gdp's Comments

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:23:24 +0000

Hahahaha. Yung post mo puro kababoyan. Na-aaddict ka na yata sa kababoyan mo Kiko. Na address na lahat ng mga false propaganda mo, kaya kung gusto mo magbabad dyan sa mga sinasabi mong puro kababuyan, sarilinin mo na lang okey. Kaya nga sabi ko sayo hindi ka pinapakialaman huwag mo na rin pakialaman ang iba. Kung madumi at puro kababuyan ang laman ng isip mo, sarilinin mo na lang, nandadamay ka pa. Hahahaha. Salamat uli, pinatawa mo na naman ako ng husto.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:18:37 +0000

How very logical and very correct Kiko. Hahahaha. Thanks for another laugh.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:56:13 +0000

From the NSCB: A Brief Description of the Methodology for the 2000 Census-Based Population Projections http://www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2006/7Annex.pd... "For future trends of fertility for the country as a whole, three assumptions were made based on the time when replacement-level fertility, that is, NRR=1.0 will be attained. For the LOW series (rapid pace of fertility decline), NRR=1.0 was targeted for the year 2030. For the MEDIUM series (moderate pace of fertility decline), NRR=1 was targeted for the year 2040 and for the HIGH series (slow pace of fertility decline), NRR=1.0 by 2050. The TFRs in Table 3 were projected to follow an exponential growth curve to the year 2040. The 2003 NDHS age pattern of fertility was assumed to be the same up to the year 2040."

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:50:10 +0000

Kiko, Kung gusto mo mag-anak ng mag-anak ng parang BABOY, gawin mo. Pero huwag mo ipilit gawin ang pag-anak mo ng parang BABOY sa mga taong gusto magcontrol ng size ng pamilya at dami ng anak nila. Kababuyan ba kapag gustong tulungan ang nangangailangan? Kababuyan ba kapag tinuruan mo ang mga nangangailangan ng impormasyon na makakatulong sa kanila? Alin at sino ang mas baboy: ang nagbibigay ng impormasyon at binibigyan ng karapatan ang mga tao para sila ang mamili sa sarili nila, o ang mga nagmamagaling na nagsasabi na ang gusto lang nila ang tama at ang dapat masunod sa lahat ng tao? Kung gusto ng mga tao na magtalik sila, maski madalas, eh gawin nila. Kung ayaw mo huwag mo gawin. Hindi ka pinapakialaman, huwag mo rin pakialaman ang iba. Tolerance ang tawag diyan. Kung gusto ng taong bayan na mag-abot ng tulong sa mga taong nangangailangan, huwag mo na rin pakialaman. Dahil kapag pinipigilan mo ang pag-abot ng tulong sa iba, nagmumukha kang madamot at sugapa, at ang mga taong sugapa kahit saan mo tignan eh mukhang BABOY.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:18:21 +0000

"I was just happy to oblige. Parang kailangan mo kasi ng reassurance after our debates. Hahaha " Reassurance? From you? Hahaha. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already got all the reassurance I need. ----------------------- "Actually you already did many times. Kaya nga I had to acknowledge. " What can I say, I tried to stay away but it's always hard to resist a good laugh. Hahaha. Don't mistake it for being "smitten" though, "entertained" is the more apt way of putting it.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:16:09 +0000

"Nag bolahan pa yung 2 pro rh propagandists. hahahaha " How predictable. Hehehehe. Thanks for the laughs Kiko. And no need to get too jealous. I'm sure sometime, somewhere may papansin din sayo.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:25:53 +0000

Not sure, but yes I'm grateful for him somewhat. I always enjoy our little "debates", if that's what it can be called, what with the endless repetitions with very little real arguments. It's great meeting you in these threads too Basti2682, I believe this is the first time we've crossed. Knowing how "tolerant" Kiko is, he will probably brand this as "bolahan" but hey, I sincerely and deeply appreciate all who continue to fight for RH. Cheers to you too and God bless you.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:30:37 +0000

I had a lot of fun too Kiko. Thank you and cheers to you.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:26:07 +0000

Hehehehe, cute. As I said Kiko, I'll let you be. Let's be objective and leave it to those who will read our posts to judge who is winning in the debates, shall we? I'm confident enough about the intelligence of most Pinoys. That aside, I also had fun debating with you. Thank you for your time. I'm sure we'll cross again somewhere in these comments. As I said, for now I leave you to your fantasies. Enjoy.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:57:08 +0000

Part 2 “Typical catholic thinking, as if it's not enough that you have set back the Filipino people to medieval times, parang gusto mo pa maging anarchy tayo ah..” As I said, I've attacked the church based on what they've done, and I can back these up and can be a subject of a separate debate if you wish. Unlike you na tinatawag na PAMBABABOY ang paggamit ng condoms and IUD, attacking people and branding them as animals not because of what they do to the country or to anybody, but simply because of their preferred family planning method. You hypocrite. Puro ka satsat about good moral values, mukhang kailangan maturuan ka uli. You're arrogant and selfishness in attacking and denying help to those with UNMET needs is simply DISGUSTING. TOLERANCE. Live and let live. Try it out sometime, it might do you some good.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:55:36 +0000

Part 1 "IF YOU HAVE SELF-DISCIPLINE, there wouldn't be an unmet need." THAT'S EXACTLY the point. It's as if you are branding those who have UNMET NEED FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES of having no discipline, being lazy and irresponsible. Never mind that many of these are honest-to-goodness unable to meet their UNMET NEED by themselves, and therefore ne 1ed government help, something you are preventing from happening because of your arrogant selfishness. I'm not justifying anybody, just recognizing the fact the people need help, either through education or outright support in their preferred family planning method, whether artificial or natural.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:40:49 +0000

Kiko, You're not in any position to evaluate or judge whether what I'm saying is true or not. I've never seen a blind person accurately describe what is true and real around him, so your pathetic attempts to put yourself as a judge, and therefore your evaluation of what I say, is just garbage. At one point you even tried to make it sound like the proRH is against giving food, aid, education and jobs to poor people. It's plain in your posts to see. "I have already proven that you are a liar. In some instances I have proven that you have mangled people's posts and then mis-represented it. You have done it on my posts on many occasions. " No you haven't. It will do you good to STOP LYING and DECEIVING YOURSELF AND OTHERS. Maybe then you'll have some credibility. Hypocrite. I'll say it again since you keep missing this point: "TOLERANCE. Try it sometime, it might do you some good.. "

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:38:58 +0000

Sheeessh. More PROPAGANDA. We've already discussed all these before, inulit mo na naman to make a point? You're beginning to look like and sound like a PARROT Kiko. Your stupid antics are quite cute and even entertaining for a while, but people do learn to see that through your mindless repetitions that there is in fact nothing substantial in your arguments and your declarations have nothing or very weak grounds to stand on. Oh well, kawawa ka naman mukhang dyan ka masaya eh. Judging by what I read in the comments all over the internet and survey results that show majority support of Filipinos for the RH Bill, I'm confident enough that most Pinoys are already intelligent enough to think for themselves and not be deceived by your senseless propaganda. And besides, you have the right to free speech and even to fantasize, so I'll let you be. Good luck to you.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:27:12 +0000

Part 5 STOP BEING STUPID KIKO. My claim that they erred in their projection in the past is an established fact, proof of this is the consistency that the projections are changed whenever there are new census data available. I didn't say their current projections are wrong. Stop distorting my posts. Future projections can only be proven to be right and wrong when actual data becomes available, but they are subject to change, as I've been saying all along and which you keep ignoring. THE PROJECTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. THE NSCB ITSELF KNOWS THIS. THAT'S WHY YOUR CONCLUSION STANDS ON VERY WEAK GROUNDS! Huwag magpaloko sa mga manloloking PROPAGANDIST ng mga ANTI-RH BILL, NA MAHINA O WALANG BASEHAN SA KANILANG MGA KONKLUSYON AT MGA MALING HAKA-HAKA. Nakakahiya ka talaga Kiko.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:26:55 +0000

Part 4 6. WHO SHOULD THE PEOPLE BELIEVE, THE OFFICIAL STATISTICS AS PRESENTED BY THE NSCB or YOUR CONJECTURES? BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STATISTICS if you want and here I'm referring to past data as these are already established. I never mentioned that the past data is wrong. BUT TAKE THE PROJECTIONS WITH CAUTION AS INDICATED BY THE NSCB ITSELF: "This figure and the other projected values from the table should be INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION, as these are projections BASED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS of fertility and mortality, and hence, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS GROWTH FIGURES THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ATTAINED. "

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:25:50 +0000

Part 3 5. Are you putting this practice in question? Are you saying the projections are wrong and should not be used to decide on matters affecting the Philippines? Sure, it they can be used to guide future decisions, but to based on projections something as BIG AS THE RH-BILL? KAYA NGA TINATANONG KITA ARE YOU WILLING TO BET YOUR LIFE THAT THESE WILL NOT CHANGE, since you are basing your propaganda against the RH BILL on very weak grounds. You keep ignoring and evading this question. May pa "DO NOT BE EVASIVE" ka pa, eh ikaw nga ang evasive. WHAT HYPOCRICY AND STUPIDITY.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:24:51 +0000

Part 2 3. Are you not aware that the NSCB make competent studies about the statistical data before they disseminate it? I AM AWARE AND THEY THEMSELVES ARE AWARE OF ITS LIMITATIONS. SOMETHING, YOU CONSISTENTLY IGNORE. AGAIN, YOU INTENTIONALLY DO THIS TO BE DECEPTIVE. 4. Are you not aware that the projections that the NSCB have come up with, include possible variations, but nevertheless make their projections according to sound statistics practices? YUP, THEY EVEN MAKE LOW VARIANTS AND HIGH VARIANTS, SINCE THEY THEMSELVES ARE AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECTIONS. NOW IF YOU TAKE THESE PROJECTIONS AS GOSPEL TRUTH, WHY THEN DOES THE NSCB ROUTINELY MAKES THREE PROJECTIONS?

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:24:13 +0000

(Part 1) Here's some answer for your stupidity Kiko: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. DO NOT BE EVASIVE. --------------------------------------- 1. Are you trying to correlate the situation in 1903 or even 1918 to our situation in 2011? Really? YES, I AM. YOU ARE COMPARING THE GROWTH RATE FROM 1970 to 2007, RIGHT? WHAT MAKES IT WRONG TO COMPARE THE GROWTH RATE IN 1903 to 2007? DOESN'T THAT GIVE A MORE COMPLETE AND CLEARER PICTURE? DO NOT BE DECEPTIVE BY TAKING PORTIONS OF DATA TO PROVE YOUR BASELESS PROPAGANDA. 2. ‘ANG POPULATION GROWTH RATE NG PILIPINAS AY ALMOST CONSISTENTLY GOING DOWN SINCE 1970 MASKI WALANG RH BILL.’ Is there anything in the post that was not true? YES, FOR THE MOST PART IT PLATEAUED. AND IF YOU TAKE THE WHOLE PICTURE SINCE WE STARTED TAKING CENSUS, THE GROWTH RATE GOES UP AND DOWN. NOT CONSISTENTLY DOWNWARDS AS YOU CONTEND WITH YOUR INCOMPLETE DATA.

