Reply #74: So what we disagree on (perhaps) is whether or not there is a pattern here [View All]

Actually, I didn't even say that there was a pattern. In fact, I specifically said that I was not able to calculate probabilities because I don't know what the denominator should be.

The issue involves around how many of these six people (and I may have missed several people, as other posters have pointed out) should actually be considered, by an unbiased assessment, in the top 100 or 200 or whatever of the Bush Administration.

We both agree, I think, that a truly unbiased assessment of that should allow the calculation of a reasonably valid probability that these many suicides could have occurred by chance. One point where I disagree with you is that the assessment could not be retrospective. In fact, it would have to be retrospective if it were to be valid, since there would be no way to know in January of 2001 which people would pose the biggest threats to this administration. But that's besides the point.

We both agree that a truly unbiased assessment of this should come close to giving us a reasonably good answer. I think I would disagree with you that only one person that I talked about would be in the top 100. In fact, I don't doubt that all 6 of them would be. But I can't prove that, I admit, and that's why I left it as an open question in my OP.

I wish that some DUer could think of a reasonably objective way to make such an assessment, because I truly believe that it would provide us with some very interesting findings.