A note about "numbers"...

[Rat Faced]

Thats quite an admission from you J2... that US forces have killed more than 4x the number of innocent Iraqi's than the insurgents have... :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

Thats quite an admission from you J2... that US forces have killed more than 4x the number of innocent Iraqi's than the insurgents have... :rolleyes:
Where did he admit a number? :huh:

I did hear that our soldier's body is up to about 1825 though. I doubt that count can be fucked over.

With all that said, how many Iraqi civilians are dead? :dry:

How many homeless are there?

[whypikonme]

l guess one of the reasons for the discrepancies is the fact that the US government not only refuses to count civilian casualties, it also forbids them to be counted by their own forces.

[whypikonme]

Thats quite an admission from you J2... that US forces have killed more than 4x the number of innocent Iraqi's than the insurgents have... :rolleyes:

I, like my colleague Busyman, am utterly baffled by your post, Rat. :huh:

U.S.-led forces accounting for 37 percent of the total, criminal violence 36 percent, and "anti-occupation forces/insurgents" 9 percent

When l went to school 4 x 9 was 36, near enough to 37 to warrant his remark.

[Busyman]

I, like my colleague Busyman, am utterly baffled by your post, Rat. :huh:

U.S.-led forces accounting for 37 percent of the total, criminal violence 36 percent, and "anti-occupation forces/insurgents" 9 percent

When l went to school 4 x 9 was 36, near enough to 37 to warrant his remark.
Really?

You can't just look at the numbers. You must look at it's the source.

You missed the whole point of j2's post quite obviously. :dry:

[whypikonme]

You missed the whole point of j2's post quite obviously. :dry:

l didn't miss anything, l merely pointed out where Rat Faced got his figures from, l find it strange you missed it.

[vivitron 15]

this is what i hate about the ways in which the media portray statistics in general...there is no rhyme nor reason to the numbers they use, and then, on seeing the numbers, they like to draw conclusions which are often completely pointless and irrelevant...

a good example of this was given in a first year lecture:



People smoking People not smoking
people 100 000 50
with
cancer


people 100 100000
without
cancer


The conclusion? People who have cancer take up smoking.

From just the information presented, you cannot fault the argument - there is a cause and effect, and without knowing anything more, each is equally as valid...so "Cancer causes smoking".

This is why i cringe when papers use stats to "prove" something about asylum seekers or petrol prices:
Petrol in the uk was subjected to the highest tax according to one paper a few years back...there was 50p per litre going to the economy, up from 45p

However, the cost of the oil had risen to such a degree that the relative cost had dropped from 46% of the pump price going to the government to only 40%.

So here, the same stats, but two completely opposing sides..."proven" with these numbers.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Thats quite an admission from you J2... that US forces have killed more than 4x the number of innocent Iraqi's than the insurgents have... :rolleyes:

Sounds more like John Leno is saying this, not J2.

But why believe what John leno says, after all he is discussing the wide range of numbers that different people quote? Is he the only reporter that has access to the "real" numbers?

[Busyman]

You missed the whole point of j2's post quite obviously. :dry:

l didn't miss anything, l merely pointed out where Rat Faced got his figures from, l find it strange you missed it.
Again really?

I missed nothing. You said the remark was warranted but it was quite the opposite since the numbers and where/who they come from were the point of the article and therefore not an "admission" of anything by the topic starter.
:dog: Run-On :dog:

So you did not merely point out something. You said it was warranted.

U wa wong

-said the Chinese man

mmk?

[lynx]

Writing on Slate, Fred Kaplan translated that little tech*nical phrase between the parentheses: It means that the authors are 95 percent certain that war-caused deaths totaled somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. Kaplan's conclusions: "The math is too vague to be useful."Perhaps Fred Kaplan should go back to school and actually study statistics, it is far more complex than he oobviously realises. Far from being "too vague to be useful" it is the standard way of denoting statistical data, and what it points to is that the true figure is most likely to be around the median, in other words 98,000 which is the figure they quoted.


The Department of Hous*ing and Urban Development asked cities and counties get*ting federal aid for the homeless to provide statistically valid counts.Naughty, I thought this article was complaining that statistics aren't valid. Or is it that only statistics that he doesn't like that aren't valid? :dry:


as blogger Megan McArdle pointed out a few weeks ago on Asymmetrical Information, that would mean that every single homeless person in America must have served in the armed forces, since 300,000 is about the total num*ber of the homeless.Who the heck is she? And where did she get that figure from.

