Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #458413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-19 18:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-07-20 13:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 370 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 18:14 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-19 14:38 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 23:55 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 17:14 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 18:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 17:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 17:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 21:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 20:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Storage Unit <storage.unit@mailinator.com> - 2018-07-21 07:40 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:21 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 18:27 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:45 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 20:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 20:44 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:14 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 03:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:43 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:53 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 07:04 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 05:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:53 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:07 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:19 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:30 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:36 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:50 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 15:58 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 09:16 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:06 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-22 13:17 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-23 07:38 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 05:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:46 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-23 12:08 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 22:26 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-23 16:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 11:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 11:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 12:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 13:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:40 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 13:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:38 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 15:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:59 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 16:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 16:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 17:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:12 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 17:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 21:02 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:17 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 22:34 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 18:34 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 17:43 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 01:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 21:03 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 15:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-24 14:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:32 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-25 05:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 05:41 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 06:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 10:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 11:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 13:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:07 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:16 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:19 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-25 14:50 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 15:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 18:15 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 22:58 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:40 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 19:48 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:18 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:39 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 22:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-26 06:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 14:37 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-26 09:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-26 12:06 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 20:07 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-26 13:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 06:50 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 13:07 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 06:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 13:43 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 07:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 16:12 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 11:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 18:34 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 13:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:51 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 19:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:11 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 20:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:33 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 08:33 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 09:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 10:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 12:47 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 10:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 13:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 13:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-28 16:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 16:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 09:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 12:21 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 09:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 11:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 12:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 18:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 19:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-29 20:43 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 13:53 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 14:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-30 13:29 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 08:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 09:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 16:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-29 17:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 19:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 20:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 20:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-30 05:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 05:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 08:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 12:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 08:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 09:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-30 09:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 09:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-07-30 18:56 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 12:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 13:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-30 20:40 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-30 16:40 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 12:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 13:43 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-30 20:49 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-30 16:49 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 09:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 10:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 13:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 13:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 18:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-07-31 20:49 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 17:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 18:38 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:56 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 19:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-08-01 02:47 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 19:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 20:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 20:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 18:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 19:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 19:59 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 20:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 08:50 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 10:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:28 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 11:31 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 11:43 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:31 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:40 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 12:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 13:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-01 15:34 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 08:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-31 21:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:22 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-29 18:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 12:50 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 08:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 08:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 08:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 11:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 07:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 12:06 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 11:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 11:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:16 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:35 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:39 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:50 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-26 15:04 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 21:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:41 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:19 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:41 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:57 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 21:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-26 10:16 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 21:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 22:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:47 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-26 09:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 11:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 20:39 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:51 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:21 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:39 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:59 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:21 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:22 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:27 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:20 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-23 18:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-23 23:00 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-23 18:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 20:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:26 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-24 20:09 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-24 09:36 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 07:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-24 15:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-24 14:56 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:25 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:31 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:39 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:07 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:06 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 11:10 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 11:12 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:42 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 12:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 11:12 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:56 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 16:00 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:42 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-22 13:17 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 00:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 18:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-20 07:46 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 13:11 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:06 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:35 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-20 20:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 21:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 13:10 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 06:15 -0700
chrisv is an Arse! Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 05:44 -0700
chrisv is a naive socialist SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:03 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 12:54 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:13 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:55 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:29 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:36 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:48 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:52 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:07 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:54 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:04 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:09 -0700
Re: More than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:17 -0500
Re: More than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:49 +0000
Re: More than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:14 -0700
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b5ace6a-a59e-4a25-a7e0-371c558ced97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460056 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/28/18 10:25 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) > > > >>>>> Meanwhile... as tons of illegal immigrants swarm across the southern > >>>>> U.S. border and the drugs flow free, somewhere... > >>>> > >>>> More innuendo with no factual confirmation at any level. Simply a propaganda > >>>> play on emotions. > >>> > >>> Sure... and we all know there is a border agent every 500 feet along that > >>> 2000 mile stretch so there are no crimes that ever go unreported. > >> > >> Considering that there’s something like 2x to 3x more border agents today than > >> there were ~20 years ago, the rate of unreporteds should be expected to be lower > >> today than prior. > > > > Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* > > understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. > > Because of Trump's focus on feel-good symbolic measures, such as his > idiotic wall, we are losing border agents. Right, that is *the* reason they quit <eyeroll>. > <https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692832.pdf> > > >> This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. > > > > So what? The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border > > is silly. The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. What's at > > stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity > > for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. > > He provided data... you provide rejections based on your guesses. OK. Said an idiot, as he overlooks how many TENS of BILLIONS of dollars come across the border in illegal drugs (and that's just one thing they can't keep up with). I've seen an interview with a Mexican official who put the number over 60 billion... we put it between ~20-30 billion. no matter how you slice it, they're clearly way past overwhelmed. > > Those > > with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, who > > are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond > > all logical reasoning. > > So using the evidence is wrong ... to make a claim to know that crime is higher or lower than elsewhere? Obviously. You should be able to load up on meds and still be aware of that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 17:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs4f8qF8cj4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460068 |
On 7/28/18 1:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/28/18 10:25 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> >>> >>> (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) >>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile... as tons of illegal immigrants swarm across the southern >>>>>>> U.S. border and the drugs flow free, somewhere... >>>>>> >>>>>> More innuendo with no factual confirmation at any level. Simply a propaganda >>>>>> play on emotions. >>>>> >>>>> Sure... and we all know there is a border agent every 500 feet along that >>>>> 2000 mile stretch so there are no crimes that ever go unreported. >>>> >>>> Considering that there’s something like 2x to 3x more border agents today than >>>> there were ~20 years ago, the rate of unreporteds should be expected to be lower >>>> today than prior. >>> >>> Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* >>> understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. >> >> Because of Trump's focus on feel-good symbolic measures, such as his >> idiotic wall, we are losing border agents. > > Right, that is *the* reason they quit <eyeroll>. His lack of paying them because he is putting money toward a symbolic wall to help his base feel good is a contributing factor. >> <https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692832.pdf> >> >>>> This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. >>> >>> So what? The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border >>> is silly. The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. What's