Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:37 pm

lovedust wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
color me intrigued

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

Thanks .....isn`t that a link to the study ?

@ whats the problem didge

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:37 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point

Didge it doesn't prove your point; the overall suicide rate decreased at this time.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:37 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Didge wrote:

Sadly, lovedust proved my point, it showed vast increases in other methods:

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Statistics and numbers on certain methods of suicides shift Didge, , they never stay stagnant.

Well as seen they actually increased Joy, the only decrease was in the method shown, so again it shows that unless you take away all methods people will still have ways to sadly end their lives.
hence why best prevention is from the help method

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:39 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945
Thanks .....isn`t that a link to the study ?

@ whats the problem didge

Try read it as it may help, here I will help you:

A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content. After considering data on the effects of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Eighth Revision, accident mortality, some personal characteristics of coal gas suicides, and the use of coal gas in parasuicide it was concluded that a simple casual explantation was likely. Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes. The 'compensatory' trend of gas and non-gas suicide rates was indicated for certain age-sex subgroups. The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:44 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
Thanks .....isn`t that a link to the study ?

@ whats the problem didge

Try read it as it may help, here I will help you:

A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content. After considering data on the effects of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Eighth Revision, accident mortality, some personal characteristics of coal gas suicides, and the use of coal gas in parasuicide it was concluded that a simple casual explantation was likely. Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes. The 'compensatory' trend of gas and non-gas suicide rates was indicated for certain age-sex subgroups. The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

so in the 1960 - 1971 when we were installing electricity in newer homes the suicide rate fell ..........kind of like putting a net round the bridge in a way
You remove the method and suicide rates drop?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:44 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point

Didge it doesn't prove your point; the overall suicide rate decreased at this time.

It does not claim that, you are going off your precious link which as seen is wrong!
The only decrease was in the method with gas, it did not even stop all using gas as seen, did it?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:45 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Try read it as it may help, here I will help you:

A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content. After considering data on the effects of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Eighth Revision, accident mortality, some personal characteristics of coal gas suicides, and the use of coal gas in parasuicide it was concluded that a simple casual explantation was likely. Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes. The 'compensatory' trend of gas and non-gas suicide rates was indicated for certain age-sex subgroups. The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.
so in the 1960 - 1971 when we were installing electricity in newer homes the suicide rate fell ..........kind of like putting a net round the bridge in a way
You remove the method and suicide rates drop?

Absurd, again other methods increased, so all this did was have people choose different methods when they could not use this as a means to end their lives!
The suicide rate only fell using this method

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:48 pm

So one thing we have seen very clear from the original claim of the so called expert, he lied or at best was misleading in their claim suicide rates fell overall, they only fell in this method and as seen increased o other methods and vastly in some of them!

Hence people need to look into such things and research more closely instead of going off the back of so called expert claims

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:49 pm

Of course Didge: the fact that suicide as a whole in a country where a third of people killed themselves b y gas declined by 25% rather than 33% when that gas ceased to be available means that suicide by other methods increased in rate.

But the suicide rate as a whole declined 25% and knowledgeable sources have concluded the removal of coal gas has been a factor.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:51 pm

lovedust wrote:Of course Didge: the fact that suicide as a whole in a country where a third of people killed themselves b y gas declined by 25% rather than 33% when that gas ceased to be available means that suicide by other methods increased in rate.

But the suicide rate as a whole declined 25% and knowledgeable sources have concluded the removal of coal gas has been a factor.

That is utter gobbldeygook Lovedust!

Show me the numbers that died from suicide over these years?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
so in the 1960 - 1971 when we were installing electricity in newer homes the suicide rate fell ..........kind of like putting a net round the bridge in a way
You remove the method and suicide rates drop?

Absurd, again other methods increased, so all this did was have people choose different methods when they could not use this as a means to end their lives!
The suicide rate only fell using this method

The suicide rate for both genders reached a post-war peak in the early 1960s. Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas, which was being detoxified at this time. McClure (1984) reported a reversal of the decline in rates between 1975 and 1980, and demonstrated that this was not due to changes in the recording of ‘undetermined’ deaths or ‘accidental deaths’ by causes similar to suicide. The continuing increase in suicide rates for males of all ages in England and Wales was due principally to an increase in the 25- to 54-year age group (McClure, 1987). Kelley & Bunting (1998) noted a decrease in suicide rate in England and Wales between 1991 and 1996, which was related to a decrease in the proportion of suicides attributed to poisoning with motor vehicle exhaust gas.

