Poll: Blacks Support Racial Profiling 2 to 1 !

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr. Charles Forbin

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 3:17:38 PM10/2/01
to
PROFILING OF ARABS

Polls say blacks tend to favor checks
--------------------------------------

By Ann Scales, Boston Globe Staff, 9/30/2001

ASHINGTON - African-Americans, whose treatment by the criminal justice system
gave rise to the phrase ''racial profiling,'' are more likely than other racial
groups to favor profiling and stringent airport security checks for Arabs and
Arab-Americans in the wake of this month's terrorist attacks, two separate
polls indicate.


The findings by the Gallup Organization and Zogby International were met with
varying degrees of disappointment and disbelief by black activists and
intellectuals, who struggled with explanations.

Roger Wilkins, a historian at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and the
author of a new book on black patriotism, said he was surprised and
disappointed. ''I do not think that you beat people who are trying to tear
America down by turning your back on one of America's core principles - the
presumption of innocence,'' Wilkins said.


Arab-American leaders said the poll results may reflect the nation's need to
find a scapegoat, and said they didn't blame blacks for harboring attitudes
that are part of the fabric of this nation.


''I don't think it's in any way hostility'' by blacks, said John Zogby, an
Arab-American who conducted the Zogby poll. ''I think what they are saying is,
`We get profiled all the time and we survived. Maybe they ought to, too.'''


But Angela Davis, a law professor at American University and a specialist on
racism in the criminal justice system, said that if such attitudes exist, they
are ''very troubling.''


''We as black people shouldn't be feeling that way,'' she said. ''All people of
color are harmed by racial profiling, and we need to emphasize this and fight
against it.''


In the Gallup Poll, 71 percent of black respondents said they would favor
requiring Arabs, including those who are US citizens, to undergo special, more
intensive security checks before boarding airplanes. Fifty-seven percent of
whites said they would favor such a policy. There was no category specifically
for Hispanics and Asians. But among non-whites, the figure was 63 percent.


Asked whether they favor or oppose requiring Arabs, including US citizens, to
carry special identification as a means of preventing terrorist attacks, 64
percent of blacks said yes, while 48 percent of whites said no. Among
non-whites, 56 percent supported requiring Arabs to carry IDs.


In the Zogby poll, 54 percent of blacks surveyed said they support singling out
Arab-Americans for special scrutiny at airport check-ins. However, Hispanics
and whites said were opposed to such action, 63 percent and 53 percent,
respectively.


Each survey questioned about 1,000 respondents and had a margin of error of
plus or minus 3 percent.


In Washington, with its large African-American population, some blacks, such as
Thomas Irvin, 39, a public school teacher, say some blacks support racial
profiling of Arabs because of the Sept. 11 attacks but are conflicted about it.


Irvin, who said he now backs tighter airport screenings and special IDs for
Arabs, offered a simple rationale:


''It's better to be safe than sorry. I know it's wrong, but we'll apologize
later,'' he said.


Douglas Drayton, a retired human resources manager, said he opposes racial
profiling but would not want to fly on an airplane that carried a group of Arab
passengers. ''Given the environment right now, I don't think Arabs would mind''
being subjected to this type of racial profiling, he said.


Alvin Poussaint, a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School, said
that the counterintuitive nature of the attitudes reflected in the polls and in
the interviews was best understood in the context of the black experience in
America.


''No black person has ever done anything close'' to what the terrorists are
accused of, Poussaint said. ''We don't use tactics like that as a group, nor is
it part of our political statement.


''So witnessing this probably blows everybody's minds, but with black people
who are generally based in the turn-the-other-cheek, Christian principles of
love, and thou shall not kill, this would not be something they would opt
for,'' Poussaint said.


He added: ''They are feeling scared, and they are thinking about it
irrationally. They even know it.''


Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,
said the reasons may also be socio-economic. Blacks may not be sticking out
their necks for Arabs because of the tension with immigrant groups who, blacks
perceive, find it easier to get loans and establish businesses in black
neighborhoods.


''This has created a level of tension between African-Americans and many
different immigrant groups, Arab-Americans included,'' Ibish said. ''And I dare
say Arab-Americans will not be the last group to have that occasional tension
because of structural patterns of economic disenfranchisement.''


James Zogby, who heads the Arab American Institute and is the brother of the
pollster, attended a discussion Friday on racial profiling during a meeting of
the Congressional Black Caucus. He found much support for Arab-Americans, as
speaker after speaker denounced discrimination against them.


''The black leadership is very clear on this issue,'' James Zogby said. ''It
may very well be that this message needs to go down to the grass-roots level. I
find the statistics indicative of the fact that work needs to be done.''


Part of the problem, some analysts say, is that blacks aren't familiar enough
with Arabs and Arab-Americans, and naturally find it easier to stereotype those
they don't know. The Zogby poll, for instance, found that 32 percent of black
respondents said they were not familiar with Arab-Americans, compared with 23
percent of whites.


This story ran on page A16 of the Boston Globe on 9/30/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.

The Devil's Advocate

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 4:18:49 PM10/2/01
to
On 2 Oct 2001 12:17:38 -0700, forbinp...@hotmail.com (Dr. Charles
Forbin) wrote:

>In the Gallup Poll, 71 percent of black respondents said they would favor
>requiring Arabs, including those who are US citizens, to undergo special, more
>intensive security checks before boarding airplanes. Fifty-seven percent of
>whites said they would favor such a policy. There was no category specifically
>for Hispanics and Asians. But among non-whites, the figure was 63 percent.
>
>
>Asked whether they favor or oppose requiring Arabs, including US citizens, to
>carry special identification as a means of preventing terrorist attacks, 64
>percent of blacks said yes, while 48 percent of whites said no. Among
>non-whites, 56 percent supported requiring Arabs to carry IDs.
>
>
>In the Zogby poll, 54 percent of blacks surveyed said they support singling out
>Arab-Americans for special scrutiny at airport check-ins. However, Hispanics
>and whites said were opposed to such action, 63 percent and 53 percent,
>respectively.

I hope Darkstar is reading this. While slamming people as being
"bigots" for profiling, he has just called the majority of blacks
bigots.

xganon

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 3:55:37 PM10/2/01
to
In article <2096b2e.01100...@posting.google.com>, forbinp...@hotmail.com (Dr. Charles Forbin) wrote:

> PROFILING OF ARABS
>
> Polls say blacks tend to favor checks
> --------------------------------------
>
> By Ann Scales, Boston Globe Staff, 9/30/2001
>
> ASHINGTON - African-Americans, whose treatment by the criminal justice system
> gave rise to the phrase 'racial profiling,' are more likely than other
> racial
> groups to favor profiling and stringent airport security checks for Arabs and
> Arab-Americans in the wake of this month's terrorist attacks, two separate
> polls indicate.