Sorry, but the whole article is bullshit. The lesson? Don't trust articles like this.


Don't you believe for one second that the coalition hasn't any idea of civilian casualties, no matter what you've heard to the contrary...Newsflash:

Then why haven't they published them? Because it is far better to keep quiet and rubbish everyone else's figures, even if they just happen to be accurate.

Of course, the real question this article raises is - why do so many journalists detest statistics?

By and large, journalists tend to come from the group who were not too good at science at school. That's natural enough, they progressed into a career that used their skills and avoided the areas where they didn't excel. Then along comes statistics. It seems nice and vague, so it can't posibly be a science, they deal with hard facts and figures. They are going to like statistics, they can tell.

The problem is, statistics is a science, and it deals just as much with hard facts and figures. And when the journalists work that out (usually after it has turned and bitten them on the nose) they detest it with a vengeance, far more than the other sciences, after all they didn't try to trick them. Of course, that doesn't stop them using statistics when it suits their purpose, after all you can prove anything with statistics (the journalist who thought that one up probably got a medal from the other journalists). It gives them an excellent battlecry whenever they see figures that they don't like.

[whypikonme]

l didn't miss anything, l merely pointed out where Rat Faced got his figures from, l find it strange you missed it.
Again really?

I missed nothing. You said the remark was warranted but it was quite the opposite since the numbers and where/who they come from were the point of the article and therefore not an "admission" of anything by the topic starter.
:dog: Run-On :dog:

So you did not merely point out something. You said it was warranted.

U wa wong

-said the Chinese man

mmk?

Sorry, l didn't realise you were that slow, let me explain to you carefully, try to keep up, OK?

l said ... "When l went to school 4 x 9 was 36, near enough to 37 to warrant his remark." ... did you get that, l said his REMARK was warranted, not his assumption.

Now, pay more attention, or post in the lounge.

[Busyman]

Again really?

I missed nothing. You said the remark was warranted but it was quite the opposite since the numbers and where/who they come from were the point of the article and therefore not an "admission" of anything by the topic starter.
:dog: Run-On :dog:

So you did not merely point out something. You said it was warranted.

U wa wong

-said the Chinese man

mmk?

Sorry, l didn't realise you were that slow, let me explain to you carefully, try to keep up, OK?

l said ... "When l went to school 4 x 9 was 36, near enough to 37 to warrant his remark." ... did you get that, l said his REMARK was warranted, not his assumption.
But the remark wasn't warranted.

The numbers were irrelevent and I don't know what assumption you are talking 'bout. You missed it Billy.

[whypikonme]

But the remark wasn't warranted.

The numbers were irrelevent. You missed it Billy.

Of course the remark was warranted, in fact it was an understatement, 37 divided by nine is 4.11 recurring.

[Busyman]

But the remark wasn't warranted.

The numbers were irrelevent. You missed it Billy.

Of course the remark was warranted, in fact it was an understatement, 37 divided by nine is 4.11 recurring.
Uh..that's great, yeahyeah, that's just great. :mellow:

manker? :lol: :lol:

[whypikonme]

manker? :lol: :lol:

My hero. :)

[yonki]

70% of people between 18-99 know that 84% of statistics are made up.and that is a fact

[manker]

manker? :lol: :lol:

My hero. :)Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.

[JPaul]

My hero. :)Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.
Why pick on him :shifty:

[sArA]

My hero. :)Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.


I just prefer to bask in my uniqueness......:smug:

[JPaul]

Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.


I just prefer to bask in my uniqueness......:smug:
My turn.

manker seems to think whypickonhim is actually a member called obviously.

can you check this out, via the gift of the interweb.

Or

"not as good nor as articulate" :blink: seems like pish grammatistics.

[JPaul]

It's just another example of received wisdom methinks.

It's amazing how much people take on face value and it eventually becomes "fact".

3 Great examples are that the coriolis effect makes the water go down the toilet in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, that the rain forests produce most of out oxygen and that gullible is a real word. A lot of people take these things to be true, when in fact they are fallacious.

Numbers are quoted and re-quoted until they become facts. To such an extent that people are totally convinced of their accuracy.

