From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:41:59 -0500, Phil Payne
 wrote:

>> I wasn't using the number of hits as proof of my point, but rather to
>> give
>> Phil a large number of places to look, since he obviously is going to
>> mistrust any single source I put forward.
>
> From the second hit:
>
> .. by The LANCET medical journal ..
>
> .. about the REPORT? Should the coalition ..
>
> .. the war was hugely FLAWED, it is likely ..
>
> Nice hit, Gary.  Try reading some of your own results - VERY few
> criticise
> the results.
>
> Google, BTW, will only return 1,000 hits.  The numbers are for show.
>
>
>
No, for the exact search I specified the numbers hits was exactly what I
said it was, and again, I'm not claiming that a large number of hits means
I'm right, just giving you a large number of sources to pick and choose
from, since you will automatically denouce any source I cite.

Now, my little govnyukh, are you going to respond to the Slate (hardly a
Bush fan publication) article I posted which explained EXACTLY what was
wrong with Lancet's misuse of statistics?


--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5