Stupid fucking nigs don't understand that most Arabs have negroid features, and that many Arabs have precisely the same racial characteristics as African-Americans since they are also a bunch of racial mongrels. Look at the photographs of the perps at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm , then go down to the nigger district of your local city and tell me if there is any difference.

The truth that people are afraid to admit is that the terrorist attacks were a coordinated racial hate crime, a clear act of racial geonocide: the overwhelming majority of the victims were middle-class whites, many of them young, White women of childbearing age, perpetrated by niggers or niggered-down Caucasians, who also count legally as niggers. We Whites have the right and duty to pay this crime back in kind at a rate of 5,000 to 1. Nigger, know that we are out to get you and yours for this racial crime that you have committed against us.


Racemaster

The World Church of the Creator - the religion for White People
http://www.wcotc.com

The National Alliance - the philosophy for White People
http://www.natall.com

---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
Come visit the newest xganon server http://www.xganon.org providing
rights and freedom related news.
---


Unknown

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 8:26:33 PM10/2/01
to
On 2 Oct 2001 12:17:38 -0700, forbinp...@hotmail.com (Dr. Charles
Forbin) wrote:

Except as alwyas, this is mislabeled. It ISN'T just "racial"
profiling. "Demographic" profiling would be a better term, because
age, ethnicity, gender, all are part of the equation. NO ONE is
talking about singling ALL folks of any particular race or ethnicity

The "black leadership" is also out of touch with their rank-and-file.
As they are on a host of other issues.

Unknown

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 8:30:48 PM10/2/01
to

Good point, but more importantly, I hope many of our spineless
politicians see a copy of this survey.

And I wish for GOD's sake the name of this is changed to something
more meaningful: This is NOT just "racial" profiling we're talking
about, but a blend of demographic attributes, including age group,
gender, citizenship status and other behavioral characteristics.

No one is proposing profiling based *solely* on race or ethnicity.

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 9:40:34 PM10/2/01
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 20:18:49 GMT, The Devil's Advocate
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:

...

>I hope Darkstar is reading this. While slamming people as being
>"bigots" for profiling,

I slammed you for comments supporting the internment of "Arabs,"
making statements about "Arabs with turbans," and the indiscriminate
means that you advocate.

If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
themselves.

Now, will you provide the post where you differentiate between "Arabs
wearing turbans"?

---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.toad.net/~darkstar/public_key.html

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 9:54:34 PM10/2/01
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
wrote:

>I slammed you for comments supporting the internment of "Arabs,"
>making statements about "Arabs with turbans," and the indiscriminate
>means that you advocate.

I never suggested Arab internment. I suggested airport profiling, like
most blacks.

>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>themselves.

So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?

Unknown

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 10:15:41 PM10/2/01
to

It's really a shame everytime blacks (or other individuals in other
groups) think for themselves rather than toeing the party line set
forth by their "leaders", the suggestion is made that these blacks are
"self-hating". That is essentially what is being suggested here.

It's just sad.

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 10:54:19 PM10/2/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:54:34 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>


>wrote:
>
>>I slammed you for comments supporting the internment of "Arabs,"
>>making statements about "Arabs with turbans," and the indiscriminate
>>means that you advocate.
>
>I never suggested Arab internment. I suggested airport profiling, like
>most blacks.

You lie.
You also "suggested" kicking those who have sympathy towards their
ideas, out of the country. But you never defined what ideas those may
be, so it may be the idea that western values corrupts Islam. Is that
an idea that should get people booted out of the country?


>
>>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>>themselves.
>
>So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?

If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
themselves.

---

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 2:42:02 AM10/3/01
to

No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.


Kaiju

--

No more fiendish punishment could be devised,
were such a thing physically possible,
than that one should be turned loose in society
and remain absolutely unnoticed.

-- William James

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 2:45:57 AM10/3/01
to

SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:54:34 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
> <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
> >wrote:

> >>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
> >>themselves.
> >
> >So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>
> It's really a shame everytime blacks (or other individuals in other
> groups) think for themselves rather than toeing the party line set
> forth by their "leaders", the suggestion is made that these blacks are
> "self-hating". That is essentially what is being suggested here.

And what hole did you scratch that bit of nonsense out of? I saw Ed express
his opinion. Is he now "leadership"? Is he no less an individual than anyone
else? And what freekin' "party line" was ever mentioned here? Other than
your constant screed supporting discrimination and bigotry, that is.

> It's just sad.

Yes, you are. Pathetic, actually.

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 4:29:57 AM10/3/01
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.

So, IOW, most blacks.

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 6:08:40 AM10/3/01
to

"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>

So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.

Sorry. I'm reading the report and I have strong doubts about this particular
study. In fact, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu. As in the questions
asked were created (even inadvertently) to elicit specific, predetermined
responses, the interpretation of the results were skewed, to reflect the
pollsters' anticipated results. For instance, if asked "Are you concerned
about someone appearing to be Middle Eastern who is on a flight with you?"
(Naturally, most respondents from the U.S. will respond in the affirmative.)
"If so, would you prefer that person be checked for citizenship prior to
boarding?" (Most respondents will be thinking that their ID and other
credentials should be presented before boarding a flight. With no qualifiers,
even I would respond yes, but I'd be thinking EVERYONE should have to be
questioned, but might respond in the affirmative given no other response
alternative.) What the pollsters may not be asking is, whether these
respondents are thinking, "EVERYONE'S credentials should be checked!" "Those
who do not appear to be U.S. Citizens should have their credentials checked!"
"Those who are not U.S. citizens should be subjected to questioning about
their residency status!" "Those who appear to be Middle Eastern should be
stopped, questioned, and have their credentials checked anytime they appear in
public!" And so forth.

There are so many ancillary thoughts going through the minds of people
undergoing polling that go beyond the questions actually posed by pollsters.
And then again, some people are really stupid. And bigoted. Including some
Blacks. (Whoever said Blacks are paragons of virtue? They are humans, and
can be ignorant just like a lot of otherwise idiots. Obviously in the same
proportions of the total population, even. Can't get any more human than
that. Only a total idiot would believe that one can define the entire group
by a defined segment of said population.)

So, with the anticipated responses, which may be the same for virtually
everyone (and the results of this poll indicate they actually were...the
results between various demographic and ethnic groups was statistically
close), follow up questions could lead the responders to make certain
"admissions", which are actually spoon-fed by the pollsters.