[GepperRankins]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/#total


more than wild guesses

[GepperRankins]

something critical


none of those either


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/details/x073_guide.htm

[JPaul]

The website is run be Hamit Dardagan.

Some of his other work http://www.counterpunch.org/dardargan0813.html

[lynx]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

You've intimated that coalition forces know what the true figures are, but I don't see any publication of them. Why not? "The press won't believe them" simply won't wash.

[lynx]

The website is run be Hamit Dardagan.

Some of his other work http://www.counterpunch.org/dardargan0813.htmlI like that.

It provoked a thought.

If the resultant casualties from this intensive bombong are so light, then what is the point of it? It seems rather wasteful to me. The US people should be complaining about this needless waste of their tax dollars. There's something you should really get your teeth into, J2.

[JPaul]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.


True, surely it is the job of the person producing any figure to provide some povenance for it. Rather than for others to disprove it.

Like they say 97% of statistics are made-up.

(To any scousers, I don't mean they are really pleased)

[JPaul]

The website is run be Hamit Dardagan.

Some of his other work http://www.counterpunch.org/dardargan0813.html


If the resultant casualties from this intensive bombong are so light,
Blow them up and get them stoned, kewl.

[GepperRankins]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/#total


more than wild guesses

Certainly, Dave.

All the data is, in fact, "independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication."

Now, if that isn't a solid indicator that the info is "bias-free", I don't know what is. :P
each report cites at least 2 sources, so you could check yourself if you wanted.

[JPaul]

each report cites at least 2 sources, so you could check yourself if you wanted.


You can't get accurate figures without counting the bodies yourself, Dave.

Well strictly speaking you can, it's just very difficult to demonstrate that they are accurate.

I can make an absolute guess about pretty much anything you want. It might be accurate, it might not.

[GepperRankins]

each report cites at least 2 sources, so you could check yourself if you wanted.

You don't get it, do you?

You can't get accurate figures without counting the bodies yourself, Dave.

Get hopping, then; we'll wait.

I'll believe you, too-I promise.
i don't think you get it.

they always check for errors, they make sure they don't double count. they make an minimum and maximum deathcount for fuzzy numbers. the whole point is pwn you with accuracy. they wouldn't let one dodgy report in because they know you'd dismiss the whole thing

[Rat Faced]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

Your inclusion of that last word indicates the lack of usefulness endemic in such cases, lynx.

One may take numbers at face value; I also prefer to form an opinion as to the credentials of those assembling them.

In most cases, one person cannot effectively intuit accurate numbers, and so cannot reliably use them.

You've intimated that coalition forces know what the true figures are, but I don't see any publication of them. Why not? "The press won't believe them" simply won't wash.

No?

Why not?

Okay, if I say the U.S. Army/theater commander advises there have been approximately 10,000 civilian casualties, you can take it to the bank.

What, you don't believe me?

Okay, google www.usarmydeadiraqicivilians to verify same.

What, still don't believe me?

Why not?

See?

It does wash; quite thoroughly, too.

You wouldn't believe such a thing and you know it, so stop jerking my chain. :dry:

Your search - www.usarmydeadiraqicivilians/ - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

:rolleyes:

[lynx]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

Your inclusion of that last word indicates the lack of usefulness endemic in such cases, lynx.

One may take numbers at face value; I also prefer to form an opinion as to the credentials of those assembling them.

In most cases, one person cannot effectively intuit accurate numbers, and so cannot reliably use them.

You've intimated that coalition forces know what the true figures are, but I don't see any publication of them. Why not? "The press won't believe them" simply won't wash.

No?

Why not?

Okay, if I say the U.S. Army/theater commander advises there have been approximately 10,000 civilian casualties, you can take it to the bank.

What, you don't believe me?

Okay, google www.usarmydeadiraqicivilians to verify same.

What, still don't believe me?

Why not?

See?

It does wash; quite thoroughly, too.

You wouldn't believe such a thing and you know it, so stop jerking my chain. :dry:You can take your own view on the numbers, that's your prerogative.

The sources have provided what they consider to be factual evidence. Certainly you can dispute those figures, but you seem to think that repeated denial constitutes proof that the figures are incorrect and that simply is not the case, and no matter how much you whine or try to pick holes in simple statements it won't help your case.

There is no need for a great deal of intuition when presented with a plethora of numbers which are in approximate agreement.

