1.  08/24/2005, 09:42 PM Originally Posted by cellmatrix You really like that new the thumbs down smiley, I will have to start calling you Nero. Anyway, I am not saying CG manipulated anything. She obviously got it from some source? Is that a fair assumption? Maybe it is the source I am referring to?? Okay, but how is the source manipulating anything? You were a 91, (I'm guessing,) if anyone here would know it would be you, that accidents happen. Sometimes resulting in death. MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?" Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
2.  08/24/2005, 09:42 PM Originally Posted by cellmatrix You really like that new the thumbs down smiley, I will have to start calling you Nero. Anyway, I am not saying CG manipulated anything. She obviously got it from some source? Is that a fair assumption? Maybe it is the source I am referring to?? Not following ya.
3.  08/24/2005, 09:51 PM Originally Posted by cellmatrix Somebody was talking about a death rate. It implies a relative risk of death right? The number of deaths per year does not have anything to do with the risk of death if the two groups you are comparing are not near the same size. When you make a post, why dont you just leave it. You were going on about the numerator and denominator whatever... Im not good at math but is says death rate/year. That would be deaths per 365 days (366 in leap years). So we could calculate deaths per day and compare it back to the other time period. Why are you having trouble with the fact that the MSM didnt care about those numbers before now. Well behaved women rarely make history
4.  08/24/2005, 09:53 PM Originally Posted by Insertion Okay, but how is the source manipulating anything? You were a 91, (I'm guessing,) if anyone here would know it would be you, that accidents happen. Sometimes resulting in death. yes they do, and the military is dangerous. I can tell you firsthand But to say the death rate of US military at peace is twice that of military in Iraq is nothing but misleading.
5.  08/24/2005, 09:58 PM Originally Posted by cellmatrix yes they do, and the military is dangerous. I can tell you firsthand But to say the death rate of US military at peace is twice that of military in Iraq is nothing but misleading. I still don't see how it's misleading though. MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?" Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
6.  08/24/2005, 10:01 PM Originally Posted by Insertion I still don't see how it's misleading though. I'm confused. CM wth are you trying to say?
7.  08/24/2005, 10:04 PM Originally Posted by clairegrrl The inference is that your point is THE point, and I think that while you may have a valid point, it certainly isnt The point. Get my point? I got your point. (That being said, an assumption is not the same as an inference. Also, even if you infer from my post that I was saying that my point was THE point, I don't think it was a fair/logical inference to make. Because you did so, I feel that I should appologize for the confusion. ) Now, getting past that point, its easy to see why the MSM didnt report all those deaths during non-combat years....because it wouldn't sell headlines. The death toll rising in Iraq is a constant 'talking point' (per the other thread). Another example, the 444 day Iran hostage situation that was handled by Pres. Carter. Dan Rather made his name during that time (not that I am old enough to remember it all on tv every night.) Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve
8.  08/24/2005, 10:06 PM Originally Posted by t2gungho Another example, the 444 day Iran hostage situation that was handled by Pres. Carter. Dan Rather made his name during that time (not that I am old enough to remember it all on tv every night.) Actually, it was Ted Koppel who made his name from that. (The birth of Nightline) MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?" Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
9.  08/24/2005, 10:15 PM Originally Posted by clairegrrl When you make a post, why dont you just leave it. You were going on about the numerator and denominator whatever... Im not good at math but is says death rate/year. That would be deaths per 365 days (366 in leap years). So we could calculate deaths per day and compare it back to the other time period. Why are you having trouble with the fact that the MSM didnt care about those numbers before now. let me explain some more, here is an example: 100 out of a million people die each year in group A 10 out of 1000 people die each year in group B The yearly death rate of group A is 10 times the yearly death rate of group B but the risk of death in group B (10% a year) is 10 times the risk of death in group A (1% a year) Saying the yearly death rate is higher for group A and not talking about the total numbers, does nothing but cover up the fact that the risk of death for group B is much greater. the total military is a much bigger number of people than the number of people just in Iraq, so it is analogous, on a lesser scale to group A and group B. does that make sense?
10.  08/24/2005, 10:19 PM Originally Posted by cellmatrix let me explain some more, here is an example: 100 out of a million people die each year in group A 10 out of 1000 people die each year in group B The yearly death rate of group A is 10 times the yearly death rate of group B but the risk of death in group B (10% a year) is 10 times the risk of death in group A (1% a year) Saying the yearly death rate is higher for group A and not talking about the total numbers, does nothing but cover up the fact that the risk of death for group B is much greater. does that make sense? No it doesnt make sense. During the years 83-96 we had 10s or even 100s of thousands more peeps in the military. It is not hard to imagine that there were more accidential deaths during that time. You are trying to push your opinion against numbers from the DoD. Doesnt fly. Well behaved women rarely make history
11.  08/24/2005, 10:26 PM Originally Posted by cellmatrix does that make sense? No. I mean, I understand it, and figured you might be trying to do a statistical analysis of it. But still, a death is a death! Personal observation, in 1985, I was with the 101st Abn Div. About two weeks before Christmas, we lost 248 men who were on their way home from Egypt. They died in a plane crash. I may wrong, but I don't recall our military suffering 248 deaths in one day in either Iraq or Afghanistan (or combined.) I haven't read the link that Claire gave, only her quoted text, but it seems to me their point was how some deaths are seemingly insignificant to the Press, or even some of the public at large. MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?" Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
12.  08/24/2005, 10:33 PM Originally Posted by clairegrrl No it doesnt make sense. During the years 83-96 we had 10s or even 100s of thousands more peeps in the military. It is not hard to imagine that there were more accidential deaths during that time. Yes, you are right CG. So you do get it. Great. Stupid me, I thought you were trying to use the death rate to somehow say it is more dangerous to be in the military during peace than to be in Iraq right now, which had me wondering. Please excuse my assumptions and I appreciate the clarification, thanks! Last edited by cellmatrix; 08/24/2005 at 10:47 PM.
13.  08/24/2005, 10:49 PM Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services) Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188 (Benton County News Tribune on 17th of November, 1999). Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Well behaved women rarely make history
14.  08/24/2005, 11:16 PM Wed Aug 24 2005 16:53:27 ET NAMPA, Idaho -- President Bush today took direct aim at Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who has set up camp near the Bushes Texas ranch and purports to speak for military moms who, like her, have lost a son in the Iraq war. Speaking to hundreds of Idaho National Guardsmen, the president singled out military mom Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, whose husband and five sons have all served in Iraq. "Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard: Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff. Last year her husband, Leon, and another son, Aaron, returned from Iraq, where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul. "Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country.' "And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in. America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts." The crowd, made up mostly of military family members, broke into cheers and chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" Well behaved women rarely make history