We've seen this before, especially with the OJ Simpson post-criminal trial
results, also reported by the Gallup Poll. Most Black respondents would
respond that OJ was not guilty. The news reports would proclaim, "Most Blacks
Believe OJ Was Innocent!" The truth of the matter was quite different. Most
Blacks thought that since OJ was found not guilty (most Blacks still say
this...in the literal sense), he was found innocent (most Blacks do not
believe this...in the literal sense). To lawyers, there is a distinction.
between a finding of "not guilty" and "innocent". To laypersons, there is
not. Yet there has been nearly a decade of castigating all Blacks because of
a misunderstanding of terminology, interpretation, and intent. What happened
is the pollsters injected their own expectations onto the results, and never
understood the dynamics involved. I strongly suspect this is underlying this
report, as well.

(You won't appreciate any of this and will strenuously attempt to reinterpret
what I've written, but I've put it out there, anyway.)

So unless I see the questions asked and the raw data, I will continue to say
that those who were polled tended to support a given preference. And I
definitely can tell, from the resulting reports, just how rigorous were the
sampling standards. This particular poll is questionable. The right
questions were not asked, and the interpretation of the results are...just
questionable.

I will say that I have encountered Blacks who do believe profiling of those of
Middle Eastern extract (or even those who appear to be Middle Eastern,
although they were born in the U.S. and aren't even really Middle Eastern to
begin with) is a good thing. They are about equal in numbers to those of
other ethnic groups who believe the same. I have also noted that among all
ethnic and demographic groups, it is usually those of marginal educational
backgrounds, lower income, and frankly, not-too-bright who espouse these types
of beliefs. In other words, they are ignorant and afraid, mostly out of
ignorance. Just a purely anecdotal observation, of course.

All the same, those polled who expressed positive support for the proposition
are shameful. I find anyone, (I do not care who it is), who supports the
proposition of government endorsed bigotry, shameful. It is simply
antithetical to the American Creed, and I find NO reason to stray from the
principles established by this Nation. I have spent a lifetime arguing that
the laws and principles of this country apply to all, and I am hardly willing
to abandon that belief now that we are tested in the most extreme situation
imaginable. We are STILL the United States of America. And that means much.

Frankly, in my opinion, those who demand a U.S. government policy of this type
of wholesale discrimination should move to Afghanistan. (The Taliban would
love your asses.) Or live under some other stone age regime. But I will not
be joining you people who don't even understand who or what you are
purportedly fighting against. You are flailing out of sheer, stark fear, and
no logic. Nah. I'm not going there, because once we all do, we've already
lost. Even Shrub and his creepy press secretary understand that.


Kaiju <anticipating that cooler heads will prevail...given a short period of
time...>

Unknown

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 9:22:42 PM10/3/01
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >themselves.
>>
>> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>
>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.

Why?

For expressing their opinion? Does the term "civil rights" and "First
Amendment" mean anything to you?


Unknown

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 9:23:26 PM10/3/01
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:45:57 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:54:34 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
>> <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> >wrote:
>
>
>> >>If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >>themselves.
>> >
>> >So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>>
>> It's really a shame everytime blacks (or other individuals in other
>> groups) think for themselves rather than toeing the party line set
>> forth by their "leaders", the suggestion is made that these blacks are
>> "self-hating". That is essentially what is being suggested here.
>
>And what hole did you scratch that bit of nonsense out of? I saw Ed express
>his opinion. Is he now "leadership"? Is he no less an individual than anyone
>else? And what freekin' "party line" was ever mentioned here? Other than
>your constant screed supporting discrimination and bigotry, that is.

Fool.



>> It's just sad.
>
>Yes, you are. Pathetic, actually.

Deluded.

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 9:24:02 PM10/3/01
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> put forth:

>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >themselves.
>>
>> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>
>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>
>
>Kaiju

Kaiju, stay tuned sweet.
I got something coming up....
Oh, it's good....
It's REAL good...

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 9:35:34 PM10/3/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:08:40 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> put forth:

>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> So, IOW, most blacks.
>
>So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.

OH, you have no idea how right you are.
But, you will.

...

>So unless I see the questions asked and the raw data, I will continue to say
>that those who were polled tended to support a given preference. And I
>definitely can tell, from the resulting reports, just how rigorous were the
>sampling standards. This particular poll is questionable. The right
>questions were not asked, and the interpretation of the results are...just
>questionable.

Oh, you have no idea, yet. But keep reading...

And, for you, HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

:-)

Guess who wrote to Zogby International and The Gallup Organization?

Moi.

Guess who asked to know what questions were asked, the responses, the
demographics of the poll respondents, the times the poll was done, the
areas of the country the poll respondents were from, age of the
respondents, and whether or not the respondents knew anyone who was
killed or injured in the attacks?

Moi.

Guess who responded?

Not Zogby, but Gallup.

Do you think I got all of the information I asked for?

No, I did not.

Do you think I got some information?

Yes, I did.

[ Note to Trudogg. The numbers you see here are different from what I
sent you. That is because the person emailed me again with the
_CORRECT_ numbers ]

So, Kaiju? Do you want to read what I have?

Well, here we go: :=D

Number of people polled: 1032
Number of Blacks in the poll: 71
Percentage of Blacks in the poll: 6.88%
Percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population: 13%

Oh, look what the numbers show us.
Is a sample size of 71 Blacks accurate?
How about a sample size of 6.88% vs 13%?

For grins, here is a link about error in sample size:

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm

Look at the tables and explanation on sample size. And look at the cut
off. A sample size of 100.

Hmmmm......

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 2:34:51 AM10/4/01
to

SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
> >> >themselves.
> >>
> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
> >
> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> Why?
>
> For expressing their opinion?

For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.

> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
> Amendment" mean anything to you?


These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
denounces your patent bigotry.

Mike Margerum

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 11:48:24 AM10/4/01
to

> And I wish for GOD's sake the name of this is changed to something
> more meaningful: This is NOT just "racial" profiling we're talking
> about, but a blend of demographic attributes, including age group,
> gender, citizenship status and other behavioral characteristics.
>
But then it would lack the attenion grabbing effect so loved by the race
baiting media.

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 1:58:45 PM10/4/01
to

How come I'm not surprised about Zogby?

> Do you think I got all of the information I asked for?
>
> No, I did not.
>
> Do you think I got some information?
>
> Yes, I did.
>
> [ Note to Trudogg. The numbers you see here are different from what I
> sent you. That is because the person emailed me again with the
> _CORRECT_ numbers ]
>
> So, Kaiju? Do you want to read what I have?

Absolutely.