However, you have offered a figure of 10,000. Where is your proof for this figure? You have rejected all other figures because you state there is nothing to back them up, despite the rigour with which they have presented their claims, yet you have accepted this figure without a single shred of evidence being presented.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but that it the sort of claim I would only expect from a charlatan.

[lynx]

Writing on Slate, Fred Kaplan translated that little technical phrase between the parentheses: It means that the authors are 95 percent certain that war-caused deaths totaled somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000."
The point is that this quote from Fred Kaplan is totally untrue. That is NOT an accurate or even approximate interpretation of (95% CI 8,000-194,000). It actually refers to a 95% Confidence Interval, which is nothing to do with how certain they are about the figures but is a measure of Standard Deviation and the probability of the accuracy of the data. Without looking at the original data (which is published and therefore available for criticism) I am unable to give further information. In any case, I have already indicated that contrary to popular belief statistics is a very exact science, so I would only come to the same conclusion as the original team.

The conclusions drawn are that 98,000 excess deaths were caused by the military intervention. Since the data is published and no-one has questioned the actual data it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusions indicated are valid. If the opposite were the case it would be easy to deny the conclusions simply by referring to the data. That has not happened.

After 30 years I may be a little rusty when it comes to statistics, but be warned that I used to be rather good at it.

Edit: typos

[Busyman]

The point is that this quote from Fred Kaplan is totally untrue. That is NOT an accurate or even approximate interpretation of (95% CI 8,000-194,000). It actually refers to a 95% Confidence Interval, which is nothing to do with how certain they are about the figures but is a measure of Standard Deviation and the probability of the accuracy of the data. Without looking at the original data (which is published and therefore available for criticism) I am unable to give further information. In any case, I have already indicated that contrary to popular belief statistics is a very exact science, so I would only come to the same conclusion as the original team.

The conclusions drawn are that 98,000 excess deaths were caused by the military intervention. Since the data is published and no-one has questioned the actual data it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusions indicated are valid. If the opposite were the case it would be easy to deny the conclusions simply by referring to the data. That has not happened.

After 30 years I may be a little rusty when it comes to statistics, but be warned that I used to be rather good at it.

Edit: typos
be warned that my bullshit detector is as finely calibrated as ever.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[whypikonme]

As luck would have it, the team was antiwar, and the study was released just before the presidential election.

How unbiased is that?

Perhaps, j2k4 you'd care to explain why the US refuses to count dead civilians? Could it be to avoid the truth, or add to the confusion maybe? They seem to have no problems counting their own dead, and not one of them ever referred to as collateral damage.

[lynx]

The point is that this quote from Fred Kaplan is totally untrue. That is NOT an accurate or even approximate interpretation of (95% CI 8,000-194,000). It actually refers to a 95% Confidence Interval, which is nothing to do with how certain they are about the figures but is a measure of Standard Deviation and the probability of the accuracy of the data. Without looking at the original data (which is published and therefore available for criticism) I am unable to give further information. In any case, I have already indicated that contrary to popular belief statistics is a very exact science, so I would only come to the same conclusion as the original team.

The conclusions drawn are that 98,000 excess deaths were caused by the military intervention. Since the data is published and no-one has questioned the actual data it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusions indicated are valid. If the opposite were the case it would be easy to deny the conclusions simply by referring to the data. That has not happened.

After 30 years I may be a little rusty when it comes to statistics, but be warned that I used to be rather good at it.

Edit: typos


Alright, then:

Taking your incredible (and only slightly rusty) capabilities into account, perhaps you might favor me with a layman's (remember, I am not in your league, right?) parsing of precisely what the quoted passage, "95% CI 8.000-194,000" is supposed to mean?

I should have thought you'd provide that little necessity right off, but be warned that my bullshit detector is as finely calibrated as ever.
What it means is that 95% of the possible results are expected to fall in the range 8.000-194,000. In other words, if you got another piece of data there is a 95% probability that the data would cause the likely total number to fall in the range 8,000-194,000. That may sound like a subtle difference, but it is actually very significant.

If one were simply counting numbers to reach the probable total, then another "piece of data" would be another dead body, and it would automatically shift the total higher. However, the people who compiled the report had to take into account how likely it was that a "body" was caused by the military intervention. Under those conditions another body which you could definitely say was caused by military intervention would cause the likely total to increase, while a body which you could definitely say was not caused by military intervention would cause the likely total to decrease.

