The Fox News Version of Events

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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.   

[Archer77]

Al(kore) also lied about being kore's gimmick.  The man is a liar and a moron.  Boy is he ugly.  

[Al Doggity]

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?

[Archer77]

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 Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Archer77]

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.  

[Coach is Back!]

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.

[240 is Back]

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. 

[Coach is Back!]

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.

[Skip8282]

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. 

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Archer77]

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

[Archer77]

Yet again you confused ten people for ten incidents in a series.  This is not what the text says at all.

[Al Doggity]

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?

[Archer77]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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?

[Archer77]

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.

[Archer77]

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.