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost - Page 10 F1_med10

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost - Page 10 F1_med10

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/1/64.long

by Stephenmarra Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:55 pm

And yet Quill who lives closest and apparently has an active interest in the bridge has welcomed the net despite the cost. So why is that ?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:57 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Absurd, again other methods increased, so all this did was have people choose different methods when they could not use this as a means to end their lives!
The suicide rate only fell using this method

The suicide rate for both genders reached a post-war peak in the early 1960s. Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas, which was being detoxified at this time. McClure (1984) reported a reversal of the decline in rates between 1975 and 1980, and demonstrated that this was not due to changes in the recording of ‘undetermined’ deaths or ‘accidental deaths’ by causes similar to suicide. The continuing increase in suicide rates for males of all ages in England and Wales was due principally to an increase in the 25- to 54-year age group (McClure, 1987). Kelley & Bunting (1998) noted a decrease in suicide rate in England and Wales between 1991 and 1996, which was related to a decrease in the proportion of suicides attributed to poisoning with motor vehicle exhaust gas.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/1/64.long

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:58 pm

Again look how it has been increasing since the recession?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21141815

Clearly people badly and wrongly associate methods as a reason for declines

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:01 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:Of course Didge: the fact that suicide as a whole in a country where a third of people killed themselves b y gas declined by 25% rather than 33% when that gas ceased to be available means that suicide by other methods increased in rate.

But the suicide rate as a whole declined 25% and knowledgeable sources have concluded the removal of coal gas has been a factor.

That is utter gobbldeygook Lovedust!

Show me the numbers that died from suicide over these years?

you seem to be stuck on the method rather than the actual act itself
yes the method increased and to be honest, that's not even true
The methods have always been available,
But it was obviously easy to just jump off the bridge, but over all the act of suicide diminished

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:03 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is utter gobbldeygook Lovedust!

Show me the numbers that died from suicide over these years?
you seem to be stuck on the method rather than the actual act itself
yes the method increased and to be honest, that's not even true
The methods have always been available,
But it was obviously easy to just jump off the bridge, but over all the act of suicide diminished

yes but was it because of the claim made?

No, as seen there are many factors, and you fucked up big time.

If suicide diminished it has increased today, so why would it increase if you claim the prevention of methods helped?

It shows such thinking is utterly flawed, it shows if people have intent, they will use any method available!

This is why such claims are very misleading to say because you stop something it will decrease suicides overall, it does not as seen
Also what you ignore is also how people intervention has helped, you fail to factor in any of the help programs or groups that help, showing again how bad people are with methodology on this!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:07 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:

The suicide rate for both genders reached a post-war peak in the early 1960s. Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas, which was being detoxified at this time. McClure (1984) reported a reversal of the decline in rates between 1975 and 1980, and demonstrated that this was not due to changes in the recording of ‘undetermined’ deaths or ‘accidental deaths’ by causes similar to suicide. The continuing increase in suicide rates for males of all ages in England and Wales was due principally to an increase in the 25- to 54-year age group (McClure, 1987). Kelley & Bunting (1998) noted a decrease in suicide rate in England and Wales between 1991 and 1996, which was related to a decrease in the proportion of suicides attributed to poisoning with motor vehicle exhaust gas.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/1/64.long

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!

i am not trying to score goals

Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas ...thats what it says thats what i think she said ...

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:11 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!
i am not trying to score goals

Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas ...thats what it says thats what i think she said ...

And then they increase again in men, so clearly the method had little affect on why suicide attempts increase and decrease, where she is claiming because a method has been prevented is the cause of the decline in attempts, which gain is absurd n as seen flawed.
Today we re seeing increases again, it shows that people poorly look at one aspect and think that is the reason, they fail to factor in many points.

Looking also at the graph, there is no way it feel from 1969 to 1974 by 25% either, thus gin misleading!

So did she factor in help programs or groups?
Economic situations?
Poverty levels?

Sorry this is why such claims are as seen poor when people look at things in black and white

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:13 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!
i am not trying to score goals

Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas ...thats what it says thats what i think she said ...

I suggest you look at the graph again.

For men from 1970 to 1975, it stays very much the same, it dips slightly and increase slightly, dips again then continues to increase. thus such views on the gas are flawed
No you claim it is associated with domestic gs, nothing proves that it was, hence the last point made:

The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:17 pm

I might add, it had been dramatically falling before the gas measure as well, showing again how people wrongly make poor assumptions, thus you need to research more into the trends, not make poor associations to try and fit something!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:19 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
i am not trying to score goals

Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas ...thats what it says thats what i think she said ...

I suggest you look at the graph again.

