NationStates Jolt Archive

We can't get contemporary stats on our own country from the CIA much less other nations...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Some of those stats haven't been updated since 1979. I mean, since it is our own country, shouldn't all of those stats say "June 2004"?

By "some" you mean literacy. Page after page of stats, and only one set goes as far back as 1979. In fact, the furthest back I could find any other statistic to be taken from was 1997. I have to politely suggest that your claim is rather skewered.

By "some" you mean literacy. Page after page of stats, and only one set goes as far back as 1979. In fact, the furthest back I could find any other statistic to be taken from was 1997. I have to politely suggest that your claim is rather skewered.
There was some 1989s right above 1979, but either way, 1997 isn't even good enough for me. I say they should all say at least 2003, and by February of next year say 2004.

There was some 1989s right above 1979, but either way, 1997 isn't even good enough for me. I say they should all say at least 2003, and by February of next year say 2004.

I looked again, and you're correct. There is one 1989, and one 1979. Either way, your claim that "some" go back as far as 1979, when in fact that means one, is misrepresentative of the actual report. I would expect at least four or five different sets of statistics to be taken from that period for your claim to have even a slight base.

To put it in perspective, my browser counts 21 pages of statistics. Out of 21 pages, two are more than 7 years old. 2 sets of statistics out of 21 pages. I stand by my original point.

As for 1997 being too far back, it is completely possible that constant in-depth studies are not done on every aspect of your country. 1997 is hardly obsolete by most standards, and you are unlikely to find massive change between statistics that are less than 3 or 4 years apart.

A lot of WMDs could be moved around in 7 years, eh?

A lot of WMDs could be moved around in 7 years, eh?

You're really pushing common sense to it's limits here. First of all, I'd challenge you to find where WMDs are even listed in that report. I did repeated searches, looking for everything from "weapon" to "danger" to "WMD". Not a single match, anywhere. So it really doesn't matter how quickly WMDs are able to move.

Moreover, I never claimed no statistics would change significantly on a year to year basis. I that it was unlikely to find significant changes.

Also, here are some numbers:

15 statistics were updated this year.
17 statistics were updated last year.
12 were updated in 2002.

That's 44 combined statistics updated within the past 3 years. There are 2 statistics total that have not updated in more than 7 years.

You misrepresented the document. Period.

You're really pushing common sense to it's limits here. First of all, I'd challenge you to find where WMDs are even listed in that report. I did repeated searches, looking for everything from "weapon" to "danger" to "WMD". Not a single match, anywhere. So it really doesn't matter how quickly WMDs are able to move.

Moreover, I never claimed no statistics would change significantly on a year to year basis. I that it was unlikely to find significant changes.

Also, here are some numbers:

15 statistics were updated this year.
17 statistics were updated last year.
12 were updated in 2002.

That's 44 combined statistics updated within the past 3 years. There are 2 statistics total that have not updated in more than 7 years.

You misrepresented the document. Period.

I doesn't meet the standards that I'd like to hold my Intelligence Agency to be held accountable for and as an American with free speech, it is my right and duty to complain.

I doesn't meet the standards that I'd like to hold my Intelligence Agency to be held accountable for and as an American with free speech, it is my right and duty to complain.

That's a very different claim than "We can't get contemporary stats" or "Some of those stats haven't been updated since 1979". Contemporary simply means modern day, more specifically "Occurring in the same period of time". I think it's safe to say that most, if not all aside from those 2 anomalous statistics, are in fact both contemporary and well after 1979.

A much better way of writing the first message in this topic would be

"I am disastisfied with the statistics on the CIA website.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/us.html

It does not meet the standards that I'd like to hold my Intelligence Agency to. I feel that all those stats should say June 2004."

That makes no exaggerations, contains no bias, and in no way makes attempts to have a person think that many of the statistics have not been updated since 1979.

I'll drop the matter now, but I personally wasn't amused by your colouring of the issue with personal bias.

