On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:12:11 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...



Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has much
less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports. It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.


Well, Duhh......I knew that all along, Ed.

Its all about attempting to correlate two or more sets of facts or
statistics that are at often best remotely connected so as to represent a
single "fact" in order to promote some agenda.

Kirk said it quite well IMO.........

Suppose, for instance, one set of data is gathered as to the price
fluctuations of tea in China over a period of time.

Another set of data is gathered concerning deadly automobile accidents in
the USA over the same time frame.......

Suppose further, when one chart moved positive, the other moved negatively
more or less, and did so throughout several cycles over the time period.

Would this mean there is a definite correlation between the two data sets
???

Why, of course not !!!

I sure hope some genuine statistician jumps in here and
straightens out "Precision." I could, but not being a
professional, I might get some term slightly wrong and the
"Credentialed Society" nazis would have a fit.

But in fact, it is exactly this type of ( Faulty ) statistical comparison
that is *very* frequently used, and presented in order to sway people's
opinion on any number of topics and agendas..........it is simply one area
where statistics and probability cross the line from being legitimate tools,
useful for scientific analysis into the realm of being nothing other than
pure propaganda.

Yup.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:12:11 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...



Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all*
I
wanna to know.

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has much
less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports.
It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.


Well, Duhh......I knew that all along, Ed.

Its all about attempting to correlate two or more sets of facts or
statistics that are at often best remotely connected so as to represent a
single "fact" in order to promote some agenda.

Kirk said it quite well IMO.........

Suppose, for instance, one set of data is gathered as to the price
fluctuations of tea in China over a period of time.

Another set of data is gathered concerning deadly automobile accidents in
the USA over the same time frame.......

Suppose further, when one chart moved positive, the other moved
negatively
more or less, and did so throughout several cycles over the time period.

Would this mean there is a definite correlation between the two data sets
???

Why, of course not !!!

I sure hope some genuine statistician jumps in here and
straightens out "Precision." I could, but not being a
professional, I might get some term slightly wrong and the
"Credentialed Society" nazis would have a fit.

But in fact, it is exactly this type of ( Faulty ) statistical comparison
that is *very* frequently used, and presented in order to sway people's
opinion on any number of topics and agendas..........it is simply one
area
where statistics and probability cross the line from being legitimate
tools,
useful for scientific analysis into the realm of being nothing other than
pure propaganda.

Yup.

I think that both of you guys had better go look up "correlation." Indeed,
the situation described is a definite correlation -- a negative one. It's
exactly the kind of correlation that linear-regression analysis looks for
(as in data-mining programs) and the software will flag you that a
correlation exists if it finds one like this.

What I think you mean is that there is no indication of *causation*, and
that's entirely true. But if you used the data to predict the next
upswing/downswing, and if it occurred as the data predicts, you would not
only have a correlation, you would have a predictive correlation. That's the
kind of data relationship that makes astute people rich, and the rest of us
scratch our heads.

Predictive correlations are the basis of much of the marketing statistics
that are in use today. Whether one event causes the other hardly matters --
likely there is some unknown, third factor which is the causative one for
both of the events you're tracking -- but the ability of the data to predict
is its value. It starts with a correlation like the one you've described.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:12:11 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in
message
...



Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is
*all*
I
wanna to know.

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has
much
less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports.
It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.


Well, Duhh......I knew that all along, Ed.

Its all about attempting to correlate two or more sets of facts or
statistics that are at often best remotely connected so as to represent
a
single "fact" in order to promote some agenda.

Kirk said it quite well IMO.........

Suppose, for instance, one set of data is gathered as to the price
fluctuations of tea in China over a period of time.

Another set of data is gathered concerning deadly automobile accidents
in
the USA over the same time frame.......

Suppose further, when one chart moved positive, the other moved
negatively
more or less, and did so throughout several cycles over the time
period.

Would this mean there is a definite correlation between the two data
sets
???

Why, of course not !!!

I sure hope some genuine statistician jumps in here and
straightens out "Precision." I could, but not being a
professional, I might get some term slightly wrong and the
"Credentialed Society" nazis would have a fit.

