In reply to:


I don't think the percentage or the exact number is important to the point he was making.



I agree that the exact numbers are irrelevant, even one can be considered one too many.

But that sword cuts both ways.


However, if anyone makes claims that America has a right to be annoyed with someone because X of "our people" got killed, and the X you quote is wrong for all sorts of reasons - is the original claim still valid?

I think you have a right to be corrected if you make outrageous claims which are clearly and provably false.

For instance:

I could say 100% of everything Tony Blair (UK PM/Leader) says is utter rubbish.
But saying it does not make it so.

And if I am proved wrong and only 83% of everything that Tony Blair says is definately rubbish, then my claim that 100%... is clearly wrong.

If I originally said "at least 80% of everything Tony Blair says is rubbish" then whether it it was 81% or 99.99% *would* be irrelevant.


All I am doing is correcting the abuse of statistics.