Ah, I admit to not really keeping up with the thread, and my brief glance didn't show that to me, fair enough, apologies, carry on.
Advertisement

by Transnapastain » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:38 pm

by The Emerald Dawn » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:42 pm
United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:I don't wanna sound retarded, but what it exactly is the requirement to be defined as childhood growth stinted?
Growth stunting is identified by comparing measurements of children's heights to the NCHS growth reference population: children who fall below the fifth percentile of the reference population in height for age are defined as stunted, regardless of the reason. As an indicator of nutritional status, comparisons of children's measurements with growth reference curves may be used differently for populations of children than for individual children. The fact that an individual child falls below the fifth percentile for height for age on a growth reference curve may reflect normal variation in growth within a population: the individual child may be short simply because both his parents carried genes for shortness and not because of inadequate nutrition. However, if substantially more than 5% of an identified child population have height for age that is less than the fifth percentile on the reference curve, then the population is said to have a higher-than-expected prevalence of stunting, and malnutrition is generally the first cause considered.


by The Joseon Dynasty » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:43 pm
United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:I don't wanna sound retarded, but what it exactly is the requirement to be defined as childhood growth stinted?

by Transnapastain » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:49 pm

by Nightkill the Emperor » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:51 pm
Transnapastain wrote:Novraslavia wrote:Why do you linger so?
Well, 2 reasons
1) the moderator one, this thread has been seen two longish bans handed out. IT as a source of trouble and therefore bears watching
2) The more prominent reason, its in my posts and when I see a new post n it, habitually, I check it, as I do almost everything else in my post history.
Does it bother you? Do I make you nervous? Afraid? Are you doing something wrong? You have nothing to fear if you're innocent! SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS! Come with me to the station!
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.

by United Kingdom of Muffins » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:53 pm

by The Joseon Dynasty » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:56 pm
United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:Regnum Dominae wrote:Because Joseon just gave us statistics on stunted growth from malnutrition in NK.
I don't know how we can compare the statistics he gave us if he didn't give us the definition used by the data collection groups. I.E. NK child growth stinted is 1 inch in India its 4 inches of undergrowth or something.

by Novraslavia » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:57 pm
Transnapastain wrote:Novraslavia wrote:Why do you linger so?
Well, 2 reasons
1) the moderator one, this thread has been seen two longish bans handed out. IT as a source of trouble and therefore bears watching
2) The more prominent reason, its in my posts and when I see a new post n it, habitually, I check it, as I do almost everything else in my post history.
Does it bother you? Do I make you nervous? Afraid? Are you doing something wrong? You have nothing to fear if you're innocent! SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS! Come with me to the station!

by United Kingdom of Muffins » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:58 pm
The Joseon Dynasty wrote:United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:I don't know how we can compare the statistics he gave us if he didn't give us the definition used by the data collection groups. I.E. NK child growth stinted is 1 inch in India its 4 inches of undergrowth or something.
I gave you the definition above. UNICEF hosted both surveys, which is why I selected them, so the definition is consistent across both data sets.

by Gauthier » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:58 pm
Transnapastain wrote:Does it bother you? Do I make you nervous? Afraid? Are you doing something wrong? You have nothing to fear if you're innocent! SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS! Come with me to the station!

by The Joseon Dynasty » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:59 pm

by Novraslavia » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:59 pm

by The Nuclear Fist » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:00 pm
And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses. . .Farnhamia wrote:You're getting a little too fond of the jerkoff motions.

by Gauthier » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:00 pm

by Nadkor » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:00 pm

by The Corparation » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:01 pm
| Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
| Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |


by Zweite Alaje » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:03 pm

by Greto » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:08 pm
Zweite Alaje wrote:In all honesty, I hope NK is serious this time. It'll give SK the perfect excuse for Korean unification finally.
The Western Russians wrote:Move to London and you get a fuck load of chavs shouting at you telling you you're going to get stabbed. Whereas in Scotland you get a fuck load of homeless people shouting at you telling you you're going to get stabbed. Move to Wales and you'll get a fuck load of DRG telling you you're going to get stabbed. Move to Ireland you're going to get a fuck load of IRA telling you you're going to get bombed.

by The Emerald Dawn » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:24 pm
Greto wrote:Zweite Alaje wrote:In all honesty, I hope NK is serious this time. It'll give SK the perfect excuse for Korean unification finally.
Why would South Korea want the North? It would end up being a gigantic money pit and would take decades to get all that damn propaganda out of their heads. It'd be easier to keep things the way they are and just let North Korea to continue it's drunken rambles about unification and world war III.

by Reggae Magmia » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:28 pm
The Mighty Warrior Horse wrote:So NS, what do you believe will happen?

by Zweite Alaje » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:36 pm
Greto wrote:Zweite Alaje wrote:In all honesty, I hope NK is serious this time. It'll give SK the perfect excuse for Korean unification finally.
Why would South Korea want the North? It would end up being a gigantic money pit and would take decades to get all that damn propaganda out of their heads. It'd be easier to keep things the way they are and just let North Korea to continue it's drunken rambles about unification and world war III.


by The Tiger Kingdom » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:38 pm
Zweite Alaje wrote:Greto wrote:
Why would South Korea want the North? It would end up being a gigantic money pit and would take decades to get all that damn propaganda out of their heads. It'd be easier to keep things the way they are and just let North Korea to continue it's drunken rambles about unification and world war III.
The deal with NK and SK is the same as it was with West and East Germany, one nation split into two. The Korean nation has been divide for far too long, it is time for the South to reclaim its northern kin. To be honest I feel the same way about China and Taiwan, the RoC needs to go.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Celritannia, Spirit of Hope
Advertisement