But in fact, it is exactly this type of ( Faulty ) statistical
comparison
that is *very* frequently used, and presented in order to sway
people's
opinion on any number of topics and agendas..........it is simply one
area
where statistics and probability cross the line from being legitimate
tools,
useful for scientific analysis into the realm of being nothing other
than
pure propaganda.

Yup.

I think that both of you guys had better go look up "correlation." Indeed,
the situation described is a definite correlation -- a negative one. It's
exactly the kind of correlation that linear-regression analysis looks for
(as in data-mining programs) and the software will flag you that a
correlation exists if it finds one like this.

What I think you mean is that there is no indication of *causation*, and
that's entirely true. But if you used the data to predict the next
upswing/downswing, and if it occurred as the data predicts, you would not
only have a correlation, you would have a predictive correlation. That's
the
kind of data relationship that makes astute people rich, and the rest of
us
scratch our heads.

Predictive correlations are the basis of much of the marketing statistics
that are in use today. Whether one event causes the other hardly
matters --
likely there is some unknown, third factor which is the causative one for
both of the events you're tracking -- but the ability of the data to
predict
is its value. It starts with a correlation like the one you've described.


Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part...........

I was actually going to introduce a third set of data into the landscape (
sudden export restrictions on gold from the Soviet Union or somesuch )

And suppose upon noting a change occurred in the previous correlation
between the price of tea in China, and data concerning deadly automobile
accidents in the USA; question whether it could rightly be assumed to have
been caused by the said gold export restrictions...........

Of course, still, the answer is no. g

But I ran out of time, and so I didnt elaborate nor edit the previous post
much for clarity sake.

The important part being you did understand exactly what it was I was
*trying* to say, regardless of my perhaps poor choice of terms.

--

SVL

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ...

Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.


Which type of tea were you interested in ?

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.


Which type of tea were you interested in ?

Why, whatever type makes idiot drivers in the US cause less accidents, of
course..........

Ya got any ???

G

--

SVL

""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in message
...

Predictive correlations are the basis of much of the marketing
statistics
that are in use today. Whether one event causes the other hardly
matters --
likely there is some unknown, third factor which is the causative one
for
both of the events you're tracking -- but the ability of the data to
predict
is its value. It starts with a correlation like the one you've
described.


Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part...........

I was actually going to introduce a third set of data into the landscape (
sudden export restrictions on gold from the Soviet Union or somesuch )

And suppose upon noting a change occurred in the previous correlation
between the price of tea in China, and data concerning deadly automobile
accidents in the USA; question whether it could rightly be assumed to have
been caused by the said gold export restrictions...........

Of course, still, the answer is no. g

But I ran out of time, and so I didnt elaborate nor edit the previous post
much for clarity sake.

The important part being you did understand exactly what it was I was
*trying* to say, regardless of my perhaps poor choice of terms.

Sure, and your point, although a little rough around the edges, is
essentially correct. Attributing causative relationships to mere
coincidences is one of the ways statistics are misunderstood, and a way
they're sometimes intentionally misused.

This is a difficult example, though, because it requires some understanding
of when correlations become meaningful. A couple of weeks ago I quoted here
from a statistics consultant about exactly this subject, in which he
described the common kind of after-the-fact regression analysis as junk
science. Data mining as it's practiced today by unsophisticated marketers
and by political parties often is that kind of junk science. It stops being
junk science when the correlation actually predicts events as well as
describing historical relationships. It doesn't have to show the pattern of
causation in order to be useful, but it does have to accurately predict
events, or it's just junk.

There are many ways in which statistics are misused and abused, many of them
simpler to follow than your example. The Interpol case is a good one. What
they've compiled is data that allows you to see what's happening to crime
within individual countries over time, but not much else. Because one
country counts only apples, while another counts only oranges, it's useless
for comparing fruit from one country with fruit from another. The statistics
are basically good for their intended purpose, in other words, but complete
junk when someone tries to make a different and improper use of the data.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"\"PrecisionMachinisT\"" wrote in message ...
"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.


Which type of tea were you interested in ?

Why, whatever type makes idiot drivers in the US cause less accidents, of
course..........


that'd be the thousand-dollar-a-pound stuff, probably ...


Ya got any ???



you must be joking ! :-)

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.


Which type of tea were you interested in ?

I dunno bout Sam, but I'll take some Mushroom tea if ya got any.

I need it to put up with the opinionated loons if ya know what I mean.....