For men from 1970 to 1975, it stays very much the same, it dips slightly and increase slightly.
No you claim it is associated with domestic gs, nothing proves that it was, hence the last point made:

The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

"They" claim

↵
Dooley, E. (1990) Prison suicide in England and Wales, 1972-87. British Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 40-45.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
Government Statistical Service (1993) Social Trends. London: HMSO.
↵
Kelly, S. & Bunting, J. (1998) Trends in suicide in England and Wales, 1982-96. Population Trends, 92, 29 -41.
Medline
↵
Kendell, R. E. (1998) Catalytic converters and prevention of suicide. Lancet, 352, 1525.
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1984) Trends in suicide rate for England and Wales, 1975-80. British Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 119 -126.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1987) Suicide in England and Wales, 1975-1984. British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 309 -314.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1994) Suicide in children and adolescents in England and Wales, 1960-1990. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 510 -514.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1999) An integrative systems model. In Family Matters: Interfaces between Child and Adult Mental Health (eds P. Reder, M. McClure & T. Jolley). London: Routledge, in press.
↵
Office for National Statistics (1991-1997) Mortality Statistics: Cause. London: HMSO.
↵
Office for National Statistics (1999) Social Trends. London: Stationery Office.
↵
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1974-1990) Mortality Statistics: Cause. London: HMSO.
↵
Pritchard, C. (1992) Is there a link between suicide in young men and unemployment? A comparison of the UK with other European Community countries. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 750 -756.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
Registrar General's Office (1960-1973) Registrar General's Statistical Review for England and Wales: Part I: Tables (Medical). London: HMSO.
↵
Royal College of Psychiatrists (1992) Mental Health of the Nation. The Contribution of Psychiatry. A Report of the President's Working Group. Council Report CR16. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.
↵
Secretary of State for Health (1992) The Health of the Nation: A Strategy for Health in England. London: HMSO.
↵
World Health Organization (1992) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Geneva: WHO.

I am not qualified to argue with published papers or esteemed institutions on the subject and all the research on the subject I have found indicate a causal link

that is contrary to your "unqualified" opinion

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:20 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:

The suicide rate for both genders reached a post-war peak in the early 1960s. Rates then declined steadily in both genders between 1963 and 1975. The overall decrease in suicide rate was associated with a decrease in poisoning by domestic gas, which was being detoxified at this time. McClure (1984) reported a reversal of the decline in rates between 1975 and 1980, and demonstrated that this was not due to changes in the recording of ‘undetermined’ deaths or ‘accidental deaths’ by causes similar to suicide. The continuing increase in suicide rates for males of all ages in England and Wales was due principally to an increase in the 25- to 54-year age group (McClure, 1987). Kelley & Bunting (1998) noted a decrease in suicide rate in England and Wales between 1991 and 1996, which was related to a decrease in the proportion of suicides attributed to poisoning with motor vehicle exhaust gas.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/1/64.long

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!

Didge:

1) you disputed any real authority would back the claim a fall in suicide rates was causally related to the removal of co gas.
2) When I pointed out the NCBI article claimed suicide overall declined 1960-1971, you started talking about the rise in suicide by other methods, as if that altered the UK suicides overall declined 1960 - 1971.
3) When KD posted a British J ournal of psychiatry which also claims suicide rates declined 1963 - 1975, you switch and start talking about 1975, a year for which no claims have been made. Why?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:21 pm

Really, then explain why it was already decreasing before and why they stated this:

The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

It makes me laugh how people go off something and not look deeper, I suggest you look further than black and white, because as stated it was already falling before 1969

Try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:24 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!

Didge:

1) you disputed any real authority would back the claim a fall in suicide rates was causally related to the removal of co gas.
2) When I pointed out the NCBI article claimed suicide overall declined 1960-1971, you started talking about the rise in suicide by other methods, as if that altered the UK suicides overall declined 1960 - 1971.
3) When KD posted a British J ournal of psychiatry which also claims suicide rates declined 1963 - 1975, you switch and start talking about 1975, a year for which no claims have been made. Why?

They hardly declined over that period, seriously can you not look at graphs?
As seen I rebuked your claim, because you go off a trend which was already falling, it bases this off 5 years and fails to explain over years and why it also starts to increase again..
So methods did increase in other methods, how you can base this off just one method being the reason is flawed, did you take other factors into account like human preventive measures.

try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:25 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Thanks again for the graph, look how they dramatically increase from mid 1970's the point I made, it shows to rely on a false claim to associate with a method shows how badly people look at things

Epic own goal

So again basing a view the method helped stop suicide shows that view is utterly flawed, thus other factors clearly play a part

Thanks buddy!

Didge:

1) you disputed any real authority would back the claim a fall in suicide rates was causally related to the removal of co gas.
2) When I pointed out the NCBI article claimed suicide overall declined 1960-1971, you started talking about the rise in suicide by other methods, as if that altered the UK suicides overall declined 1960 - 1971.
3) When KD posted a British Journal of Psychiatry article which also claims suicide rates declined 1963 - 1975, you switched and started talking about 1975, a year for which no claims have been made. Why?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:25 pm

lovedust wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Didge:

1) you disputed any real authority would back the claim a fall in suicide rates was causally related to the removal of co gas.
2) When I pointed out the NCBI article claimed suicide overall declined 1960-1971, you started talking about the rise in suicide by other methods, as if that altered the UK suicides overall declined 1960 - 1971.
3) When KD posted a British Journal of Psychiatry article which also claims suicide rates declined 1963 - 1975, you switched and started talking about 1975, a year for which no claims have been made. Why?

