gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:42:02 +0000

Thanks for the kind words Wells. It's always a pleasure to read your columns and I'm glad to see you back in the comments again. Of course I often disagree with the conclusions you reach and the positions you espouse, but the art of journalism is an invaluable one and you do it credit. And the same goes for many on the Macleans masthead. I love the dialectical fights one encounters here, and I prize the opportunity to challenge my worldview by diving into a comment board filled with those who see things from a vantage point drastically different from mine. One encounters all kinds of colorful characters, superb wit, and people from varying fields of expertise on these pages. Many might dismiss it as nothing more than an online comment board for attracting click-counts to Macleans webpages, but that overlooks the truly valuable contributions that many commenters provide to the articles. Not only that, where else does one get the opportunity to engage in dialogue concerning the issues of the day with one's countrymen from all walks of life and from every corner of our land? I think of it as the equivalent of an old pub at which all the townsfolk meet at the end of the day to enjoy each other's company and exchange ideas. (except that it doesn't serve booze - but alas, nothing is perfect) I've noticed over the last couple of months that the tenor of the dialogue seems to have degraded somewhat. Of course there were always problems from time to time with the occasional flame-war, but I find that of late it's become more pervasive, to the point where even normally classy commenters have been affected. I also find that the "echo-chamber" effect has become more pronounced; there tends to be a piling-on for anyone who doesn't favour the majority opinion. Not (generally) a piling-on of reasoned rebuttals and argument, but rather a general "you and your thoughts are not welcome here" vibe. So I've been considering it for some time, and I think I'm going to withdraw from commenting here for at least a while. Better for my serenity, quite possibly what the majority would prefer, and in any case I have a thesis to finish. I want to thank the many commenters who've led me to new insights, made me literally laugh out loud, and engaged in respectful debate. I want to apologize to anyone whom I've flamed or insulted, and ask for their forgiveness. For those with whom the experience has not been so pleasant, I'll pray for you, and if you're the praying kind I'd ask the same favour in return - in that way we will each help the other. And lastly for the conservatives on the site: We few, we happy few, we band of brothers... .... it has been my honour to stand back-to-back with you and face all comers. God bless.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:21:44 +0000

CR, S_c_f, Be_rad, thanks for the kind words. I think that everyone on the thread can agree that honestly, Gaunilon is kind of obtuse.

Macleans.ca : And now, algebra

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:32:34 +0000

If the distribution is weighted, then that's the sampling bias issue everyone has already discussed ad nauseam. Yes, that would be a problem, but that's not the problem Moffat is addressing here. "...a Census isn't really a Census if it doesn't receive a critical mass of responses. It's just an attempted Census." It doesn't matter what the response rate is; all that matters is the total number of responses compared to the overall population. If you send it out to every household in Canada and get a 20% response rate, you've got the same efficacy as if you send it to 20% of households and get a 100% response rate (again, neglecting sample bias).

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:06:23 +0000

Because I was being addressed by a self-described partisan Liberal. I rarely find myself persuaded by the allure of the "you're obtuse and dishonest" argument I often encounter. Granted, it's at least half true in my case, but somehow it just isn't very compelling as a "join our cause" sort of appeal.

Macleans.ca : And now, algebra

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:41:08 +0000

There's a flaw in Moffat's logic, right here: " But would anyone anywhere consider a 57% response rate to the voluntary census to provide useful data?" Answer: yes, because 57% for y=0.33 would represent roughly the same number of responses as the 95% response rate for the y=0.2 case. In fact that's why it works out to the same time burden assuming x remains unchanged. For the same sample size the time burden will be the same. If the time burden increases that will only be because the sample size has increased (assuming x remains unchanged) which will provide greater confidence - a benefit. Of course, if the voluntary census becomes biased, that's a real problem that has been addressed quite thoroughly elsewhere.

Macleans.ca : Gun registry math (II)

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:23:02 +0000

I missed that, and it's a very interesting addition. One wonders, actually, whether the RCMP study might have been contaminated by this internal political pressure or whether care was taken to make it entirely anonymous.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:58:19 +0000

"Two of the four reports did not contain any research. " Again, not containing new data is not the same thing as not containing any research. Data analysis of prior data is research and is often published as such. "In spite of my providing a link earlier which takes you to links of 30 or more studies..." If you provided a link, it wasn't in this thread. I don't know what link you're talking about. "Yeah, I have to say you are obtuse, and/or perhaps dishonest." Well then I suppose there's not much point in continuing the discussion. On the upside, you can be confident that remarks like this are a surefire way to win people over to the Liberal side.