Y'all got cows over ther right?

Bing

Tom Quackenbush wrote:

With regards to the "apples and oranges" aspect of the argument,
I'd guess that anyone still reading the thread sees the problem. I've
got my doubts as to how many folks are still reading the thread,
though.

That is the key point, Tom. You're right. I've agreed with that from
the beginning. The problem is, as I said, the only time anyone falls
back to pointing out and arguing apples and oranges is when the
argument is lost beyond that point. The idiot formerly known as ed
only fell back to arguing the apples to oranges aspect because he was
proven blatantly wrong on the "crime" part.

It's no different from that other idiot earlier trying to argue the
definition of "permit" when he was proven wrong about the states
requiring permits.

ral

In article .net, Richard
Lewis says...

... the only time anyone falls
back to pointing out and arguing apples and oranges is when the
argument is lost beyond that point.

Not the only time. Sometimes they do that, when
a false analogy is presented.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

With regards to the "apples and oranges" aspect of the argument,
I'd guess that anyone still reading the thread sees the problem. I've
got my doubts as to how many folks are still reading the thread,
though.

That is the key point, Tom. You're right. I've agreed with that from
the beginning. The problem is, as I said, the only time anyone falls
back to pointing out and arguing apples and oranges is when the
argument is lost beyond that point. The idiot formerly known as ed
only fell back to arguing the apples to oranges aspect because he was
proven blatantly wrong on the "crime" part.

Richard, are you still claiming that we have no drug crimes if the Fed
doesn't report them? Or are you saying now that you agree with what I said
from the beginning, and you figure that no one notices what you just tried
to do?

YOU were the one who said that the crime figures are "whatever the
government said they are," stupidly assuming that the National Crime Index
is a report of all crimes.

Now you seem to have recognized your mistake and you're trying to weasel out
of it, eh, dickhead?

What a phony you are.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has much less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports. It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.

It is? Funny, I didn't see you quote anything to do with crime,
idiot....all you've argued so far was that the source quoted was
somehow wrong in your opinion. You haven't discussed "crime" at all.

If we're quoting crime, where are the numbers? State them once and
give their source and let's all look them over.

Apples to apples, remember.

ral

"Bing" wrote in message .. .


Y'all got cows over ther right?

Didn't used to but we do now, yeah. Why ? you want milk tea or
something ? That tastes okay too, but kind of sweet. Doesn't
cost thousands of dollars a pound tho. Now bird's nests ... you
can pay some big money for that. Just from looking at them, I'd
say drinking that would do something psychedelic to your brain ...

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
k.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has much
less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports. It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.

It is? Funny, I didn't see you quote anything to do with crime,

That's because you're a lazy dickhead, Richard. We talked about crimes and
how they can't be compared throughout that thread.

idiot....all you've argued so far was that the source quoted was
somehow wrong in your opinion.

I said they can't be compared. Apples and oranges. Isn't that what you
finally came around to acknowledging in your last message? Shall we show you
the quote?


If we're quoting crime, where are the numbers? State them once and
give their source and let's all look them over.

I already posted the links to the Interpol tables and to the FBI's UCR
stats, you lazy dickhead. Since you're retired and you have so much time on
your hands, go back in the thread, follow the links, and look
them up yourself. That is, if you're really interested.


Apples to apples, remember.

There are no apples to apples in comparing international crime stats,
dickhead. Here's what I said about it in a message earlier in this thread:

"It's well known that comparing international crime stats is a
loser, because there are a lot of differences in the way they're reported,
in the percentage of crimes actually reported to police, and even in the
definitions of some crimes."

Here's what Interpol said about it. By the way, this is the second time I've
quoted this in a message to you:

==================================

Warning: These statistics cannot be used as a basis for comparison between
different countries. They do not take into account:

national differences in the legal definitions of punishable acts

the diversity of statistical methods used

changes which may occur during the reference period affecting the data
collected.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...CS/Default.asp

===================================

The whole point here was that Gunner quoted some comparisons between
countries that he got from some blog, which were the Interpol figures. He
said they show that the US has much lower crime than the "major European
countries." I said they show no such thing, for two reasons: the US counts
fewer types of crimes than and of the other countries in that short list,
and the numbers are suspect to begin with, because of the reasons Interpol
pointed out above.

