Christopher Paul Hasson arrested (terror suspect) (1 Viewer)

[mt15]

Since September 12, 2001? Any idea why that is the start date?

Because that event is what is known as an outlier. Statistically speaking.

It’s really just that simple. But if you wish to believe that the statisticians have all been recruited into a vast conspiracy, have at it.

 

[Dago]

Since September 12, 2001? Any idea why that is the start date?

are you saying the number of attempts/incidents aren't important and that we should only pay attention to domestic terrorism when/if it kills an equivalent number of people to the incident on 9/11?

 

[Flipx99]

Because that event is what is known as an outlier. Statistically speaking.

It’s really just that simple. But if you wish to believe that the statisticians have all been recruited into a vast conspiracy, have at it.

Do you know of any other "outliers"?

Your conspiracy comment doesn't make sense to me. It's not as though professional number crunchers are independently deciding to exclude 9/11 numbers based on some inherent statisticions best practices. It's just a matter of picking the date range and running those numbers.

 

[Flipx99]

are you saying the number of attempts/incidents aren't important and that we should only pay attention to domestic terrorism when/if it kills an equivalent number of people to the incident on 9/11?

I am not advocating that we exclude domestic terrorism numbers so I don't know how you are concluding that I think they don't matter.

 

[Dago]

I am not advocating that we exclude domestic terrorism numbers so I don't know how you are concluding that I think they don't matter.

simply because you are looking for a reason for 9/11 being excluded and I am wondering about your motivation for that and what difference it really makes

 

[Flipx99]

simply because you are looking for a reason for 9/11 being excluded and I am wondering about your motivation for that and what difference it really makes

I think maybe my sarcasm didn't come through - my fault.

I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude the 9/11 data. The data is obviously available, so those who are wanting to exclude 9/11 are the ones who are wanting to manipulate the statistics.

I don't buy GMK's "that's when we started paying attention" argument. What would be measuring for that to make sense? The efficacy of counter terrorism? That seems like a different conversation than the one in this thread.

I don't buy MT15's "outlier" argument either. How many corpses are too many to count?

No, there must be some other reason.

 

[Dago]

I think maybe my sarcasm didn't come through - my fault.

I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude the 9/11 data. The data is obviously available, so those who are wanting to exclude 9/11 are the ones who are wanting to manipulate the statistics.

I don't buy GMK's "that's when we started paying attention" argument. What would be measuring for that to make sense? The efficacy of counter terrorism? That seems like a different conversation than the one in this thread.

I don't buy MT15's "outlier" argument either. How many corpses are too many to count?

No, there must be some other reason.

I understand where you are coming from and maybe they did have that intent in mind, but how much does it change things to add it in? And does going back nearly 20 years make a lot of sense anyway if we are using this to determine our current threat level?

 

[mt15]

I think maybe my sarcasm didn't come through - my fault.

I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude the 9/11 data. The data is obviously available, so those who are wanting to exclude 9/11 are the ones who are wanting to manipulate the statistics.

I don't buy GMK's "that's when we started paying attention" argument. What would be measuring for that to make sense? The efficacy of counter terrorism? That seems like a different conversation than the one in this thread.

I don't buy MT15's "outlier" argument either. How many corpses are too many to count?

No, there must be some other reason.

Well, I didn’t expect you to buy it. In fact I knew you wouldn’t.

Nice straw man about not counting them, which has nothing to do with statistical analysis. But good job hitting the emotional button.

It would be a simple, non-nefarious, statistically valid explanation. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. ??‍

 

[Flipx99]

Well, I didn’t expect you to buy it. In fact I knew you wouldn’t.

Nice straw man about not counting them, which has nothing to do with statistical analysis. But good job hitting the emotional button.

It would be a simple, non-nefarious, statistically valid explanation. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. ??‍

I am going to have to give some thought to your argument that counting them or not counting them plays no role in the statistics. So far, I can't even come up with a theory on how that makes sense to you.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I think maybe my sarcasm didn't come through - my fault.

I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude the 9/11 data. The data is obviously available, so those who are wanting to exclude 9/11 are the ones who are wanting to manipulate the statistics.

I don't buy GMK's "that's when we started paying attention" argument. What would be measuring for that to make sense? The efficacy of counter terrorism? That seems like a different conversation than the one in this thread.

I don't buy MT15's "outlier" argument either. How many corpses are too many to count?

No, there must be some other reason.

Let’s say 20 guys rob liquor stores of 10k each and one guy robs a bank of 1M
Does it make more sense to say ‘bank robberies accounted for the most money lost so we should focus our efforts on preventing bank robberies?

 

[mt15]

Maybe look up the definition of statistical outlier.