> Well, here we go: :=D
>
> Number of people polled: 1032
> Number of Blacks in the poll: 71
> Percentage of Blacks in the poll: 6.88%
> Percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population: 13%
>
> Oh, look what the numbers show us.
> Is a sample size of 71 Blacks accurate?
> How about a sample size of 6.88% vs 13%?
>
> For grins, here is a link about error in sample size:
>
> http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm
>
> Look at the tables and explanation on sample size. And look at the cut
> off. A sample size of 100.
>
> Hmmmm......

Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
face.

Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.


Kaiju

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 9:00:17 PM10/4/01
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:58:45 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>face.
>
>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.

Before you take this fools "research" on any topic seriously, remember
that his "research" also led him to accuse Wayne Johnson and I off
forging, hacking and posting kiddie porn. And he has yet to retract or
apologize for these statements. You can go ahead and take him
seriously if you want, but he's still a nutcase. And you know you are,
Jerome...err... Ed.

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 9:03:47 PM10/4/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 01:00:17 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:

>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:58:45 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:


>
>>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>>face.
>>
>>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.
>
>Before you take this fools "research" on any topic seriously, remember
>that his "research" also led him to accuse Wayne Johnson and I off
>forging, hacking and posting kiddie porn.

My research is top notch and is verifiable. All Wayne had to do was
take me to court.

> And he has yet to retract or
>apologize for these statements.

And I won't. And certain posters now exactly why I won't.

> You can go ahead and take him
>seriously if you want, but he's still a nutcase. And you know you are,
>Jerome...err... Ed.

*ROTFL*

Do you want to make a bet DA?

Let's put it on the line. If I can't provide proof, I'll leave the
unmoderated and moderated groups forever.

If I can, you leave both groups forever.

DEAL?

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 8:57:49 PM10/4/01
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:58:45 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> put forth:

>
>
>DarkStar wrote:
...


>> Well, here we go: :=D
>>
>> Number of people polled: 1032
>> Number of Blacks in the poll: 71
>> Percentage of Blacks in the poll: 6.88%
>> Percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population: 13%
>>
>> Oh, look what the numbers show us.
>> Is a sample size of 71 Blacks accurate?
>> How about a sample size of 6.88% vs 13%?
>>
>> For grins, here is a link about error in sample size:
>>
>> http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-8.htm
>>
>> Look at the tables and explanation on sample size. And look at the cut
>> off. A sample size of 100.
>>
>> Hmmmm......
>
>Har! I had a feeling something was off with this poll. The sample size isn't
>even right. Makes one wonder about the questions asked, themselves. This
>obviously was a very poorly conducted, poorly designed survey all around. It
>makes for a controversial headline, but is is anything but accurate...on its
>face.
>
>Good job, Ed. Thanks! We can safely toss this one in the round file.

Gee, where is DA?
He likes to condemn Black people at the drop of a hat, but where is he
now?

DA? Does 71 Black people truly represent all Black Americans?

DA?

>
>Kaiju

Meredith

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 10:03:41 PM10/4/01
to
In article <9a1qrtk49sl4qc19k...@4ax.com>, The Devil's Advocate?
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:

Shame on you.

Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.

He did. Very nicely, too.

Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
are, you bring up Wayne.

Somebody needs to make a man out of you.

Meredith

Unknown

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 10:54:42 PM10/4/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:34:51 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"The Devil's Advocate©" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >> >themselves.
>> >>
>> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>> >
>> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> For expressing their opinion?
>
>For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.

Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
but incorrect.

Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
based on the above set of criteria I presented.

>> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
>> Amendment" mean anything to you?
>
>
>These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have

Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter? Hosed
and chased by police dogs? Denied a job or admission to school based
on your race?

Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
their opinions freely?

>absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
>you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
>denounces your patent bigotry.

Who's the bigot? How about someone who's anti-women, anti-Christian,
anti-Jew, anti-Western? Like the 19 helljackers, for instance. Are
you going to deny that they're the biggest bigots around?


The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 11:06:55 PM10/4/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:03:41 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>Shame on you.
>
>Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
>indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.

>He did. Very nicely, too.

Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
different conclusion.

>Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
>you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
>are, you bring up Wayne.

Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
Are you defending this shit?

>Somebody needs to make a man out of you.

You need a man period. It mellowed out Black Beauty. Hehheh

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 11:10:55 PM10/4/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:06:55 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:

>On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:03:41 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>


>wrote:
>
>>Shame on you.
>>
>>Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
>>indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.
>
>>He did. Very nicely, too.
>
>Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
>said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
>different conclusion.

Oh, such a nice spin. Too bad it makes you look even more like the ass
that you are.


Here is what you wrote:

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

From: The Devil's Advocate© <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Poll: Blacks Support Racial Profiling 2 to 1 !
Message-ID: <j1jlrtcv48pom8fq0...@4ax.com>
References: <2096b2e.01100...@posting.google.com>
<h28krtc3d0hq1ibgf...@4ax.com>
<m0rkrto3srg7rl401...@4ax.com>
<frrkrtccvmgpvde8i...@4ax.com>
<3BBAB33A...@ecn.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 6
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:29:57 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.249.75.74
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1002097797 216.249.75.74
(Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:29:57 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:29:57 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
X-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:26:28 PDT
(newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net)
Xref: news.abs.net soc.culture.african.american:299351

On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.

So, IOW, most blacks.

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

I demonstrated, quite nicely, that your ASSertion can't be validly
made.

>>Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
>>you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
>>are, you bring up Wayne.
>
>Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
>researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
>usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
>Are you defending this shit?

Just like I told Wayne: sue me.
I'm serious.

>>Somebody needs to make a man out of you.
>
>You need a man period. It mellowed out Black Beauty. Hehheh

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 11:39:35 PM10/4/01
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:10:55 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
wrote:


>>Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
>>said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
>>different conclusion.
>
>Oh, such a nice spin. Too bad it makes you look even more like the ass
>that you are.

It's no spin. It's the truth. You have proved nothing other than you
think the sample size was too small.

According to the chart you posted, if we were to go with a sample size
of 100 at near 70%, the error margin would be 12 points. So let's say
that the chart went over to a sample size of 70, at the rate it is
adding error margin points, it would be very unlikely to make the
number drop below 50%, which would make my "ASSertion" as you put it,
invalide. Prima facie, I'd say the error margin would probably be
around 15 if the chart went as low as 70. So at the lowest, the claim
that most blacks support Arab profiling would still be accurate and
keep in mind that it could also go the other way where it ends up
being 86%. As usual, you have proven nothing.