Because of that uncertainty there is a wide spread of likely results. However, that spread will not be a flat line but is more likely to look something like this:
http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/pictures/confidence3.GIF
At you can see the likelihood of a central result is much higher that one at the fringes.

The significance of these figures becomes apparent not when you incorrectly snear at the 95%CI as Fred Kaplan did, but when you look at the likelihood that the total falls outside the range. It is not only a 95% confidence that the true figure falls inside that range, it is also a 95% confidence that it does not fall outside that range, both above and below, and there is actually a 97.5% confidence that the total is not below 8,000.

Would you place your money on that 2.5% chance of the true total being below 8,000?

[Rat Faced]

The 100,000 figure also includes ALL deaths both indirect and direct that would would not have happened statistically without the invasion.

These deaths include not only those killed by the coalition, but also includes those by the insurgents, disease and other natural causes that were inflamed by the current situation.


You would expect the number to be high, just look at the deaths in France during a heatwave a couple of years back... then see that Iraq has this type of heat every year, plus bloody cold winters/nights.

As there was/is no electricity in large parts of the country and lack of water treatments in parts (especially early on) then you would expect large numbers of deaths through exposure and also a number of deaths that you'd find anywhere with large unemployment and poverty, due to malnutritoin etc.

Although indirect, these deaths are also as a result of the invasion. To ignore them is to stick your head in the sand... but we're used to that here. ;)

[whypikonme]

whypikonme-

Why don't you take it upon yourself to convince me that the U.S. "refuses" to count the dead, rather than merely saying so?

Surely you can google, just like everyone else here... :lol:

Why don't you show me some official government figures then, IF they exist. Or does that involve doing your own work instead of finding someone to do it for you?

[GepperRankins]

can i say that the number of dead in iraq will be CI 100% 20000-6000000000?

[lynx]

What it means is that 95% of the possible results are expected to fall in the range 8.000-194,000. In other words, if you got another piece of data there is a 95% probability that the data would cause the likely total number to fall in the range 8,000-194,000. That may sound like a subtle difference, but it is actually very significant.

If one were simply counting numbers to reach the probable total, then another "piece of data" would be another dead body, and it would automatically shift the total higher. However, the people who compiled the report had to take into account how likely it was that a "body" was caused by the military intervention. Under those conditions another body which you could definitely say was caused by military intervention would cause the likely total to increase, while a body which you could definitely say was not caused by military intervention would cause the likely total to decrease.

Because of that uncertainty there is a wide spread of likely results. However, that spread will not be a flat line but is more likely to look something like this:
http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/pictures/confidence3.GIF
At you can see the likelihood of a central result is much higher that one at the fringes.

The significance of these figures becomes apparent not when you incorrectly snear at the 95%CI as Fred Kaplan did, but when you look at the likelihood that the total falls outside the range. It is not only a 95% confidence that the true figure falls inside that range, it is also a 95% confidence that it does not fall outside that range, both above and below, and there is actually a 97.5% confidence that the total is not below 8,000.

Would you place your money on that 2.5% chance of the true total being below 8,000?

I'm sorry, lynx, but your very able and astute explanation does not relieve my concern, nor does it mitigate my point, which is that numbers are constantly fudged, and people like yourself, in the face of being called for bullshit, then delve into statistical minutiae so as to obfuscate the larger issue of numbers being inflated or diminished to suit a preconceived notion or political agenda.

Where is your proof that numbers are constantly fudged, or is this another of your unsupported generalities? Is it only numbers which contradict your viewpoint which are fudged?

Did I delve into statistical minutae, or was it your correspondent who quoted one piece of information (which on it's own is virtually meaningless) and tried to use it to denounce what must have been several man-years of effort? That's where we see bullshit coming in to play, and it was introduced by yourself.

My point is that this happens constantly, and that accurate numbers are next to impossible to come by, and your point is that certain numbers are de facto accurate, but one must have a mind-set similar to your own to know just which ones they are.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts, you will find that I haven't actually claimed that the numbers are accurate. What I have pointed out (repeatedly) is that the people you have picked to denigrate the figures have done so with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Isn't it strange how they automatically know which ones are fudged.

