Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    At the Mountain
    Posts
    5,551

    Default Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    I must admit that I have been sitting with his response for almost a week, but I only got to it today. But hey, at least it's here.
    I think I was fair to Altbeker as well in so far as I did not say anything to discredit him; In my opinion anyway.

    And what day is it today..? Wednesday I think, but I struggle to keep up :)

  2. #12
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    At the Mountain
    Posts
    5,551

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by uBestRi View Post
    Likewise I am aware of associations between Mr Altbeker and members of GFSA and that they funded the second study
    A small correction here for accuracy sake, the study was commissioned by GFSA, but paid for by the Open Foundation.

  3. #13
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Where is my mind..?
    Posts
    13,357

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Great work bro! Have some

    You already have an article right there - just send the OP through to all the media houses!
    [b]Be ready for anything, and if his head is not at least two meters away from the body, do not 'assume' he is dead and out of the fight.[/b] [I]- Ikor[/I]

  4. #14
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    66
    Posts
    117

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Great effort. You highlighted how worthless the stats are that GFSA cherry pick and best of all you kept it all tidy by playing the ball and not the man. Good one. I agree that the article makes a very worthy opinion piece as is.

  5. #15
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Eikestad omgewing
    Posts
    578

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    I have done a bit of statistics (mostly mathematical statistics) in my time, and I have learned one important lesson.

    The biggest problem with statistics is that most of the people trying to interpret results don't have a clue what they are doing. A person may publish a very good statistical analysis, and then have other people completely misinterpret it. Seems to be the case with what GFSA did here. It seems as if Mr Altbeker clearly mentioned the scope and limits of the data, but it was ignored.

  6. #16
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    At the Mountain
    Posts
    5,551

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    It does appear as though that may be the case.

  7. #17

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Well done , thanks.

    What it does, is show just how much Adele Kirsten is prepared to lie.

  8. #18
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomstomp View Post
    The biggest problem with statistics is that most of the people trying to interpret results don't have a clue what they are doing. A person may publish a very good statistical analysis, and then have other people completely misinterpret it. Seems to be the case with what GFSA did here. It seems as if Mr Altbeker clearly mentioned the scope and limits of the data, but it was ignored.
    Never for a moment believe that they accidentally 'misinterpreted' anything at all. They distort and lie. It's what they do.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  9. #19

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomstomp View Post
    I have done a bit of statistics (mostly mathematical statistics) in my time, and I have learned one important lesson.

    The biggest problem with statistics is that most of the people trying to interpret results don't have a clue what they are doing. A person may publish a very good statistical analysis, and then have other people completely misinterpret it. Seems to be the case with what GFSA did here. It seems as if Mr Altbeker clearly mentioned the scope and limits of the data, but it was ignored.
    That is a serious misconception. GFSA Misinterprets or misunderstands nothing ! Everything they say or do has been calculated. In respect of this particular matter, his research was commissioned by GFSA to support a predetermined conclusion. It was paid for by the Open Society Foundation that is also GFSA's main source of revenue. The Open Society Foundation is funded by George Soros, who funds anti-gun efforts elsewhere in the world.

    This research was presented to the media jointly by GFSA and Altbeker. It was Richard Wesson's questions on that occasion that prompted Altbeker to concede that his data does not support the conclusions GFSA ascribes to it. It is clear from that admission, and from his later comments, that he was hijacked. Why he didn't see it coming, or why he hasn't condemned GFSA more loudly for its duplicity, is another matter.

    The important point is that GFSA continues to quote its false conclusions, knowing that they are false. In other words they are lying. It is the old propaganda technique of a lie becoming the perceived truth if it is repeated often enough. Bear in mind that GFSA gets away with it because very few of the public are aware of the truth.

    Another very similar item of deceit is the "43 x more likely" junk research by Arthur Kellerman for the CDC. It was so blatantly false that he was forced to reduce it to 2.70 x, but even that was still so false that CDC disavowed him and cut off his funding. But GFSA still quotes it. Untrue or not, it is an effective technique. This has never been anything but a battle for public opinion, and if we can't effectively counter these deliberate untruths, they will be widely accepted by the public. That is the real nature of the threat, and GFSA exploits it very effectively.

  10. #20
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Eikestad omgewing
    Posts
    578

    Default Re: Four times more likely to spew nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomstomp View Post
    The biggest problem with statistics is that most of the people trying to interpret results don't have a clue what they are doing. A person may publish a very good statistical analysis, and then have other people completely misinterpret it. Seems to be the case with what GFSA did here. It seems as if Mr Altbeker clearly mentioned the scope and limits of the data, but it was ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul View Post
    Never for a moment believe that they accidentally 'misinterpreted' anything at all. They distort and lie. It's what they do.
    I never even implied that the "misinterpretation" was accidental; the last part of my post (as highlighted in bold above) was meant to convey my suspicion that it was deliberately done.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [FOR SALE] CRKT SPEW
    By neilh in forum Accessories for Sale (Parts, Magazines, Stocks, Scopes, Reloading etc.)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 17:06
  2. Operating Times & Range Times
    By TJ in forum Dave Sheer Guns
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2014, 10:18
  3. Gunsite: Good Times, Bad Times & a Thank-You
    By francois.viljoen in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 28-03-2014, 17:22
  4. Whats up with this zombie nonsense?
    By gertjie87 in forum Survival and Bushcraft
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 15-07-2013, 20:47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •