Sam, I have been doing my best to ignore you and no doubt this makes me an asshole too. But here is one more attempt to explain things to you before I write you off again as a terminally closed mind. Discussion is great and I enjoy it. So apparently do you. But you seem to think that it suffices to show that there is another point of view out there, regardless of the validity or accuracy of that point of view. You can't post Rush Limbaugh in answer to the British Medical Journal (for example) and expect people to take you seriously. I am wondering why I am bothering as I write this -- no doubt you will construe it as me calling you stupid -- but I see you as a kind of symptom of what is wrong with the country right now, a polarization of information where an entire segment of society believes things that are demonstrably false. If you really want to prove that abstinence lowers the birth rate, I'd suggest a link from a medical or possibly a sociology journal. I say this without sarcasm. Waxman can certainly be legitimately suspected of having an agenda if you are so minded, but are his facts wrong???
Dana On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:34:43 -0800 (PST), Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was still just one study using 695 people. > > But, if you're going to be an asshole everytime > someone doesn't agree with you then I'll drop it. > > Have a nice weekend. > > -sm > > > > --- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Nope it doesn't say that at all. "There were > > significantly fewer > > pregnancies in young > > women who received a multifaceted programme > > (0.41;0.20 to 0.83), > > though baseline differences in thisstudy favoured > > the intervention." > > > > Significantly fewer mean that if you could replicate > > this study an > > infinite number of times, getting these results > > would occur in over 95 > > % of the time. > > > > In other words the girls going through the > > multifacited programmes > > were less likely to get pregnant. > > > > At the same time there was a positive association > > (significant > > correlation in other words) between being partnered > > with a male > > graduate of an abstinance program and getting > > pregnant. > > > > I have neither the time nor the interest to discuss > > what you're > > missing and at what fundimental level. The full > > article I referenced > > is on the web, carefully study it. Also study and > > understand their > > methodology a case controlled meta-analysis, (hint, > > try an on-line > > article I wrote > > http://www.lyonsmorris.com/MetaA/index.htm) then > > read > > Cook and Campbell's book on quasi-experimental > > designs. Otherwise I > > really don't want to bother trying to correct your > > fundimental > > misunderstandings. I have better things to do. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:138772 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