Richard, I thought you were just a sour old crank, but now I see you're
actually a lazy old derelict and a troll. You keep saying the opposite of
things you said before and claiming the opposite, you keep asking for facts
that were already posted...all the signs of a low-life troll. I'm not
surprised you're retired. I doubt if it was voluntary.

Go stroke your pistol and slap your leather, Richard. At least you'll get
your rocks off.

Ed Huntress

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Richard Lewis wrote:

Tom Quackenbush wrote:

With regards to the "apples and oranges" aspect of the argument,
I'd guess that anyone still reading the thread sees the problem. I've
got my doubts as to how many folks are still reading the thread,
though.
snipped
That is the key point, Tom. You're right. I've agreed with that from
the beginning. The problem is, as I said, the only time anyone falls
back to pointing out and arguing apples and oranges is when the
argument is lost beyond that point. The idiot formerly known as ed
only fell back to arguing the apples to oranges aspect because he was
proven blatantly wrong on the "crime" part.

It's no different from that other idiot earlier trying to argue the
definition of "permit" when he was proven wrong about the states
requiring permits.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstood me. Ed was pointing
out that apples and oranges are different, only because you didn't
seem to grasp the difference. Perfectly logical argument, IMHO. Also a
futile argument, in this case.

FWIW, I blame Ed more than you for pursuing it this far; I've come
to expect better of _him_. That's entirely my problem, though - I
don't expect either one of you will have to cry yourself to sleep due
to my opinion. g

Hey, somebody has to keep the trolls from running rampant. g How would I
know that Richard is some kind of infected boil?

We'll stop feeding him now and he'll quiet down.

Ed Huntress

Isnt this simple?
where would you prefer to live? in a country with 10000 murders per 1000000
people per year or one with 5?
You dont really need statistics to work out where in the world you feel safe
walking the streets and where you dont.
Statistics will show a credible correlation between liberal gun laws and the
chances of being murdered.
Its all about power. And who you trust to have it.
If you answer this question truthfully all the statistics mean nothing


Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Richard Lewis wrote:

snip

It's not reported as CRIME if it's not a crime, now is it?

Richard, are you on drugs? The United States doesn't report all crimes to
Interpol; only the ones I listed yesterday. Germany reports EVERY category
of crime that the US reports, plus about a dozen more. Two of them (drug
offenses -- 250,969 crimes, and fraud -- 788,208 crimes) alone add over
1,200 crimes/100k to Germany's figures. (from Police Crime Statistics
[Germany], page 15, http://www.bka.de/)

Let me repeat: There are NO categories that the US reports, but which
Germany doesn't report. Got that? So, are you saying that because the US
doesn't report drug offenses or fraud in our National Crime Index, we
don't really have any drug offenses or fraud? But Germany does report
them, so they DO have drug offenses and fraud?

Richard, are you completely out of your mind, or are you just dumber than
a tree stump?

Just **** off, idiot! You are actually making me feel stupid for
having to fall to your level to argue with you and that is only the
second time in my life I can say that.

I get the feeling you were plenty stupid before we started discussing
this, Richard. You're just feeling it now because you're seeing it for
yourself.

I'd be curious to hear from anyone who cares to raise their hand here. Is
there anyone who doesn't see the problem with what Richard is saying? If
you have a comment on it one way or the other, this would be a good time
to pipe up. I think Richard is on the verge of going apoplectic, and he
may not be able to reach a keyboard for much longer. g

With regards to the "apples and oranges" aspect of the argument,
I'd guess that anyone still reading the thread sees the problem. I've
got my doubts as to how many folks are still reading the thread,
though.

WRT to the "tree stump" analogy, I think you can do better. In my
neck of the woods, at least, the tree stumps are blissfully quiet.

Thinking of analogies reminds of the old saws about arguing with
idiots and wrestling with pigs.

R,
Tom Q.

--
cheers
73deVK6PEC
Peter

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
"Bing" wrote in message
.. .


Y'all got cows over ther right?

Didn't used to but we do now, yeah. Why ? you want milk tea or
something ? That tastes okay too, but kind of sweet. Doesn't
cost thousands of dollars a pound tho. Now bird's nests ... you
can pay some big money for that. Just from looking at them, I'd
say drinking that would do something psychedelic to your brain ...

