Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Al Doggity on March 16, 2015, 05:38:46 PM
-
Fox News usually has a perspective on the day's events that is uniquely provocative compared to the stuff you hear from the lamestream media. Thought it would be interesting to post some of it here.
While Ferguson remains in the headlines, Fox'& Friends' takes a somewhat curious angle and asks if the recent police shootings are part of Eric Holder's promised police department reform policy.
New #Ferguson violence comes just one week after AG Holder vowed to dismantle the city's PD. Is this what he meant?
Seems unlikely. It doesn't even really make sense. However, Fox had a stream of guests on discussing the shooting and how Holder was responsible:
Judge Andrew Napolitano said Holder "fanned the flames of hate" against the police with recent AG report. Napolitano then said that Holder should've emulated the Bush administration's secret police reform in Newark. Secret reform that was so effective that the DOJ closed another investigation last year ordering drastic reform for the department.
They then spoke to frequent guest legal analyst Bob Massi who said Holder's findings incited race relations and riots... presumably in a way selective, racially motivated policing didn't. ::)
They then spoke to Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police officers association. He admirably got right down to business. He just said this:
“I kept hearing yesterday the protesters finally got what they wanted, Chief Jackson stepped down,” Roorda said, referring to Police Chief Tom Jackson’s resignation. “They didn’t get what they wanted when Tom stepped down. They got it late last night when they finally, successfully shot two police officers.”
-
A big part of the magic of Fox News is an unparalleled expertise in scaremongering. There's no political, racial or economic boogetyman Fox isn't willing to exploit.
Like here. Fox's "terrorism expert" recently claimed, among other things, that entire cities in Europe and England were held under Sharia law and no-go zones for people who are Muslims. He actually said Birmingham was all Muslim and under the control of Muslim religious police. From what I understand, Fox had actually repeated this claim several times before, but finally issued an apology as they had gone from just allowing "guests" to repeat this nonsense to on-air staff repeating.
-
Fox News usually has a perspective on the day's events that is uniquely provocative compared to the stuff you hear from the lamestream media. Thought it would be interesting to post some of it here.
While Ferguson remains in the headlines, Fox'& Friends' takes a somewhat curious angle and asks if the recent police shootings are part of Eric Holder's promised police department reform policy.
Seems unlikely. It doesn't even really make sense. However, Fox had a stream of guests on discussing the shooting and how Holder was responsible:
Judge Andrew Napolitano said Holder "fanned the flames of hate" against the police with recent AG report. Napolitano then said that Holder should've emulated the Bush administration's secret police reform in Newark. Secret reform that was so effective that the DOJ closed another investigation last year ordering drastic reform for the department.
They then spoke to frequent guest legal analyst Bob Massi who said Holder's findings incited race relations and riots... presumably in a way selective, racially motivated policing didn't. ::)
They then spoke to Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police officers association. He admirably got right down to business. He just said this:
I didn't see the clip, and the it wouldn't surprise me if the author didn't either, but I imagine the first comment was satire.
Regarding Judge Napolitano, he was is absolutely correct.
-
Napolitano is way off, though I generally think highly of him.
We need less secrecy and more transparency. There's clearly a problem, unless we're subscribing to the typical CT non-sense.
Be open and honest about it, explain the findings, and how they plan to fix things.
-
A big part of the magic of Fox News is an unparalleled expertise in scaremongering. There's no political, racial or economic boogetyman Fox isn't willing to exploit.
Like here. Fox's "terrorism expert" recently claimed, among other things, that entire cities in Europe and England were held under Sharia law and no-go zones for people who are Muslims. He actually said Birmingham was all Muslim and under the control of Muslim religious police. From what I understand, Fox had actually repeated this claim several times before, but finally issued an apology as they had gone from just allowing "guests" to repeat this nonsense to on-air staff repeating.
Fox News critics are funny. They appear incapable of grasping the fact that Fox News is simply better. That's why they beat the crap out of everyone else.
Part of teh funny is how critics invent nonsensical terms like "Faux News," as if the network invents hard news stories.
Then there was the picture I saw being circulated during Ferguson that attempted to show that Fox has all white female hosts. Blatantly false.
And the funniest thing might be how an incredibly awful network like MSNBC, who gave Al Sharpton his own show, spends an inordinate amount of time talking about Fox.
But as the numbers show, they're better at hard news, overall their opinion shows are superior, and people trust them more than any other news network. Tough pill to swallow.
-
Napolitano is way off, though I generally think highly of him.
We need less secrecy and more transparency. There's clearly a problem, unless we're subscribing to the typical CT non-sense.
Be open and honest about it, explain the findings, and how they plan to fix things.
He's right about Holder fanning flames.
-
60% lies ,viewers are the most uninformed lol
-
He's right about Holder fanning flames.
Not with the recent AG report. He's done nothing but answer questions openly. In terms of what Holder did during the investigation, I think that might be the case.
-
60% lies ,viewers are the most uninformed lol
lol. I bet dollars to donuts you cannot explain that "60% lies" crap.
-
Not with the recent AG report. He's done nothing but answer questions openly. In terms of what Holder did during the investigation, I think that might be the case.
Sure he did. The timing of the release was calculated to draw attention away from the contemporaneous decision not to charge Wilson. He was trying to appease all those folks who embraced a false narrative.
I think it had the opposite effect of further polarizing people.
-
lol. I bet dollars to donuts you cannot explain that "60% lies" crap.
60 of the shit they feed you foxbots is lies lol
-
60 of the shit they feed you foxbots is lies lol
O Rly? Which specific hard news programming fabricates sixty percent of the news?
-
O Rly? Which specific hard news programming fabricates sixty percent of the news?
didn' you just post their opinion shows are superior, so you liked being lied to,like i said foxbot
-
didn' you just post their opinion shows are superior, so you liked being lied to,like i said foxbot
Like I said, you cannot explain. Shocking.
-
Sure he did. The timing of the release was calculated to draw attention away from the contemporaneous decision not to charge Wilson. He was trying to appease all those folks who embraced a false narrative.
I think it had the opposite effect of further polarizing people.
That's just CT speculation. I think it's probably more likely that they simply concluded the investigations at the same time since they ran in tandem.
________________________ _______
Police officers were judged not only on the number of stops they made, but on the number of citations they issued. "Officers routinely conduct stops that have little relation to public safety and a questionable basis in law," the report states. "Issuing three or four charges in one stop is not uncommon. Officers sometimes write six, eight, or, in at least one instance, fourteen citations for a single encounter." Some officers compete to see who can issue the most citations in a single stop.
In one email, the police chief, who also oversees the municipal court, brags to the city manager about how much revenue it is generating. Ignoring that conflict of interest is a recipe for a justice system that bleeds the powerless of their meager resources.
Ferguson's municipal court judge, Ronald Brockmeyer, who is appointed by the city council, is well aware that his job performance is evaluated partly based on how much revenue he generates from the bench. One 2011 internal report in Ferguson notes that Judge Brockmeyer made a list of “what he has done to help in the areas of court efficiency and revenue.” The next year, a city council member suggested that he should not be reappointed, arguing that he "does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn’t let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict.”
If you think those shortcomings disqualified him, think again.
The report continues:
The Council member then addressed the concern that “switching judges would/could lead to loss of revenue,” arguing that even if such a switch did “lead to a slight loss, I think it’s more important that cases are being handled properly and fairly.” The City Manager acknowledged mixed reviews of Judge Brockmeyer’s work but urged that the Judge be reappointed, noting that “...it goes without saying the City cannot afford to lose any efficiency in our Courts, nor experience any decrease in our Fines and Forfeitures.”
________________________ _________
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/
-
Like I said, you cannot explain. Shocking.
did you say their opinion shows are superior and 60% of what they spew is bullshit and you like it anyway,that makes you a foxbot lol
-
Like I said, you cannot explain. Shocking.
You gotta be careful, most things you say are well over his head. Try using small simple words, little punctuation, maybe throw in some smiles or gifs and never ever use logic or reasoning - you WILL completely lose him.
-
That's just CT speculation. I think it's probably more likely that they simply concluded the investigations at the same time since they ran in tandem.
________________________ _______
Police officers were judged not only on the number of stops they made, but on the number of citations they issued. "Officers routinely conduct stops that have little relation to public safety and a questionable basis in law," the report states. "Issuing three or four charges in one stop is not uncommon. Officers sometimes write six, eight, or, in at least one instance, fourteen citations for a single encounter." Some officers compete to see who can issue the most citations in a single stop.
In one email, the police chief, who also oversees the municipal court, brags to the city manager about how much revenue it is generating. Ignoring that conflict of interest is a recipe for a justice system that bleeds the powerless of their meager resources.
Ferguson's municipal court judge, Ronald Brockmeyer, who is appointed by the city council, is well aware that his job performance is evaluated partly based on how much revenue he generates from the bench. One 2011 internal report in Ferguson notes that Judge Brockmeyer made a list of “what he has done to help in the areas of court efficiency and revenue.” The next year, a city council member suggested that he should not be reappointed, arguing that he "does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn’t let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict.”
If you think those shortcomings disqualified him, think again.
The report continues:
The Council member then addressed the concern that “switching judges would/could lead to loss of revenue,” arguing that even if such a switch did “lead to a slight loss, I think it’s more important that cases are being handled properly and fairly.” The City Manager acknowledged mixed reviews of Judge Brockmeyer’s work but urged that the Judge be reappointed, noting that “...it goes without saying the City cannot afford to lose any efficiency in our Courts, nor experience any decrease in our Fines and Forfeitures.”
________________________ _________
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/
It's not a CT, because the Justice Department wasn't working with some other agency to coordinate the release. Was all under the same roof.
Yes it's possible that both investigations coincidentally finished simultaneously, but I don't believe that for one second. It didn't take months for Holder to look at the evidence and see that the physical evidence corroborated Wilson's story.
-
You gotta be careful, most things you say are well over his head. Try using small simple words, little punctuation, maybe throw in some smiles or gifs and never ever use logic or reasoning - you WILL completely lose him.
i sure he doesn't need his boyfriend to stand up for him,let him answer why he likes to watch opinion shows that lie 60% of the time
-
did you say their opinion shows are superior and 60% of what they spew is bullshit and you like it anyway,that makes you a foxbot lol
I see. You are refusing to explain how 60 percent of their hard news stories are false.
You are saying 60 percent of the opinions expressed on opinion shows are false? By what measure? Take Megyn Kelly for example. How exactly did you conclude sixty percent of her opinions are false?
-
You gotta be careful, most things you say are well over his head. Try using small simple words, little punctuation, maybe throw in some smiles or gifs and never ever use logic or reasoning - you WILL completely lose him.
:D
I am trying to understand his point, but I doubt I'll get very far.
-
He's right about Holder fanning flames.
Well, the cops' behavior in Ferguson lit the flames and threw gas on it, so whether or not Holder fanned them is irrelevant.
I didn't see the clip, and the it wouldn't surprise me if the author didn't either, but I imagine the first comment was satire.
It's a post from their twitter feed about a cop shooting. How could that possibly be interpreted as satire? ::)
-
:D
I am trying to understand his point, but I doubt I'll get very far.
let me throw in 60% lies then you'll feel right at home :D :D :D
-
ox News promotes the most false information among TV news outlets, according to a fact-checking watchdog – and the problem is only getting worse.
Politifact regularly examines claims made on air by pundits, hosts, or paid contributors and rates those statements by accuracy.
lol
The latest scorecard showed more than 60 percent of the claims made on Fox News were mostly false or worse – and half of all claims were either demonstrably false or outright lies.
Politifact found that 39 percent of the claims made on air during Fox News broadcasts had some basis in fact, with 10 percent that could be proven as true, 11 percent rated as mostly true, and 18 percent that were half true.
However, a nearly equal number – 38 percent – of the claims made on Fox News were demonstrably false, while 26 percent of them were mostly false, and 11 percent were mocked as “pants on fire” falsehoods.
A scorecard from September found that 58 percent of claims made during Fox News broadcasts were mostly false or worse.
-
Well, the cops behavior in Ferguson lit the flames and threw gas on it, so whether or not Holder fanned them is irrelevant.
It's a post from their twitter feed about a cop shooting. How could that possibly be interpreted as satire? ::)
The cops responding to criminals? You mean those looters and "hands up don't shoot" liars were not responsible?