They hardly declined over that period, seriously can you not look at graphs?
As seen I rebuked your claim, because you go off a trend which was already falling, it bases this off 5 years and fails to explain over years and why it also starts to increase again..
So methods did increase in other methods, how you can base this off just one method being the reason is flawed, did you take other factors into account like human preventive measures.

try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:26 pm

Didge wrote:Really, then explain why it was already decreasing before and why they stated this:

The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

It makes me laugh how people go off something and not look deeper, I suggest you look further than black and white, because as stated it was already falling before 1969

Try again

The continuing need for research is always warranted, why is that a problem you don't just arrive at a set of facts and leave it at that
that way you don't learn anything new

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:27 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:Really, then explain why it was already decreasing before and why they stated this:

The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

It makes me laugh how people go off something and not look deeper, I suggest you look further than black and white, because as stated it was already falling before 1969

Try again
The continuing need for research is always warranted, why is that a problem you don't just arrive at a set of facts and leave it at that
that way you don't learn anything new

You have not presented facts, but opinions, or do you not understand the difference?

Try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:30 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

They hardly declined over that period, seriously can you not look at graphs?
As seen I rebuked your claim, because you go off a trend which was already falling, it bases this off 5 years and fails to explain over years and why it also starts to increase again..
So methods did increase in other methods, how you can base this off just one method being the reason is flawed, did you take other factors into account like human preventive measures.

try again

there you go again methods i don't think there as any dispute as to methods
but during the time in question 60s 70 s suicide rates fell and experts in the subject with access to more data attribute that to detoxification of gas

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:33 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

They hardly declined over that period, seriously can you not look at graphs?
As seen I rebuked your claim, because you go off a trend which was already falling, it bases this off 5 years and fails to explain over years and why it also starts to increase again..
So methods did increase in other methods, how you can base this off just one method being the reason is flawed, did you take other factors into account like human preventive measures.

try again
there you go again methods i don't think there as any dispute as to methods
but during the time in question 60s 70 s suicide rates fell and experts in the subject with access to more data attribute that to detoxification of gas

No experts have given a hypothetical view as to what they perceive might have been the cause of the decrease, or again do you not understand the difference?
They even state very clearly also other methods increased
Seriously, you really are going off opinions, not facts, where again it was already decreasing before 1969, where gain it increase for men after 1975, which clearly shows other factors are playing a part, which it seems you cannot even see or understand.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:34 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

They hardly declined over that period, seriously can you not look at graphs?
As seen I rebuked your claim, because you go off a trend which was already falling, it bases this off 5 years and fails to explain over years and why it also starts to increase again..
So methods did increase in other methods, how you can base this off just one method being the reason is flawed, did you take other factors into account like human preventive measures.

try again

But you're no longer contesting they did decline from the early sixties to the mid-seventies?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:34 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
The continuing need for research is always warranted, why is that a problem you don't just arrive at a set of facts and leave it at that
that way you don't learn anything new

You have not presented facts, but opinions, or do you not understand the difference?

Try again

i have present lots of facts and indeed references to published papers
You sadly have not all we have had is your "opinion" of those facts which is in direct contradiction with the published experts who site a link between the two

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:36 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

They hardly declined over that period, seriously can you not look at graphs?
As seen I rebuked your claim, because you go off a trend which was already falling, it bases this off 5 years and fails to explain over years and why it also starts to increase again..
So methods did increase in other methods, how you can base this off just one method being the reason is flawed, did you take other factors into account like human preventive measures.

try again

But you're no longer contesting they did decline from the early sixties to the mid-seventies?

Is that what you are hinging on?
Your claim was on 1969, not early 1960's, so what do you account for the fall before and then the increase after 1975?
You see this is why it is flawed to look at a select period, when you have to look over a much larger time frame and then factor in the many points I stated already.

It certainly was not a decrease of 25% as you claimed over 1969 to 1974, which was your claim, as seen, that was complete balderdash!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:38 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

You have not presented facts, but opinions, or do you not understand the difference?

Try again
i have present lots of facts and indeed references to published papers
You sadly have not all we have had is your "opinion" of those facts which is in direct contradiction with the published experts who site a link between the two

Wow

That really shows you do not understand a hypothesis, where the only facts are numbers decreasing and increasing, the rest is based on opinion.
So basically you are talking balderdash!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:38 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
there you go again methods i don't think there as any dispute as to methods
but during the time in question 60s 70 s suicide rates fell and experts in the subject with access to more data attribute that to detoxification of gas

No experts have given a hypothetical view as to what they perceive might have been the cause of the decrease, or again do you not understand the difference?
They even state very clearly also other methods increased
Seriously, you really are going off opinions, not facts, where again it was already decreasing before 1969, where gain it increase for men after 1975, which clearly shows other factors are playing a part, which it seems you cannot even see or understand.

