Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...





On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about.

I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent demographer. It
would be good for laughs.

George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...




On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about.

I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent demographer. It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.

"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message



...




On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about.

I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.

You wish.

George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...



On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000, but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.

You wish.


Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?

"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...

I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.

You wish.


Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?

I think this was the rhetorical equivalent of "yo mamma."

"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message



...



On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.

You wish.


Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?

The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you all
know it.

George

It took a while but I finally figured out why you think you know so much
about statistics, sociology, the Census and interpersonal
communications: why YOU are right and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong. Your
whole life is explained he

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...18/MN73840.DTL

Your life is now so clear !

George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...


On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin" wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons. As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again. I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.
You wish.


Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?

The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you all
know it.

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Stop being an idiot. Nobody
said it was anti-urban. What was said was it undercounts urban areas,
which is true.

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message



...


On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where
their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons.
As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the
constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number
because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a
course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there
is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then
explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very
simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what
you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again.
I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing
for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you
don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent
demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.
You wish.


Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an
inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?

The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you
all
know it.

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Stop being an idiot. Nobody
said it was anti-urban. What was said was it undercounts urban areas,
which is true.

You are in fact stating that the census is biased on purpose, which is
incorrect. Whatever its failings, the error rates are estimated and to say
that the undercount is city-based is irresponsible.

On Mar 28, 6:47*am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message

... George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

... George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

... On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...

On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
m...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
. com...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where
their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons..
As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the
constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number
because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a
course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there
is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then
explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very
simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what
you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again.