Bias is what gets things done, like it or not.

Is that supposed to be a deep pearl of wisdom? Torture gets things done. If you don't believe me, try torturing someone. Or better yet, torture their family. Make it clear the torture doesn't stop until what you want is received or done. You'd be amazed how motivated people will suddenly become, even the lethargic and uncaring.

There was never a question of the effectiveness of bias. It was a question of the morality behind bias. There are many completely effective, and yet entirely immoral, means of making things happen.

You're also good at dropping things.

I drop things when they become of no interest to me. If you're referring to debates I've been involved in, I use the premise created for chess, as it's really quite effective.

It is entirely possible in chess to reach a point where there is a neverending series of moves you can make to avoid checkmate. Move your king, they move their piece. Move your king back to the original space, they move their piece back to the original space. Repeat for eternity.

Hence chess has a 10 moves rule. If only my king remains, and the player cannot checkmate me in 10 moves, the game is declared a draw. This is done to prevent players from purposely dragging the game on for hours to avoid losing.

The same can be applied to a debate. All too often there will come a point where the same issue is being rehashed over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. At this point, I wait a bit and see if it's going anywhere (the equivalent of the 10 moves). If it isn't, I simply walk away.

It's the only sensible recourse.

I drop things when they become of no interest to me. If you're referring to debates I've been involved in, I use the premise created for chess, as it's really quite effective.

It is entirely possible in chess to reach a point where there is a neverending series of moves you can make to avoid checkmate. Move your king, they move their piece. Move your king back to the original space, they move their piece back to the original space. Repeat for eternity.

Hence chess has a 10 moves rule. If only my king remains, and the player cannot checkmate me in 10 moves, the game is declared a draw. This is done to prevent players from purposely dragging the game on for hours to avoid losing.

The same can be applied to a debate. All too often there will come a point where the same issue is being rehashed over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. At this point, I wait a bit and see if it's going anywhere (the equivalent of the 10 moves). If it isn't, I simply walk away.

It's the only sensible recourse.
No one has ever pulled the 10 move rule on me in chess or in debate.

No one has ever pulled the 10 move rule on me in chess or in debate.

...ok? I'm not sure if a reply was even expected to this, but I'll note that I don't really have one. Perhaps you are simply more lucky in your choice of debates, or perhaps your opponents simply wield more easily. Perhaps you are simply more willing to debate for longer periods of time.

Whatever the reason, you'll forgive me if I say your reply seems non sequitur. I was merely commenting on why I drop debates that continue for long periods of time, and the problems that can become inherent in debates requiring said action; not suggesting that all people will ever need to, or should, do so.

...ok? I'm not sure if a reply was even expected to this, but I'll note that I don't really have one. Perhaps you are simply more lucky in your choice of debates, or perhaps your opponents simply wield more easily. Perhaps you are simply more willing to debate for longer periods of time.

Whatever the reason, you'll forgive me if I say your reply seems non sequitur. I was merely commenting on why I drop debates that continue for long periods of time, and the problems that can become inherent in debates requiring said action; not suggesting that all people will ever need to, or should, do so.
Well, my original comment's point was obviously missed. I'll edit this post to demonstrate why.

I'll drop the matter now

I made a response, you made a response, then I replied with:

You're also good at dropping things.
because despite saying you would drop it, you continued.

Well, my original comment's point was obviously missed. I'll edit this post to demonstrate why.



I made a response, you made a response, then I replied with:


because despite saying you would drop it, you continued.

No. I continued to speak with you, yes. However I argued a separate issue. I merely agreed to drop the issue of your use of personal bias in the first message. Whether it was right or wrong, you did it.

The debate then turned to the effectiveness of personal bias. While still on a topic of personal bias, it's a different branch of bias entirely. I don't recall mentioning your first post in the topic after the point which I agreed to drop it. If I did, as my memory is bad, I apologize; I am, after all, only human.