Didge you asked for a study, I linked you to a 93 page study.

2)Y ou denied the overall rate declined 1961-1970, KD offered a British Journal of Psychiatry article backing up the overall rate declined 1963-1975.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:40 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

No experts have given a hypothetical view as to what they perceive might have been the cause of the decrease, or again do you not understand the difference?
They even state very clearly also other methods increased
Seriously, you really are going off opinions, not facts, where again it was already decreasing before 1969, where gain it increase for men after 1975, which clearly shows other factors are playing a part, which it seems you cannot even see or understand.

Didge you asked for a study, I linked you to a 93 page study.

2)Y ou denied the overall rate declined 1961-1970, KD offered a British Journal of Psychiatry article backing up the overall rate declined.

No I denied your claim of an overall decrease of 25%.

I suggest you read back, so do you now admit your claim is wrong on 25% over 1969-1974?

It is there for all to see, you now have changed the time frame also to your original claim!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:45 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
i have present lots of facts and indeed references to published papers
You sadly have not all we have had is your "opinion" of those facts which is in direct contradiction with the published experts who site a link between the two

Wow

That really shows you do not understand a hypothesis, where the only facts are numbers decreasing and increasing, the rest is based on opinion.
So basically you are talking balderdash!

No what it shows is that you think you know better than experts who say there is a link and say so across multiple published papers
I look forward to you published a paper on the subject and will read it with... interest

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:47 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Wow

That really shows you do not understand a hypothesis, where the only facts are numbers decreasing and increasing, the rest is based on opinion.
So basically you are talking balderdash!
No what it shows is that you think you know better than experts who say there is a link and say so across multiple published papers
I look forward to you published a paper on the subject and will read it with... interest

Divergence alert again, no I work as a risk analyst, that means I am an expert on research and am paid very well for it thanks, thus I understand many aspects, which you do not understand.

Seriously learn to grow up, if you do not understand something you are debating!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:48 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

But you're no longer contesting they did decline from the early sixties to the mid-seventies?

Is that what you are hinging on?
Your claim was on 1969, not early 1960's, so what do you account for the fall before and then the increase after 1975?
You see this is why it is flawed to look at a select period, when you have to look over a much larger time frame and then factor in the many points I stated already.

It certainly was not a decrease of 25% as you claimed over 1969 to 1974, which was your claim, as seen, that was complete balderdash!

No Didge: the statistics I gave you were in a study entitled: THE COAL GAS STORY - UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES 1960 - 1971.

Your initial counter was to point out the study suggested suicide by other methods had gone up, which it indeed did, but it also concluded the overall suicide rate 1960 - 1971 declined.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:51 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Is that what you are hinging on?
Your claim was on 1969, not early 1960's, so what do you account for the fall before and then the increase after 1975?
You see this is why it is flawed to look at a select period, when you have to look over a much larger time frame and then factor in the many points I stated already.

It certainly was not a decrease of 25% as you claimed over 1969 to 1974, which was your claim, as seen, that was complete balderdash!

No Didge: the statistics I gave you were in a study entitled: THE COAL GAS STORY - UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES 1960 - 1971.

Your initial counter was to point out the study suggested suicide by other methods had gone up, which it indeed did, but it also concluded the overall suicide rate 1960 - 1971 declined.

Okay I will agree it decreased over that time frame, but:

Your study shows only a decrease for a set period of time, it then increases again which then rules out a claim on method, where again it is increasing gain today, the many points I have made which you have failed to answer.
So you are poorly assuming it was because of a change to gas why suicides decreased, did you factor in human intervention programs and groups, economies, poverty etc?
No

Explain to me why it started to increase after 1975 again and why so again today?

Try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:56 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
No what it shows is that you think you know better than experts who say there is a link and say so across multiple published papers
I look forward to you published a paper on the subject and will read it with... interest

Divergence alert again, no I work as a risk analyst, that means I am an expert on research and am paid very well for it thanks, thus I understand many aspects, which you do not understand.

Seriously learn to grow up, if you do not understand something you are debating!

i am pretty sure i haven`t resorted to insults........ However

risk management eh

Certain aspects of many of the risk management standards have come under criticism for having no measurable improvement on risk

Or basically some times you just don`t have a clue
And you would expect someone in risk management to take the advice and conclusions of experts in the field (who site a link )and more qualified and familiar with the subject that a risk management bod

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:59 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Divergence alert again, no I work as a risk analyst, that means I am an expert on research and am paid very well for it thanks, thus I understand many aspects, which you do not understand.

