Post by David Edmunds
and comparing their estimations/calculations against the IBC (Iran Body count) people I would be comfortable with a figure less than their's but still in the hundreds of thousands. The IBC figure is only for "violent deaths" not "excess deaths" so comparing only the Lancet's violent deaths figure results in at least 30% disparity.

And where are you getting your selected floor value of "hundreds of
thousands"? Statistical analysis doesn't let you just pull things out
of your ass.

Post by David Edmunds
The American public also fared rather poorly in their awareness of the death toll in the war, I read somewhere that a poll by AP in 2007 resulted in a median figure of 10,000 when asked how many civilians had died in the Iraq war?

If it was asked that way, that's not that unreasonable an answer. If
someone asked me that question, I would give a number DURING THE
ACTUAL WAR, not all deaths since from whatever cause.

[David Edmunds]

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred,

Yes, that preposterous, David.
Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant. What's relevant is
that their methods are suspect.

Sorry to be always disagreeing with you about something or other -
As to their methods being "suspect", I would be more inclined to describe them as being loose or imprecise ...

In other words, as a statistical analysis trying to show something,
their study is shite. It's all political with practically no
underlying science. 'Suspect' is a kind description of it.

Post by David Edmunds
and comparing their estimations/calculations against the IBC (Iran Body count) people I would be comfortable with a figure less than their's but still in the hundreds of thousands. The IBC figure is only for "violent deaths" not "excess deaths" so comparing only the Lancet's violent deaths figure results in at least 30% disparity.

And where are you getting your selected floor value of "hundreds of
thousands"? Statistical analysis doesn't let you just pull things out
of your ass.

Post by David Edmunds
The American public also fared rather poorly in their awareness of the death toll in the war, I read somewhere that a poll by AP in 2007 resulted in a median figure of 10,000 when asked how many civilians had died in the Iraq war?

If it was asked that way, that's not that unreasonable an answer. If
someone asked me that question, I would give a number DURING THE
ACTUAL WAR, not all deaths since from whatever cause.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius

I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is "Erse".

David Martin Edmunds

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred,

Yes, that preposterous, David.
Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant. What's relevant is
that their methods are suspect.

Sorry to be always disagreeing with you about something or other -
As to their methods being "suspect", I would be more inclined to describe them as being loose or imprecise ...

In other words, as a statistical analysis trying to show something,
their study is shite. It's all political with practically no
underlying science. 'Suspect' is a kind description of it.

Post by David Edmunds
and comparing their estimations/calculations against the IBC (Iran Body count) people I would be comfortable with a figure less than their's but still in the hundreds of thousands. The IBC figure is only for "violent deaths" not "excess deaths" so comparing only the Lancet's violent deaths figure results in at least 30% disparity.

And where are you getting your selected floor value of "hundreds of
thousands"? Statistical analysis doesn't let you just pull things out
of your ass.

Post by David Edmunds
The American public also fared rather poorly in their awareness of the death toll in the war, I read somewhere that a poll by AP in 2007 resulted in a median figure of 10,000 when asked how many civilians had died in the Iraq war?

If it was asked that way, that's not that unreasonable an answer. If
someone asked me that question, I would give a number DURING THE
ACTUAL WAR, not all deaths since from whatever cause.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius

I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is "Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.

It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

I assumed anyone with the proper number of chromosomes would be able
to infer the noun. I forgot who I was dealing with. My apologies.

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Oh, you're allowed to express a preference. You're just not 'allowed'
to get away with using idiotically incorrect premises as the excuse
for that 'preference'.

I'm happy I could clear all that up for you.

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

I assumed anyone with the proper number of chromosomes would be able
to infer the noun. I forgot who I was dealing with. My apologies.

remind me again?

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Oh, you're allowed to express a preference.

Too generous!

Post by Fred J. McCall
You're just not 'allowed'
to get away with using idiotically incorrect premises as the excuse
for that 'preference'.

Nobody said these preferences were logical.

Post by Fred J. McCall
I'm happy I could clear all that up for you.

We ken whaur ye bide.

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

I assumed anyone with the proper number of chromosomes would be able
to infer the noun. I forgot who I was dealing with. My apologies.

remind me again?

Learn how to read newsgroup names. Then go read the newsgroup FAQ.

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Oh, you're allowed to express a preference.

Too generous!

We're like that; generous to a fault.

Now if only you would stop being a fault...

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
You're just not 'allowed'
to get away with using idiotically incorrect premises as the excuse
for that 'preference'.

Nobody said these preferences were logical.

Of course they did. "However it is a Scottish board so I would have
preferred..."

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
I'm happy I could clear all that up for you.

We ken whaur ye bide.

My doors don't have looks on them to protect ME. So step right up and
place your bets...

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

I assumed anyone with the proper number of chromosomes would be able
to infer the noun. I forgot who I was dealing with. My apologies.

remind me again?

Learn how to read newsgroup names. Then go read the newsgroup FAQ.

newsgroup FAQ? whit's yon?