No, I doubt the tweet was meant to be taken literally. ::) But when you are desperate for material and the facts don't support you, I guess you gotta hang your hat on something.
-
The cops responding to criminals? You mean those looters and "hands up don't shoot" liars were not responsible?
The cops who committed widespread civil rights violations with absurd arrests and prosecutions as detailed in the aforementioned AG report. There wouldn't have been police/community tensions without that report, though, right? ::)
No, I doubt the tweet was meant to be taken literally. ::) But when you are desperate for material and the facts don't support you, I guess you gotta hang your hat on something.
The entire first post is quotes from an array of Fox guests blaming Holder for the shootings. But, yeah, I'm desperate and it was satire ::)
-
Fox News critics are funny. They appear incapable of grasping the fact that Fox News is simply better. That's why they beat the crap out of everyone else.
LOL you have the nerve to say this while quoting a post that features a clip of Fox personalities discussing England being under Sharia law?? They couldn't be WORSE.
-
beachbum is your typ. foxbot,you have to laugh that people can be so gullible :D :D
-
The cops who committed widespread civil rights violations with absurd arrests and prosecutions as detailed in the aforementioned AG report. There wouldn't have been police/community tensions without that report, though, right? ::)
The entire first post is quotes from an array of Fox guests blaming Holder for the shootings. But, yeah, I'm desperate and it was satire ::)
So you're ignoring all of the criminals who looted and burned down their own community? And all those people committing crimes grossly disproportionate to their percentage of the population?
I was addressing the first quote in your post. No, that's not what Holder literally meant.
-
LOL you have the nerve to say this while quoting a post that features a clip of Fox personalities discussing England being under Sharia law?? They couldn't be WORSE.
Wait. So you mean they don't beat the crap out of the competition? Must be fabricated ratings.
You probably think Maddow is better than Kelly. :-\
-
LOL...basically the only right to center news organization yet the libs pile on all the while getting their "news" from CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones. AlGorejezzera and the rest of the left communist propaganda rags and yet FOX still has the highest viewership of anyone..lol.
-
Fox News usually has a perspective on the day's events that is uniquely provocative compared to the stuff you hear from the lamestream media. Thought it would be interesting to post some of it here.
While Ferguson remains in the headlines, Fox'& Friends' takes a somewhat curious angle and asks if the recent police shootings are part of Eric Holder's promised police department reform policy.
Seems unlikely. It doesn't even really make sense. However, Fox had a stream of guests on discussing the shooting and how Holder was responsible:
Judge Andrew Napolitano said Holder "fanned the flames of hate" against the police with recent AG report. Napolitano then said that Holder should've emulated the Bush administration's secret police reform in Newark. Secret reform that was so effective that the DOJ closed another investigation last year ordering drastic reform for the department.
They then spoke to frequent guest legal analyst Bob Massi who said Holder's findings incited race relations and riots... presumably in a way selective, racially motivated policing didn't. ::)
They then spoke to Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police officers association. He admirably got right down to business. He just said this:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/poll-obama-race-relations-worse/
Hope this helps.
-
So you're ignoring all of the criminals who looted and burned down their own community? And all those people committing crimes grossly disproportionate to their percentage of the population?
What I'm not doing is pretending that those actions weren't the results of horrible community relations and that everything would have been hunky dory if not for Eric Holder's meddling.
I was addressing the first quote in your post. No, that's not what Holder literally meant.
That quote is from Fox's twitter feed. Obviously, it's not what Holder meant, but that is what they implied he meant followed by several features continuing that line. ::)
-
Wait. So you mean they don't beat the crap out of the competition? Must be fabricated ratings.
You probably think Maddow is better than Kelly. :-\
You claimed they were simply better than the competitors. Every news organization makes mistakes, but claiming England is held under Sharia law?! That's the most idiotic mistake I've heard from a news organization. They are not better at journalism. They are better at fearmongering. They are better at telling idiots what they want to hear.
-
What I'm not doing is pretending that those actions weren't the results of horrible community relations and that everything would have been hunky dory if not for Eric Holder's meddling.
That quote is from Fox's twitter feed. Obviously, it's not what Holder meant, but that is what they implied he meant followed by several features continuing that line. ::)
Of course they had problems before Holder. What Holder did was fan flames.
The line was satire. ::)
-
You claimed they were simply better than the competitors. Every news organization makes mistakes, but claiming England is held under Sharia law?! That's the most idiotic mistake I've heard from a news organization. They are not better at journalism. They are better at fearmongering. They are better at telling idiots what they want to hear.
Yes they are better. Better at hard news. Better at opinion shows. More entertaining. That's why they blow stations like MSNBC away.
The numbers don't support you. But you keep hanging on to whatever lies you have to tell yourself to make you feel better.
-
RRKore is back! Or his it Mr. Turbo?
-
RRKore is back! Or his it Mr. Turbo?
LOL.... you're the one who scurried away for 2 months after I gave you your last spanking. ;)
-
Yes they are better. Better at hard news. Better at opinion shows. More entertaining. That's why they blow stations like MSNBC away.
The numbers don't support you. But you keep hanging on to whatever lies you have to tell yourself to make you feel better.
Sure, whatever lies I have to tell myself. Can't wait for their next satire piece on Sharia law in Wisconsin ::)
-
Sure, whatever lies I have to tell myself. Can't wait for their next satire piece on Sharia law in Wisconsin ::)
Exactly. Lying is exactly what you hacks do. Were you one of the ones who passed along this picture during Ferguson as an attempt to show the lack of diversity at Fox?
(http://i.imgur.com/Qu6VOsT.jpg)
-
LOL.... you're the one who scurried away for 2 months after I gave you your last spanking. ;)
You're the one who repeatedly failed to read any of the details of the study. I'm sure you still haven't. It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand the methodology of the study. I explained it to you but you kept repeating the same thing. Anybody want to see what kore looks like?
-
Exactly. Lying is exactly what you hacks do. Were you one of the ones who passed along this picture during Ferguson as an attempt to show the lack of diversity at Fox?
(http://i.imgur.com/Qu6VOsT.jpg)
No... this is you, lying.
-
No... this is you, lying.
Actually it's a picture hacks like you passed around the internet.
-
Actually it's a picture hacks like you passed around the internet.
He's to stupid to understand much of anything. I tried explaining to him why a study used the number 10 and even after showing him the official description of the methodology he was to stupid to get it.
-
You're the one who repeatedly failed to read any of the details of the study. I'm sure you still haven't. It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand the methodology of the study. I explained it to you but you kept repeating the same thing. Anybody want to see what kore looks like?
Do you want to get into this again? You might have to log off for an entire year! :D
-
Do you want to get into this again? You might have to log off for an entire year! :D
I explained to you what the 10 meant but you still refused to believe it. Kore, you calling someone a liar is humorous.
-
Actually it's a picture hacks like you passed around the internet.
It's a picture. It may have been passed around the internet. I didn't pass it around the internet or post it here. It's you lying.
Or "satire" ::)
-
He's to stupid to understand much of anything. I tried explaining to him why a study used the number 10 and even after showing him the official description of the methodology he was to stupid to get it.
Typical hack.
-
Typical hack.
He's a liar and an idiot. I sent him all of the facts of the study and he still couldn't grasp it. You should see what Al(kore)looks like. He's fat, bald and covered in acne scars. It's embarrassing.
-
Typical hack.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=562439.225
It's right here. He stopped posting for like a month after this argument. You two would be allies. Between the two of you, you never have to believe even one fact.
-
He's a liar and an idiot. I sent him all of the facts of the study and he still couldn't grasp it. You should see what Al(kore)looks like. He's fat, bald and covered in acne scars. It's embarrassing.
No one in either of the threads thought you were right. Even Dos Equis won't be able to side with you if he looks at the info. You might have to stop posting for an entire year.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=562439.225
It's right here. He stopped posting for like a month after this argument. You two would be allies. Between the two of you, you never have to believe even one fact.
Yep, you said it was limited to ten people. I argued it was limited to ten incidents per person to offset the multiple offenses skewing the data. Bam, you just kept repeating the ten people lie over and over again. Kore, give up. You're as stupid and you are fat and ugly.
No one in either of the threads thought you were right. Even Dos Equis won't be able to side with you if he looks at the info. You might have to stop posting for an entire year.
Some people disagreed because you inaccurately presented the argument that the study had only ten people in it. It had thousands. You were wrong and I corrected you. You had no idea what you were talking about.
-
Al(kore) also lied about being kore's gimmick. The man is a liar and a moron. Boy is he ugly.
-
Yep, you said it was limited to ten people. I argued it was limited to ten incidents per person to offset the multiple offenses skewing the data. Bam, you just kept repeating the ten people lie over and over again. Kore, give up. You're as stupid and you are fat and ugly.
so, then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
True or false?
-
so, then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
True or false?
It's not 10 respondents. The word respondents isn't even used. When you provided a link I showed you directly from that link that they did not use the word respondents. You didn't even read the link you posted, pizza face. You had no idea of what was in the link. It was hilarious.
-
Al(kore) also lied about being kore's gimmick. The man is a liar and a moron. Boy is he ugly.
Where have I ever said anything about being Kore. It's something you're caught up in, but I just see it as a red herring. Your arguments never have any merit and you always resort to calling me RRkore because we both school you regularly.
-
Where have I ever said anything about being Kore. It's something you're caught up in, but I just see it as a red herring. Your arguments never have any merit and you always resort to calling me RRkore because we both school you regularly.
You didn't even read the material in the link you posted to support your claim. It didn't even have the word respondents in it. When I said I was sent pictures of Kore, you knew exactly where to find the post in another thread and immediately posted a quote from it two minutes later. It was so fast there was no way you would make reference to it unless you were kore and knew where it was.
-
Kore is a liar. He lied like a bitch about calling me pro-rape and he lied about having a gimmick. The man has the integrity of Swiss cheese which ironically matches his acne scarred face.
-
The study uses the word sample cases. What they mean is that they cap the total number of incidents suffered by an individual at ten. The reason they do this is to avoid skewing the national data. I posted all of this. It's not respondents, that word is not used.
If the purpose is to provide a count of victimizations in order
to calculate a national rate of victimization, the precision of
the victim’s response is very important. This is especially true
when the event being measured is statistically rare. Under
this condition, the inclusion of a small number of high-rate
victims can result in national rates that vary widely. The
challenges that victims of repeated crimes have in recounting
the number of times an event occurred are not unique to
surveys designed to estimate victimization. Instead, they are
common to all survey research in which respondents are
asked to recount events that they experience frequently (e.g.,
Sudman et al, 1996; Groves et al, 2004).
Prior research findings and our analyses suggest using a
capping method when counting series victimizations for
national victimization rates to limit the influence of higher
and less consistent reports. Using a capping strategy made it
necessary to determine at what level the cap should be set.
Other countries that provide victimization rates (rather than
prevalence rates) used a cap of five for victimizations similar
in nature (using a 1-year recall period). A comparable cap of
five for the NCVS would be illogical, as series victimizations
must include at least six victimizations according to the
definitions used in the NCVS. Although the modal response
category by series victims is six victimizations for all NCVS
years, a cap of six would be too low, as it would not capture
the relative frequency of victimizations for the majority of
series victims.
The median response count for series victims of violence was
10 victimizations per the 6-month recall period across nearly
all NCVS years. The decision was made to use a value of 10
as the cap on series victimizations because it was found to
be stable over time and included the count provided directly
from the victim for the majority of series victimization cases.
The cap of 10 was also selected because the consistency of
responses began to decline at that point, and the magnitude of
the discrepancies began to increase.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
This new series counting decision balances the concerns
of wanting victimization rates to include the experiences
of high-rate victims while understanding that multiple
sources of error exist in estimates of the number of
victimizations that occurred. These sources of error include
less consistency when the counts are higher, a greater
magnitude in the discrepancies when the counts are higher,
and possible overestimation of some victimization counts in
instances where victims report four or five victimizations,
but interviewers then use the series protocol requiring a
minimum of six victimizations to reduce respondent burden.
Beginning with NCVS data for 2010, the annual BJS report
Criminal Victimization included estimates of violent
victimization that took series incidents into account by using a
cap of 10 victimizations per series report (figure 9). (For more
information, see Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 234408,
September 2011.) To assess the impact of the new series
counting, the rates of violent victimization were compared
without the inclusion of series victimizations to the rates that
included series victimizations from 1993 to 2009.
