"Koz" wrote in message
.. .


Doug Kanter wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
. ..


That's the problem with statistical analysis as opposed to using the
scientifically sound experiments with control groups etc. It is a heck
of a lot cheaper and easier to use statistics, but you can only show
correlation. Correlation does not prove causality.


You should hang around rec.boats a few times a week and listen to the
******s who say "Well...since we invaded Iraq, we haven't had any
terrorist attacks here, so the war must be working." It's enough to make
you puke.


Not meaning to spur debate in a dumb direction here but simply follow up
with "fewer people were killed in the US by terrorist attacks during
Clinton's watch so it PROVES Clinton did a better job of protecting the US
from terrorist than Bush and Billions on homeland security". It makes as
much sense as the argument that's making you fill the bucket

Koz (who is perfectly happy with those who argue opposite of his left-wing
pinko-commie leanings but HATES letting argumentative fallcies slide)


Also during Clinton's reign, I didn't smash my toe on the coffee table, not
even once, so obviously, we were safer. On the other hand, I sliced the
phuque out of my finger last week with a scary-sharp kitchen knife.