Seriously learn to grow up, if you do not understand something you are debating!
i am pretty sure i haven`t resorted to insults........ However

risk management eh

Certain aspects of many of the risk management standards have come under criticism for having no measurable improvement on risk

Or basically some times you just don`t have a clue
And you would expect someone in risk management to take the advice and conclusions of experts in the field (who site a link )and more qualified and familiar with the subject that a risk management bod

PMSL, again that is your poorly held opinion, this whole study is based upon risk, or did you not realise this, so you are now saying as I am saying this study is flawed, based on your view of criticism to risk management even though I am a risk analyst.

You need to make up your mind what you are debating and yes you did act childish over claims to fonts.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:10 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
i am pretty sure i haven`t resorted to insults........ However

risk management eh

Certain aspects of many of the risk management standards have come under criticism for having no measurable improvement on risk

Or basically some times you just don`t have a clue
And you would expect someone in risk management to take the advice and conclusions of experts in the field (who site a link )and more qualified and familiar with the subject that a risk management bod

PMSL, again that is your poorly held opinion, this whole study is based upon risk, or did you not realise this, so you are now saying as I am saying this study is flawed.

You need to make up your mind what you are debating and yes you did act childish over claims to fonts.

you can say its flawed all you like, but unfortunately, since you have nether qualifications or published papers on the subject
that is your "unqualified opinion "

it is generally considered that large fonts in a reply is shouting and indicate a loss of temper and loosing of the argument and is bad etiquette as it as it did in your case gave (i assume )the wrong impression

Nothing childish about pointing that out, however resorting to name calling and insults is very very childish
And it's just bad form all round

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:16 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

PMSL, again that is your poorly held opinion, this whole study is based upon risk, or did you not realise this, so you are now saying as I am saying this study is flawed.

You need to make up your mind what you are debating and yes you did act childish over claims to fonts.

you can say its flawed all you like, but unfortunately, since you have nether qualifications or published papers on the subject
that is your "unqualified opinion "

I have many qualifications which you have no idea what I have, so that is absurd to claim also
I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

it is generally considered that large fonts in a reply is shouting and indicate a loss of temper and loosing of the argument and is bad etiquette as it as it did in your case gave (i assume )the wrong impression
Well done glad you recognized your poor error, because as seen when you copy something it already has a font and size, I do not bother to check, but it seems this irrelevant point is all you have to your childish digression

Nothing childish about pointing that out, however resorting to name calling and insults is very very childish
And it's just bad form all round

It is diverting from the topic, it shows you want to digress from the debate, so it is very childish in all forms

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:47 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
you can say its flawed all you like, but unfortunately, since you have nether qualifications or published papers on the subject
that is your "unqualified opinion "

I have many qualifications " allegedly " which you have no idea what I have, so that is absurd to claim also

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

it is generally considered that large fonts in a reply is shouting and indicate a loss of temper and loosing of the argument and is bad etiquette as it as it did in your case gave (i assume )the wrong impression
Well done glad you recognized your poor error, because as seen when you copy something it already has a font and size, I do not bother to check, but it seems this irrelevant point is all you have to your childish digression

Nothing childish about pointing that out, however resorting to name calling and insults is very very childish
And it's just bad form all round

It is diverting from the topic, it shows you want to digress from the debate, so it is very childish in all forms

yes All you seem to be saying me me me i am better that the actual experts who disagree with your so undemonstrated qualifications and unpublished opinion

me i am a qualified astronaut been in space loads

But you on your own as far as I can see
Are disputing the findings of the published and qualified experts and more than one expert at that

you know better than theDooley, E. (1990) Prison suicide in England and Wales, 1972-87. British Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 40-45.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
you know better than theGovernment Statistical Service (1993) Social Trends. London: HMSO.
↵
you know better than theKelly, S. & Bunting, J. (1998) Trends in suicide in England and Wales, 1982-96. Population Trends, 92, 29 -41.
Medline
↵
you know better than theKendell, R. E. (1998) Catalytic converters and prevention of suicide. Lancet, 352, 1525.
↵
you know better than theMcClure, G. M. G. (1984) Trends in suicide rate for England and Wales, 1975-80. British Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 119 -126.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
you know better than theMcClure, G. M. G. (1987) Suicide in England and Wales, 1975-1984. British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 309 -314.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
you know better than theMcClure, G. M. G. (1994) Suicide in children and adolescents in England and Wales, 1960-1990. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 510 -514.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
you know better than theMcClure, G. M. G. (1999) An integrative systems model. In Family Matters: Interfaces between Child and Adult Mental Health (eds P. Reder, M. McClure & T. Jolley). London: Routledge, in press.
↵
you know better than theOffice for National Statistics (1991-1997) Mortality Statistics: Cause. London: HMSO.
↵
you know better than theOffice for National Statistics (1999) Social Trends. London: Stationery Office.
↵
you know better than theOffice of Population Censuses and Surveys (1974-1990) Mortality Statistics: Cause. London: HMSO.
↵
you know better than thePritchard, C. (1992) Is there a link between suicide in young men and unemployment? A comparison of the UK with other European Community countries. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 750 -756.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
you know better than theRegistrar General's Office (1960-1973) Registrar General's Statistical Review for England and Wales: Part I: Tables (Medical). London: HMSO.
↵
you know better than theRoyal College of Psychiatrists (1992) Mental Health of the Nation. The Contribution of Psychiatry. A Report of the President's Working Group. Council Report CR16. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.
↵
you know better than theSecretary of State for Health (1992) The Health of the Nation: A Strategy for Health in England. London: HMSO.
↵
you know better than the World Health Organization (1992) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Geneva: WHO.