-
LOL...basically the only right to center news organization yet the libs pile on all the while getting their "news" from CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones. AlGorejezzera and the rest of the left communist propaganda rags and yet FOX still has the highest viewership of anyone..lol.
but they can't win a POTUS electoin, despite the viewership.
This is when you realize - and you have to - that a disproportionate # of viewers/voters watch FOX news.
MORE people that vote repub watch cable news. FEWER people that vote dem watch cable news.
Once ya make this realization, it all makes sense, why dems can't lose the white house while a higher % of viewers chooses a repub network.
-
This is how it works, Kore. Limiting the series incidents to ten is necessary to prevent national data from being skewed. For example, a female in a household (wife or a child) is repeatedly raped by a father, brother or uncle-whatever. In that situation the incidents of rape are numerous because they occur over years. That data is good for determining the statistics for that particular kind of rape. However, it becomes problematic when that data is used to determine national statistics on the total incidents of rape for the year. To prevent errors in the national data they limited the number of incidents in the above scenario to ten. This was my original argument and the argument I came back to after I reread the material. I diverted briefly from this argument after giving you the benefit of the doubt. When I reread the information I realized I was right with my earlier argument.
All the supporting info is in the other thread. There is no 10 respondents, meaning only ten people responded. The word isn't even used in the link you posted. You misrepresented the information in the other thread by claiming the survey only included ten total respondents when in fact it had thousands.
-
but they can't win a POTUS electoin, despite the viewership.
This is when you realize - and you have to - that a disproportionate # of viewers/voters watch FOX news.
MORE people that vote repub watch cable news. FEWER people that vote dem watch cable news.
Once ya make this realization, it all makes sense, why dems can't lose the white house while a higher % of viewers chooses a repub network.
Who the fuck gets 100% of the vote in precincts? legitimately? Most of Obama's voters can't freaking spell their name let alone understand what's on the news. The do understand "free" though. But regardless. It's IMPOSSIBLE to get 100% without fraud. Oh wait....we are talking about Obama, aren't we.
-
Who the fuck gets 100% of the vote in precincts? legitimately? Most of Obama's voters can't freaking spell their name let alone understand what's on the news. The do understand "free" though. But regardless. It's IMPOSSIBLE to get 100% without fraud. Oh wait....we are talking about Obama, aren't we.
If this is the case - and dems/obama only win because of massive voter fraud, then why isn't the #1 new network FOX talking about it continually?
I mean, NO ISSUE should get on the air ahead of how obama is illegally in office. There should be NO coverage of spring break follies or polar bear hi-jinks.
I guess what i'm saying is this... more than 50% of the nation is liberal, I believe it to be the case. Many repubs refuse to face that - they refuse to admit that the number of americans that are conservative, responsible, and don't want the govt to baby them is under 50%.
It's hard to look at a crowd of people these days and truly believe that MORE THAN HALF of them truly embody conservative ideals. it's generation selfie, a bunch of entitled, attention-thirsty idiots liking pics on facebook and counting their re-tweets, lining up their next side dish while managing their kids' lives via skype. It's pathetic, it's the real zombie apocalypse, and it's caused the number of liberals to grow to become the majority.
Many repubs look at a crowd of 100 people, and truly believe 49 or less are true conservatives. Because they don't know what true conservative is. They'll smoke pot, do a line, hook up on tinder.... they'll take their govt handouts, they'll use food stamps, they'll do all these things... then they'll say "fck obama!" and pretend to be conservative.
-
If this is the case - and dems/obama only win because of massive voter fraud, then why isn't the #1 new network FOX talking about it continually?
I mean, NO ISSUE should get on the air ahead of how obama is illegally in office. There should be NO coverage of spring break follies or polar bear hi-jinks.
I guess what i'm saying is this... more than 50% of the nation is liberal, I believe it to be the case. Many repubs refuse to face that - they refuse to admit that the number of americans that are conservative, responsible, and don't want the govt to baby them is under 50%.
It's hard to look at a crowd of people these days and truly believe that MORE THAN HALF of them truly embody conservative ideals. it's generation selfie, a bunch of entitled, attention-thirsty idiots liking pics on facebook and counting their re-tweets, lining up their next side dish while managing their kids' lives via skype. It's pathetic, it's the real zombie apocalypse, and it's caused the number of liberals to grow to become the majority.
Many repubs look at a crowd of 100 people, and truly believe 49 or less are true conservatives. Because they don't know what true conservative is. They'll smoke pot, do a line, hook up on tinder.... they'll take their govt handouts, they'll use food stamps, they'll do all these things... then they'll say "fck obama!" and pretend to be conservative.
LOL...they were at that time. A no name community organizer that ruined his own district in Chicago, then a senator that never showed up with the exception of "present" when he wasn't even there, comes literally, a supposed "professor" that the other professors hated and only supposedly taught one or two classes a week, no transcripts from schools he supposedly attended (that few of any of his fellow classmates remember), ties to Bill Ayres, a psycho pastor, a deep rooted Muslim that literally all of the sudden comes out of no where to win an "election"...twice? lmao.
-
but they can't win a POTUS electoin, despite the viewership.
This is when you realize - and you have to - that a disproportionate # of viewers/voters watch FOX news.
MORE people that vote repub watch cable news. FEWER people that vote dem watch cable news.
Once ya make this realization, it all makes sense, why dems can't lose the white house while a higher % of viewers chooses a repub network.
WTF are you talking about. Who do you think won the 2 elections before Obama?
Are you seriously going to act like it hasn't been a flip flop for well over a century as to which party controls the Executive?
Seriously. ::)
-
Yep, you said it was limited to ten people. I argued it was limited to ten incidents per person to offset the multiple offenses skewing the data. Bam, you just kept repeating the ten people lie over and over again.
Exactly the opposite happened.
YOU:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773196#msg7773196
The report questioned a total of more than 10(150,000 or more) but uses ten as the sample size to correct statistical imbalances. Get it straight, the 10 are a random sampling of the larger pool of individuals surveyed. .
Some people disagreed because you inaccurately presented the argument that the study had only ten people in it. It had thousands.
ME:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7774126#msg7774126
Obviously what you posted is nonsense.
The study is based on more than 150,000 respondents, not 10.
That's literally exactly the opposite of what you claimed. You are a liar and an idiot.
-
Exactly the opposite happened.
YOU:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773196#msg7773196
The report questioned a total of more than 10(150,000 or more) but uses ten as the sample size to correct statistical imbalances. Get it straight, the 10 are a random sampling of the larger pool of individuals surveyed. .
ME:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7774126#msg7774126
Obviously what you posted is nonsense.
The study is based on more than 150,000 respondents, not 10.
That's literally exactly the opposite of what you claimed. You are a liar and an idiot.
Nope. You claimed the survey consisted of only ten people or respondents. You made the same claim in this very post. This is demonstrably false. The link you posted earlier explains it all, pizza face. After I read the material again I corrected you. I also provided multiple quotes pertaining to the methodology of the study from multiple sources. You misrepresented the facts of the study by claiming the study only had ten respondents. The word respondents was not used in the link you provided as proof. What this indicates is that you never read the link you posted as proof and probably never read any of the material I posted.
The below quote is from December. Refer to your exchange with AJ on the first page of the thread below. When Aj says there are ten respondents and thats not enough of a survey size you agree. This proves you misinterpreted samples cases of 10 to mean ten respondents.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866622#msg7866622
If the purpose is to provide a count of victimizations in order
to calculate a national rate of victimization, the precision of
the victim’s response is very important. This is especially true
when the event being measured is statistically rare. Under
this condition, the inclusion of a small number of high-rate
victims can result in national rates that vary widely. The
challenges that victims of repeated crimes have in recounting
the number of times an event occurred are not unique to
surveys designed to estimate victimization. Instead, they are
common to all survey research in which respondents are
asked to recount events that they experience frequently (e.g.,
Sudman et al, 1996; Groves et al, 2004).
Prior research findings and our analyses suggest using a
capping method when counting series victimizations for
national victimization rates to limit the influence of higher
and less consistent reports. Using a capping strategy made it
necessary to determine at what level the cap should be set.
Other countries that provide victimization rates (rather than
prevalence rates) used a cap of five for victimizations similar
in nature (using a 1-year recall period). A comparable cap of
five for the NCVS would be illogical, as series victimizations
must include at least six victimizations according to the
definitions used in the NCVS. Although the modal response
category by series victims is six victimizations for all NCVS
years, a cap of six would be too low, as it would not capture
the relative frequency of victimizations for the majority of
series victims.
The median response count for series victims of violence was
10 victimizations per the 6-month recall period across nearly
all NCVS years. The decision was made to use a value of 10
as the cap on series victimizations because it was found to
be stable over time and included the count provided directly
from the victim for the majority of series victimization cases.
The cap of 10 was also selected because the consistency of
responses began to decline at that point, and the magnitude of
the discrepancies began to increase.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
This new series counting decision balances the concerns
of wanting victimization rates to include the experiences
of high-rate victims while understanding that multiple
sources of error exist in estimates of the number of
victimizations that occurred. These sources of error include
less consistency when the counts are higher, a greater
magnitude in the discrepancies when the counts are higher,
and possible overestimation of some victimization counts in
instances where victims report four or five victimizations,
but interviewers then use the series protocol requiring a
minimum of six victimizations to reduce respondent burden.
Beginning with NCVS data for 2010, the annual BJS report
Criminal Victimization included estimates of violent
victimization that took series incidents into account by using a
cap of 10 victimizations per series report (figure 9). (For more
information, see Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 234408,
September 2011.) To assess the impact of the new series
counting, the rates of violent victimization were compared
without the inclusion of series victimizations to the rates that
included series victimizations from 1993 to 2009.
-
Nope. You claimed the survey consisted of only ten people or respondents. You made the same claim in this very post.
Post the quote of me saying this.
-
Post the quote of me saying this.
Well, you use the word respondent repeatedly. You said 10 respondent, meaning only 10 people responded to the survey. You repeated this same mistake in this thread. This is absolutely wrong.
Above I provided a link. On the first page in your exchange with aj, aj claims that 10 respondents is not enough of a sample size and you agree. You are mistaking samples cases with sample respondents.
Are you sure? Couldn't it also mean that the scientists who conducted the poll weighted the study so that the 10 people who responded could accurately represent the national trend?
Again you are saying 10 people or respondents. Its not ten people but a tap of ten incidents in a series.
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
Another example of you claiming only ten people out of 150,000 are used. This is incorrect
-
Yet again you confused ten people for ten incidents in a series. This is not what the text says at all.
-
Well, you use the word respondent repeatedly. You said 10 respondent, meaning only 10 people responded to the survey. You repeated this same mistake in this thread. This is absolutely wrong.
Above I provided a link. On the first page in your exchange with aj, aj claims that 10 respondents is not enough of a sample size and you agree. You are mistaking samples cases with sample respondents.
OK... cool.
So, we're both agreed that the study had more than 150,000 respondents and that the study limited SERIES INCIDENTS to 10 so that the data was not skewed, correct?
-
More of the same
OK... cool.
So, we're both agreed that the study had more than 150,000 respondents and that the study limited SERIES INCIDENTS to 10 so that the data was not skewed, correct?
No, pizzaface, that's not what you argued. You argued they only used 10 respondents or people out of thousands were used. The pic provided in this posts shows that you dismissed the idea of a cap of ten incidents in a series.
-
More of the same
I'm not sure what that screencap is supposed to mean ???
Based on what you said in this thread, it sounds like we're on the same page? You agree that there were about 150,000 respondents in the poll? And that the text you posted is about limiting series incidents so they don't skew the data? Or is that incorrect?
-
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
No we are not. You were arguing that ten people out of thousands were used to calculate the statistics. This is false.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.50
In this thread you continue to argue that I'm wrong about the ten series incidents.
-
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
-
No we are not. You were arguing that ten people out of thousands were used to calculate the statistics. This is false.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.50
In this thread you continue to argue that I'm wrong about the ten series incidents.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm trying to get your position nailed do because it keeps changing.
Are you saying that the study limits series incidents to 10 as not to skew the data?
Also, do you agree that there were 150,000 respondents to the survey?
Or are these wrong?
-
You repeatedly confused samples cases with total number of respondents.
-
I actually think you are right about series incidents. I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
-
WTF are you talking about. Who do you think won the 2 elections before Obama?
