Why

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why would i dismiss something that I am attempting to validate, of course i am seeking
to confirm something i wish to find, but so what? it hardly invalidates the findings
simply because i want it to be true, does it.

Please, please do not edit this post, robbie. In a way, it is defines you - in terms of the nature of your curiosity and your intellect. You will no doubt stand by it. And I have said nothing rude about it. I have already responded to it. So fair do's eh? Please leave it as it is.

Originally posted by FMF
It certainly invalidates the objectivity of your findings if you are clearly juggling the data so that it validates them.

I never claimed objectivity, never the less, the data speaks for itself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You cannot dispute the data on the basis of what
may or may not have been recorded, indeed, its possible to dispute this assertion on
the basis that many events as far back as the 800's were recorded and have been
included in the data, making any appeal on the basis of communications rather
unfounded.

Really? Do you think that all earthquakes and their death tolls were recorded in the 800s, and that all these records survive to this day? Do you think the survival rate of the records is more or less the same for the 20thC as it is for the 9thC ?

Originally posted by FMF
Please, please do not edit this post, robbie. In a way, it is defines you - in terms of the nature of your curiosity and your intellect. You will no doubt stand by it. And I have said nothing rude about it. I have already responded to it. So fair do's eh? Please leave it as it is.

oh FMF, if it makes you happy, ill leave it and yes i stand by it, no shame in being
honest.

Originally posted by FMF
Really? Do you think that all earthquakes and their death tolls were recorded in the 800s, and that all these records survive to this day? Do you think the survival rate of the records is more or less the same for the 20thC as it is for the 9thC ?

I can only go on the data we have available to us FMF, not speculating about what may
or may not have occurred.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Not when compared to the other great earthquakes.

well i say they are great earthquakes, 10,000 is great enough for our purposes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I never claimed objectivity, never the less, the data speaks for itself.

This is what political hacks and journalists say all the time as they proceed to look at data in just a particular statistical way that suits them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I can only go on the data we have available to us FMF, not speculating about what may
or may not have occurred.

You say you are not "speculating" and yet you are drawing "conclusions" based on data that you [presumably] concede is not complete.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh FMF, if it makes you happy, ill leave it and yes i stand by it, no shame in being
honest.

Here it is again, just in case:

"Why would i dismiss something that I am attempting to validate, of course i am seeking to confirm something i wish to find, but so what? it hardly invalidates the findings simply because i want it to be true, does it."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well i say they are great earthquakes, 10,000 is great enough for our purposes.

The inescapable fact still remains though, that of the top 15 greatest earthquakes only 1 has occurred in the last ten years.

Originally posted by FMF
Here it is again, just in case:

"Why would i dismiss something that I am attempting to validate, of course i am seeking to confirm something i wish to find, but so what? it hardly invalidates the findings simply because i want it to be true, does it."

Says it all.

Originally posted by FMF
This is what political hacks and journalists say all the time as they proceed to look at data in just a particular statistical way that suits them.

I do not deny any bias FMF, never the less if one were concerned with bias one would
never read another editorial in a newspaper or magazine ever again, would one? Its to
what extent bias has occurred and why that should interest us.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The inescapable fact still remains though, that of the top 15 greatest earthquakes only 1 has occurred in the last ten years.

proportionately 59 percent have occurred in the twentieth century, take your medicine
PK, it will only be bitter for a moment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I do not deny any bias FMF, never the less if one were concerned with bias one would
never read another editorial in a newspaper or magazine ever again, would one? Its to
what extent bias has occurred and why that should interest us.

Why would you be content to be "biased" about a prediction like this? Do you want it to be true?

Originally posted by FMF
You say you are not "speculating" and yet you are drawing "conclusions" based on data that you [presumably] concede is not complete.

whether its complete or incomplete i cannot say, we can only go on the data we have at
hand.