Subject:
|
Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1643 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> 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.
All US citizens, one presumes...
> 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
Well, it would be kind of hard to match those decimal places exactly when
you had 10 points in the sample, but I see your point. :-)
> 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.
>
> Now, with the figures above could you please sit down, shut up and let this
> poor dead horse rest in peace?
>
> -Duane
Not a chance. You see, Lugnet does not represent the Lego-playing
population of your li'l ol' country over thar. It's filtered by the
net-using disposable-income time-on-their-hands sector of the population.
Now I suspect that to be a much bigger and more influential group, so does
that match the population statistics too?
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