Na, I prefer cow T. Actually not the tea itself. You boil out too much of
the good **** that way.
Gotta eat them right after pickin. Cow**** and all. Early mornin dew helps
em go down a bit smoother.

Sorry I hadda flashback there, or am I having one now?

Bing

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message

I can see his point, and look forward to him continuing to
making it, hopefully ever more stridently.



Haha! Guido, you are an instigator and ****-stirrer of rare ability. g


Perhaps, though he hasn't posted much since.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message

I can see his point, and look forward to him continuing to
making it, hopefully ever more stridently.



Haha! Guido, you are an instigator and ****-stirrer of rare ability. g


Perhaps, though he hasn't posted much since.


He might have sniffed something fishy in your posting. g

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Richard, are you still claiming that we have no drug crimes if the Fed
doesn't report them? Or are you saying now that you agree with what I said
from the beginning, and you figure that no one notices what you just tried
to do?

Listen closely, idiot....I'll say it again. If the countries report
their crime to Interpol to be included in the crime report, it ain't
up to you, idiot, to try to claim that they didn't happen.

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

That's because you're a lazy dickhead, Richard. We talked about crimes and
how they can't be compared throughout that thread.

It's because you have yet to make a credible argument, idiot.

I notice you still didn't even when asked to directly in this one.

ral

In article .net, Richard
Lewis says...

If the countries report
their crime to Interpol to be included in the crime report, it ain't
up to you, idiot, to try to claim that they didn't happen.

Sometimes it's better if you just stop and
allow folks to think charitable thoughts.
This might be that time.

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Richard, are you still claiming that we have no drug crimes if the Fed
doesn't report them? Or are you saying now that you agree with what I
said
from the beginning, and you figure that no one notices what you just
tried
to do?

Listen closely, idiot....I'll say it again. If the countries report
their crime to Interpol to be included in the crime report, it ain't
up to you, idiot, to try to claim that they didn't happen.

ral



Hahahoho!...Richard, you've been jerking that pistol out of your holster too
much. I doubt if YOU even know what the hell you're talking about anymore.

Those drug crimes DID happen, Richard, even if the US didn't report them.
Same with the frauds and the others. That's the point, dickhead. YOU CAN'T
USE THE INTERPOL FIGURES TO COMPARE COUNTRIES BECAUSE SOME COUNTRIES ONLY
REPORT SOME OF THEIR CRIMES, WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES REPORT MANY MORE TYPES OF
CRIMES.

They aren't comparable. They're apples and oranges, which I said from the
beginning. Now you seem to be getting it, sort of, and you think you're the
one who thought of it.

Is the lightbulb in your head turned on yet, moron?

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message

I can see his point, and look forward to him continuing to
making it, hopefully ever more stridently.



Haha! Guido, you are an instigator and ****-stirrer of rare ability. g


Perhaps, though he hasn't posted much since.


He might have sniffed something fishy in your posting. g



Do toads have a good sense of smell ?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...

Is the lightbulb in your head turned on yet, moron?


He doesn't have a lightbulb in his head. That's why he had to
wait for the sun to come out, so he could tip his head sideways
and get something in there besides the smell of cordite.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Richard, are you still claiming that we have no drug crimes if the Fed
doesn't report them? Or are you saying now that you agree with what I
said
from the beginning, and you figure that no one notices what you just
tried
to do?

Listen closely, idiot....I'll say it again. If the countries report
their crime to Interpol to be included in the crime report, it ain't
up to you, idiot, to try to claim that they didn't happen.

ral



Hahahoho!...Richard, you've been jerking that pistol out of your holster
too
much. I doubt if YOU even know what the hell you're talking about anymore.

Those drug crimes DID happen, Richard, even if the US didn't report them.
Same with the frauds and the others. That's the point, dickhead. YOU CAN'T
USE THE INTERPOL FIGURES TO COMPARE COUNTRIES BECAUSE SOME COUNTRIES ONLY
REPORT SOME OF THEIR CRIMES, WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES REPORT MANY MORE TYPES
OF
CRIMES.

They aren't comparable. They're apples and oranges, which I said from the
beginning. Now you seem to be getting it, sort of, and you think you're
the
one who thought of it.

