Subject:
|
Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:33:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
700 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> >
> >
> > Scott A wrote:
> >
> > > > He stated an opinion that was based on a lifetime of informal evidence
> > > > gathering.
> > >
> > > Nope. From his message:
> > >
> > > > When you
> > > > challenged me I went off and counted noses at that point in order to see if
> > > > my hunch was right.
> >
> > HUNCH. Do you know what that word means? Obviously not.
> >
> >
> > > > He guessed
> > > > right! What's your deal?
> > >
> > > My deal is that he guessed/fabricated data and is still trying to pass it of
> > > as fact. I shall remind you, he has not said it was a guess/fabrication yet
> > > - we (you and I) are only guessing that is the case. This is what he is
> > > saying he did:
> > >
> > > =+=
> > > When you
> > > challenged me I went off and counted noses at that point in order to see if
> > > my hunch was right. It was, at least for the 20+ fests, meetings, events,
> > > etc., I've attended in 6 countries on 3 continents... (a slightly better
> > > sample set than yours) For the subset that I reviewed pictures, each one of
> > > them was more male than 49% and more white than the population average for
> > > the continent or the country or the state that it was held in. (whichever is
> > > a good metric)
> > > =+=
> > >
> > > That does not sound like guesswork - it sounds like a good metric. What do
> > > you think?
> >
> > What about the word HUNCH do you not understand?
>
> Tom,
> If it was a HUNCH, Larry needs to make it clear that it was a complete
> fabrication - not dress it up as fact. Read the text I quoted again - does
> it sound like a hunch. When Larry said he was "unwilling" to tell us all
> where he found the data, did that make it sound like a hunch?
OK, here's some personal data from my observations. All AFOLs (10) that I
have met (granted, a small sampling) in person have been white. Of those,
one was a female.
According to November 1, 2000 US Government Census estimates:
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt
11.9% of the national population is "HISPANIC ORIGIN (of any race)"
71.3% of the national population is "WHITE, NOT HISPANIC"
12.2% of the national population is "BLACK, NOT HISPANIC"
0.7% of the national population is "AMERICAN INDIAN, ESKIMO, AND ALEUT, NOT
HISPANIC"
3.8% of the national population is "ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER, NOT HISPANIC"
My 100% obviously does not meet the national figures
From the same page (assuming millions):
Total population: 276,059
Male population: 134,979
Female population: 141,080
% of total population that is female (calculated): 51.1%
My 10% obviously does not meet the national figures.
>
> >
> > Once again, as usual, you've latched onto one word or phrase in a post and pounded
> > it into the ground, ignoring the entire post that makes it clear to any critical
> > thinker.
>
> Yawn - another insult. Tom, where did you get the idea for all these one-liners?
>
> Scott A
>
> >
> > --
> > Tom Stangl
> > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
Now, with the figures above could you please sit down, shut up and let this
poor dead horse rest in peace?
-Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