Are you seriously going to act like it hasn't been a flip flop for well over a century as to which party controls the Executive?
Seriously. ::)
I'm not sure you realize this... but...
Dems have won 4 of 6 elections for POTUS... by VERY comfy margins.
Repubs have won 2 of 6 elections for POTUS... both times by 1 state that could have gone either way. if FL is allowed to recount, Gore wins, history shows that now. And OHIO, lol, Repubs SUED so a recount coudln't start, which may have explained the epic exit polls showing Kerry winning big there.
Without 2 shady court decisions, Dems are fucking 6 for 6 in POTUS elections. Repubs can't be cocky for 2016.
-
You repeatedly confused samples cases with total number of respondents.
I think I just didn't understand you.
I am trying to understand your position now.
Were there 150000 respondents to the survey?
Did the survey limit series incidents to 10 so they wouldn't skew the survey?
-
I'm not arguing anything. I'm trying to get your position nailed do because it keeps changing.
Are you saying that the study limits series incidents to 10 as not to skew the data?
Also, do you agree that there were 150,000 respondents to the survey?
Or are these wrong?
It hasn't changed since December after I reread the material and then read more information. I mentioned that I reread the material in December and return to my original argument.
You said 10 respondents or ten total people in the survey were plucked from the thousands not a cap of 10 on series incidents. Are you reading anything I've posted in just the last ten minutes.
-
It hasn't changed since December after I reread the material and then read more information. I mentioned that I reread the material in December and return to my original argument.
You said 10 respondents or ten total people in the survey were plucked from the thousands not a cap of 10 on series incidents. Are you reading anything I've posted in just the last ten minutes.
So, in other words you agree that the survey included 150000 respondents and that survey also limited series incidents to 10 so that the data was not skewed. Good, so we're on the same page with this?
-
so, then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
True or false?
Here you are again claiming ten respondents or ten people out of thousands. This is a total misinterpretation of the information.
I think I just didn't understand you.
I am trying to understand your position now.
Were there 150000 respondents to the survey?
Did the survey limit series incidents to 10 so they wouldn't skew the survey?
As I've told you a thousand times. As I told you in this very thread. Its not ten out of one hundred and fifty thousand.
This is how it works, Kore. Limiting the series incidents to ten is necessary to prevent national data from being skewed. For example, a female in a household (wife or a child) is repeatedly raped by a father, brother or uncle-whatever. In that situation the incidents of rape are numerous because they occur over years. That data is good for determining the statistics for that particular kind of rape. However, it becomes problematic when that data is used to determine national statistics on the total incidents of rape for the year. To prevent errors in the national data they limited the number of incidents in the above scenario to ten. This was my original argument and the argument I came back to after I reread the material. I diverted briefly from this argument after giving you the benefit of the doubt. When I reread the information I realized I was right with my earlier argument.
All the supporting info is in the other thread. There is no 10 respondents, meaning only ten people responded. The word isn't even used in the link you posted. You misrepresented the information in the other thread by claiming the survey only included ten total respondents when in fact it had thousands.
-
so, then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
True or false?
Once again, your bullshit train hurdles forward. "Series Incidents" means multiple incidents perpetrated on the same victim/s.
That paragraph has nothing to do with case studies of less than 10. It just means that if someone is beaten up by the same person or something like that, the report doesn't count it more than 10 times.
::)
10 incidents in a series and 10 respondents isn't he same thing.
-
Hulk got it
Al Doggity I think you may be incorrectly conflating the warning about N=10 on the frontpage with this specific method that also uses the number 10 as the limit to how many reports can come from an individual.
If I'm understanding it correctly, if someone reported 1-10 incidents in the study period they would all get counted, if someone reported 11 or more, only the first 10 are counted. So if anything it is under-estimating crime, and is not related to the statistical problems we pointed out earlier with N≤10 for these types of things in any obvious way that I can see. It is just a way of avoiding having the results be rendered invalid or not generalizable, due to a small number of outliers that may report hundreds of incidents.
I've lost track of what's going on and who is fucking who and whose mother so I'll contribute to this thread in another fashion:
-
This is how it works, Kore. Limiting the series incidents to ten is necessary to prevent national data from being skewed. For example, a female in a household (wife or a child) is repeatedly raped by a father, brother or uncle-whatever. In that situation the incidents of rape are numerous because they occur over years.
Great, so we're both in agreement that series incidents are limited to 10 so that they don't skew the data, correct? I feel like you're avoiding saying yes or no for some reason ???
-
I'm not sure you realize this... but...
Dems have won 4 of 6 elections for POTUS... by VERY comfy margins.
Repubs have won 2 of 6 elections for POTUS... both times by 1 state that could have gone either way. if FL is allowed to recount, Gore wins, history shows that now. And OHIO, lol, Repubs SUED so a recount coudln't start, which may have explained the epic exit polls showing Kerry winning big there.
Without 2 shady court decisions, Dems are fucking 6 for 6 in POTUS elections. Repubs can't be cocky for 2016.
Nonsense and much too narrow a view. Over the past century or so, the Repubs have held it for about 60 years and same with Dems. It's a typical cycle (one that needs to be broken).
Claiming either side can't win ignores even a basic historical analysis.
-
Great, so we're both in agreement that series incidents are limited to 10 so that they don't skew the data, correct? I feel like you're avoiding saying yes or no for some reason ???
Thats not what you argued. You argued it was ten total respondents. You outright dismissed the argument that series incidents are limited to 10 so they don't skew national data. Below is the exchange where you roll your eyes at series incidents.
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
-
Hulk got it
Exactly, so what Huk is saying is that the series incidents are limited to 10. I'm not sure why you won't just say, yes or no ??? Is that correct or not?
-
Exactly, so what Huk is saying is that the series incidents are limited to 10. I'm not sure why you won't just say, yes or no ??? Is that correct or not?
See above post. You dismissed the argument you are now claiming to support. In the post from December, I argue that series incidents are limited to ten. You claimed it's irrelevant. Here is the exchange again
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
I already posted that. This is all you need to know to understand what the ten sampling size is and why it is used. Whats so hard about understanding this? I didn't make it up. This is from their website. I think you're playing dumb on purpose to derail the thread. It's not ten people you moron.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.
Victimization weights used in analysis of NCVS data account for the number of persons present during an incident and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed information on only the most recent incident in the series.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included.
The warning is to tell the reader that the series incidents might be greater than 10.
::) Fine. You know what series incidents are. This whole discussion stems from you posting info from this study and claiming that certain black-on-white crime was at epidemic levels while white-on-black crime in those categories was statistically zero. When I pointed out that these stats were derived from fewer than 10 cases, you claimed that didn't make a difference. Right in the link you provided, it says categories with fewer than 10 case studies are unreliable. It literally says that. It's simply common sense. More case studies makes a survey more reliable.
None of this has anything to do with series incident. You keep posting that blurb, but it is completely irrelevant. Limiting the number of series incidents to 10 has nothing to do with the reliability of 10 or fewer case studies.
Here you dismiss case incidents and again claim that the stats are wrong because only ten individual cases studies were used. Meaning, only ten respondents not ten incidents in a series. It's time for you to concede
-
Thats not what you argued. You argued it was ten total respondents. You outright dismissed the argument that series incidents are limited to 10 so they don't skew national data. Below is the exchange where you roll your eyes at series incidents.
I feel like we might have misunderstood each other. I just want to make sure I understand your position. You're saying that SERIES INCIDENTS are limited to 10, correct?
And that the study surveyed more than 150,000 people?
Or are these statements wrong?
-
I feel like we might have misunderstood each other. I just want to make sure I understand your position. You're saying that SERIES INCIDENTS are limited to 10, correct?
And that the study surveyed more than 150,000 people?
Or are these statements wrong?
Read the above exchange as well as the screencaps I posted. You claimed ten total respondents were taken out of the thousands which is incorrect. You dismissed the argument that the ten was in reference to series incidents. Your words.
-
See above post. You dismissed the argument you are now claiming to support. In the post from December, I argue that series incidents are limited to ten. You claimed it's irrelevant. Here is the exchange again
I guess I"m not going to get you to clarify your position. Gee, I wonder why ;)
Ok, so in December you claim that series incidents are limited to 10 and that I said the opposite? Hmm, why is it that in OCTOBER, I had to explain what "series incidents" meant to you:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773110#msg7773110
Ok, now let's deal with the part where you seem to be having the most confusion. What they are talking ab out in the blurb that you don't understand is "series victimization". They even define it for you:
high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail.
Ok. So, now we know that "series victims"= people who are repeated victims of similar crimes. Keeping that in mind, the following passage that you didn't seem to understand should now make sense to you:
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents.
So, what that means is that the report counts up to 10 incidents in a series, even if there are more.
Let me know what about this you don't understand? I can be even clearer if necessary.
It's interesting that so many of the things that you claim are correct and that you said are things that I actually said. That's WEIRD!
-
I guess I"m not going to get you to clarify your position. Gee, I wonder why ;)
Ok, so in December you claim that series incidents are limited to 10 and that I said the opposite? Hmm, why is it that in OCTOBER, I had to explain what "series incidents" meant to you:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773110#msg7773110
It's interesting that so many of the things that you claim are correct and that you said are things that I actually said. That's WEIRD!
I already clarified my position several times. You have a track record of not reading any information. The fact remains you thought the survey statistics were calculated by taking ten individuals or respondents from the 150,000. This is untrue. Respondents was a word you repeatedly used. The word did not appear in the link you provided to prove the existence of the word. The exchange with AJ clearly shows you truly did believe it was only ten respondents not ten incidents in a series.
You also dismissed the argument of ten incidents here.
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
-
I already clarified my position several times. You have a track record of not reading any information. The fact remains you thought the survey statistics were calculated by taking ten individuals or respondents from the 150,000. This is untrue.
It is untrue. I also never said it. You did. In the link you provided I was making fun of you.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773196#msg7773196
The report questioned a total of more than 10(150,000 or more) but uses ten as the sample size to correct statistical imbalances. Get it straight, the 10 are a random sampling of the larger pool of individuals surveyed.
In the very next post I point out that that makes no sense. In the conversation with aj. I later point out that this is nonsense you spewed.
-
It is untrue. I also never said it. You did. In the link you provided I was making fun of you.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773196#msg7773196
In the very next post I point out that that makes no sense. In the conversation with aj. I later point out that this is nonsense you spewed.
In the post from December, I argue that series incidents are limited to ten. You claimed it's irrelevant. Here is the exchange again
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
I already posted that. This is all you need to know to understand what the ten sampling size is and why it is used. Whats so hard about understanding this? I didn't make it up. This is from their website. I think you're playing dumb on purpose to derail the thread. It's not ten people you moron.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.
Victimization weights used in analysis of NCVS data account for the number of persons present during an incident and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed information on only the most recent incident in the series.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included.
The warning is to tell the reader that the series incidents might be greater than 10.
::) Fine. You know what series incidents are. This whole discussion stems from you posting info from this study and claiming that certain black-on-white crime was at epidemic levels while white-on-black crime in those categories was statistically zero. When I pointed out that these stats were derived from fewer than 10 cases, you claimed that didn't make a difference. Right in the link you provided, it says categories with fewer than 10 case studies are unreliable. It literally says that. It's simply common sense. More case studies makes a survey more reliable.
None of this has anything to do with series incident. You keep posting that blurb, but it is completely irrelevant. Limiting the number of series incidents to 10 has nothing to do with the reliability of 10 or fewer case studies.
Here you dismiss case incidents and again claim that the stats are wrong because only ten individual cases studies were used. Meaning, only ten respondents not ten incidents in a series. It's time for you to concede
-
In the post from December, I argue that series incidents are limited to ten. You claimed it's irrelevant. Here is the exchange again
Here you dismiss case incidents and again claim that the stats are wrong because only ten individual cases studies were used. Meaning, only ten respondents not ten incidents in a series. It's time for you to concede
I dismissed SERIES INCIDENTS because they weren't related to the discussion. This was the point of contention:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
In cases where the CV is greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate is noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
You claimed that samples with fewer than 10 cases were completely, infallibly accurate even though the people who conducted the study warned that they are extremely unreliable. You only started posting that nonsense about SERIES INCIDENTS because the number 10 was convenient for you.