>
>Here is what you wrote:

>>No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>>should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>
>So, IOW, most blacks.
>
>=============================
>
>I demonstrated, quite nicely, that your ASSertion can't be validly
>made.

So where is the other information you claim to have recieved, age,
part of the country, income, etc.???

>>>Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as usual
>>>you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how scared you
>>>are, you bring up Wayne.
>>
>>Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
>>researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
>>usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.
>>Are you defending this shit?
>
>Just like I told Wayne: sue me.
>I'm serious.

ROTFL.

Meredith

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 11:57:29 PM10/4/01
to
In article <nh8qrtoqrmujmi6pr...@4ax.com>, The Devil's Advocate?
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:03:41 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Shame on you.
> >
> >Hours ago you were claiming most Blacks support racial profiling and you
> >indirectly challenged Darkstar to prove you wrong.
>
> >He did. Very nicely, too.
>
> Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling,

He didn't need to.

But he showed that the data you supported was flawed and probably rigged.

And, you publicly cry for Wayne. (Whoa!)

> he
> said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
> different conclusion.
>
> >Now, you're running scared telling folks not to trust his research, and as
> >usual
> >you fail to show where his research is flawed. And, to show just how
> >scared you
> >are, you bring up Wayne.
>
> Your boy Darkstar who now thinks he's some kind of professional
> researcher came to the conclusion that I and Wayne hack and forge
> usenet and distribute child porn. He has yet to retract and apologize.

And you've been battling with him for days, but you bring this up when he has
you in a corner, jammed against the wall, striking out like a lame kitten.

> Are you defending this shit?

Ask someone who gives a damn abour your "dares".

Meredith

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 12:12:20 AM10/5/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:08:40 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>
>
>"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> So, IOW, most blacks.
>
>So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.

By that logic, I guess we can't assume that most Americans support
Bush since afterall, we haven't polled all Americans, for all we know
90% of those polled support him and the 99.x percentage of the pop.
that wasn't polled could hate his guts. Great logic there, Kaiju.

>Sorry. I'm reading the report and I have strong doubts about this particular
>study. In fact, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu. As in the questions
>asked were created (even inadvertently) to elicit specific, predetermined
>responses, the interpretation of the results were skewed, to reflect the
>pollsters' anticipated results.

IOW, "I'm shocked that this poll doesn't declare most blacks in
agreement with me, so something must be wrong with the poll." Yet you
are quick to believe notions such as blacks dying off early due to
racism without equal scrutiny. Interesting.

>There are so many ancillary thoughts going through the minds of people
>undergoing polling that go beyond the questions actually posed by pollsters.
>And then again, some people are really stupid. And bigoted. Including some
>Blacks. (Whoever said Blacks are paragons of virtue? They are humans, and
>can be ignorant just like a lot of otherwise idiots. Obviously in the same
>proportions of the total population, even. Can't get any more human than
>that. Only a total idiot would believe that one can define the entire group
>by a defined segment of said population.)

And if a poll came out that showed 80% of whites would rather not have
a black neighbor, I'd love to see if you'd say, "you can't define
white attitudes by a poll." I'm so sure you would.

>We've seen this before, especially with the OJ Simpson post-criminal trial
>results, also reported by the Gallup Poll. Most Black respondents would
>respond that OJ was not guilty. The news reports would proclaim, "Most Blacks
>Believe OJ Was Innocent!" The truth of the matter was quite different. Most
>Blacks thought that since OJ was found not guilty (most Blacks still say
>this...in the literal sense), he was found innocent (most Blacks do not
>believe this...in the literal sense). To lawyers, there is a distinction.
>between a finding of "not guilty" and "innocent". To laypersons, there is
>not. Yet there has been nearly a decade of castigating all Blacks because of
>a misunderstanding of terminology, interpretation, and intent. What happened
>is the pollsters injected their own expectations onto the results, and never
>understood the dynamics involved. I strongly suspect this is underlying this
>report, as well.

So why didn't most whites, Latinos, Asians, etc, find him "not
guilty"??? You said above regarding profiling that you expect the same
sort of attitudes amongst all groups because we're all just human. So
why did so many blacks feel that he's "not guilty" while everyone else
did? Please explain.


>I will say that I have encountered Blacks who do believe profiling of those of
>Middle Eastern extract (or even those who appear to be Middle Eastern,
>although they were born in the U.S. and aren't even really Middle Eastern to
>begin with) is a good thing. They are about equal in numbers to those of
>other ethnic groups who believe the same. I have also noted that among all
>ethnic and demographic groups, it is usually those of marginal educational
>backgrounds, lower income, and frankly, not-too-bright who espouse these types
>of beliefs. In other words, they are ignorant and afraid, mostly out of
>ignorance. Just a purely anecdotal observation, of course.

Hahhah, you're too funny. Jesse Jackson is wealthy, well-educated,
intelligent and as PC as it gets, yet he said:

"There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street
and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery--then look around
and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Sounds like profiling to me. I guess your theory is bunk. My theory is
that it has nothing to do with income demographics, I'd get profiled
walking behind a resident of Beverly Hills as quickly as I would
behind someone from E. L.A.

It's all about education. College conditions people to avoid saying
something that others will interpret as "offensive." Therefore fewer
college graduates will *admit* to profiling, or even supporting it.
Yet they do it in their personal lives all the time. And in the case
of Jackson, it shows that these sentiments will slip out when not on
guard, just as I once overheard an educated white from an expensive
college slip out the word "nigger" then grabbed her mouth mouth and
looked around in utter embarssment. She ran up and apologized to me,
as red in the face as a tomato, but it was too late, the damage had
been done, once you slip like that, you can't take it back. We know
how this person feels underneath, and we know what Jackson really
thinks underneath. Everyone profiles, those that don't are lying.

>All the same, those polled who expressed positive support for the proposition
>are shameful. I find anyone, (I do not care who it is), who supports the
>proposition of government endorsed bigotry, shameful. It is simply
>antithetical to the American Creed, and I find NO reason to stray from the
>principles established by this Nation. I have spent a lifetime arguing that
>the laws and principles of this country apply to all, and I am hardly willing
>to abandon that belief now that we are tested in the most extreme situation
>imaginable. We are STILL the United States of America. And that means much.

Under normal circumstances I'd be against it as well. When virtually
everyone that has ever sucessfully or unsucessfully tried to hijack or
blow up a plane has been a man from the middle east, I'm sorry, I
don't have any problem profiling them and subjecting them to further
scrutiny in airports. You can call it racist if you want, I call it
common sense and public safety. Especially as we are entering a war
with terrorist and we *know* it's just a matter of time before they
plane to strike again. If I had a kid and had to put them on a plane
with all Arabs or a plane with all Koreans, I'd put my odds on the
later. Sorry, that's just how I feel.