Is the lightbulb in your head turned on yet, moron?

Ed Huntress


Ed,
I was reading an article about trauma care in the US the other day. A
doctor was saying he believes the main reason the Murder rate is LOW is
because our trauma doctors have gotten so good at saving murder victims
lives, thus moving the crime into the assault category. In many other
countries a serious wound is nearly always fatal.

Gary H. Lucas

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:50:49 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...

snip the nonsensical part

Hahahoho!...Richard, you've been jerking that pistol out of your holster too
much. I doubt if YOU even know what the hell you're talking about anymore.

Those drug crimes DID happen, Richard, even if the US didn't report them.
Same with the frauds and the others. That's the point, dickhead. YOU CAN'T
USE THE INTERPOL FIGURES TO COMPARE COUNTRIES BECAUSE SOME COUNTRIES ONLY
REPORT SOME OF THEIR CRIMES, WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES REPORT MANY MORE TYPES OF
CRIMES.

They aren't comparable. They're apples and oranges, which I said from the
beginning. Now you seem to be getting it, sort of, and you think you're the
one who thought of it.

Who says "you can't compare apples and oranges"? Seems Richard does
it all the time.

Is the lightbulb in your head turned on yet, moron?

I'm not usually a betting man, but I've got five dollars to put on
"No." Any takers?

Al Moore
DoD 734

"Gary H. Lucas" wrote in message
news

Ed,
I was reading an article about trauma care in the US the other day. A
doctor was saying he believes the main reason the Murder rate is LOW is
because our trauma doctors have gotten so good at saving murder victims
lives, thus moving the crime into the assault category. In many other
countries a serious wound is nearly always fatal.

Hmm. Interesting, but I'd want to see some documentation before swallowing
that idea.

Ed Huntress

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

That's because you're a lazy dickhead, Richard. We talked about crimes
and
how they can't be compared throughout that thread.

It's because you have yet to make a credible argument, idiot.

Oh, jeez, Richard, I think everyone here gets it except you. Face it, it's
just a little over your head. Maybe your brain has slowed down since you've
retired.


I notice you still didn't even when asked to directly in this one.

I doubt if anyone, except you, can follow your labyrinthine idea of what
"this one" is. And I'm not so sure about you.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Hahahoho!...Richard, you've been jerking that pistol out of your holster too
much. I doubt if YOU even know what the hell you're talking about anymore.

You still don't get it, idiot?

No big surprise there.

They aren't comparable. They're apples and oranges, which I said from the
beginning. Now you seem to be getting it, sort of, and you think you're the
one who thought of it.

I've understood from the beginning that you lost the argument and had
to argue the semantics instead....what else needs be said?

You lost. Face it.

Even when asked straight out to make your point, you couldn't.

Face it.

Pathetic idiot.

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Oh, jeez, Richard, I think everyone here gets it except you. Face it, it's
just a little over your head. Maybe your brain has slowed down since you've
retired.

Once more, idiot. Where's the argument?

Still can't produce one?

Sheeeesh

ral

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Hahahoho!...Richard, you've been jerking that pistol out of your holster
too
much. I doubt if YOU even know what the hell you're talking about
anymore.

You still don't get it, idiot?

No big surprise there.

They aren't comparable. They're apples and oranges, which I said from the
beginning. Now you seem to be getting it, sort of, and you think you're
the
one who thought of it.

I've understood from the beginning that you lost the argument and had
to argue the semantics instead....what else needs be said?

Hmm. Maybe that you're too stupid to find your ass with both hands?

You lost. Face it.

Richard, you were never even in the game. You fell flat on your face before
you even got started, and I doubt if there's a person here who doesn't know
it. You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment if you'd just taken
the time to look at those Interpol reports, where you would have seen that
the US doesn't even report crimes in categories counted by other countries.

But, being a lazy dickhead, you didn't, and then you had to backpedal and
weasel around. Too bad, you could have been a contender -- if you weren't so
damned lazy.

Watch out for Guido. He can be very tricky...

Ed Huntress

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
k.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Oh, jeez, Richard, I think everyone here gets it except you. Face it,
it's
just a little over your head. Maybe your brain has slowed down since
you've
retired.

Once more, idiot. Where's the argument?