at >>> stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity >>> for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. >> >> He provided data... you provide rejections based on your guesses. OK. > > Said an idiot, When you feel the need to start with efforts like this to deal with your own insecurity you shoot down your own argument. > as he overlooks how many TENS of BILLIONS of dollars > come across the border in illegal drugs (and that's just one thing they > can't keep up with). I've seen an interview with a Mexican official who > put the number over 60 billion... we put it between ~20-30 billion. no > matter how you slice it, they're clearly way past overwhelmed. Can you quote my comments about that which you are in reference to? >>> Those >>> with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, who >>> are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond >>> all logical reasoning. >> >> So using the evidence is wrong and emotional but making guesses in the dark is, to you, somehow logical? You AGAIN snipped half a sentence. You are like the folks who do not let you get a word in during a conversation so they can "educate" you. You have no ability to listen or learn from others. > ... to make a claim to know that crime is higher or lower than elsewhere? > Obviously. You should be able to load up on meds and still be aware of > that fact. > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23d1d394-70eb-43ef-89d9-6a5d286f2d6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460022 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) Translation: dodge. What was snipped: "Sure as hell are, “Steve”, because unreported doesn’t matter unless you have hard data that objectively shows that the rate of unreported has materially and significantly changed. Because crime is still at decades-long lows." In applied Statistics, it is readily known that it doesn't take a particularly large sample to end up having a high confidence (aka "Confidence Interval") that the sample's estimated value of the population's true value is within a few percent. Even when dealing with attribute data, the data can be transformed by use of other measures (such as time/date) to make for efficient measures. > > >> > Meanwhile... as tons of illegal immigrants swarm across the southern > > >> > U.S. border and the drugs flow free, somewhere... > > >> > > >> More innuendo with no factual confirmation at any level. Simply a propaganda > > >> play on emotions. > > > > > > Sure... and we all know there is a border agent every 500 feet along that > > > 2000 mile stretch so there are no crimes that ever go unreported. > > > > Considering that there’s something like 2x to 3x more border agents today than > > there were ~20 years ago, the rate of unreporteds should be expected to be lower > > today than prior. > > Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* > understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the southern US border, they're adequate, but misallocated. > > This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. > > So what? Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" is a lie. > The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border > is silly. Your claim, never mine. I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. > The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked across, which means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained to the US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not walk across the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). > What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity > for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. Which is relevenat ... how? > You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not > enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than non-border > crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in play > underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. Its damn trivial to prove. First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per prior cite was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita rate of 1.1 per 100,000... Next, note this: "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes is 370.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant deportations. > > > This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a 100% accurate > > > reflection of the conditions of the ground. > > > > Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a requirement. > > > > There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, and in some > > areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. But that doesn’t suit > > your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. > > Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate your claims. > Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, > who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond > all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't tell how > something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell you how > things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation that there's gross underreporting somewhere in the illegal immigration stuff to try to claim that the supposedly 'real' numbers are 10x larger than this metric, then you still lose because the States reports on violent & property crimes are STILL 30x & 200x greater ... yes, multiple orders of magnitude ... than even this grossly inflated claim on illegal immigration. You got a charred and gristle-laden nothingburger of an "issue". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <385c7cd0-30a8-4c40-a639-76ccb4f464ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460083 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 4:02:38 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) > > Translation: dodge. > > What was snipped: > > "Sure as hell are, “Steve”, because unreported doesn’t matter unless you have > hard data that objectively shows that the rate of unreported has materially and > significantly changed. Because crime is still at decades-long lows." > > In applied Statistics, it is readily known that it doesn't take a particularly large > sample to end up having a high confidence (aka "Confidence Interval") that the > sample's estimated value of the population's true value is within a few percent. > Even when dealing with attribute data, the data can be transformed by use of > other measures (such as time/date) to make for efficient measures. > > > > > >> > Meanwhile... as tons of illegal immigrants swarm across the southern > > > >> > U.S. border and the drugs flow free, somewhere... > > > >> > > > >> More innuendo with no factual confirmation at any level. Simply a propaganda > > > >> play on emotions. > > > > > > > > Sure... and we all know there is a border agent every 500 feet along that > > > > 2000 mile stretch so there are no crimes that ever go unreported. > > > > > > Considering that there’s something like 2x to 3x more border agents today than > > > there were ~20 years ago, the rate of unreporteds should be expected to be lower > > > today than prior. > > > > Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* > > understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. > > Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the southern US > border, they're adequate, but misallocated. > > > > This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. > > > > So what? > > Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" is a lie. > > > The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border > > is silly. > > Your claim, never mine. I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal > jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. > > > The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. > > Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked across, which > means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained to the > US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not walk across > the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). > > > What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity > > for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. > > Which is relevenat ... how? > > > > You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not > > enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than non-border > > crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in play > > underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. > > Its damn trivial to prove. > > First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per prior cite > was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita rate of > 1.1 per 100,000... > > Next, note this: > > "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes is 370.3 per > 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" > <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> > > That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and > property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant > deportations. > > > > > This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a 100% accurate > > > > reflection of the conditions of the ground. > > > > > > Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a requirement. > > > > > > There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, and in some > > > areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. But that doesn’t suit > > > your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. > > > > Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. > > Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate your claims. > > > Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, > > who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond > > all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't tell how > > something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell you how > > things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. > > Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation that there's > gross underreporting somewhere in the illegal immigration stuff to try to claim > that the supposedly 'real' numbers are 10x larger than this metric, then > you still lose because the States reports on violent & property crimes are > STILL 30x & 200x greater ... yes, multiple orders of magnitude ... than even > this grossly inflated claim on illegal immigration. > > You got a charred and gristle-laden nothingburger of an "issue". > > > -hh ChromeOS is based on Linux. Even if William 'The Flooder' Poaster is too stupid to figure that out. William 'The Flooder' Poaster's posts are nothing but an incomprehensible brain dump. You can say I am James Bond for all I care. Steven Petruzzellis's computer has more memory than William 'The Flooder' Poaster's. Steven Petruzzellis wins. William 'The Flooder' Poaster loses. Which gives Steven Petruzzellis better productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. -- I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened! http://www.5z8.info/yourdick_v1o3ww_manhunter Michael Glasser: Prescott Computer Guy http://prescottcomputerguy.com http://www.macadvocacy.pw/2005/Nov/09/236626.html Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 17:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs4g44F8jeiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460083 |
On 7/28/18 4:02 PM, -hh wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> >> >> (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) > > Translation: dodge. It is what Carroll does. He has NO ability to back his views, so he makes up straw men he attributes to others and otherwise just flat out lies. > What was snipped: > > "Sure as hell are, “Steve”, because unreported doesn’t matter unless you have > hard data that objectively shows that the rate of unreported has materially and > significantly changed. Because crime is still at decades-long lows." > > In applied Statistics, it is readily known that it doesn't take a particularly large > sample to end up having a high confidence (aka "Confidence Interval") that the > sample's estimated value of the population's true value is within a few percent. > Even when dealing with attribute data, the data can be transformed by use of > other measures (such as time/date) to make for efficient measures. To understand this one would need a basic education... do not assume those who are arguing against you have that. >>>>>> Meanwhile... as tons of illegal immigrants swarm across the southern >>>>>> U.S. border and the drugs flow free, somewhere... >>>>> >>>>> More innuendo with no factual confirmation at any level. Simply a propaganda >>>>> play on emotions. >>>> >>>> Sure... and we all know there is a border agent every 500 feet along that >>>> 2000 mile stretch so there are no crimes that ever go unreported. >>> >>> Considering that there’s something like 2x to 3x more border agents today than >>> there were ~20 years ago, the rate of unreporteds should be expected to be lower >>> today than prior. >> >> Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* >> understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. > > Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the southern US > border, they're adequate, but misallocated. >>> This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. >> >> So what? > > Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" is a lie. > >> The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border >> is silly. > > Your claim, never mine. I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal > jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. > >> The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. > > Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked across, which > means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained to the > US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not walk across > the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). From recall I was thinking that was only about 40%, but I could be wrong. Have stats to back it? >> What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity >> for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. > > Which is relevenat ... how? Carroll is seeking to change the topic... one of the many games he plays to avoid admitting he is in over his head. >> You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not >> enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than non-border >> crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in play >> underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. > > Its damn trivial to prove. > > First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per prior cite > was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita rate of > 1.1 per 100,000... > > Next, note this: > > "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes is 370.3 per > 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" > <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> > > That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and > property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant > deportations. Curious how Carroll will twist this. The fact he will is not in question (assuming he does not just snip it away) >>>> This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a 100% accurate >>>> reflection of the conditions of the ground. >>> >>> Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a requirement. >>> >>> There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, and in some >>> areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. But that doesn’t suit >>> your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. >> >> Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. > > Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate your claims. Carroll's guesses are clearly much more reliable than actual evidence... just ask him! >> Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, >> who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond >> all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't tell how >> something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell you how >> things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. > > Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation that there's > gross underreporting somewhere in the illegal immigration stuff to try to claim > that the supposedly 'real' numbers are 10x larger than this metric, then > you still lose because the States reports on violent & property crimes are > STILL 30x & 200x greater ... yes, multiple orders of magnitude ... than even > this grossly inflated claim on illegal immigration. > > You got a charred and gristle-laden nothingburger of an "issue". No... Carroll has huge issues... just not the ones he thinks he does. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b74eb4ea-a8ee-4082-b267-69b9df8bab21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460096 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:29:59 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/28/18 4:02 PM, -hh wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> > >> > >> (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) > > > > Translation: dodge. > > It is what Carroll does. LOL! I never agreed to his absurd wager so how can I be 'dodging' it, Crackhead? You guys are obvioulsy sharing stash ;) > He has NO ability to back his views Again, Snit shows he needs "proof" of reality and common sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs6iduFmrm4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460174 |
On 7/29/18 9:58 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:29:59 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/28/18 4:02 PM, -hh wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) >>> >>> Translation: dodge. >> >> It is what Carroll does. > > LOL! I never agreed to his absurd wager so how can I be 'dodging' it, Crackhead? > You guys are obvioulsy sharing stash ;) > >> He has NO ability to back his views > > Again, Snit shows he needs "proof" of reality and common sense. > You dodged. You were called out. Now you will run to ANY other topic than to go back to what you dodged. The you will blame others for the change of topic -- the one you dodged -- and insist you must be right. It is not as if this is hard to see, Carroll. Your games are really absurd. It is even more clear when I am not directly involved in one of your debates... you simply are very poor at backing your points or refuting those you disagree with. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25f856ac-406f-41cb-9229-4aa28b652f0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460083 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:02:38 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) > > Translation: dodge. As I never agreed to enter into a wager that only an idiot would take or suggest, you're clearly lying... again. > In applied Statistics, ... even the dimmest are aware that 'you don't know what you don't know', therefore, stats can't be used as evidence to make claims of how something is, as opposed to how it appears to be. That's a vastly different scenario than where you see a stat which prompts media outlets to write things like: "Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 percent of the nation’s population. A cop is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a cop." <https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politically-fueled-cop-hatred-has-taken-another-innocent-officers-life/> Does this account for *all* killings of cops by black males? Of course not, and the stats may not even be close to the reality, but that misses the point that the statement can be unequivocally made in its own right. You know this, you're just doing your regular reality avoidance BS. > > Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* > > understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. > > Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the southern US > border, they're adequate, but misallocated. > > > > This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. > > > > So what? > > Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" is a lie. Despite your mislabeling of common sense, how do you propose to prove it makes them "reliable" enough to unequivocally state how a condition is, as opposed to the appearance indicted by the stats? (cue up "Hugh's" RDF as he attempts to spin that his 'stataganza' wasn't presented to prove Slimer's statement was wrong) > > The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border > > is silly. > > Your claim, never mine. Gee, another lie by "Hugh". Fact: Slimer made the claim, you're the idiot who is pretending you can prove he's wrong by using stats... but you can't. > I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal > jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. You foolishly tried to used stats to prove Slimer was wrong... but the best you can do is say the stats don't back his position. Period... and yo know it. > > The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. > > Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked across, which > means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained to the > US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not walk across > the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). > > > What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity > > for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. > > Which is relevenat ... how? For undermining the 'reliability' of your stats being evidence to prove that Slimer is wrong, obviously. > > You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not > > enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than non-border > > crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in play > > underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. > > Its damn trivial to prove. > > First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per prior cite > was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita rate of > 1.1 per 100,000... Great... but still irrelevant to not knowing what you don't know. > Next, note this: > > "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes is 370.3 per > 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" > <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> Same as above. > That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and > property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant > deportations. No it doesn't, egghead, it only means the *rate* iis. Again, the simple concept of not knowing what you don't know eludes you... can't measure what you can't see. You've fallen into the 'rate is reality' fallacy of statistics. > > > > This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a 100% accurate > > > > reflection of the conditions of the ground. > > > > > > Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a requirement. > > > > > > There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, and in some > > > areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. But that doesn’t suit > > > your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. > > > > Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. > > Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate your claims. > > > Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, > > who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond > > all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't tell how > > something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell you how > > things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. > > Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', which is totally absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cf81511-8e77-4d84-803c-79e3bfc7d34a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460173 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 9:55:11 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:02:38 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) > > > > Translation: dodge. > > As I never agreed to enter into a wager that only an idiot would take or suggest, > you're clearly lying... again. > > > In applied Statistics, > > ... even the dimmest are aware that 'you don't know what you don't know', > therefore, stats can't be used as evidence to make claims of how something > is, as opposed to how it appears to be. That's a vastly different scenario > than where you see a stat which prompts media outlets to write things like: > > "Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 percent > of the nation’s population. A cop is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a > black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a cop." > > <https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politically-fueled-cop-hatred-has-taken-another-innocent-officers-life/> > > Does this account for *all* killings of cops by black males? Of course not, > and the stats may not even be close to the reality, but that misses the point > that the statement can be unequivocally made in its own right. You know this, > you're just doing your regular reality avoidance BS. > > > > Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* > > > understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. > > > > Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the southern US > > border, they're adequate, but misallocated. > > > > > > This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. > > > > > > So what? > > > > Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" is a lie. > > Despite your mislabeling of common sense, how do you propose to prove > it makes them "reliable" enough to unequivocally state how a condition is, > as opposed to the appearance indicted by the stats? > > (cue up "Hugh's" RDF as he attempts to spin that his 'stataganza' wasn't > presented to prove Slimer's statement was wrong) > > > > The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border > > > is silly. > > > > Your claim, never mine. > > Gee, another lie by "Hugh". Fact: Slimer made the claim, you're the idiot who > is pretending you can prove he's wrong by using stats... but you can't. > > > I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal > > jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. > > You foolishly tried to used stats to prove Slimer was wrong... but the best you > can do is say the stats don't back his position. Period... and yo know it. > > > > The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. > > > > Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked across, which > > means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained to the > > US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not walk across > > the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). > > > > > What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity > > > for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. > > > > Which is relevenat ... how? > > For undermining the 'reliability' of your stats being evidence to prove that > Slimer is wrong, obviously. > > > > You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not > > > enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than non-border > > > crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in play > > > underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. > > > > Its damn trivial to prove. > > > > First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per prior cite > > was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita rate of > > 1.1 per 100,000... > > Great... but still irrelevant to not knowing what you don't know. > > > Next, note this: > > > > "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes is 370.3 per > > 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" > > <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> > > Same as above. > > > That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and > > property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant > > deportations. > > No it doesn't, egghead, it only means the *rate* iis. Again, the simple > concept of not knowing what you don't know eludes you... can't measure > what you can't see. You've fallen into the 'rate is reality' fallacy of statistics. > > > > > > This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a 100% accurate > > > > > reflection of the conditions of the ground. > > > > > > > > Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a requirement. > > > > > > > > There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, and in some > > > > areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. But that doesn’t suit > > > > your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. > > > > > > Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. > > > > Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate your claims. > > > > > Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, > > > who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond > > > all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't tell how > > > something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell you how > > > things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. > > > > Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation > > Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. > You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', > which is totally absurd. Klaus Schadenfreude has a *lot* of know-how to show and he wishes to give back to the community. Regrettably this is perhaps the least appropriate venue for doing that because most of response is screaming, word twisting and other BS. They insist searching for a suggestion for a FOSS application is instigating. My stance: Even if you were just researching for the sake of learning, the idea that earning intelligence as being one of having "nothing" to show for it does not work for me because you will have the insight to show for it and intelligence is a dangerous weapon. To my way of thinking, spending effort perhaps building wisdom is never a waste. Thinking you know everything and working to 'prove' people that it's true, as Peter Kohlmann tries to do? That is a waste. Believe it or not, just recently Peter Kohlmann was declaring himself the only "true Linux advocate", and claiming that "advocates" (in satire-quotes to try to paint them as the bad guys) are trying to make Linux become like the Mac. -- This broke the Internet https://youtu.be/UkAyrfOZaXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOfBmWwCVY Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs6iapFmrm4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460173 |
On 7/29/18 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:02:38 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> >>> >>> (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) >> >> Translation: dodge. > > As I never agreed to enter into a wager that only an idiot would take or suggest, > you're clearly lying... again. > >> In applied Statistics, > > ... even the dimmest are aware that 'you don't know what you don't know', > therefore, stats can't be used as evidence to make claims of how something > is, as opposed to how it appears to be. That's a vastly different scenario > than where you see a stat which prompts media outlets to write things like: > > "Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 percent > of the nation’s population. A cop is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a > black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a cop." > > <https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politically-fueled-cop-hatred-has-taken-another-innocent-officers-life/> > > Does this account for *all* killings of cops by black males? Of course not, > and the stats may not even be close to the reality, but that misses the point > that the statement can be unequivocally made in its own right. You know this, > you're just doing your regular reality avoidance BS. > >>> Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still *way* >>> understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. >> >> Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the southern US >> border, they're adequate, but misallocated. >> >>>> This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. >>> >>> So what? >> >> Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" is a lie. > > Despite your mislabeling of common sense, how do you propose to prove > it makes them "reliable" enough to unequivocally state how a condition is, > as opposed to the appearance indicted by the stats? > > (cue up "Hugh's" RDF as he attempts to spin that his 'stataganza' wasn't > presented to prove Slimer's statement was wrong) > >>> The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border >>> is silly. >> >> Your claim, never mine. > > Gee, another lie by "Hugh". Fact: Slimer made the claim, you're the idiot who > is pretending you can prove he's wrong by using stats... but you can't. > >> I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal >> jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. > > You foolishly tried to used stats to prove Slimer was wrong... but the best you > can do is say the stats don't back his position. Period... and yo know it. > >>> The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. >> >> Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked across, which >> means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained to the >> US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not walk across >> the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). >> >>> What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means and opportunity >>> for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement agency. >> >> Which is relevenat ... how? > > For undermining the 'reliability' of your stats being evidence to prove that > Slimer is wrong, obviously. > >>> You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not >>> enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than non-border >>> crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in play >>> underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. >> >> Its damn trivial to prove. >> >> First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per prior cite >> was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita rate of >> 1.1 per 100,000... > > Great... but still irrelevant to not knowing what you don't know. > >> Next, note this: >> >> "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes is 370.3 per >> 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" >> <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> > > Same as above. > >> That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and >> property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant >> deportations. > > No it doesn't, egghead, it only means the *rate* iis. Again, the simple > concept of not knowing what you don't know eludes you... can't measure > what you can't see. You've fallen into the 'rate is reality' fallacy of statistics. > >>>>> This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a 100% accurate >>>>> reflection of the conditions of the ground. >>>> >>>> Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a requirement. >>>> >>>> There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, and in some >>>> areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. But that doesn’t suit >>>> your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. >>> >>> Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. >> >> Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate your claims. >> >>> Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' crowd, >>> who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond >>> all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't tell how >>> something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell you how >>> things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. >> >> Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation > > Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. > You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', > which is totally absurd. > Notice how you are avoiding the topic to go to a meta-topic of how logic itself works! This is one of your games... you avoid the topic and twist "logic". But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand logic well. Here, let me help: He has shown evidence and you rejected it, so now you say it is up to him to prove the evidence is evidence because of your rejection. But that is absurd. This is how it actually works: He provided evidence. You blindly reject and then offer no support of your own. His view is, thus, better supported. Does not mean it is proved to the level of a mathematical proof, or whatever, but the evidence provided backs his view. But you "win" by taking the topic away from the actual topic and moving to the topic of how clueless you are about the very topic of evidence. So why don't you go BACK to the topic you are running from and actually see if you can back your view? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e93a801d-8806-45be-bc5e-bf9613c6fc88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460193 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:19:58 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. > > You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', > > which is totally absurd. > > > > Notice how you are avoiding the topic Of course I don't notice what's not happening. > But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand > logic well. It's not logical to believe stats are evidence that show how a condition is in every case, and certainly not in *this* case. In the one I mentioned earlier it works fine, but not in cases like this. But why are *you* talking about logic? > Here, let me help: LOL! You don't know anything about "logic", if you did, you wouldn't be here arguing against it. > He has shown evidence ... of what *appears* to be true given what has been measured. > and you rejected it, As would any reasonable person who understands the limitation of stats in specific cases (like this one).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs7048FprbkU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460204 |