>Frankly, in my opinion, those who demand a U.S. government policy of this type
>of wholesale discrimination should move to Afghanistan. (The Taliban would
>love your asses.) Or live under some other stone age regime. But I will not
>be joining you people who don't even understand who or what you are
>purportedly fighting against. You are flailing out of sheer, stark fear, and
>no logic. Nah. I'm not going there, because once we all do, we've already
>lost. Even Shrub and his creepy press secretary understand that.

We are dealing with a situation we have never had to deal with. Where
your enemy is like a shadow and can camaflage in with the general
public. We know that in virtually every case, this enemy fits the same
profile again and again. To say we shouldn't put this profile under
greater scrutiny when we know that we're dealing with potentially
massive deaths is utter foolishness IMO. Of course it's all a matter
of perception. Bigotry to one man is common sense to another. And if
god forbid one of these assholes manages to set off a weapon of mass
destruction in this country killing thousands more(which may have been
prevented had someone "profiled" the terrorist), you will have people
gravitate towards my view, not yours. Those are the facts, mam.

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 12:21:51 AM10/5/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:57:29 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
wrote:


>
>But he showed that the data you supported was flawed and probably rigged.
>
>And, you publicly cry for Wayne. (Whoa!)

Look you braindead fool, read this paragraph slowly, and twice if
necessary....

Number one, I mentioned Wayne *and* myself, you dipshit. Number two
Wayne isn't the issue, the issue is that Darkstar is half nuts and any
research he claims to have done is to be taken with a grain of salt,
as this same person's "research" has led him to make unimaginably
bizarre claims about people in this NG, including myself.


>And you've been battling with him for days, but you bring this up when he has
>you in a corner, jammed against the wall, striking out like a lame kitten.

In a corner jammed against the wall??? ROTFL, you're just too funny
kitten...

>> Are you defending this shit?
>
>Ask someone who gives a damn abour your "dares".

Then quit following me around this newsgroup. I'd be willing to bet
that this freak has some kinda love-hate relationship with me. LOL!

Meredith

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 12:29:44 AM10/5/01
to
In article <r0dqrt4nlhj2r84e1...@4ax.com>, The Devil's Advocate?
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:57:29 GMT, Meredith <lay...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >But he showed that the data you supported was flawed and probably rigged.

No comment on that, I see.

> >And, you publicly cry for Wayne. (Whoa!)
>
> Look you braindead fool, read this paragraph slowly, and twice if
> necessary....
>
> Number one, I mentioned Wayne *and* myself, you dipshit. Number two
> Wayne isn't the issue,

Then stop mentioning him.

It's as simple as that.

Meredith

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 1:59:24 AM10/5/01
to

"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>

Oh, please. Bad attempt at distracting from the real issue. The poll
stinks. It stunk from the first reports. At this point it reeks more than
5-day old fish left under a front porch in Dallas during the summer. No
matter how you attempt to dress it up or use your ongoing argument with Ed as
a defense, it isn't going to change the fact that the survey was flawed from
the outset. If the poll designers couldn't even get the sample right, I have
even less faith in their ability to get the questions, no less the
interpretation of the results, correct. I don't blame them for not coming up
with a list of the questions asked. They were too busy trying to cover their
asses.

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 2:07:41 AM10/5/01
to

SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:34:51 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >SuperFly wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
> >> >> >themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
> >> >
> >> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
> >> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> For expressing their opinion?
> >
> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
>
> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
> but incorrect.

And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.

> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
> based on the above set of criteria I presented.

And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
looks like them. That is just wrong.

> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
> >
> >
> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
>
> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?

Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
lifetime, moron.

> Hosed
> and chased by police dogs?

Chased by police dogs, yes. And tear gassed.

> Denied a job or admission to school based
> on your race?

Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
intelligent.



> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
> their opinions freely?

I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?

> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
> >denounces your patent bigotry.
>
> Who's the bigot?

You.

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 2:30:04 AM10/5/01
to

"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:08:40 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:


> >So, IOW, most blacks polled, dimwit. I said what I meant.
>
> By that logic, I guess we can't assume that most Americans support
> Bush since afterall, we haven't polled all Americans, for all we know
> 90% of those polled support him and the 99.x percentage of the pop.
> that wasn't polled could hate his guts. Great logic there, Kaiju.

It's YOUR logic. Not mine. It is as stupid as much of what you have been
writing.



> >Sorry. I'm reading the report and I have strong doubts about this particular
> >study. In fact, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu. As in the questions
> >asked were created (even inadvertently) to elicit specific, predetermined
> >responses, the interpretation of the results were skewed, to reflect the
> >pollsters' anticipated results.
>
> IOW, "I'm shocked that this poll doesn't declare most blacks in
> agreement with me, so something must be wrong with the poll." Yet you
> are quick to believe notions such as blacks dying off early due to
> racism without equal scrutiny. Interesting.

I said what I intended. What you wrote bears no resemblance, no less bears
any relationship to what I wrote. Look. You are simply not sufficiently
educated, nor intelligent enough to put words in my mouth.

> >There are so many ancillary thoughts going through the minds of people
> >undergoing polling that go beyond the questions actually posed by pollsters.
> >And then again, some people are really stupid. And bigoted. Including some
> >Blacks. (Whoever said Blacks are paragons of virtue? They are humans, and
> >can be ignorant just like a lot of otherwise idiots. Obviously in the same
> >proportions of the total population, even. Can't get any more human than
> >that. Only a total idiot would believe that one can define the entire group
> >by a defined segment of said population.)
>
> And if a poll came out that showed 80% of whites would rather not have
> a black neighbor, I'd love to see if you'd say, "you can't define
> white attitudes by a poll." I'm so sure you would.

It depends upon the poll. This particular poll has very obvious flaws.



> >We've seen this before, especially with the OJ Simpson post-criminal trial
> >results, also reported by the Gallup Poll. Most Black respondents would
> >respond that OJ was not guilty. The news reports would proclaim, "Most Blacks
> >Believe OJ Was Innocent!" The truth of the matter was quite different. Most
> >Blacks thought that since OJ was found not guilty (most Blacks still say
> >this...in the literal sense), he was found innocent (most Blacks do not
> >believe this...in the literal sense). To lawyers, there is a distinction.
> >between a finding of "not guilty" and "innocent". To laypersons, there is
> >not. Yet there has been nearly a decade of castigating all Blacks because of
> >a misunderstanding of terminology, interpretation, and intent. What happened
> >is the pollsters injected their own expectations onto the results, and never
> >understood the dynamics involved. I strongly suspect this is underlying this
> >report, as well.
>
> So why didn't most whites, Latinos, Asians, etc, find him "not
> guilty"??? You said above regarding profiling that you expect the same
> sort of attitudes amongst all groups because we're all just human. So
> why did so many blacks feel that he's "not guilty" while everyone else
> did? Please explain.