And you know better because your a risk management bod with unverifiable credentials :::grouch::

Yep sorry still going with the above experts

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:57 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

It is diverting from the topic, it shows you want to digress from the debate, so it is very childish in all forms
yes All you seem to be saying me me me i am better that the actual experts who disagree with your so undemonstrated qualifications and unpublished opinion

me i am a qualified astronaut been in space loads

But you on your own as far as I can see
Are disputing the findings of the published and qualified experts and more than one expert at that

Yep sorry still going with the above experts

PMSL again, you pick some as if that back your view world wide?

Are you saying every expert now agrees with these views?

One moment:

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Seriously, is that your counter to counter my points?
You have not even posted their views with evidence and now expect me to debate others and not yourself

Wow, you really are desperate it seems.
You still fail to grasp, that the link they propose is nothing more than suggestive,

I m not concerned whether you believe what I have qualifications in, hence the view you have no idea, we all know you snoop people being a computer geek, yet it seems you cannot refute the points I have given by even showing what the experts says you have presented, so you need to try again and if you like show based upon what I stated.

Here I will help you again

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

Try again

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:15 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
yes All you seem to be saying me me me i am better that the actual experts who disagree with your so undemonstrated qualifications and unpublished opinion

me i am a qualified astronaut been in space loads

But you on your own as far as I can see
Are disputing the findings of the published and qualified experts and more than one expert at that

Yep sorry still going with the above experts

PMSL again, you pick some as if that back your view world wide?

Are you saying every expert now agrees with these views?

One moment:

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Seriously, is that your counter to counter my points?
You have not even posted their views with evidence and now expect me to debate others and not yourself

Wow, you really are desperate it seems.
You still fail to grasp, that the link they propose is nothing more than suggestive,

I m not concerned whether you believe what I have qualifications in, we all know you snoop people being a computer geek, yet it seems you cannot refute the points I have given by even showing what the experts says you have presented, so you need to try again and if you like show based upon what I stated.

Here I will help you again

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

Try again

well you could cite an expert who supports your assertion .........i can wait
I noticed you removed the list of experts k

But if you are going to reply please don't edit information out of my posts as they go to context
And in this context its all the experts who in "your" infinite wisdom disagree with based on the only fact your a risk management bod

Can't face or refute the facts i guess so best to remove them eh!!

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:22 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

PMSL again, you pick some as if that back your view world wide?

Are you saying every expert now agrees with these views?

One moment:

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Seriously, is that your counter to counter my points?
You have not even posted their views with evidence and now expect me to debate others and not yourself

Wow, you really are desperate it seems.
You still fail to grasp, that the link they propose is nothing more than suggestive,

I m not concerned whether you believe what I have qualifications in, we all know you snoop people being a computer geek, yet it seems you cannot refute the points I have given by even showing what the experts says you have presented, so you need to try again and if you like show based upon what I stated.

Here I will help you again

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

Try again
well you could cite an expert who supports your assertion .........i can wait
I noticed you removed the list of experts k

But if you are going to reply please don't edit information out of my posts as they go to context
And in this context its all the experts who in "your" infinite wisdom disagree with based on the only fact your a risk management bod

Can't face or refute the facts i guess so best to remove them eh!!

I removed it because it takes up space when scrolling down, even more so when you have already posted them an just are repeating yourself, making them redundant to further debate. It is that simple and is my reply to do as I choose, you are not a moderator here, get used to that fact, they are still there so that is a really daft assumption on your part and even more desperate, that you seek to digress on something so stupid. You posted names, which have no relevance unless you can back up their views, as the names are not going to vanish from your post are they
PMSL

Man you so badly try to weasel out of answering, I love it, you never change do you

So again you offer nothing from your experts you claim back the view, with evidence and what they actually say and offer no answers to my points.
Thus it seems you want me to debate people not here, how dumb can you get, How desperate are you, it shows again you know nothing on this subject?
Let me get this through to you, I am debating you, that means you can use expert opinion to back your points, as i will, not ask me to debate people who are not here, who , is that clear?

Thus proving you are wasting my time and proves you know sod all on this.

