GingerV,

As you wish madam. Perhaps some day…

jseal - That's it? Aren't you going to respond to ginger's claims and accusations? You know that asking her for data is not the same as asking her to prove the null hypothesis. You know that the Iraq invasion was because of the weapons of mass destruction and not the war on terror. You're just going to let it drop?

PalaceGuard,

Yes, I shall drop it. Just like that. GingerV has indicated clearly that she no longer wishes to discuss the subject. Anyone can read the thread and see what each contributor wrote and follow their links. Any inconsistencies and self-contradictions are there for all to see. I think it is important to respect the wishes of others, even of those with whom I disagree on this or that topic. Only guys like Tarzan and Rambo can get away with beating their breasts and roaring. I most assuredly do not fall into that category.

You should join in next time. Don’t rely on me to say what you mean. I may disagree with you!

jseal - Maybe I will join in next time. But I'm still right that you asking ginger to supply data is not the same as you asking her to prove the null hypothesis.

Well that and $2.85 will get you a Vanilla Latte at Starbucks;)


For those of us who are following along ~~~> Null Hypothesis it appears it's not something you prove...but something you reject, if I am understanding it correctly.Which it is entirely possible I am not. I'll see the Stats professor at school today and see if he can give me a private lesson. See pic link #24;):hump:

You're absolutely right, Lil. I think he's mixing up my suggestion that the null hypothesis raised by jseal's assertion has been rejected by the data supplied with my statement that I can't be asked to prove a negative. The word null might have mixed 'em up...it's why I appologised for using jargon for the non-stats folks. They're two different things. But hey, I was leaving already.

Ooooooooooooooooooooo I knew about 2 things Chomsky and Null shit!!!! I will have to sex up that teacher to celebrate!

<<< goes back to just observing :p

GingerV,

I would seem that I was incorrect to expect you to not continue the thread.

You asked me to provide data to substantiate my position that the WOT was effective. I did. You remain unpersuaded. Fair enough. You are not alone.

You suggested that the WOT was ineffective. Permit me to reference post #82 in this thread, your point 3.

“…my initial assertion that it hasn't done a blind bit of good…”

Asking you to substantiate your position with data – as you asked of me - is not, it seems to me, unreasonable. It does not involve asking you to prove the null hypothesis. I merely ask of you what you have asked of me.

I provided data to show that international terrorism needed to be addressed, and as best as I can tell, you agreed with me. I suggested that economic and political liberalization were the appropriate long term tools to use. I believe that you have not disagreed with me. I suggested that there are situations where force may be required.

I disagree with your suggestion that Afghanistan was invaded. Permit me to reference post #82 in this thread, your point 3.

“…a flat out invasion of Afghanistan…”

That is not, I believe correct. I have pointed out the Taliban was defeated on the ground by the Northern Alliance, which was composed of Afghans.

We also disagree what the justification was for the invasion of Iraq. I have stated that it was the existence of Iraq’s WMDs. I have provided links to the quotes of the decision makers. I have also provided a link to the BBC’s article on the Lord Hutton’s report into the death of Dr. Kelly. I do ask you to take the time needed to read Lord Hutton’s report. Page numbers here refer to the PDF from the BBC link above. Permit me to quote from page 2 of that report, item 9. “The terms of reference”

“There has been a great deal of controversy and debate whether the intelligence in relation to weapons of mass destruction set out in the dossier published by the Government on 24 September 2002 was of sufficient strength and reliability to justify the Government in deciding that Iraq under Saddam Hussein posed such a threat to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom that military action should be taken against that country.”

Again, to quote from page 6 of that report:

“The threat posed to international peace and security, when WMD are in the hands of a brutal and aggressive regime like Saddam’s is real.”

Despite this data, your response was “They aren't ANY of them relevant”. I disagree with you. If quotes from the former UK Iraq envoy, the Foreign Secretary, and a copy of the dossier presented to the Prime Minister fail to persuade you, I suspect nothing will.

I don't think anyone's going to win a war with statistics - though loud music has been hurled at opponents, maybe the complexities of the null hypothesis will force a few to surrender.

Do we have an ongoing conflict caused by irreconcileable needs and positions or is it a war? I rather think the use of the term war is convenient for the politicians.

So what are the objectives? To stop anyone in the world throwing a punch at us? Revenge on those who already have? National boundaries are irrelevant to Mr. Bin Laden, so being at war with xyz country is contradictory to the problem.

Jseal's long term suggestion is one of the few sensible policies that I have heard. Is it a stated poicy to seek out and destroy all known "terrorists" in the short term and who is to decide who these people are?

If I visit the States again, I will be fingerprinted and photographed - well the whole world is clearly a potential threat.

I hear lots of grand speeches but little in the way of a coherent and achieveable policy. This is precisely how to lose a war.

By the way, who won the first round of the mudslingers showdown? The BBC rated it a draw.