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Oh, you're allowed to express a preference.

Too generous!

We're like that; generous to a fault.
Now if only you would stop being a fault...

we're awffy kind here an a.

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
You're just not 'allowed'
to get away with using idiotically incorrect premises as the excuse
for that 'preference'.

Nobody said these preferences were logical.

Of course they did. "However it is a Scottish board so I would have
preferred..."

ye cry yon "logic"??
thae philosophy craturs ken mair than ye, fur aesthetics ony road.

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
I'm happy I could clear all that up for you.

We ken whaur ye bide.

My doors don't have looks on them to protect ME. So step right up and
place your bets...

man, ye can play the hard man a ye like,
naebody's takin ye serious.

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

I assumed anyone with the proper number of chromosomes would be able
to infer the noun. I forgot who I was dealing with. My apologies.

remind me again?

Learn how to read newsgroup names. Then go read the newsgroup FAQ.

newsgroup FAQ? whit's yon?

I'm not surprised that you wouldn't know.

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Oh, you're allowed to express a preference.

Too generous!

We're like that; generous to a fault.
Now if only you would stop being a fault...

we're awffy kind here an a.

Which has bugger all to do with my comment.

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
You're just not 'allowed'
to get away with using idiotically incorrect premises as the excuse
for that 'preference'.

Nobody said these preferences were logical.

Of course they did. "However it is a Scottish board so I would have
preferred..."

ye cry yon "logic"??
thae philosophy craturs ken mair than ye, fur aesthetics ony road.

You're reaching. Don't strain anything.

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall
I'm happy I could clear all that up for you.

We ken whaur ye bide.

My doors don't have looks on them to protect ME. So step right up and
place your bets...

man, ye can play the hard man a ye like,
naebody's takin ye serious.

You're the one threatening me. I'm just telling you how it'll turn
out.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:19:36 +0100, Alan Smaill

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Is it not standard practice for postings to be made in one of the
relevant languages of a country-specific newsgroup ? There's probably
more justification for using Urdu than Merkan.

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:19:36 +0100, Alan Smaill

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was
the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless
Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so
I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is
"Erse".

Time for you to learn something else.
It's not a 'board' and it's ABOUT 'Scottish', so it's not 'Scottish',
either.

how can it be about an adjective?

Post by Fred J. McCall
Now if you'd learn to make the quotes come out right without all the
doubling of whitespace and get your word wrap to work properly...

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

Is it not standard practice for postings to be made in one of the
relevant languages of a country-specific newsgroup ? There's probably
more justification for using Urdu than Merkan.

This isn't a "country-specific newsgroup". Please read the newsgroup
FAQ.

Once you've done that, take a look at where most of the folks to whom
the newsgroup applies live....

[conway caine]

Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.

******You think???

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Alan Smaill
Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.
******You think???

You don't???

[conway caine]

Post by Alan Smaill
Surely we're allowed to express a preference for the use of
Scottish terminology in soc.culture.scottish.
******You think???

You don't???

****Not if I can help it.
Which is why my Chessmaster 9000 constantly thrashes me............

[David Edmunds]

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds

Post by Fred J. McCall

Post by David Edmunds
2006 John Hopkins/Lancet study is one not seriously challenged by the denialists

That's because the Lancet study was exploded early and largely ignored
as offering preposterously high numbers through massively flawed
methodology.

Not that preposterous Fred,

Yes, that preposterous, David.
Who did and didn't believe in it is irrelevant. What's relevant is
that their methods are suspect.

Sorry to be always disagreeing with you about something or other -
As to their methods being "suspect", I would be more inclined to describe them as being loose or imprecise ...

In other words, as a statistical analysis trying to show something,
their study is shite. It's all political with practically no
underlying science. 'Suspect' is a kind description of it.

Post by David Edmunds
and comparing their estimations/calculations against the IBC (Iran Body count) people I would be comfortable with a figure less than their's but still in the hundreds of thousands. The IBC figure is only for "violent deaths" not "excess deaths" so comparing only the Lancet's violent deaths figure results in at least 30% disparity.

And where are you getting your selected floor value of "hundreds of
thousands"? Statistical analysis doesn't let you just pull things out
of your ass.

Post by David Edmunds
The American public also fared rather poorly in their awareness of the death toll in the war, I read somewhere that a poll by AP in 2007 resulted in a median figure of 10,000 when asked how many civilians had died in the Iraq war?

If it was asked that way, that's not that unreasonable an answer. If
someone asked me that question, I would give a number DURING THE
ACTUAL WAR, not all deaths since from whatever cause.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius

I often learn something from your postings, on this occasion it was the colourful phrase "just pull things out of your ass" -- priceless Fred, Trying to visualise it........ However it is a Scottish board so I would have preferred it if you had used the Scots word which is "Erse".
David Martin Edmunds

Correction Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkin

[David Edmunds]

Post by David Edmunds
A poll by the UK based organisation ComRes came up with the following stats regarding the British public's awareness of how many Iraqi people were killed!
Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.
One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.
David Martin Edmunds

I am sorry Scotty but have no good information how many people died in the Iraq conflict, but the kind of ignorance revealed by the poll allows the threshold to going to war to be set too low and plays into the hands of the psychopaths who think of war as some kind of game. If more people really knew how shitty war really is and how it really does kill lots and lots of people and result in misery for millions and does damage that persists for decades, even centuries.