So again

You still fail to grasp, that the link they propose is nothing more than suggestive,

I m not concerned whether you believe what I have qualifications in, we all know you snoop people being a computer geek, yet it seems you cannot refute the points I have given by even showing what the experts says you have presented, so you need to try again and if you like show based upon what I stated.

Here I will help you again

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:10 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
well you could cite an expert who supports your assertion .........i can wait
I noticed you removed the list of experts k

But if you are going to reply please don't edit information out of my posts as they go to context
And in this context its all the experts who in "your" infinite wisdom disagree with based on the only fact your a risk management bod

Can't face or refute the facts i guess so best to remove them eh!!

I removed it because it takes up space when scrolling down, even more so when you have already posted them an just are repeating yourself, making them redundant to further debate. It is that simple and is my reply to do as I choose, you are not a moderator here, get used to that fact, they are still there so that is a really daft assumption on your part and even more desperate, that you seek to digress on something so stupid. You posted names, which have no relevance unless you can back up their views, as the names are not going to vanish from your post are they
PMSL

Man you so badly try to weasel out of answering, I love it, you never change do you

So again you offer nothing from your experts you claim back the view, with evidence and what they actually say and offer no answers to my points.
Thus it seems you want me to debate people not here, how dumb can you get, How desperate are you, it shows again you know nothing on this subject?
Let me get this through to you, I am debating you, that means you can use expert opinion to back your points, as i will, not ask me to debate people who are not here, who , is that clear?

Thus proving you are wasting my time and proves you know sod all on this.

So again

You still fail to grasp, that the link they propose is nothing more than suggestive,

I m not concerned whether you believe what I have qualifications in, we all know you snoop people being a computer geek, yet it seems you cannot refute the points I have given by even showing what the experts says you have presented, so you need to try again and if you like show based upon what I stated.

Here I will help you again

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

but you can not supply any facts to support you "view" al you do is say there wrong and claim there methodology is wrong peer reviewed methodology
Against your not peer reviewed opinion

So one again, I will go to the peer reviewed information rather that some nutter who is too full of his own self importance to accept that's what the evidence suggests
All I ask is you show me a proper peer reviewed study that supports your assumption/opinion or are you just going to keep bleating how you're right and everybody else is wrong

Your arrogance is truly quite astounding
And space is not a issue so please don't edit my post to remove expert peer review information regardless of whether it been posted if you don't want to use my full post then don`t quote it with parts removed especially when i referred to them in the post you altered

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:16 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

I removed it because it takes up space when scrolling down, even more so when you have already posted them an just are repeating yourself, making them redundant to further debate. It is that simple and is my reply to do as I choose, you are not a moderator here, get used to that fact, they are still there so that is a really daft assumption on your part and even more desperate, that you seek to digress on something so stupid. You posted names, which have no relevance unless you can back up their views, as the names are not going to vanish from your post are they
PMSL

Man you so badly try to weasel out of answering, I love it, you never change do you

So again you offer nothing from your experts you claim back the view, with evidence and what they actually say and offer no answers to my points.
Thus it seems you want me to debate people not here, how dumb can you get, How desperate are you, it shows again you know nothing on this subject?
Let me get this through to you, I am debating you, that means you can use expert opinion to back your points, as i will, not ask me to debate people who are not here, who , is that clear?

Thus proving you are wasting my time and proves you know sod all on this.

So again

You still fail to grasp, that the link they propose is nothing more than suggestive,

I m not concerned whether you believe what I have qualifications in, we all know you snoop people being a computer geek, yet it seems you cannot refute the points I have given by even showing what the experts says you have presented, so you need to try again and if you like show based upon what I stated.

Here I will help you again

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.
but you can not supply any facts to support you "view" al you do is say there wrong and claim there methodology is wrong peer reviewed methodology
Against your not peer reviewed opinion

So one again, I will go to the peer reviewed information rather that some nutter who is too full of his own self importance to accept that's what the evidence suggests
All I ask is you show me a proper peer reviewed study that supports your assumption/opinion or are you just going to keep bleating how you're right and everybody else is wrong

Your arrogance is truly quite astounding

Interesting because you have not actually provided any facts to support your view, except post the names of experts, do you now see the difference?

All you are doing is saying you agree with the findings of some experts who have claim to have tried to link a claim off a decrease of suicides without discounting many other factors, which as seen they do not do. I have read many of these reports hence I know, they only link the claim on Gas to one other claim in Australia, which shows I know more than you. That is what they base their claim off, two assumptions on a decrease of suicides and link them, to me poorly without again discounting other factors. They thus make a link based off two claims. So stop diverting and get to the points.

Here is one such example:

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9396445.Hornsey_bridge_safety_nets__will_not_prevent_suicides___says_council/

Seriously, I am happy to back my views with evidence when you actually start debating the points, you have not debated them, all you did was post the names of experts, so gt a grip and stop flapping about, its pathetic, so again:

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Sponsored content