Comments on: Some Thoughts About Demo #7

By: matthew rossi

matthew rossi — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:32:43 +0000

Wait a minute. You're both being reasonable. Didn't you both get the memo? You're supposed to be impugning each others character, motives, abilities and even your claims to distinction by now. "Did Brian Wood really write Demo #7? Some people are asking whether Scott is actually a doctor." That kind of thing. This, this... loathsome respectuf dialogue you two have going is counter to the spirit of modern political debate.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:38:17 +0000

Fair enough (but maybe ads should come with sources — make them more believable and more expensive so there wouldn’t be as many).

By: Brian Wood

Brian Wood — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:37:29 +0000

well, its an ad, and i dont see many ads (or much else, for that matter) that come with supplemental pages of documentation and raw research notes. the sources were listed, some even with contact info. so there it is. people with questions can follow up if they need to.

-bri

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:25:39 +0000

I don’t think it’s short-sighted to want to see concrete numbers and raw data when someone’s using statistics to prove a point (cynical maybe, but short-sighted, no). I’ve seen too many instances of people/firms/organizations manipulating numbers…not just politically, but commercially as well.

By: Brian Wood

Brian Wood — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:01:08 +0000

well, all i can say is i wouldnt have put the link to that in print if i wasnt confident in its accurancy. that list was compiled by a freelance journalist friend of mine who researched it and syndicated it into several national magazines, all of whom have their own fact-checkers. in addition, i see that raw data reproduced all over the place, in other books and publications. being wary of it is fine, but to assume its wrong based on nothing concrete is a little short-sighted, i think.

-bri

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:53:26 +0000

I did check the bottom of the flier, and spent a day perusing the websites and calling the numbers listed. They all report the same statistics as on the flier, but only one site lists where they got the statistics in the first place (the NISBCO site), so I still am suspicious of the sources otherwise. I have no problem with one-sided arguments (not much of an argument otherwise), it's the statistic thing that really bothers me.

By: Brian Wood

Brian Wood — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:32:52 +0000

thanks for your review. i asked friends of mine who are currently serving, and they did have that up-front ‘buy-in’ to deal with, so i guess its not the same across the board for everyone. as far as that Trivial Recruitment flyer, it is well-sourced right on the bottom, some even with 1-800 numbers, and simple Google searches can confirm it too. its absolutely one-sided, and everything in life has a counter-argument to it. i dont present it as the complete facts on the topic of recruitment, just a selection of some of the more repulsive. :)

-brian w

By: Gareth Wilson

Gareth Wilson — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:21:45 +0000

The silliest points in that flier are G and H.
Does no one understand control groups anymore?