-
Depends, is that sample group composed of Sheldon Adelson and 9 other of America's richest people?
Another way of looking at it is by asking if the 538 presidential electors that make up the electoral college are a reliable-enough group to chose our president every 4 years (Keeping in mind that there are 316 Million Americans)?
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
You confirm you misinterpreted the number ten to refer to ten people not ten incidents in a series. Then you claim the study itself says its limited to ten people.
-
I dismissed SERIES INCIDENTS because they weren't related to the discussion. This was the point of contention:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
You claimed that samples with fewer than 10 cases were completely, infallibly accurate even though the people who conducted the study warned that they are extremely unreliable. You only started posting that nonsense about SERIES INCIDENTS because the number 10 was convenient for you.
As I mentioned before I corrected myself after I gave your argument of ten meaning ten people not incidents the benefit of the doubt. Series incidents are important to the study because as I said many times they help eliminate outliers that skew the national data. After I corrected myself you continued to argue that it was ten respondents not ten incidents in a series. You believed the study was inaccurate because the sample size was to small. When I read further I discovered that the sample size was pretty large and the number ten was in reference to series incidents. The below thread is the important one, in particular the first page were you discuss sample size and respondents with aj and OMR.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0
-
I'm not confusing series incidents with weighing methodology. The link I posted discusses this. Series incidents were effecting total counts. This was my original argument.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
No, it wasn't. You just desparately glommed onto this blurb because it contained the number 10. It has nothing to do with the margin of error, which is pretty straightforward.
Again you deny series incidents are an issue. I admitted and corrected my errors back in December. Even in this thread you repeated the mistake of 10 respondents.
-
You confirm you misinterpreted the number ten to refer to ten people not ten incidents in a series. Then you claim the study itself says its limited to ten people.
It's a crime study. There were 150000 case studies covering every category of American crime. Some categories, specifically rape, had fewer than 10 case studies when broken down by race, gender, etc. Within the study itself was a warning that these categories with fewer than 10 case studies weren't statistically reliable. You repeatedly claimed that they were.
They are just acknowledging the sample size is small, that's all. The sample sizes could be bigger. Despite the small sample size the RCVS is pretty certain they are right.
They specifically said that they weren't. None of this has anything to do with series incidents.
-
Again you deny series incidents are an issue. I admitted and corrected my errors back in December. Even in this thread you repeated the mistake of 10 respondents.
LOL you're a mess.
-
It's a crime study. There were 150000 case studies covering every category of American crime. Some categories, specifically rape, had fewer than 10 case studies when broken down by race, gender, etc. Within the study itself was a warning that these categories with fewer than 10 case studies weren't statistically reliable. You repeatedly claimed that they were.
They specifically said that they weren't. None of this has anything to do with series incidents.
Yes it does and I already posted a link in a previous thread that discussed the methodology and another link that studied the methodology in a previous thread. Like everything else you didn't read any of the information. Apparently you're back to believing its ten total respondents when you've been arguing you really meant ten incidents for the last two pages of this thread.
LOL you're a mess.
You're a moron who thinks ten people were surveyed. Then you argued in this thread you didn't mean ten people and now here you are back to arguing it's ten total people.
-
Yes it does and I already posted a link in a previous thread that discussed the methodology and another link that studied the methodology in a previous thread. Like everything else you didn't read any of the information. Apparently you're back to believing its ten total respondents when you've been arguing you really meant ten incidents for the last two pages of this thread.
I never argued that I mean 10 incident or 10 respondents. These are things you brought up. I just tried to get you to understand that they weren't interchangeable. You are the one who had trouble understanding the study, which is the point of all this. This is me , right from the beginning:
Me:
Right in the link you provided it shows that the survey included over 150,000 people.
Never a question about the scope of the study, even back in October.
-
You're a moron who thinks ten people were surveyed. Then you argue
in this thread you didn't mean ten people and now here you are back to arguing it's ten total people.
Nope. As I just showed, never argued that. Showed several posts where you argued both of those things. Here's another:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7773999#msg7773999
They conduct a large number of interviews in intervals of time period of time like three months to six months to a year. To avoid inflating the numbers they take ten from the pool and calculate the percentages that way.
Seriously. This is fucking stupid.
-
I never argued that I mean 10 incident or 10 respondents. These are things you brought up. I just tried to get you to understand that they weren't interchangeable. You are the one who had trouble understanding the study, which is the point of all this. This is me , right from the beginning:
Never a question about the scope of the study, even back in October.
You used the term 10 respondents. You argued that it was ten respondents out of 150,000. As I said, I corrected my argument. You dismissed incidents being relevant.
Ive already posted the reason a sample size of ten is used from information about their methodology directly from their website several times. They use a sample size of ten to fix balance issues. Its several postsup. They provide an entire pdf abour their methodology you can dowload. TheFBI also discusses on thier website about the differences between methodology they employ versus the rcvs.
They conduct a large number of interviews in intervals of time period of time like three months to six months to a year. To avoid inflating the numbers they take ten from the pool and calculate the percentages that way. They warn readers about that not because they feel their conclusion are wrong but to be transparent. A 50% correlative coefficient doeent mean there is a 50% chance the stats are wrong.
The reason some dont use the 10 sample size has to do with the nature of the statistic. In those cases there isnt a need to correct balancing issues. For example car theft versus sex abuse. The chance the same car will be stolen repeatedly isnt as likeky as one person experiencing multiple instances of sexual abuse. The methodology they use is intended to prevent multiple instances of abuse on a single individual being calculated as seperate events thus screwing up the data.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012.
You left out the rest of the quote. The most important being in bold.
-
The exchange with AJ clearly shows you truly did believe it was only ten respondents not ten incidents in a series.
No, it didn't. I was being sarcastic. I said this:
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
Then when he pointed out how stupid it sounded, I said this:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
-
You used the term 10 respondents. You argued that it was ten respondents out of 150,000. As I said, I corrected my argument. You dismissed incidents being relevant.
You left out the rest of the quote. The most important being in bold.
LOL those two things aren't related at all.
-
I posted this before but I doubt you read it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
-
LOL those two things aren't related at all.
Yes they are. You seem to think so up to an hour ago.
No, it didn't. I was being sarcastic. I said this:
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
Then when he pointed out how stupid it sounded, I said this:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
You weren't being sarcastic. Your exchange with OMR confirms that. You not only affirm you think the study had only ten people you claim that's what the survey itself says.
-
Right from that report:
Unfortunately, the sampling error for estimates of victimization rates for many subpopulations of interest can become quite large on the NCVS because there are very few affirmative responses to questions about serious violent criminal victimization in the sampled groups. Thus, BJS does not provide estimates for rape and sexual assault for these subpopulations; they only provide estimates for the larger category, serious violent crimes.
::) You're an idiot.
-
You weren't being sarcastic.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866146#msg7866146
I say this:
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
aj says this:
I now realize that I am being trolled. Well played.
I'm out.
And I say this:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
It's not really debatable that it's sarcasm.
-
You know what I will do. I will call them and ask for clarification
-
Right from that report:
Unfortunately, the sampling error for estimates of victimization rates for many subpopulations of interest can become quite large on the NCVS because there are very few affirmative responses to questions about serious violent criminal victimization in the sampled groups. Thus, BJS does not provide estimates for rape and sexual assault for these subpopulations; they only provide estimates for the larger category, serious violent crimes.
::) You're an idiot.
Rape is a violent crime. I don't know what this proves. You should provide the rest of the information to provide context. You're the idiot, pizzaface.
-
As important as national-level estimates of rape and sexual assault are, there is an equivalent need for quality estimates for certain subpopulations to ascertain which demographic groups are more “at risk” to become victims and to look at regional differences in criminal victimization levels. These more focused estimates are important because they allow for better allocation of resources to prevent crime and support victims.
Unfortunately, the sampling error for estimates of victimization rates for many subpopulations of interest can become quite large on the NCVS because there are very few affirmative responses to questions about serious violent criminal victimization in the sampled groups. Thus, BJS does not provide estimates for rape and sexual assault for these subpopulations; they only provide estimates for the larger category, serious violent crimes.
For the aggregated category, serious violent crime, Table 7-2 shows that the CVs at the national level are approximately 6 percent. However, the CVs for important subpopulations are much higher because of their smaller sample sizes. For example, the NCVS estimates that blacks experienced an estimated serious violent victimization rate of 10.8 percent in 2011, which were 65 percent higher than that experienced by whites, 6.5 percent, and the CVs for blacks were high (13 percent). American Indians/Alaska Natives experienced an estimated serious violent victimization rate of 47.3 percent in 2010 and 12.6 percent in 2011, and the CVs for those years were 24 and 51 percent, respectively. It is clear that the sampling errors for these important “at-risk” subpopulation were large and the estimates were very unstable from year to year.
Do you know what they are referring to when they say subpopulations? I do. They are talking about state-by-state and city statistics. Young and old. And they are referring to victims not perps. Meaning, the statistics are accurate but limited to the national level.
-
You know what I will do. I will call them and ask for clarification
It's always great to take the initiative to educate yourself, but you went from simply being too dumb to understand what the study meant to lying about who was making which argument. They are not going to be able to clarify that you are an idiot and a liar . Only I can do that. Here are a few more posts with me claiming the study only had 10 respondents.
Me again:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index
.php?topic=551654.msg7774126#msg7774126
Obviously what you posted is nonsense.
The study is based on more than 150,000 respondents, not 10.
-
CONCLUSION 7-1 The National Crime Victimization Survey, which is designed as an omnibus victimization survey, is efficient in measuring the many types of criminal victimizations across the United States, but it does not measure the low incidence events of rape and sexual assault with the precision needed for policy and research purposes. Comparisons across subgroups and years are particularly problematic.
-
It's always great to take the initiative to educate yourself, but you went from simply being too dumb to understand what the study meant to lying about who was making which argument. They are not going to be able to clarify that you are an idiot and a liar . Only I can do that. Here are a few more posts with me claiming the study only had 10 respondents.
Me again:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index
.php?topic=551654.msg7774126#msg7774126
You used the term 10 respondents repeatedly. You claimed the survey was inaccurate because the sample size of ten respondents was to small. If you think the sample size is 150,000 what is your grounds to claim they aren't accurate?
-
CONCLUSION 7-1 The National Crime Victimization Survey, which is designed as an omnibus victimization survey, is efficient in measuring the many types of criminal victimizations across the United States, but it does not measure the low incidence events of rape and sexual assault with the precision needed for policy and research purposes. Comparisons across subgroups and years are particularly problematic.
Uh, durr!! ::)
-
You used the term 10 respondents repeatedly. You claimed the survey was inaccurate because the sample size of ten respondents was to small. If you think the sample size is 150,000 what is your grounds to claim they aren't accurate?
Me from October:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=551654.msg7774700#msg7774700
There were 150000 people randomly surveyed in the crime study and when the survey was broken down by race, age, sex, etc, many categories had 10 case studies or fewer. In those cases, the authors of the study warn that those number aren't really reliable.
That's it. It's no more complicated than that.
-
Uh, durr!! ::)
Whats your point then, pizza face? You didn't even know what they meant by subpopulation.
What does 10 sample cases mean to you?
-
Whats your point then, pizza face? You didn't even know what they meant by subpopulation.
What does 10 sample cases mean to you?
Of course I knew what it meant, why do you think I quoted it? ::)
-
It's occurring to me that you probably don't understand what it means. I will spare you further embarrassment and inform you; it's a subgroup, subcategory, the point of discussion. If a subpopulation has only 10 available case studies, it's not a reliable statistic for research purposes. ::)
-
Of course I knew what it meant, why do you think I quoted it. ::)
Apparently you didn't because you posted the excerpt because you felt it proved something it obviously didn't. What does ten sample cases mean to you? Don't change the term to available.
-
Apparently you didn't because you posted the excerpt because you felt it proved something it obviously didn't. What does ten sample cases mean to you?
It proves what I"ve been saying all along: SOME SUBGROUPS IN THAT REPORT DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH SAMPLE CASES TO MAKE STATISTICALLY RELIABLE CONCLUSIONS!!
-
It proves what I"ve been saying all along: A SUBGROUP DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH SAMPLE CASES TO MAKE STATISTICALLY RELIABLE CONCLUSIONS!!