I already explained that above. Did you not read it before your knee jerked?
Or is it yet another instance where you couldn't comprehend what you read?

> >I will say that I have encountered Blacks who do believe profiling of those of
> >Middle Eastern extract (or even those who appear to be Middle Eastern,
> >although they were born in the U.S. and aren't even really Middle Eastern to
> >begin with) is a good thing. They are about equal in numbers to those of
> >other ethnic groups who believe the same. I have also noted that among all
> >ethnic and demographic groups, it is usually those of marginal educational
> >backgrounds, lower income, and frankly, not-too-bright who espouse these types
> >of beliefs. In other words, they are ignorant and afraid, mostly out of
> >ignorance. Just a purely anecdotal observation, of course.
>
> Hahhah, you're too funny. Jesse Jackson is wealthy, well-educated,
> intelligent and as PC as it gets, yet he said:
>
> "There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street
> and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery--then look around
> and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Why do you persist in quoting that man as though it is meaningful to me in any
remote fashion? Are you this much an idiot?



> Sounds like profiling to me. I guess your theory is bunk.

The bunk is using Jesse Jackson as some sort of justification for being a
bigot.

> My theory is
> that it has nothing to do with income demographics, I'd get profiled
> walking behind a resident of Beverly Hills as quickly as I would
> behind someone from E. L.A.

What does this have to do with anything? Besides, for two years you have
denied that profiling even exists.



> It's all about education. College conditions people to avoid saying
> something that others will interpret as "offensive." Therefore fewer
> college graduates will *admit* to profiling, or even supporting it.

This makes absolutely no sense. It certainly doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

> thinks underneath. Everyone profiles, those that don't are lying.

There are actually people in this world who do not profile. Even if there are
those who do, it does not make it less wrong.



> >All the same, those polled who expressed positive support for the proposition
> >are shameful. I find anyone, (I do not care who it is), who supports the
> >proposition of government endorsed bigotry, shameful. It is simply
> >antithetical to the American Creed, and I find NO reason to stray from the
> >principles established by this Nation. I have spent a lifetime arguing that
> >the laws and principles of this country apply to all, and I am hardly willing
> >to abandon that belief now that we are tested in the most extreme situation
> >imaginable. We are STILL the United States of America. And that means much.
>
> Under normal circumstances I'd be against it as well. When virtually
> everyone that has ever sucessfully or unsucessfully tried to hijack or
> blow up a plane has been a man from the middle east, I'm sorry, I
> don't have any problem profiling them and subjecting them to further
> scrutiny in airports. You can call it racist if you want, I call it
> common sense and public safety.

It is cowardice, irrational fear, and racist. I see nothing prudent in this
belief of yours and your fellow travelers. You cowards will be so busy
harassing normal citizens and legal residents, you'll miss the real terrorists
should there be a next time. In the meantime, we would have lost much of what
the United States of America stands for.

> Especially as we are entering a war
> with terrorist and we *know* it's just a matter of time before they
> plane to strike again.

Dummy. They won't use a plane the next time. Terrorists are smarter than you
are.


> >Frankly, in my opinion, those who demand a U.S. government policy of this type
> >of wholesale discrimination should move to Afghanistan. (The Taliban would
> >love your asses.) Or live under some other stone age regime. But I will not
> >be joining you people who don't even understand who or what you are
> >purportedly fighting against. You are flailing out of sheer, stark fear, and
> >no logic. Nah. I'm not going there, because once we all do, we've already
> >lost. Even Shrub and his creepy press secretary understand that.
>
> We are dealing with a situation we have never had to deal with.

I repeat. Even Shrub and his lying asshole of a press secretary say people
like you are wrong. It just may be the only time they have been right.


Kaiju

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 9:17:58 PM10/5/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:39:35 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:

>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:10:55 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>


>wrote:
>
>
>>>Bullshit. He didn't prove that most blacks don't support profiling, he
>>>said that the sample was too small to make any conclusions. That's a
>>>different conclusion.
>>
>>Oh, such a nice spin. Too bad it makes you look even more like the ass
>>that you are.
>
>It's no spin. It's the truth. You have proved nothing other than you
>think the sample size was too small.

Polls of this nature generally go for 1000 + a minimum of 10%. Any
poll under 100 is statistically invalid. That's not "me" thinking the
"sample size was too small," that's the *SCIENCE* behind sociological
studies.


>According to the chart you posted, if we were to go with a sample size
>of 100 at near 70%, the error margin would be 12 points.

Uhhhh...
No it wouldn't.

Let me walk your stupid ass through the process.

At a sample size of 100, for near 70%, margin of error is 12.

But you didn't *WANT* to notice a pattern that is *VERY* important.

Population | Error
---------------------------
1500 | 3
1000 | 4
750 | 4
600 | 5
400 | 6
200 | 8
100 | 12

Do you see a pattern here?

Do you think their may be an equation that explains why the error rate
is getting greater at a *HIGHER* rate the closer you get to one? For a
95-100% certainty? I'd say the error is 100.

Look at the rate of change. Between 200-400, the error is 2. Between
100-200 the erro is 4. I bet there's an exponential equation involved
in this. Guess what it would be at, say 75. If you say anything linear
to a difference of 6, you fail. (You figure out why I chose a
difference of 6).


>So let's say
>that the chart went over to a sample size of 70, at the rate it is
>adding error margin points, it would be very unlikely to make the
>number drop below 50%, which would make my "ASSertion" as you put it,
>invalide. Prima facie, I'd say the error margin would probably be
>around 15 if the chart went as low as 70.

That's linear. The rate of change isn't linear. Just look at it.

> So at the lowest, the claim
>that most blacks support Arab profiling would still be accurate and
>keep in mind that it could also go the other way where it ends up
>being 86%. As usual, you have proven nothing.

*ROTFL*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You never took statistics. Did you even take algebra?

DarkStar

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 9:23:25 PM10/5/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 04:12:20 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> put forth:


...

>
>Under normal circumstances I'd be against it as well. When virtually
>everyone that has ever sucessfully or unsucessfully tried to hijack or
>blow up a plane has been a man from the middle east, I'm sorry, I
>don't have any problem profiling them and subjecting them to further
>scrutiny in airports.

This isn't true.