On 7/29/18 12:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:19:58 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>> Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. >>> You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', >>> which is totally absurd. >>> >> >> Notice how you are avoiding the topic > > Of course I don't notice what's not happening. > >> But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand >> logic well. > > It's not logical to believe stats are evidence that show how a condition is in > every case, and certainly not in *this* case. In the one I mentioned earlier it > works fine, but not in cases like this. But why are *you* talking about logic? > >> Here, let me help: > > LOL! You don't know anything about "logic", if you did, you wouldn't > be here arguing against it. > >> He has shown evidence > > ... of what *appears* to be true given what has been measured. > >> and you rejected it, > > As would any reasonable person who understands the limitation of stats > in specific cases (like this one). > And you completely avoided the topic again (and then snipped the comments about your idiotic games). You were shown stats, you had no counter, you simply played the old school D&D trick of "disbelieving" and then threw a fit when the DM did not let you avoid being eaten by the monster, who was no illusion at all. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d7166b6-efc9-4ac2-81ae-941d16182f86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460233 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:15:23 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/29/18 12:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:19:58 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >>> Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. > >>> You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', > >>> which is totally absurd. > >>> > >> > >> Notice how you are avoiding the topic > > > > Of course I don't notice what's not happening. > > > >> But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand > >> logic well. > > > > It's not logical to believe stats are evidence that show how a condition is in > > every case, and certainly not in *this* case. In the one I mentioned earlier it > > works fine, but not in cases like this. But why are *you* talking about logic? > > > >> Here, let me help: > > > > LOL! You don't know anything about "logic", if you did, you wouldn't > > be here arguing against it. > > > >> He has shown evidence > > > > ... of what *appears* to be true given what has been measured. > > > >> and you rejected it, > > > > As would any reasonable person who understands the limitation of stats > > in specific cases (like this one). > > > > And you ... made you look like a lying idiot for trying to avoid reality... again? Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 18:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs77tlFrcqsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460242 |
On 7/29/18 4:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:15:23 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/29/18 12:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:19:58 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>> Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. >>>>> You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', >>>>> which is totally absurd. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Notice how you are avoiding the topic >>> >>> Of course I don't notice what's not happening. >>> >>>> But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand >>>> logic well. >>> >>> It's not logical to believe stats are evidence that show how a condition is in >>> every case, and certainly not in *this* case. In the one I mentioned earlier it >>> works fine, but not in cases like this. But why are *you* talking about logic? >>> >>>> Here, let me help: >>> >>> LOL! You don't know anything about "logic", if you did, you wouldn't >>> be here arguing against it. >>> >>>> He has shown evidence >>> >>> ... of what *appears* to be true given what has been measured. >>> >>>> and you rejected it, >>> >>> As would any reasonable person who understands the limitation of stats >>> in specific cases (like this one). >>> >> >> And you completely avoided the topic again (and then snipped the comments about your idiotic games). You were shown stats, you had no counter, you simply played the old school D&D trick of "disbelieving" and then threw a fit when the DM did not let you avoid being eaten by the monster, who was no illusion at all. :) You really cannot help yourself. It is all victim mentality all the time with you... and you lash out trying to make others look bad. No, Carroll, you simply did not like the evidence but had no counter so you went into your normal troll mode. It is what you do. I have to say, it is fun watching you do it with others... > > ... made you look like a lying idiot for trying to avoid reality... again? Yes. > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a0118a7-4eb2-49cf-b37b-67df27234a5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460253 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:28:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > No, Carroll, you simply did not like the evidence There are good reasons why stats have so much trouble in court. No go lock your medicine cabinet ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d3f5c0a-a314-4677-a628-15ff1ffcd394@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460256 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:28:24 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > No, Carroll, you simply did not like the evidence > > There are good reasons why stats have so much trouble in court. > No go lock your medicine cabinet ;) You can say I am President Trump for all I care. Only what Chris Ahlstrom wants matters to Chris Ahlstrom. There is nothing Snit can do to change that. It's a personality defect and it is what it is. I'm guessing, after deleting all the socks, it's essentially just Chris Ahlstrom making almost all of the bombardment. Yes. And both utterly crackpots. Chris Ahlstrom only thinks about Snit, Snit, Snit! - "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs7buuFs671U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460256 |
On 7/29/18 4:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:15:23 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/29/18 12:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:19:58 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>> Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. >>>>> You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's gospel', >>>>> which is totally absurd. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Notice how you are avoiding the topic >>> >>> Of course I don't notice what's not happening. >>> >>>> But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand >>>> logic well. >>> >>> It's not logical to believe stats are evidence that show how a condition is in >>> every case, and certainly not in *this* case. In the one I mentioned earlier it >>> works fine, but not in cases like this. But why are *you* talking about logic? >>> >>>> Here, let me help: >>> >>> LOL! You don't know anything about "logic", if you did, you wouldn't >>> be here arguing against it. >>> >>>> He has shown evidence >>> >>> ... of what *appears* to be true given what has been measured. >>> >>>> and you rejected it, >>> >>> As would any reasonable person who understands the limitation of stats >>> in specific cases (like this one). >>> >> >> And you completely avoided the topic again (and then snipped the comments about your idiotic games). You were shown stats, you had no counter, you simply played the old school D&D trick of "disbelieving" and then threw a fit when the DM did not let you avoid being eaten by the monster, who was no illusion at all. :) You really cannot help yourself. It is all victim mentality all the time with you... and you lash out trying to make others look bad. No, Carroll, you simply did not like the evidence but had no counter so you went into your normal troll mode. It is what you do. I have to say, it is fun watching you do it with others... > > ... made you look like a lying idiot for trying to avoid reality... again? Yes. > And as a response Carroll snipped, played victim, and lashed out. Typical Carroll... EVERYTHING wrong in his life is someone else's fault... generally mine. Heck, in his world it is somehow MY fault -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 16:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fs707uFprbkU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460193 |
On 7/29/18 12:19 PM, Snit wrote: > On 7/29/18 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:02:38 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't comprehend) >>> >>> Translation: dodge. >> >> As I never agreed to enter into a wager that only an idiot would take >> or suggest, >> you're clearly lying... again. >> >>> In applied Statistics, >> >> ... even the dimmest are aware that 'you don't know what you don't know', >> therefore, stats can't be used as evidence to make claims of how >> something >> is, as opposed to how it appears to be. That's a vastly different >> scenario >> than where you see a stat which prompts media outlets to write things >> like: >> >> "Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 >> percent >> of the nation’s population. A cop is 18½ times more likely to be >> killed by a >> black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a cop." >> >> <https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politically-fueled-cop-hatred-has-taken-another-innocent-officers-life/> >> >> >> Does this account for *all* killings of cops by black males? Of course >> not, >> and the stats may not even be close to the reality, but that misses >> the point >> that the statement can be unequivocally made in its own right. You >> know this, >> you're just doing your regular reality avoidance BS. >> >>>> Even if they were all on line watch every single day they're still >>>> *way* >>>> understaffed and I suspect you're aware of that fact. >>> >>> Actually, since most illegal immigration is NOT coming across the >>> southern US >>> border, they're adequate, but misallocated. >>>>> This makes the “record lows” reports even more reliable. >>>> >>>> So what? >>> >>> Because it means that your emotions-tugging hair on fire "CRISIS!!" >>> is a lie. >> >> Despite your mislabeling of common sense, how do you propose to prove >> it makes them "reliable" enough to unequivocally state how a condition >> is, >> as opposed to the appearance indicted by the stats? >> >> (cue up "Hugh's" RDF as he attempts to spin that his 'stataganza' wasn't >> presented to prove Slimer's statement was wrong) >> >>>> The idea that border crime stats are as reliable as non-border >>>> is silly. >>> >>> Your claim, never mine. >> >> Gee, another lie by "Hugh". Fact: Slimer made the claim, you're the >> idiot who >> is pretending you can prove he's wrong by using stats... but you can't. >> >>> I merely pointed out that immigration is a Federal >>> jurisdiction and not State, so context matters. >> >> You foolishly tried to used stats to prove Slimer was wrong... but the >> best you >> can do is say the stats don't back his position. Period... and yo know >> it. >> >>>> The reality of the terrain alone blows that idea apart. >>> >>> Terrain is relevant primarily in that ocean borders aren't walked >>> across, which >>> means that the land-based southern border crossings are constrained >>> to the >>> US Southwest. Nevertheless, the vast majority of illegals do not >>> walk across >>> the SW border, but arrive legally on Tourist Visas (and never leave). >>> >>>> What's at stake for the drug lords, gangs, etc., provides the means >>>> and opportunity >>>> for corruption to be *much* higher than 'normal' in an enforcement >>>> agency. >>> >>> Which is relevenat ... how? >> >> For undermining the 'reliability' of your stats being evidence to >> prove that >> Slimer is wrong, obviously. >> >>>> You don't know what you don't know and stats don't help, certainly not >>>> enough to make a solid claim that border crime *is* lower than >>>> non-border >>>> crime. There's no way you could possibly know that and the things in >>>> play >>>> underscore how ludicrous it is to rely on stats for an accurate answer. >>> >>> Its damn trivial to prove. >>> >>> First, the average number of deportations of illegal immigrants per >>> prior cite >>> was ~357K/yr. Since the US population is ~326M, that's a per capita >>> rate of >>> 1.1 per 100,000... >> >> Great... but still irrelevant to not knowing what you don't know. >> >>> Next, note this: >>> >>> "The total median U.S. State crime rates in 2016 for violent crimes >>> is 370.3 per >>> 100,000 inhabitants, and property crime rates are 2,582.1" >>> <https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/> >> >> Same as above. >> >>> That means that violent crimes are more than 300x more common and >>> property crimes are more than 2000x more common than illegal immigrant >>> deportations. >> >> No it doesn't, egghead, it only means the *rate* iis. Again, the simple >> concept of not knowing what you don't know eludes you... can't measure >> what you can't see. You've fallen into the 'rate is reality' fallacy >> of statistics. >> >>>>>> This is how we can guarantee that all stats on border crime are a >>>>>> 100% accurate >>>>>> reflection of the conditions of the ground. >>>>> >>>>> Goal post move “Steve”, as 100% accuracy was never a claim nor a >>>>> requirement. >>>>> >>>>> There’s no evidence that the statistical confidence has declined, >>>>> and in some >>>>> areas, there’s reasons to logically expect that they’ve improved. >>>>> But that doesn’t suit >>>>> your partisan, emotions-driven agenda of Fascism. >>>> >>>> Nah... it's called realism and emotions have nothing to do with it. >>> >>> Where "real" has no actual objective data as evidence to substantiate >>> your claims. >>> >>>> Those with emotions-driven agendas are often found in the 'stats' >>>> crowd, >>>> who are certain there numbers tell the story so they defend them beyond >>>> all logical reasoning. Stats have their place, but that place can't >>>> tell how >>>> something *is* when it comes to things like crime, they only tell >>>> you how >>>> things *appear* to be. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. >>> >>> Even if you want to continue to claim without any substantiation >> >> Bzzzzzt! It;s up to you to prove your stats are telling the entire story. >> You're trying to use the Snit tactic of 'I said it, therefore it's >> gospel', >> which is totally absurd. >> > > Notice how you are avoiding the topic to go to a meta-topic of how logic > itself works! This is one of your games... you avoid the topic and twist > "logic". But, as you generally do, you merely show you do not understand > logic well. Here, let me help: > > He has shown evidence and you rejected it, so now you say it is up to > him to prove the evidence is evidence because of your rejection. But > that is absurd. > > This is how it actually works: He provided evidence. You blindly reject > and then offer no support of your own. His view is, thus, better supported. > > Does not mean it is proved to the level of a mathematical proof, or > whatever, but the evidence provided backs his view. > > But you "win" by taking the topic away from the actual topic and moving > to the topic of how clueless you are about the very topic of evidence. > So why don't you go BACK to the topic you are running from and actually > see if you can back your view? > You ran from ALL of that and just left insults in your wake. Of course. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EFp7D.248747$oR2.45670@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #460173 |
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 09:55:09 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:02:38 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> > >> > >> > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't >> > comprehend) >> >> Translation: dodge. > > As I never agreed to enter into a wager that only an idiot would take or > suggest, > you're clearly lying... again. > >> In applied Statistics, > > ... even the dimmest are aware that 'you don't know what you don't > know', > therefore, stats can't be used as evidence to make claims of how > something > is, as opposed to how it appears to be. That's a vastly different > scenario than where you see a stat which prompts media outlets to write > things like: > > "Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 > percent of the nation’s population. A cop is 18½ times more likely to be > killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a > cop." > > <https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politically-fueled-cop-hatred-has-taken- another-innocent-officers-life/> > > Does this account for *all* killings of cops by black males? Of course > not, > and the stats may not even be close to the reality, but that misses the > point that the statement can be unequivocally made in its own right. You > know this, > you're just doing your regular reality avoidance BS. I blame the fact that blacks believe that gangster rap music is an integral part of their culture and that following a storyline similar to that set in the lyrics of their songs is essential to being black. < snip > -- SilverSlimer Ubuntu 18.04 on MSI GT72 2QD Proudly blocking Facebook, Twitter and Youtube Confused about how to plug a USB device into a USB port? Have a problem that any moron can easily fix? Need a website which looks like it was designed by a brain-damaged four year-old? Then contact the Prescott Computer Guy for all of your trivial issues! http://www.prescottcomputerguy.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6301f456-14ed-46f8-b9e9-9cc7422d9e3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460211 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 2:43:19 PM UTC-6, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 09:55:09 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:02:38 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > (snip rehash of 'wager' delusions and material hh couldn't > >> > comprehend) > >> > >> Translation: dodge. > > > > As I never agreed to enter into a wager that only an idiot would take or > > suggest, > > you're clearly lying... again. > > > >> In applied Statistics, > > > > ... even the dimmest are aware that 'you don't know what you don't > > know', > > therefore, stats can't be used as evidence to make claims of how > > something > > is, as opposed to how it appears to be. That's a vastly different > > scenario than where you see a stat which prompts media outlets to write > > things like: > > > > "Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 > > percent of the nation’s population. A cop is 18½ times more likely to be > > killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a > > cop." > > > > <https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politically-fueled-cop-hatred-has-taken- > another-innocent-officers-life/> > > > > Does this account for *all* killings of cops by black males? Of course > > not, > > and the stats may not even be close to the reality, but that misses the > > point that the statement can be unequivocally made in its own right. You > > know this, > > you're just doing your regular reality avoidance BS. > > I blame the fact that blacks believe that gangster rap music is an > integral part of their culture and that following a storyline similar to > that set in the lyrics of their songs is essential to being black. That (what I quoted) is a side issue, the main point is he can no more prove his claim than you can yours. If U.S. border areas *actually* have fewer crimes it probably has more to do with drugs lords preferring it that way than policing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web