What does it mean? How many individuals? When they refer to incomplete data they aren't referring to perpetrators but victims so the stats on offenders are accurate as are the national victim statistics overall. What they are saying is they have an excellent understanding of national trends but not local trends. Who is raping who is accurate but where for example is not certain. Therefore its difficult to get the needed help where it needs to go. They aren't commenting on the veracity of national statistics.
-
LOL...
but it does not measure the low incidence events of rape and sexual assault with the precision needed for policy and research purposes. Comparisons across subgroups and years are particularly problematic.
This literally means "The number of sample cases in certain subcategories is too small to be statistically reliable". Exactly what I've been saying.
In a few more posts, it will be what you've been saying. Since December. ::)
-
LOL...
This literally means "The number of sample cases in certain subcategories is too small to be statistically reliable". Exactly what I've been saying.
In a few more posts, it will be what you've been saying. Since December. ::)
Ten sample cases means ten individual respondents? Whats the actual number of individuals? Does it refer to individuals? It's subpopulations, meaning non-national or subnational statistics. They stand behind their national statistics on perps and victims.
-
Ten sample cases means ten individual respondents? Whats the actual number of individuals? Does it refer to individuals? It's subpopulations, meaning non-national or subnational statistics. They stand behind their national statistics on perps and victims.
::) "Subpopulations"' means categories: Native Americans, Blacks, Asians, etc. They are literally saying certain categories they don't have enough data and they CAN'T stand behind their statistics.
-
::) "Subpopulations"' means categories: Native Americans, Blacks, Asians, etc. They are literally saying certain categories they don't have enough data and they CAN'T stand behind their statistics.
The limitations are specifically where to allocate resources and identifying potential victims. It's not specific enough to tell us certain things that are necessary for allocating resources. The national statistics they consider valid, particularly perpetrator which is what this was all about to begin with. If anything, this would indicate the number of black rapists and murders and minority victims are underestimated. This would also have very little effect on the statistics pertaining to interracial rape and murder. What does sample cases mean to you? Does ten sample cases mean ten individual respondents.
As important as national-level estimates of rape and sexual assault are, there is an equivalent need for quality estimates for certain subpopulations to ascertain which demographic groups are more “at risk” to become victims and to look at regional differences in criminal victimization levels. These more focused estimates are important because they allow for better allocation of resources to prevent crime and support victims
Unfortunately, the sampling error for estimates of victimization rates for many subpopulations of interest can become quite large on the NCVS because there are very few affirmative responses to questions about serious violent criminal victimization in the sampled groups. Thus, BJS does not provide estimates for rape and sexual assault for these subpopulations; they only provide estimates for the larger category, serious violent crimes.
For the aggregated category, serious violent crime, Table 7-2 shows that the CVs at the national level are approximately 6 percent. However, the CVs for important subpopulations are much higher because of their smaller sample sizes. For example, the NCVS estimates that blacks experienced an estimated serious violent victimization rate of 10.8 percent in 2011, which were 65 percent higher than that experienced by whites, 6.5 percent, and the CVs for blacks were high (13 percent). American Indians/Alaska Natives experienced an estimated serious violent victimization rate of 47.3 percent in 2010 and 12.6 percent in 2011, and the CVs for those years were 24 and 51 percent, respectively. It is clear that the sampling errors for these important “at-risk” subpopulation were large and the estimates were very unstable from year to year.
-
The limitations are specifically where to allocate resources and identifying potential victims. It's not specific enough to tell us certain things that are necessary for allocating resources. The national statistics they consider valid, particularly perpetrator which is what this was all about to begin with.
That's what it's all about?! I thought it was about series incidents. ::)
Also, this is crap:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
However, for rape and sexual assault (as measured in 2011), which account for only 13 percent of all serious violent crime victimizations, the CVs for the number of those victimizations are approximately 14 percent at the national level with more year-to-year variation.
In other words, national level rape statistics aren't particularly reliable, either.
-
That's what it's all about?! I thought it was about series incidents. ::)
Also, this is crap:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
However, for rape and sexual assault (as measured in 2011), which account for only 13 percent of all serious violent crime victimizations, the CVs for the number of those victimizations are approximately 14 percent at the national level with more year-to-year variation.
In other words, national level rape statistics aren't particularly reliable, either.
As I said way back in December, unreliable as in they underestimate levels of rape. In particular minority victims by minority perps. Black on white crime should be fairly accurate. Even if we assume the incidents of rape are higher it only makes the imbalance of black on white sexual assaults even worse or at the very least doesn't change the imbalance at all. You know what this is about. You denied blacks commit crimes against whites at higher rates. What does sample cases mean to you? Does ten sample cases mean ten individual respondents total as you continue to claim?
-
As I said way back in December, unreliable as in they underestimate levels of rape. In particular minority victims by minority perps. Black on white crime should be fairly accurate. Even if we assume the incidents of rape are higher it only makes the imbalance of black on white sexual assaults even worse or at the very least doesn't change the imbalance at all. You know what this is about. You denied blacks commit crimes against whites at higher rates. What does sample cases mean to you? Does ten sample cases mean ten individual respondents total as you continue to claim?
LOL... I thought this was about "series incidents"? And, of course, you're wrong. :-\
I never denied that blacks commit crimes against whites at a higher rate. Statistically, that doesn't
even make sense. What I did say is that your interpretation of this study was wildly inaccurate and exaggerated. And the type of assumptions you just posted is further proof of that. Not only are they just assumptions based on no data whatsoever, they are actually antithetical to what is posted in the report.
The report is here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
Table 42 has the rape and race statistics, the accurate perp statistics that they stand behind ::)
I have posted screencaps of the data and the key here.
Based on the methodology that you have posted several times, we know that the sample cases available for black victims is 4: 3 black perpetrators and 1 of undetermined race. 75% black on black, 25% other.The breakdown the same for white victims: 75% white perpetrators, 25% others. We also know based on the methodology that the number of sample cases of black perps/white victims is 6, a number so low that the study gives it a standard error rate above 50%.
Furthermore, as the key points out, these aren't even limited to incidents of rape. The stats also include verbal threats.
I have posted all of this before. You will keep lying though. You will baldfaced lie about understanding what this means. You will baldfaced lie about me saying things I didn't say. You will baldfaced lie about you saying things you didn't say. I posted 10 quotes of me saying the study had 150000 respondents and 10 of you saying the study had only 10, yet you still try to paint it as the opposite. You're just a liar and an idiot.
-
LOL... I thought this was about "series incidents"? And, of course, you're wrong. :-\
I never denied that blacks commit crimes against whites at a higher rate. Statistically, that doesn't
even make sense. What I did say is that your interpretation of this study was wildly inaccurate and exaggerated. And the type of assumptions you just posted is further proof of that. Not only are they just assumptions based on no data whatsoever, they are actually antithetical to what is posted in the report.
The report is here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
Table 42 has the rape and race statistics, the accurate perp statistics that they stand behind ::)
I have posted screencaps of the data and the key here.
Based on the methodology that you have posted several times, we know that the sample cases available for black victims is 4: 3 black perpetrators and 1 of undetermined race. 75% black on black, 25% other.The breakdown the same for white victims: 75% white perpetrators, 25% others. We also know based on the methodology that the number of sample cases of black perps/white victims is 6, a number so low that the study gives it a standard error rate above 50%.
Furthermore, as the key points out, these aren't even limited to incidents of rape. The stats also include verbal threats.
I have posted all of this before. You will keep lying though. You will baldfaced lie about understanding what this means. You will baldfaced lie about me saying things I didn't say. You will baldfaced lie about you saying things you didn't say. I posted 10 quotes of me saying the study had 150000 respondents and 10 of you saying the study had only 10, yet you still try to paint it as the opposite. You're just a liar and an idiot.
Yes you did. That was why you were upset. You though the survey was inaccurate and that blacks don't commit more crimes like rape against whites than whites do against blacks. I don't even understand what there is to dispute here.
You used the term respondents multiple times. You said the sample size was ten respondents, meaning ten individuals. You said it in this very thread. There is no other way around that. You may have acknowledged the 150,000 but you stated it was only ten respondents out of that number.
What does case samples mean to you? Is sample case the same as sample respondent in your mind? Why did you repeatedly write ten respondents?
-
So, in other words you agree that the survey included 150000 respondents and that survey also limited series incidents to 10 so that the data was not skewed. Good, so we're on the same page with this?
You even tried to agree with me. Now you are again denying incidents are important.
-
Yes you did. That was why you were upset. You though the survey was inaccurate and that blacks don't commit more crimes like rape against whites than whites do against blacks. I don't even understand what there is to dispute here.
You said this:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=546754.msg7673228#msg7673228
What is staggering is that blacks commit assaults against whites twenty-fives more than whites on blacks. In terms of aggravated assault, the number is two-hundred times more. The National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black-on-white rapes and 39,000 black-on-white robberies – both violent crimes. The statistics show that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was zero. This is the reality we live in and not the fantasy land perpetuate by fools where racist white cops killing blacks is an epidemic.
This is not at all what that report says. When another member commented that there should be a huge national uproar over those numbers, I pointed out that those numbers aren't accurate.
Me:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=546754.msg7673773#msg7673773
Not if you take into account how dubious those numbers are. This study has been discussed in detail for years on the net. The entire thing can be found here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
The table relevant to this discussion is number 46 and the methodology of the study is discussed on the final pages.
Firstly, the "rapes" are not rapes. They are statistics of COMBINED reported and unreported rapes, attempted rapes, threats of rapes and sexual assaults that include anything from verbal assaults to fondling.
Then you continue to lie, swerve, evade, accuse me of being every member you can think of, despite me actually posting a link to the actual report. The info is right there.
-
::) Fine. You know what series incidents are. This whole discussion stems from you posting info from this study and claiming that certain black-on-white crime was at epidemic levels while white-on-black crime in those categories was statistically zero. When I pointed out that these stats were derived from fewer than 10 cases, you claimed that didn't make a difference. Right in the link you provided, it says categories with fewer than 10 case studies are unreliable. It literally says that. It's simply common sense. More case studies makes a survey more reliable.
None of this has anything to do with series incident. You keep posting that blurb, but it is completely irrelevant. Limiting the number of series incidents to 10 has nothing to do with the reliability of 10 or fewer case studies.
Why do you use the word respondent interchangeably with samples cases? What does sample cases mean to you? Is the same as respondents? You won't answer the question
-
Why do you use the word respondent interchangeably with samples cases? What does sample cases mean to you? Is the same as respondents? You won't answer the question
I don't. Some categories have 10 case studies, but the total study- ALL CATEGORIES COMBINED- had 150000 respondents.
Understand?
-
You confirm your confusion in the exchange with OMR. YOu interpret samples cases as individual respondents.
Depends, is that sample group composed of Sheldon Adelson and 9 other of America's richest people?
Another way of looking at it is by asking if the 538 presidential electors that make up the electoral college are a reliable-enough group to chose our president every 4 years (Keeping in mind that there are 316 Million Americans)?
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
-
They do limit series incidents to 10 to prevent skewing national data. I may be wrong that this applies to the 10 sample cases references but you are absolutely incorrect when you claim the number 10 means 10 individual respondents. You used the word respondents many times.
-
You confirm your confusion in the exchange with OMR. YOu interpret samples cases as individual respondents.
OMR:
A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
Me:
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
-
They do limit series incidents to 10 to prevent skewing national data. I may be wrong that this applies to the 10 sample cases references but you are absolutely incorrect when you claim the number 10 means 10 individual respondents. You used the word respondents many times.
There are over 150000 respondents. The only time I referred to 10 respondents was to correct you and inform you of the actual number.
-
What does sample cases mean to you? Why did you repeatedly use the 10 respondents? They are not the same. Nice edit. OMR gives a direct answer to your question and you confirm he is correct. OMR refers to 10 people and you confirm that is exactly what you meant.
OMR:
A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
Me:
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
Depends, is that sample group composed of Sheldon Adelson and 9 other of America's richest people?
Another way of looking at it is by asking if the 538 presidential electors that make up the electoral college are a reliable-enough group to chose our president every 4 years (Keeping in mind that there are 316 Million Americans)?
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
-
I may be wrong that this applies to the 10 sample cases references
You are wrong about everything. Your interpretation of the study is wrong. You lied about what I said. you lied about what you said. Your understanding of how series incidents relates to sample cases is wrong. Your conclusions on rape based on the data from the study were wrong.