It now occurs that experience with statistics aids greatly in giving one a leg-up in distilling these numbers and declaring their legitimacy for the benefit of the benighted.

Pity though, my point will not be addressed by such as you, capable as you are; a background in statistical analysis doesn't keep you from avoiding the issue I've raised.

If you present correspondents who quote statistics, you must expect statistics to be used to counter their argument. If for some reason you now think statistics shouldn't be used, then don't introduce them.

Numbers serve agendas, and no amount of testimonial as to the painstaking effort expended in the gathering of them changes the fact.
Numbers don't serve agendas, numbers exist. Simple uncomplicated facts. I think you mean that people with agendas use or misuse numbers. Or not, when they might prove more than a little embarrassing.

[lynx]

can i say that the number of dead in iraq will be CI 100% 20000-6000000000?No. If the Americans saw 6000000000 people converging on iraq they would class them as insurgents and probably bomb them long before they got there. :dry:

[JPaul]

Numbers don't serve agendas, numbers exist. Simple uncomplicated facts. I think you mean that people with agendas use or misuse numbers. Or not, when they might prove more than a little embarrassing.
Numbers aren't facts, simple or otherwise.

A fact tells us something, a number in and of itself tells us nothing. Numbers may form part of a fact, but that does not make a number into a fact.

[JPaul]

can i say that the number of dead in iraq will be CI 100% 20000-6000000000?No. If the Americans saw 6000000000 people converging on iraq they would class them as insurgents and probably bomb them long before they got there. :dry:
6,000,000,000 would be about 90% of the world's population, all going to Iraq, at the same time.

That seems at best unlikely.

[whypikonme]

6,000,000,000 would be about 90% of the world's population, all going to Iraq, at the same time.

That seems at best unlikely.

And if they got there OK it's unlikely their luggage would.

[Snee]

No. If the Americans saw 6000000000 people converging on iraq they would class them as insurgents and probably bomb them long before they got there. :dry:
6,000,000,000 would be about 90% of the world's population, all going to Iraq, at the same time.

That seems at best unlikely.
I'm guessing the last 10% would be the Americans, who would be too busy, what with the bombing, to go with the rest of us.

[JPaul]

Makes sense.

[GepperRankins]

No. If the Americans saw 6000000000 people converging on iraq they would class them as insurgents and probably bomb them long before they got there. :dry:
6,000,000,000 would be about 90% of the world's population, all going to Iraq, at the same time.

That seems at best unlikely.
yeah, but it's fair to say it.


it's a 100% certainty that between 20000 and 6 billion people will and have died in iraq because of the war.

it's a stupid logic that vagueness should equal accuracy

[whypikonme]

If it is a pissing contest you desire, you won't find one with me; neither you nor anyone else on this board can out-argue me, and if you think otherwise, well, look around-you have chosen to stand with the choir, and are merely one of many, most of whom could kick you to the curb in any debate you choose.

At this point you have yet to depart from sycophant-status.

Feel free to step away from the crowd and ring your own bell, if you have one...

Oh really? All l've seen you do so far is dig up other people's opinions and claim them as your own, l've yet to see you put together a coherent argument. When you do l'd be glad to piss on you. As to not being out-argued, l've seen it often, by many members here, l've also seen a fair few dummy spits from you when you don't get your own way. But dream on, it's what you're good at, that and using the thesaurus.

[Rat Faced]

neither you nor anyone else on this board can out-argue me,

I recall the one time I tried to seriously, you decided not to..

Indeed, after 2 or 3 months of my trying to get you to debate the issue, you capitulated without an arguement...

I believe it was something to do with US Tax promises and Bush, if i recall correctly? :ph34r:

[GepperRankins]

before, i woke up and couldn't get rid of my morning wood, but needed a piss. i found the most accurate angle to be almost straight up. it must have had a round journey of 2.5 metres and at least 80% got in the bowl. i'm pretty confident that if i wanted to i could out piss you all now

[Rat Faced]

J2,

Some of these debates i had no interest in, or played devils advocate, so was on the "Outside" looking in so to speak.


I have seen JPaul, Hobbes, Clocker amongst others, often beat you in a debate.

Sorry Kev mate... I've seen you out-argued often.


I've also seen you win debates i've not been interested in, against the same people....


So whilst you can hold your own with pride, you are in no way the best.. just one of them :P