The Fox News Version of Events

[Archer77]

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. 

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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?

[Archer77]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.  

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

Sample case- victim and perpetrator.

Sample case- 1 respondent.

[Archer77]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Archer77]

Look, I think the stats are accurate as does the DOJ and the FBI.  I don't know what else to tell you.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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 

[Archer77]

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?

[Archer77]

Why do the DOJ and FBI references these statistics if they are so horribly inaccurate?

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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?

[Al Doggity]

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.