-
You are wrong about everything. Your interpretation of the study is wrong. You lied about what I said. you lied about what you said. Your understanding of how series incidents relates to sample cases is wrong. Your conclusions on rape based on the data from the study were wrong.
hat does sample cases mean to you? Why did you repeatedly use the 10 respondents? They are not the same. Nice edit. OMR gives a direct answer to your question and you confirm he is correct. OMR refers to 10 people and you confirm that is exactly what you meant.
OMR:
A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
Me:
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
Depends, is that sample group composed of Sheldon Adelson and 9 other of America's richest people?
Another way of looking at it is by asking if the 538 presidential electors that make up the electoral college are a reliable-enough group to chose our president every 4 years (Keeping in mind that there are 316 Million Americans)?
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
And you're a liar kore. A fat zit faced liar. The survey text never says ten people or respondents. So this confirms you confused sample cases with respondents.
-
You are wrong about everything. Your interpretation of the study is wrong. You lied about what I said. you lied about what you said. Your understanding of how series incidents relates to sample cases is wrong. Your conclusions on rape based on the data from the study were wrong.
The conclusion on rape are the surveys not my own.
-
What does sample cases mean to you? Why did you repeatedly use the 10 respondents? They are not the same. Nice edit. OMR gives a direct answer to your question and you confirm he is correct. OMR refers to 10 people and you confirm that is exactly what you meant.
There was no edit. OMR and Hulkotron both quote me. The post has been the same since December.
Sample cases are the cases used in the study. There were 150000 respondents and some categories- once broken down by subgroups- had less than 10 sample cases.
-
OMR says ten people and you confirm that is what you meant. You can't get around that. The survey never says ten people or respondents.
There was no edit. OMR and Hulkotron both quote me. The post has been the same since December.
Sample cases are the cases used in the study. There were 150000 respondents and some categories- once broken down by subgroups- had less than 10 sample cases.
This is not an answer. How many individuals in a case sample? Is case sample the same as respondents? Ten sample cases as in ten people only? You seem to think so.
-
And you're a liar kore. A fat zit faced liar. The survey text never says ten people or respondents. So this confirms you confused sample cases with respondents.
This is right from the study.
You can find the whole thing here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
-
It says "Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases."
-
This is right from the study.
You can find the whole thing here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
Again, what does sample cases mean? How many individuals in a sample case? Posting a pic of sample phrases tells me nothing about how you misinterpret the word. You're avoid the question, fat ass. Your exchange with OMR tells me exactly what you meant. YOu meant ten people/respondents
It says "Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases."
Posting what the survey using the term doesn't tell me what you think sample cases mean.
-
OMR says ten people and you confirm that is what you meant. You can't get around that.
I also go on to say this:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866151#msg7866151
Me:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
So, clearly, I am being sarcastic and making fun of something you said.
-
Again, what does sample cases mean? How many individuals in a sample case? Posting a pic of sample phrases tells me nothing about how you misinterpret the word. You're avoid the question, fat ass. Your exchange with OMR tells me exactly what you meant. YOu meant ten people/respondents
In this category for black victims of rape, there are 4 sample cases.
-
I also go on to say this:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866151#msg7866151
Me:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
So, clearly, I am being sarcastic and making fun of something you said.
And I corrected myself, lard ass. You think ten sample cases means ten people, pizza face. Answer the question, what does sample cases mean to you?
-
In this category for black victims of rape, there are 4 sample cases.
Sample cases meaning what exactly? And this is why they caution interpretation because as I posted before sub-populations like black women are underrepresented as victims. Black men are underrepresented as perpetrators not over represented.
Nice tits by the way, lard ass.
-
And I corrected myself, lard ass.
Well, I was clearly referring to you. It was not something I believed. I specifically said it was something you said that I thought was stupid.
You think ten sample cases means ten people, pizza face. Answer the question, what does sample cases mean to you?
I just answered. I posted a screencap from the study. In the category of for black victims of rape, there are 4 sample cases.
-
Well, I was clearly referring to you. It was not something I believed. I specifically said it was something you said that I thought was stupid.
I just answered. I posted a screencap from the study. In the category of for black victims of rape, there are 4 sample cases.
You didn't answer pizza face. The reason you won't answer is because you know you think 10 sample cases means ten individuals. Posting the use of the survey does not tell me whatyou think it means.
-
Sample cases meaning what exactly? And this is why they caution interpretation because as I posted before sub-populations like black women are underrepresented as victims. Black men are underrepresented as perpetrators not over represented.
LOL you keep changing why they caution interpretation. I guess you at least understand that it has nothing to do with series incidents now. I guess that's progress. :)
-
You didn't answer pizza face. The reason you won't answer is because you know you think 10 sample cases means ten individuals. Posting the use of the survey does not tell me whatyou think it means.
Sample case- a victim and a perpetrator.
-
LOL you keep changing why they caution interpretation. I guess you at least understand that it has nothing to do with series incidents now. I guess that's progress. :)
I admitted I may be wrong. You keep trying to dodge the question of what ten sample cases means to you. You think it means 10 people out of 150,000. Your exchange with OMR confirms it.
10 sample cases- a victim and a perpetrator.
So now 10 cases equal only a single victim and a perpetrator? Say it, ten samples cases is ten respondents or ten people
-
I admitted I may be wrong. You keep trying to dodge the question of what ten sample cases means to you. You think it means 10 people out of 150,000. Your exchange with OMR confirms it.
You aren't "maybe wrong". You are definitively wrong. And my exchange with OMR was about you. In the thread, I said it was about you.
-
Sample case- victim and perpetrator.
Sample case- 1 respondent.
-
You aren't "maybe wrong". You are definitively wrong. And my exchange with OMR was about you. In the thread, I said it was about you.
No it wasnt about me. Your arguement was the survey was comprised of only ten respondents. OMR asks you straight out if that's what you meant and you say yes.
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
Sample case- victim and perpetrator.
Sample case- 1 respondent.
So admit that you're saying that they only took 10 respondents out of 150,000 people? You've been denying this for the last page. This is exactly what was in the exchange with OMR.
-
No it wasnt about me. Your arguement was the survey was comprised of only ten respondents.
Me:
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
aj:
I now realize that I am being trolled. Well played.
I'm out.
me:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
-
Me:
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
aj:
I now realize that I am being trolled. Well played.
I'm out.
me:
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
But thats exactly what you're saying now, pizza face. I did write the BOJ so we will get more information soon.
-
Look, I think the stats are accurate as does the DOJ and the FBI. I don't know what else to tell you.
-
But thats exactly what you're saying now, pizza face.
No, it isn't. You claimed the entire study only had 10 respondents and that the people who conducted the study limited respondents to to make it more accurate.
I said that there were 150000 respondents and that after breaking down the entire study into categories, some of those categories have fewer than 10 sample cases. This makes those statistics unreliable.
Two completely different things.
-
Look, I think the stats are accurate as does the DOJ and the FBI. I don't know what else to tell you.
You can continue making shit up. That hasn't been working too well for you though.
-
No, it isn't. You claimed the entire study only had 10 respondents and that the people who conducted the study limited respondents to to make it more accurate.
I said that there were 150000 respondents and that after breaking down the entire study into categories, some of those categories have fewer than 10 sample cases. This makes those statistics unreliable.
Two completely different things.
You used the word respondents. I never did. Last October I said that the survey was limited to ten but I admitted that was wrong last year. They do limit series incidents to 10 to avoid skewing the data. I was right about that. It's your argument, the one you're making now, that only ten total respondents are being used out of 150,000. Even if we assume that's true, it only means the survey under reports crime and the rates will be much higher particularly for minority victims. Under the best of circumstances the stats will never be lower than they are in the study. What this means is that whatever problem there is in terms of black on white rape is probably exponentially higher than what the NVCS indicates. So the argument really is, how much worse is it not whether it isn't a problem as you suggest.
-
You used the word respondents. I never did. Last October I said that the survey was limited to ten but I admitted that was wrong last year. They do limit series incidents to 10 to avoid skewing the data. I was right about that. It's your argument, the one you're making now, that only ten total respondents are being used out of 150,000. Even if we assume that's true, it only means the survey under reports crime and the rates will be much higher particularly for minority victims. Under the best of circumstances the stats will never be lower than they are in the study. What this means is that whatever problem there is in terms of black on white rape is probably exponentially higher than what the NVCS indicates. So the argument really is, how much worse is it not whether it isn't a problem as you suggest.
You can continue making shit up. That hasn't been working too well for you though. ::)
Swerve, lie, dodge... How many times is this that you admitted you were wrong, only to come up with a more idiotic point?
Anymore embarrassing pice of "me"? LOL I'll never recover ::)
-
You can continue making shit up. That hasn't been working too well for you though. ::)
Swerve, lie, dodge... How many times is this that you admitted you were wrong?
Anymore embarrassing pice of "me"? LOL
You've done your fair share of swerving, pizza face. Are you saying there is not a problem of interracial crime? Is that what you're saying? Are you suggesting there is not an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of black on white crimes? What's your reasoning for that? I do have pictures of your ugly ass wife. Want me to post those?
-
Why do the DOJ and FBI references these statistics if they are so horribly inaccurate?
-
You've done your fair share of swerving, pizza face. Are you saying there is not a problem of interracial crime? Is that what you're saying? Are you suggesting there is not an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of black on white crimes? What's your reasoning for that? I do have pictures of your ugly ass wife. Want me to post those?
You're the only one swerving, son. My position has been consistent since way back. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm flat out saying that the conclusions you tried to draw from the study are wrong and you are too stupid to even understand the study.
Post the pics. I couldn't care less.
-
You're the only one swerving, son. My position has been consistent since way back. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm flat out saying that the conclusions you tried to draw from the study are wrong and you are too stupid to even understand the study.
Post the pics. I couldn't care less.
Are you finally admitting your kore? Why do the DOJ and FBI use these stats? Are you saying there isn't a problem?
-
Are you finally admitting your kore?
How does me not caring if you post pics = "admitting" I'm kore? ???
Why do the DOJ and FBI use these stats? Are you saying there isn't a problem?
The DoJ conducts the study. Right from the FBI website:
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/crime_measures.html
The BJS derives the NCVS estimates from interviewing a sample. The estimates are, therefore, subject to a margin of error. The BJS uses rigorous statistical methods to calculate confidence intervals around all survey estimates. The BJS describes trend data in the NCVS reports as genuine only if there is at least a 90 percent certainty that the measured changes are not the result of sampling variation.
The stats you kept repeating had a 50% CV. In other words, the FBI doesn't use these stats because they don't consider them reliable.
-
How does me not caring if you post pics = "admitting" I'm kore? ???
The DoJ conducts the study. Right from the FBI website:
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/crime_measures.html
The stats you kept repeating had a 50% CV. In other words, the FBI doesn't use these stats because they don't consider them reliable.
I suspect you're always strawman. How many gimmicks do you have, fat fuck? Are you mad because I call you out on all your logical fallacies? Be a man and admit who you are.
-
I suspect you're always strawman. How many gimmicks do you have, fat fuck? Are you mad because I call you out on all your logical fallacies? Be a man and admit who you are.
Lol- so what is this, 5 identities, now? Kore, 24kt, Strawman, I feel like I'm missing some.
I can only assume Strawman must have put you in your place recently. I'll have to check that out. :D
Logical fallacies? ::) You are literally wrong about everything. Not even subjectively wrong, but categorically, decisively wrong. Even in the post you quoted about the FBI. Even that. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.
-
Lol- so what is this, 5 identities, now? Kore, 24kt, Strawman, I feel like I'm missing some.
I can only assume Strawman must have put you in your place recently. I'll have to check that out. :D
Logical fallacies? ::) You are literally wrong about everything. Not even subjectively wrong, but categorically, decisively wrong. Even in the post you quoted about the FBI. Even that. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.
Youre so fat you can't even find your own dick. I know where mine is. It's in your ugly wife's ass. Could be her face, they are both flat brown and covered in zits. What does it say about a guy when he has to go overseas to hook up with an ugly chick.
-
Youre so fat you can't even find your own dick. I know where mine is. It's in your ugly wife's ass. Could be her face, they are both flat brown and covered in zits. What does it say about a guy when he has to go overseas to hook up with an ugly chick.
LOL-Ok? Swerve, lie, dodge, now base insults? :D You are an excellent debater. Your argument is really strong! (That's sarcasm, btw. You seem to have trouble detecting it.)
