Comments on: Ralph Peters gets his stats right: the New York Times purposely misleads http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/ "All manner of statistical analyses cheerfully undertaken." Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:54:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: TCO http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-4972 TCO Mon, 05 May 2008 23:29:37 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-4972 1. Read Burket's book. Stolen Valor. 2. Just to be fair, you ought to make the obvious gig on the second point of dividing deaths overseas in combat zone/number served. And then compare versus pop here versus deaths here. :-) 1. Read Burket’s book. Stolen Valor.

2. Just to be fair, you ought to make the obvious gig on the second point of dividing deaths overseas in combat zone/number served. And then compare versus pop here versus deaths here. :-)

]]> By: buddee wang http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-1235 buddee wang Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:06:17 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-1235 The New York Times is a reftist rag and can't be trusted for anything. You buddee wang The New York Times is a reftist rag and can’t be trusted for anything.

You buddee wang

]]> By: GrimmBro http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-139 GrimmBro Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:28:02 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-139 I'm new to your site. I love it. Keep up the good work. I quickly scanned your in-progress book and it looks like you are on a good track for making statistics interesting. As a Nam vet, I always thought we returnees got a bad rap in the statistics department, especially the way we were painted as being nothiing but a bunch of baby killers, murderers and rapists. It really torqued my jaw. I am so pleased to see folks like you fighting against this sort of tyranny. Regarding this piece of garbage by the Times: other web sites have done their homework, reviewed the cases and further reduced the incidence of violent behavior in Iraq/Paki vets. The Times' way of counting violent behavior (another misleading statistical trick) is seriously awful journalism. For you and those battling against these lies and distortions, I thank you. Our vets deserve a lot better. I’m new to your site. I love it. Keep up the good work. I quickly scanned your in-progress book and it looks like you are on a good track for making statistics interesting.

As a Nam vet, I always thought we returnees got a bad rap in the statistics department, especially the way we were painted as being nothiing but a bunch of baby killers, murderers and rapists. It really torqued my jaw. I am so pleased to see folks like you fighting against this sort of tyranny.

Regarding this piece of garbage by the Times: other web sites have done their homework, reviewed the cases and further reduced the incidence of violent behavior in Iraq/Paki vets. The Times’ way of counting violent behavior (another misleading statistical trick) is seriously awful journalism. For you and those battling against these lies and distortions, I thank you. Our vets deserve a lot better.

]]> By: JunkScience.com Blog » Blog Archive » Ralph Peters gets his stats right: the New York Times purposely misleads http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-127 JunkScience.com Blog » Blog Archive » Ralph Peters gets his stats right: the New York Times purposely misleads Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:20:02 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-127 [...] The Sunday, 13 January 2008, edition of the Times spent four pages! detailing that, in the four and three-quarter years since the Iraq war began, returning soldiers, sailors, and airmen came home horribly scared?mentally, of course?and committed 121 murders. Which is a big number, no question; and probably some, or even most, of the people killed didn?t even have it coming to them. (William M. Briggs, Statistician) [...] […] The Sunday, 13 January 2008, edition of the Times spent four pages! detailing that, in the four and three-quarter years since the Iraq war began, returning soldiers, sailors, and airmen came home horribly scared?mentally, of course?and committed 121 murders. Which is a big number, no question; and probably some, or even most, of the people killed didn?t even have it coming to them. (William M. Briggs, Statistician) […]

]]> By: meng http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-102 meng Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:12:28 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-102 "The civilian murder rate is 26.5 per 100,000" i'm sure the "paper of record" would then find a way to blame this figure on the Bush Administration or the second amendment... “The civilian murder rate is 26.5 per 100,000″

i’m sure the “paper of record” would then find a way to blame this figure on the Bush Administration or the second amendment…

]]> By: Dave B http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-100 Dave B Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:28:22 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-100 "The civilian murder rate is 26.5 per 100,000" Whoa, a 200% increase over the veteran murder rate? Just incredible. “The civilian murder rate is 26.5 per 100,000″

Whoa, a 200% increase over the veteran murder rate? Just incredible.

]]> By: joev http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-99 joev Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:41:29 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/ralph-peters-gets-his-stats-right-the-new-york-times-purposely-misleads/#comment-99 NY SLIMES at it again. Don't hold your breath for a correction or acknowledgement of their obvious bias. NY SLIMES at it again. Don’t hold your breath for a correction or acknowledgement of their obvious bias.

]]>