Macleans.ca : On the ‘mosque’ at Ground Zero

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:45:06 +0000

I find myself in the strange position of being further opposed to the Republicans than Parisella. His main thesis, as I understand it, is that both sides have a point, and perhaps there should be a compromise. His rationale is standard Leftist thinking: those who lost loved ones have strong feelings about it, and they have some right not to be offended. There is no such right, Constitutional or otherwise. People have the right to protest the mosque, but there is no obligation on the part of the landowners to heed those protests. No one has the right not to be offended by others. If there end up being any legal restrictions placed on the mosque due solely to the offense it causes to the majority of Americans, that will be a major violation of the concept that everyone is equal under the law, and that justice is blind. Feelings should not be a consideration. Just as the Left is wrong to favour prosecuting people for expressing offensive opinions, likewise the mosque-opponents are wrong if they want the mosque legally sanctioned because of the offense it may cause.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:27:22 +0000

"Except in this case, no research could be found that would do such a thing, and when they (they being the RCMP) tried they only ended up confirming the prior studies." On the contrary, two of the four reports, according to Geddes, were "sharply critical". "Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that only Mantaner's group was researching this stuff. " Also according to Geddes: "Health Canada provided funding to evaluate it as a sort of pilot project in harm reduction. Montaner’s centre took on the bulk of that research." "No, you misunderstand me. I'd hate to think intentionally, but I did think I was clear in context." Not only am I obtuse, but dishonest as well. Got it.

Macleans.ca : Gun registry math (II)

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:19:00 +0000

(1) Hoeppner's claim that "this survey proves...[her position]" is bogus. (2) As with the census, Wherry's marshaling of those opposed to the government's position is no substitute for actual argument.

Macleans.ca : Gun registry math

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:49:33 +0000

Well, not in the extreme form in which you phrased it. I've heard the objection that long guns are not generally used in crimes and that therefore the crackdown is unwarranted - maybe that's the one you meant.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:42:01 +0000

"No research rebuts prior research. " Research rebuts prior research all the time. Just because something is published doesn't mean it was correct. The analysis could be faulty, or the conclusions could be unwarranted by the analysis, or the data itself could be wrong. All of these happen regularly. What I am suggesting is that there is one source for data and analysis supporting Insite: Montaner's group. There are two sources of published criticism of that analysis: Davies and Mangham (or that may only be one source, if their critiques were actually just hit-jobs purchased by the RCMP as Wells asserts). It is not clear to me that Montaner's conclusions are valid while those of Davies and Mangham are "academic vandalism" as Wells has claimed. Neither he nor Geddes provided much in the way of evidence for that claim.

Macleans.ca : Gun registry math

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:17:21 +0000

I've never heard anyone claim (1). (2) and (3) are common objections, as also is (4) It is useless, since illegal firearms will not be on it, and (5) It is worse than useless, since police may trust it rather than assuming that every household they enter contains firearms as they're supposed to.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:55:51 +0000

yep, very dubious. In general, I assume that in government not only does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing, but the left hand also doesn't even know that there are two hands.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:39:19 +0000

I thought you were going to suggest "O-Laugh".

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:24:55 +0000

"Huh... Did you not read the above blogpost?" Yeah, I did, but my "Believe everything Wells concludes without question if it's critical of the CPC" transponder has been broken for a while so I ended up asking myself all kinds of things like "how does Wells know that the government was involved?" and "were these critical reports commissioned by the RCMP really just hatchet-jobs, or is Wells just basing that assessment on the supposed infallibility of the peer-review process, as laymen often do?" Doubtless once I get it repaired, I will no longer be plagued by these heretical thoughts.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:14:47 +0000

Actually I posted it all in one giant, vomitous torrent of verbiage. Why the site didn't refuse it I have no idea.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:02:34 +0000

There are different kinds of papers in scientific journals: some present new data, some present data and draw conclusions from it, and some merely draw conclusions from other pre-published data. There is nothing wrong with looking at data collected in a prior study and drawing new conclusions from it, and there is also nothing wrong with looking at the conclusions of a prior paper and publishing a rebuttal to the author's conclusions. Both are routinely done, which is why authors are supposed to be willing and able to disseminate the raw data on which their paper was based if so requested.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:58:55 +0000

" should think the government would be trumpeting the contrary reports from every rooftop if they could withstand scrutiny...." .... unless, as the government is claiming, they had no knowledge of this fiasco. In that case they'd currently be trying to figure out what the hell went on here and whether they should get involved publicly or deal with it quietly. "Put another way, the imperfection of peer review does not discredit the process outright, and it does not lend any additional credibility to non peer reviewed works. " Of course, and I completely agree that an article in the Lancet (or even a less prestigious journal) holds far more weight than something published on a website. I don't mean to suggest that the peer-review process is worthless. All I claim is that Montaner's work being published in the Lancet does not ipso facto mean that the RCMP-commissioned critiques are faulty, particularly given that this issue holds social policy consequences and is therefore subject to political bias. Wells's conclusion about "academic vandalism" is premature.

Macleans.ca : The Harper government and the Insite flim-flam

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:52:19 +0000

He hasn't established it at all, never mind "beyond a reasonable doubt". He's suggested (with zero evidence) that the government was behind the whole thing, and he's concluded that Montaner's research is good while those critical of it are engaging in academic vandalism based entirely on the fact that Montaner's was published in peer-reviewed journals.