-
LOL-Ok? Swerve, lie, dodge, now base insults? :D You are an excellent debater. Your argument is really strong! (That's sarcasm, btw. You seem to have trouble detecting it.)
It was a mistake to post in your other thread your gimmick was posting. Now everyone can see your fat and have disgusting acne scars
-
It was a mistake to post in your other thread your gimmick was posting. Now everyone can see your fat and have disgusting acne scars
You can make that pic your avatar and post it on every board in the G&O . I still wouldn't be able to care less.
-
You can make that pic your avatar and post it on every board in the G&O . I still wouldn't be able to care less.
I can't believe you're the guy who said he was a better bodybuilder. Shizzo is in better shape than you.
-
having a discussion with you is tiring because you argue one thing one day then another the next. You also accused me of being for rape. When I called you out for it you lied like the fat bitch you are. Ready to admit it's you, fatass?
My positions have stayed the same. I have posted stuff as far back as August that supports what I was saying. You switched arguments so drastically that you are now pretending that you said stuff I said. ::)
It is you fatty. Post a pic to disprove it.
Why would I send a pic to you?
-
My positions have stayed the same. I have posted stuff as far back as August that supports what I was saying. You switched arguments so drastically that you are now pretending that you said stuff I said. ::)
Why would I send a pic to you?
Prove its not you fat ass. You arent man enough to admit it. How did you survive the military? You said it was ten total respondents. You used the word repeatedly and confirmed thats what you meant in the exchange with omr. You even claimed thats what the survey said. It didn't
-
You brought it to this thread, erich richard rodgers. Youre one that wanted to start shit outside that thread. Anybody want his address? For once in your life be a man and admitthat is you
Nope. You did. With this post.
So you think everything is going great in California? Switched to the strawman account?
-
Prove its not you fat ass. You arent man enough to admit it. How did you survive the military?
Yo, you just went straight-up bitch. You can never challenge anyone's manhood, ever again.
You said it was ten total respondents. You used the word repeatedly and confirmed thats what you meant in the exchange with omr. You even claimed thats what the survey said. It didn't
I posted literally a dozen quotes from my post history that said the opposite. The only post you could find that even came close to what your claiming was a post in a thread in which I specifically say I'm making fun of you.
-
Nope. You did. With this post.
nope, you started the whole ball rolling by turning the entire concconversation toward that topic. I made one off handed remark. Strawman(you) responded to other posts and I didnt mention it again. And you just so happen to know right where to find that post. Be a damn man, Erich.
Yo, you just went straight-up bitch. You can never challenge anyone's manhood, ever again.
You said it was ten total respondents. You used the word repeatedly and confirmed thats what you meant in the exchange with omr. You even claimed thats what the survey said. It didn't
I posted literally a dozen quotes from my post history that said the opposite. The only post you could find that even came close to what your claiming was a post in a thread in which I specifically say I'm making fun of you.
You repeated the ten respondents over and over again. Manhood? Men dont lie like bitches. You dishonor the marines and all marines who have ever served. Its disgusting. You don't deserve to have ever worn a uniform
-
nope, you started the whole ball rolling by turning the entire concconversation toward that topic. I made one off handed remark. Strawman(you) responded to other posts and I didnt mention it again. And you just so happen to know right where to find that post. Be a damn man, Erich.
Nope. Because after you posted that off-handed remark, you came here and posted this:
I suspect you're always strawman. How many gimmicks do you have, fat fuck? Are you mad because I call you out on all your logical fallacies? Be a man and admit who you are.
Clicking on a username and reading post history isn't some secretive witchcraft technique. It was literally the fifth post down the page. ::)
And you're a little bitch. You're a liar, an idiot and a little bitch. Bitcher77.
-
Men dont lie like bitches.
That's right. That's why you're Bitcher77.
-
Nope. Because after you posted that off-handed remark, you came here and posted this:
Clicking on a username and reading post history isn't some secretive witchcraft technique. It was literally the fifth post down the page. ::)
And you're a little bitch. You're a liar, an idiot and a little bitch. Bitcher77.
And youre a disgrace to the marine corp. The whole concept of serving with honor was lost on you. A man..a marine doesnt lie like a bitch repeatedly. I cant believe you served. Youre probably lying about that as well. You cant have been a marine. Youve got to be lying about that too. Not the way you lie. You should be ashamed about claiming to be a marine. You dishonor men who actually served.
-
A marine wouldnt hide behind gimmicks or lie when asked a direct question. It offends me that you lie about serving. You dont have the integrity and sense of honor to have served. If you did serve you learned nothing and dishonored your uniform.
-
And youre a disgrace to the marine corp. The whole concept of serving with honor was lost on you. A man..a marine doesnt lie like a bitch repeatedly. I cant believe you served. Youre probably lying about that as well. You cant have been a marine. Youve got to be lying about that too. Not the way you lie. You should be ashamed about claiming to be a marine. You dishonor men who actually served.
Marines should post embarrassing pics of people they say are their enemies on the internet to prove their manhood. Only the toughest, bravest and strongest can pull that off.
-
Marines should post embarrassing pics of people they say are their enemies on the internet to prove their manhood. Only the toughest, bravest and strongest can pull that off.
Marines dont lie when asked a question. Marines dont run in fear, they admit what they say and who they are. You are to much of a coward to hack it in the Marines. You did not serve this country and should not make such claims. Its pathetic you have to make up service to feel good about yourself.
-
You're not a Marine. You're to much of a lying coward to wear the uniform. You aren't man enough to shine a marines shoe. I despise fake soldiers like you. Be a man and admit who you are. Nothing worse than a fake marine
-
Here's one of your fellow "marines" You fakes make me want to puke.
A 47-year-old man was recently arrested in upstate New York for impersonating a Marine, according to a report by Lou Michel with the Buffalo News.
The man, Michael R. Schrenk was a particularly terrible fake Marine. Just from a cursory look, he wore sunglasses in his dress blues, shooting badges on his dress blue alphas (including two different rifle badges), the wrong ribbons (which were out of order and far too many of them), random medals, way too many service stripes, the wrong sword, and to cap it all off … a giant white ceremonial cord over his shoulder.
http://taskandpurpose.com/might-worst-fake-marine-time/
-
You're not a Marine. You're to much of a lying coward to wear the uniform. You aren't man enough to shine a marines shoe. I despise fake soldiers like you. Be a man and admit who you are. Nothing worse than a fake marine
LOL- no, I'm not a marine. I never said I was a marine. I never alluded to being a marine.Other than the two posts in this thread, I have never discussed anything about the Marines on this board.
-
LOL- no, I'm not a marine. I never said I was a marine. I never alluded to being a marine.Other than the two posts in this thread, I have never discussed anything about the Marines on this board.
You wouldnt hack it. You're to much of a pussy.
-
LOL- no, I'm not a marine. I never said I was a marine. I never alluded to being a marine.Other than the two posts in this thread, I have never discussed anything about the Marines on this board.
To the very end you choose cowardice and lying over being a man. You definitely were not a marine
-
To the very end you choose cowardice and lying over being a man. You definitely were not a marine
Well, it's a claim that only exist in your imagination. If I claimed to be a marine, link to the quote.
-
Well, it's a claim that only exist in your imagination. If I claimed to be a marine, link to the quote.
youre not marine material anyway
-
I didn't see the clip, and the it wouldn't surprise me if the author didn't either, but I imagine the first comment was satire.
Regarding Judge Napolitano, he was is absolutely correct.
okay...and I suppose the DIRECTOR OF THE FBI fanned the flames as well???..he came out and said the same thing that Holder said and even went further...he actually admitted that there is a bias against blacks in law enforcement due to lazy thinking and assumptions and castigated cops for this.....how come no criticism of him????..even though he went further than Holder did???
oh that's right...Holder is black
-
I suspect you're always strawman. How many gimmicks do you have, fat fuck? Are you mad because I call you out on all your logical fallacies? Be a man and admit who you are.
This the biggest Irony I've ever seen....A guy who's always wrong calling out others for THEIR supposed fallacies...
AMAZING
-
This the biggest Irony I've ever seen....A guy who's always wrong calling out others for THEIR supposed fallacies...
AMAZING
You would say that. I think I read somewhere that you're one of my gimmicks.
-
You would say that. I think I read somewhere that you're one of my gimmicks.
I'm thinking that all of the right wing racists on here are ALL from one person...there just can't be that many stupid people in the world
-
okay...and I suppose the DIRECTOR OF THE FBI fanned the flames as well???..he came out and said the same thing that Holder said and even went further...he actually admitted that there is a bias against blacks in law enforcement due to lazy thinking and assumptions and castigated cops for this.....how come no criticism of him????..even though he went further than Holder did???
oh that's right...Holder is black
Didn't see his comments. But so what? Doesn't change the facts regarding what Holder did, from start to finish.
-
Didn't see his comments. But so what? Doesn't change the facts regarding what Holder did, from start to finish.
but again..WHY did no one comment on the FBI Director's statement???.......he went further than Holder did and said that absolutely, police officers are biased against blacks....yet EVERY GETBIG DICKHEAD seized on what holder said.....because they wanted to discredit Holder because he's black
-
but again..WHY did no one comment on the FBI Director's statement???.......he went further than Holder did and said that absolutely, police officers are biased against blacks....yet EVERY GETBIG DICKHEAD seized on what holder said.....because they wanted to discredit Holder because he's black
Oh please. ::) Holder discredits himself because he is dishonest and incompetent. His race doesn't have anything to do with anything.
-
Oh please. ::) Holder discredits himself because he is dishonest and incompetent. His race doesn't have anything to do with anything.
you need to change your name again if you believe that :o
-
you need to change your name again if you believe that :o
His record speaks for itself, from lying about Fast & Furioius, to lying about spying on James Rosen, to repeatedly race baiting, and many other things.
People like you play the race card to try and divert attention away from the man's record. Same thing some folks do with Obama. Very predictable pattern.
-
His record speaks for itself, from lying about Fast & Furioius, to lying about spying on James Rosen, to repeatedly race baiting, and many other things.
People like you play the race card to try and divert attention away from the man's record. Same thing some folks do with Obama. Very predictable pattern.
its not the race card.....its simply comparison.....and deduction......black guy says something and gets villified....white guy says same thing and worse and ........................ ........................ ........................ .....crickets....do the math
-
I suspect you're always strawman. How many gimmicks do you have, fat fuck? Are you mad because I call you out on all your logical fallacies? Be a man and admit who you are.
Pay attention dipshit.
I have only one screen name.
I don't know, you, Al, or anyone else on this site.
So far you're batting zero on calling me out on any fallacy, especially the ones you just make up and can't even define.
-
You used the word respondents. I never did. Last October I said that the survey was limited to ten but I admitted that was wrong last year. They do limit series incidents to 10 to avoid skewing the data. I was right about that. It's your argument, the one you're making now, that only ten total respondents are being used out of 150,000. Even if we assume that's true, it only means the survey under reports crime and the rates will be much higher particularly for minority victims. Under the best of circumstances the stats will never be lower than they are in the study. What this means is that whatever problem there is in terms of black on white rape is probably exponentially higher than what the NVCS indicates. So the argument really is, how much worse is it not whether it isn't a problem as you suggest.
Let me get this straight, Al. Is the above statement, incorrect? You believe that the rape statistics are wrong because there are less than ten sample cases? You're saying that when the ten sample cases warning is listed it doesn't only apply to certain subpopulations or subcategories? Are you saying that the black on white rape statistics are inaccurate? This is the crux of the disagreement. I'm trying to clarify.
-
Let me get this straight, Al. Is the above statement, incorrect? You believe that the rape statistics are wrong because there are less than ten sample cases? You're saying that when the ten sample cases warning is listed it doesn't only apply to certain subpopulations or subcategories? Are you saying that the black on white rape statistics are inaccurate? This is the crux of the disagreement. I'm trying to clarify.
Damn dude. After your epic meltdown, you still want to haggle, lol. You're going to stroke out.
-
Damn dude. After your epic meltdown, you still want to haggle, lol. You're going to stroke out.
Id like him to clarify. Do you know the answer?
-
Damn dude. After your epic meltdown, you still want to haggle, lol. You're going to stroke out.
He takes a peltin' and keeps on meltin'.
-
He takes a peltin' and keeps on meltin'.
Answer the question.