For years, highjackers were most likely to be Europeans coming out of
the Soviet bloc. There were even a few out of Cuba.

Unknown

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 1:51:20 PM10/6/01
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:07:41 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:

>
>
>SuperFly wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:34:51 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >SuperFly wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:42:02 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:40:34 -0400, DarkStar <dark...@toad.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >If the poll is accurate, then those polled should be ashamed of
>> >> >> >themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So most blacks should be ashamed of themselves?
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Those polled who expressed agreement that Arabs in the United States
>> >> >should be profiled should be ashamed of themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >>
>> >> For expressing their opinion?
>> >
>> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
>>
>> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
>> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
>> but incorrect.
>
>And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
>individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.

Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
and INS databases.

Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.

>> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
>> based on the above set of criteria I presented.
>
>And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
>looks like them. That is just wrong.

Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
aboard. It's that simple.

Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
quo?


>> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
>> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
>> >
>> >
>> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
>>
>> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?
>
>Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
>benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
>lifetime, moron.

Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?

>> Hosed
>> and chased by police dogs?
>
>Chased by police dogs, yes. And tear gassed.

Actually, lots of people have been tear gassed, and not all were due
to racism.

>> Denied a job or admission to school based
>> on your race?
>
>Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
>school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
>competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
>intelligent.

Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
can compete on a level playing ground with whites.



>> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
>> their opinions freely?
>
>I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?

Why is that a "stupid" question. You sound as if you were born
recently, I'm not responsible for that. Based on your response, I can
now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
the past. Like about 4 decades ago.

>> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
>> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
>> >denounces your patent bigotry.
>>
>> Who's the bigot?
>
>You.

Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?

You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
modern-day bigots.

The Devil's Advocate©

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 3:45:34 PM10/6/01
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:51:20 -0400, SuperFly <> wrote:

>Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
>aboard. It's that simple.
>
>Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
>Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
>religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
>quo?

Some people believe in being politically correct no matter what the
circumstance. I see *them* as the extremists. I believe in fairness
and equal treament under the law like anyone else, but I also realize
that there are situations that could arise where public safety and
survival force you to have to temporarily suspend some rules. I also
believe that we should not have cruel and unusual punishment under
normal circumstances, but if they caught one of these terrorists on
our soil and needed to twist his arm or fingers or beat the shit out
of him to drag vital information about future terrorist plots of mass
destruction and save thousands of lives, I'm not complaining about it.
I believe in situational ethics which is common sense to me.

Kaiju

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 4:43:35 PM10/6/01
to

SuperFly wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:07:41 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:


> >> >For condoning diminished civil rights for people based on their appearance.
> >>
> >> Nope. Age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status and behaviorial
> >> aspects all taken into consideration. Your assumptions are facile,
> >> but incorrect.
> >
> >And how do you propose to do that without first making judgment on the
> >individual's appearance? Your assumptions are bigoted, and stupid.
>
> Nope. Attributes such as gender, age, citizenship status can easily
> be determined by examining paperwork and cross-checking against FBI
> and INS databases.

So, you are proposing that everyone of a certain gender, age, and citizenship
status should be checked? Or just those who appear to be of middle-eastern
ancestry?

Just as I thought. You are still bigoted and stupid. You can do all the
checking you want using these tactics, and you will still likely not catch
most, no less all potential terrorists. But you will be harassing thousands
of innocent people for nothing.

> Behavioral aspects such as acting belligerent, nervous, etc, can only
> determined by observation, and the courts have consistently said this
> is OK, as long as race is not the sole factor.

Yet you are only advocating that those with certain racial characteristics be
checked out. All of them. Belligerent or otherwise.

> >> Check up on the 19 helljackers. You'll see a very common pattern,
> >> based on the above set of criteria I presented.
> >
> >And on the basis of those 19 terrorists, you are set to terrorize anyone who
> >looks like them. That is just wrong.
>
> Not terrorize. Just check carefully. If they're clean, they can get
> aboard. It's that simple.

As I said, you are still a bigot.



> Has it occured to you that those 19 savages committed the largest Hate
> Crime on record? Somewhere between 5000 and 7000 folks, of all races,
> religions, creeds, etc, blown away, and you want to keep the status
> quo?

It is the price of freedom. If you want another type of country in which to
live, go find one and move there.



> >> >> Does the term "civil rights" and "First
> >> >> Amendment" mean anything to you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >These terms apparently mean more to me than they ever will to you. You have
> >>
> >> Bull. Have you ever been denied service at a lunch counter?
> >
> >Yes. And denied use of certain water faucets, the ability to sit on certain
> >benches, and use of certain toilets. All of this was going on within my
> >lifetime, moron.
>
> Any of this in the past 3 decades or so?

If we follow through with your suggestions of how this country should be
changed because you are a scared little wuss, it could return. Whether it
happened in the past 3 decades or not is immaterial. It happened, I remember
it clearly, and I do not want history repeating itself.

> >Denied a job, definitely. I never used my race to gain admission to a
> >school. I never had to since my grades and scores were already highly
> >competitive with anyone. Including those Asians you believe are so
> >intelligent.
>
> Well good for you. Then you agree with Dr Walter Williams that blacks
> can compete on a level playing ground with whites.

Contrary to your ignorant beliefs, most Blacks do.



> >> Were you even alive when MLK died, so that other blacks could express
> >> their opinions freely?
> >
> >I was not only alive, I met him. Do you have any other stupid questions?
>
> Why is that a "stupid" question.

It is stupid because it is meaningless and proves nothing.

> You sound as if you were born
> recently, I'm not responsible for that.

You are responsible for your own stupidity.

> Based on your response, I can
> now safely conclude that you are not a youngster who knows nothing
> about real racism. However, I can also conclude that you're living in
> the past. Like about 4 decades ago.

You are a fool if you believe overt racism and bigotry died 40 years ago.



> >> >absolutely no problem advocating less civil rights for certain citizens, and
> >> >you don't want any speech contrary to what you want to hear, especially if it
> >> >denounces your patent bigotry.
> >>
> >> Who's the bigot?
> >
> >You.
>
> Wrong. Who committed the largest Hate Crime in history?

Who is ready to victimize thousands of people just because they look similar
to those 19 terrorists?



> You are clearly are stuck in the past, you know nothing about
> modern-day bigots.

I'm reading ignorant crap written by you. You are certainly an example of a
modern-day bigot, and gee...bigots haven't changed a whole lot in all these
years. Bigots are still scared little cowards and ignorant. Nope. Nothing
has changed at all. One thing for sure, I have sufficient experience to know
a bigot when I see him, and you're it.

Unknown

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 6:33:51 PM10/6/01