David Martin Edmunds

[soupdragon]

Post by David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of
deaths in

Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think
5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to
one-third (35 per cent) of men.

Post by David Edmunds
David Martin Edmunds

I am sorry Scotty but have no good information how many people died in
the Iraq conflict,

If you have no information on how many people died, how can you conclude
women are under-estimating it?

[David Edmunds]

Post by soupdragon

Post by David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of
deaths in

Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think
5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to
one-third (35 per cent) of men.

Post by David Edmunds
David Martin Edmunds

I am sorry Scotty but have no good information how many people died in
the Iraq conflict,

If you have no information on how many people died, how can you conclude
women are under-estimating it?

Not my conclusion soupdragon I was quoting the ComRes poll result. Looks like the ComRes people have an idea of their own about the deaths otherwise the word underestimate would not have been used.

Do you think they are misogynistic?

David Martin Edmunds

[soupdragon]

Post by David Edmunds

Post by soupdragon

Post by David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of
deaths in

Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think
5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to
one-third (35 per cent) of men.

Post by David Edmunds
David Martin Edmunds

I am sorry Scotty but have no good information how many people died in
the Iraq conflict,

If you have no information on how many people died, how can you conclude
women are under-estimating it?

Not my conclusion soupdragon I was quoting the ComRes poll result.

They don't state a conclusion. They merely report the results.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Iraqi_death_toll_survey_June_2013.pdf

Post by David Edmunds
Looks like the ComRes people have an idea of their own about the
deaths otherwise the word underestimate would not have been used.

It wasn't used. Additionally, the poll is an online poll and that
immediately makes it self-selecting and restricted to those who have
access to and use the internet, so it is not representative of the
wider population.

Post by David Edmunds
Do you think they are misogynistic?

No. I think they are being misreported.

Post by David Edmunds
David Martin Edmunds

[David Edmunds]

Post by soupdragon

Post by David Edmunds

Post by soupdragon

Post by David Edmunds

Post by David Edmunds
Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of
deaths in

Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women
think
5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to
one-third (35 per cent) of men.

Post by David Edmunds
David Martin Edmunds

I am sorry Scotty but have no good information how many people died
in
the Iraq conflict,

If you have no information on how many people died, how can you
conclude
women are under-estimating it?

Not my conclusion soupdragon I was quoting the ComRes poll result.

They don't state a conclusion. They merely report the results.
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Iraqi_death_toll_survey_June_2013.pdf

Post by David Edmunds
Looks like the ComRes people have an idea of their own about the
deaths otherwise the word underestimate would not have been used.

It wasn't used. Additionally, the poll is an online poll and that
immediately makes it self-selecting and restricted to those who have
access to and use the internet, so it is not representative of the
wider population.

Post by David Edmunds
Do you think they are misogynistic?

No. I think they are being misreported.

Post by David Edmunds
David Martin Edmunds

Correction - Soupdragon is right that I misreported the report. I did that by cutting and pasting something I came across on the Internet - it gets even worse cos I had not seen the poll myself. Now that I have had a look I am even more saddened by the whole business, the war of course and the heartless response.

Still recommend reading the report -

David Martin Edmunds

[David Edmunds]

Since I posted the original information on the ComRes survey
the Public Library of Science has published an article that
adds to the Lancet and Iraq Body Count attempts to quantify
Iraq civilian deaths. Some interesting detail comes out of it
even after a cursory scan. Full article available.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533

Connclusions from the abstract:- Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war.

PLOS seems to be a new player in the Open Source movement - Power to their elbows..

David Martin Edmunds

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by David Edmunds
Since I posted the original information on the ComRes survey
the Public Library of Science has published an article that
adds to the Lancet and Iraq Body Count attempts to quantify
Iraq civilian deaths. Some interesting detail comes out of it
even after a cursory scan. Full article available.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533
Connclusions from the abstract:- Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war.
PLOS seems to be a new player in the Open Source movement - Power to their elbows..
David Martin Edmunds

Are you still doing Radio 1?

[David Edmunds]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Since I posted the original information on the ComRes survey the Public Library of Science has published an article that adds to the Lancet and Iraq Body Count attempts to quantify Iraq civilian deaths. Some interesting detail comes out of it even after a cursory scan. Full article available.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533
Connclusions from the abstract:- Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war.
PLOS seems to be a new player in the Open Source movement - Power to their elbows..
David Martin Edmunds

Are you still doing Radio 1?

Only ever listen to Radio 4. Are you on a night shift, in Moscow or just insomniac?

David Martin Edmunds