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:40:07 +0000

Here's something from the NSCB. CAPS are added by me for emphasis. NSCB clarification: It must be stressed that the population growth rates reflected in the NSCB web page on population projections (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popnProj.asp) refer to the projected average annual rates of increase of the Philippine population for specific periods computed using exponential growth. Thus, the population growth rate of 1.82 percent represents the projected average annual rate of increase for the period 2010-2015. This figure and the other projected values from the table should be INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION, as these are projections BASED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS of fertility and mortality, and hence, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS GROWTH FIGURES THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ATTAINED. On the other hand, the growth figure of 2.36% mentioned in the article is the average annual population growth rate for 1995-2000 based on the actual 1995 and 2000 population census results. QUESTION TO KIKO: DID YOU FOLLOW THE NSCB ADVISE TO INTERPRET THE PROJECTIONS WITH CAUTION? In making your outrageous conclusions here, did you consider that the figures you are using as basis for your conclusions "are projections BASED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS of fertility and mortality, and hence, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS GROWTH FIGURES THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ATTAINED." I'l repeat THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ATTAINED. Therefore pwedeng magbago at pwede pang tumaas. Therefore hindi mo pwedeng gawing basehan sa conclusion mo na hindi na kailangan ng RH Bill dahil kusa ng bababa ang growth rate. IT SEEMS YOU IGNORED THIS STATEMENT COMING FROM THE NSCB ITSELF. If you did, then you are the one being PRETENTIOUS. Nakakahiya ka talaga. Shame on you!

Inquirer Opinion : RH research findings distorted

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:05:39 +0000

Please tell where I said that NSCB data is wrong. What I said is that the NSCB data COULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE and is a very weak ground for making outrageous CONCLUSIONS and PROPAGANDA that you keep promoting here. Stop misrepresenting my posts. Ha, no new arguments or evidence. Inulit na naman. Mere propaganda. Won't even refute the points I've raised. Eto basahin mo ulit: Another (and more complete) look at the population growth rates: 1903 7,635,426 2.87 Census 1918 10,314,310 2.03 Census 1939 16,000,303 2.11 Census 1948 19,234,182 2.07 Census 1960 27,087,685 2.89 Census 1970 36,684,486 3.08 Census 1975 42,070,660 2.78 Census 1980 48,098,460 2.71 Census 1990 60,703,206 2.35 Census 1995 68,616,536 2.32 Census 2000 76,504,077 2.36 Census 2007 88,574,614 2.04 Census What can be inferred from the above data: 1. The population growth rate in 2007 is just the same as it was in 1918 - no significant decline within 90 years! 2. The population growth rate has never gone down below 2% since we started taking a census which is for more than 100 years. 3. The growth rate has plateaued for the last two decades of the 20th century and has since dipped only slightly since then. Based on the past and actual data, it is reasonable to believe that the population growth rate will not decline significantly and continuously within the next 100 years without government intervention to meet UNMET family planning needs. Now let's look at earlier population projections and how undependable they are as basis for OUTRAGEOUS PROPAGANDA. I am presenting below projections based on the 1995 census and projections based on the 2000 census. See how the projections increased Year ------------------------------2000-----------2001-------------2002------------2003-----------2004-------------2005 based on 1995 census 76,320,126 77,898,184 79,476,245 81,054,304 82,636,689 84,214,747 based on 2000 census 76,946,500 78,568,100 80,217,200 81,877,700 83,558,700 85,261,000 Difference 626,374 669,916 740,955 823,396 922,011 1,046,253 Percent difference 0.82% 0.86% 0.93% 1.02% 1.12% 1.24% The above shows that projections CHANGE, since they are just PROJECTIONS. It is not being pretentious to bet that the current projections that are based from the 2007 census will change as well when a new census appears in the future. Sources: http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/datapopp... NOW KIKO, SINCE YOU DEPEND SO MUCH ON THE NSCB PROJECTIONS FOR YOUR OUTRAGEOUS PROPAGANDA, ARE YOU WILLING TO BET YOUR LIFE THAT THESE PROJECTIONS WILL NOT CHANGE? Your outrageous propaganda relies on past data which doesn't even show conclusively that the rate is indeed going down and on projected data that are subject to change and which the NSCB has advised to be taken with caution. I've presented evidence that supports both which you continue to ignore. You haven't offered any new argument to refute these ACTUAL FACTS and evidences and just continued harping on and repeating your same outrageous propaganda. Shows that your propaganda stands on very flimsy grounds indeed and the way you keep repeating them is only intended to fool and deceive people. SHAME ON YOU!