Liberals for censorship

A recent visitor to this site, the previously noted "libhomo" (goes by Godless Liberal Homo at his own blog), insisted that government figures cannot be trusted and that violence in Iraq has not subsided.

I paid a visit to his blog, found a post concerning the issue of violence in Iraq and found yet another liberal blogger who prefers to get the last word via censorship.

I don't go looking for these people, mind you. That is, folks who delete comments to keep the content at their blog sufficiently pure. Maybe I should take screenshots as a matter of routine. My timing was good, though. I didn't get a copy of the first comment that was deleted, but the perpetrator was caught in the act later on.



In the "This post has been deleted by the blog administrator" spot, I had pointed out that the abandonment of random sampling did not, as libhom ridiculously claimed "The exception for the most violent areas means that the numbers in the Lancet study are minimums." It means that the study is not scientific, just as when I do a survey of spiders in the nearby woods and choose my sample area other than randomly (like if I choose a nice spidery spot to do my counting).

I also provided a quotation from a pollster quoted in the Wall Street Journal regarding the small number of clusters used in the study.

What better way to refute the criticism than make it disappear!

I followed up with another comment while still under the impression that I was engaged in a good faith discussion.

Before-and-afters (click images to enlarge):




Now you see it.



Now you don't. It's like magic!


Note: Traded out .png images for .jpg since the former didn't work out so well.

*****