I think it climbed up your butt, Richard. 'Better go looking for it with
that pistol of yours, before it gets away.

You pathetic dickhead.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

But, being a lazy dickhead, you didn't, and then you had to backpedal and
weasel around. Too bad, you could have been a contender -- if you weren't so
damned lazy.

Watch out for Guido. He can be very tricky...


You make me seem terrible.

Of course since gun control (spit) increases the number of
guns in society, witness the UK experience, we ought really
to be campaigning for greater controls. We really need to
sneak up on them Dems, whilst they aren't looking.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

But, being a lazy dickhead, you didn't, and then you had to backpedal
and
weasel around. Too bad, you could have been a contender -- if you
weren't so
damned lazy.

Watch out for Guido. He can be very tricky...


You make me seem terrible.

Of course since gun control (spit) increases the number of
guns in society, witness the UK experience, we ought really
to be campaigning for greater controls. We really need to
sneak up on them Dems, whilst they aren't looking.


Hmm. Is this a trick statement? Let's see...more controls, more
guns...outfox the Dems by campaigning for gun control so we'll have more
guns...is that it?

It's one foxy devil you are, Guido.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...


Watch out for Guido. He can be very tricky...


You make me seem terrible.

Of course since gun control (spit) increases the number of
guns in society, witness the UK experience, we ought really
to be campaigning for greater controls. We really need to
sneak up on them Dems, whilst they aren't looking.



Hmm. Is this a trick statement? Let's see...more controls, more
guns...outfox the Dems by campaigning for gun control so we'll have more
guns...is that it?


That is what Gunner was saying earlier today wasn't it? Guns
doubled in the UK in the last 10 years.

It also has the advantage that being a 'black market'
enterprise it would be free of Government taxes (spit) too.
Possibly help out Fred with those pesky Chinese. This is a
win, win proposal all round.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...


Watch out for Guido. He can be very tricky...


You make me seem terrible.

Of course since gun control (spit) increases the number of
guns in society, witness the UK experience, we ought really
to be campaigning for greater controls. We really need to
sneak up on them Dems, whilst they aren't looking.



Hmm. Is this a trick statement? Let's see...more controls, more
guns...outfox the Dems by campaigning for gun control so we'll have more
guns...is that it?


That is what Gunner was saying earlier today wasn't it? Guns
doubled in the UK in the last 10 years.

Hmm. I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, I suppose you're right.

So gun control really is a devious plot to increase the number of guns in
society, eh? Clever, very clever....


It also has the advantage that being a 'black market'
enterprise it would be free of Government taxes (spit) too.
Possibly help out Fred with those pesky Chinese. This is a
win, win proposal all round.

I could jump on that. 'Shoot it and stomp on it, too.

Ed Huntress

In the U.K. we just had a cop shot dead.... the first since 1998 I think...

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

But, being a lazy dickhead, you didn't, and then you had to backpedal
and
weasel around. Too bad, you could have been a contender -- if you
weren't so
damned lazy.

Watch out for Guido. He can be very tricky...


You make me seem terrible.

Of course since gun control (spit) increases the number of
guns in society, witness the UK experience, we ought really
to be campaigning for greater controls. We really need to
sneak up on them Dems, whilst they aren't looking.

Jonathan Barnes wrote:

In the U.K. we just had a cop shot dead.... the first since 1998 I think...


Next you'll be saying that Americans were to blame.

There were a couple killed by a maniac car thief a year ago.
What's that prove?

Guido wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:.

Hmm. Is this a trick statement? Let's see...more controls, more
guns...outfox the Dems by campaigning for gun control so we'll have more
guns...is that it?


That is what Gunner was saying earlier today wasn't it? Guns doubled in
the UK in the last 10 years.

It also has the advantage that being a 'black market' enterprise it
would be free of Government taxes (spit) too. Possibly help out Fred
with those pesky Chinese. This is a win, win proposal all round.

Increasing the number of guns in society probably is one of the
intentions of the socialists. Right along with radicalizing the masses
by increasing crime and victimization.

Socialism is just another millenarian cult. Come the revolution
(apocalypse), the workers utopia (Paradise) will miraculously develop
in the midst of the war, and "The People" (the "saved ones", and,
incidently, what most small tribes call themselves in their own
language) will live happily ever after.