At least I'm not a passive aggressive old man who makes makes snide little comments like a woman on the rag. Maybe youre just one of those overly emotional sensitive types. Yes, stats are a personal hobby. Ive mentioned my interest in stats on several threads. For the record, the type of person who has stats as a hobby is someone who knows what the fuck hes talking about, unlike you.
By the way, according to your own criteria you shouldn't even be commenting on stats because you know nothing about. Well, you might know a thing or two about raping women. As for evidence? Any evidence other than her word alone. Ive said that a million times but your dumb old ass doesnt seem to get it. Maybe its time to buy new bifocals.
Whats in my mind? Whats in my mind is deconstructing th conclusion being made by the graph and corresponding stats to determine accuracy. Idiotic ideologues like you are so myopic, you assume the act of questioning anything is wrong or there is an ulterior motive involved.
An example of this other evidence? Pretty please.
And sorry, man, you've not said "any evidence other than her word alone" that I've seen. You've only said "not her word alone". (If I'm wrong, point to where, please.) And that's not the same as saying you'd accept "any evidence + her word" because, for all I know, there are other sorts of what some folks call evidence that you'd not accept. I hope this is clear.
BTW, I'm honestly not so interested in getting into a pissing match with you or most folks here. I'm not averse to it and can find it fun sometimes, but I'm perfectly able to resist the urge to insult as long as you do the same. I'm a little too lazy to read back through the thread but I'm pretty sure that you started with the blatant insults before I did. I think the only semi-provocative thing I wrote before you began to charmingly (lol) comment on mah feminine side (lol) was "Wise up, mang". Is that really so rude?
So, chill negress. I certainly didn't mean to get you so uh, worked up (is that a fair characterization?) that you'd do a search through my other posts. (But if you did search and the best you could come up with was, "Hey, this guy is 50, I'll talk about that", well I guess I should feel good, right? lol.)
Back to the subject: I'm a SW QA Engineer (not that means much except I do use stats some in my job, determining the standard deviation for performance test runs, mostly), I've taken statistics at the college level and am a more than fairly logical guy, so I generally agree that evaluating the accuracy of claims makes sense. -- However, what lengths one goes to do that ought to be commensurate with the importance of the topic, don't you think? In other words, if my life depended on it, I would definitely be more interested in obtaining confirmation about the accuracy of the range of unreported rapes that are claimed in the graphic that was the result of the study in question. But, if the claim seems reasonable and it's not a serious matter for me, why go through all the trouble?
I should explain why the unreported rape thing seems reasonable to me, I think; Now, maybe I have spoken to more girls than you about this subject (this is no veiled putdown - As you've said, I'm old and so I've been close to a lot of females), but really, almost every girl older than college-age whom I've gotten to know well and to whom I've spoken to about this subject has a story to tell about being raped or nearly raped and not reporting it to the law. I'm not exaggerating. So, were all or most of them lying? I don't didn't think so then and I don't think so now. Of course, even if you believe every word I've written, this isn't proof of anything but it IS not completely worthless, I think.
So, I'm still interested to get an example of the evidence other than the girl's word that you'd accept in order to believe she's been raped.
Otherwise, you're just a guy who's saying (correctly), "How can they know that for sure?; They can't know that for sure!" while not trying to find out how the results of the study were achieved, nor acknowledging that findings based solely on a woman's word are not without value when it comes to trying to find the approximate relative prevalence of unreported rapes.
And, if that's all you're doing, no matter whether you defensively think that might make me think poorly about your motives or not, it can definitely be said that you're not adding much to the discussion.
TL; DR: Here's an olive branch...now quit being so touchy.
Lastly, do ya mind if I ask you a little bit about your hobby? When one's personal hobby is statistics, what sort of activities does that entail? Really, what sort of statistical methods are you most familiar with? Do you use any sampling theory at all? If so, I'm surprised that you seem to find it hard to accept that the study, which is breaking exactly no new ground by doing so, is trying to make use of sampling theory to use info taken from a sample of raped women to inductively infer parameters of the population as a whole. It's been a long time since I sat in a statistics classroom, though, so maybe there's some rule I haven't heard of that proscribes using the word of one person about, well, anything?