The negro is a murdering sub ape
elfatvis
Homicide trends in the United States
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm
Homicide offending rates per 100,000 population by age, gender, and race
White Male Black Male
Year 14-17 18-24 25+ 14-17 18-24 25+
1976 10.4 21.3 9.4 72.4 166.4 98.3
1977 10.6 21.7 9.8 66.6 155.4 93.3
1978 10.7 23.7 10.0 64.5 161.2 93.1
1979 13.3 26.8 10.8 70.0 181.5 97.7
1980 13.6 30.2 12.1 85.2 207.9 104.1
1981 10.9 26.9 11.4 73.1 173.1 97.1
1982 11.3 24.3 10.9 61.6 160.2 83.6
1983 10.3 23.5 9.7 50.5 137.7 76.9
1984 9.4 24.5 9.8 47.6 124.2 71.6
1985 9.7 22.8 9.7 62.7 133.7 68.6
1986 12.3 24.3 9.9 72.2 149.9 76.5
1987 11.4 23.8 9.7 81.7 163.0 69.3
1988 13.9 23.0 9.1 111.9 204.0 72.7
1989 14.9 25.8 8.8 141.0 236.9 68.7
1990 20.6 30.2 9.3 175.3 266.7 78.4
1991 21.9 32.6 9.4 199.1 337.5 71.7
1992 21.8 31.3 8.2 195.2 312.0 67.9
1993 21.8 31.5 8.0 244.1 347.6 63.8
1994 22.4 31.1 7.7 226.7 329.8 58.5
1995 20.8 31.6 7.5 165.8 288.3 53.6
1996 17.2 30.9 6.6 133.5 268.0 49.9
1997 15.0 28.3 6.0 112.3 246.4 46.5
White Female Black Female
Year 14-17 18-24 25+ 14-17 18-24 25+
1976 1.3 2.6 1.6 10.3 30.0 22.3
1977 1.3 2.7 1.6 6.2 29.0 21.2
1978 1.2 2.6 1.5 7.9 26.6 19.3
1979 1.2 2.8 1.6 8.3 27.1 18.6
1980 1.1 2.9 1.7 8.0 30.6 19.2
1981 1.3 2.5 1.6 8.6 24.5 18.1
1982 1.2 2.8 1.6 5.9 25.5 15.8
1983 1.6 2.4 1.5 7.0 23.1 14.2
1984 1.2 2.7 1.3 6.2 19.6 13.1
1985 1.0 2.3 1.2 6.6 18.7 12.9
1986 1.1 2.4 1.2 5.6 20.8 13.2
1987 1.4 2.8 1.2 7.3 17.5 11.6
1988 1.0 2.6 1.1 7.4 22.6 11.5
1989 1.0 2.7 1.1 7.7 19.0 11.7
1990 1.5 2.9 1.1 7.5 20.9 11.0
1991 1.3 2.6 1.1 12.1 23.4 11.2
1992 1.4 2.3 1.0 11.1 19.2 10.1
1993 1.5 2.2 1.1 9.3 21.3 9.4
1994 1.4 2.1 1.0 9.7 20.1 9.6
1995 1.4 2.0 0.9 8.1 15.3 7.2
1996 1.7 2.7 0.9 7.6 18.1 7.2
1997 1.3 2.8 0.8 4.5 18.1 5.9
Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-97.
See the methodology section in Additional Information About
the Data for weighting and imputation procedures used.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/oars.txt
Unlike the energizer bunny, the jungle bunny is going no where fast.
http://209.207.161.114/jr_nschool.zip
No igual al conejo energizer, el conejo de la jungla no va a ningun
lugar rapido.
©2000 elfatvis
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
M.McGill
"elfatvis" <go...@la.mesa.net> wrote:
><snip>
99.8% of black males age 18-24 were not among the 246.4 rate.
To say the negro is a "murdering sub ape" is a over-generalization. The
worst of your stats only includes 0.2%, way to small to make a
generalization about the whole race and gender. It is more accurate to say
0.2% of black males age 18-24 are murderous.
It is a fallacy to make a generalized conclusion about the whole race and
gender or age group based upon only 0.2%.
Description of Over-Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a
population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the
following form:
1.Sample S (0.2%), which is too small, is taken from population P.
2.Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S (0.2%).
Now if you were to show that 40 or 50 percent of Negroes were murderous or
criminal then that would be large enough to make a generalization about
Negroes.
elfatvis
Fine McGill, take it for what it's worth. Educated people look at these
statistics and can see that you niggers are a murdering race of sub
ape. You can make all the fucking excuses you want, and get Whyne
Johnson et al to sign off on it. It doesn't change the way educated
people read it. Why don't you write the FBI and tell them that niggers
aren't that bad when it comes to murder. Ask them how much it cost tax
payers every time some blue gummed coon kills.
Black Beauty
"elfatvis" <go...@la.mesa.net> wrote:
> Fine McGill, take it for what it's worth. Educated people look at
these
> statistics and can see that you niggers are a murdering race of sub
> ape.
Educated people do NOT allow themselves to make generalizations. They
make judgements and conclude with FACTS based on WHOLE and PART. They
look at the WHOLE in regards to the PART and find what percentages are
really valuable in deciding stats against the WHOLE. Not just PARTS
(without the WHOLE)that are easily dissected and EASILY calculated
(that would be just the parts -- not ncluding the whole) with
statistics that just represent the PART.
> You can make all the fucking excuses you want, and get WhyneJohnson
et al to sign off on it.
Excuses are something that Whites make SURE they don't have to partake
in, by MANIPULATING and changing the FACTS to look good in their favor.
They just make it so they don't have to defend themselves or
use "excuses" for thier lack of character, strength, creativity,
physical and mental strength. Good White boy -- good good white boy.
You will eventually feel more superioir than a "murderous sub human ape
like un intelligent inferioir nigger" one day. Its going to take a
whole hell of alot of TNBs to reassure yourself of this-- but you'll
get there -- one day. LOL!
>It doesn't change the way educated people read it.
LOL! So educated people make generalizations when the FACTS are right
in front of thier faces huh? Show me some stats with the WHOLE
percentage of ALL Blacks and include the difference in percentage of
the PARTS of Blacks who committ crimes. Not just the Parts by the
parts. LOL!
You ElFAGvis compare like this: there are 15 oranges (Blacks)(whole).
there are 5 bad oranges (parts-- Blk). There are there are 40 apples
(whites --whole) & 12 bad apples (parts -- white). There are a total of
100,000 fruits in the pot but you SAY you just want the apples against
the oranges in the rotten dept., but you're intentions are to make a
generalization about how rotten oranges are in GENERAL without
including the WHOLE of actual oranges. You want to find out how many
bad oranges (parts) there really are comapred to bad apples. Well we
see that most likely from the numbers I put, that the oranges are MAYBE
the worst and are always rotting more than the apples. MAYBE – but
we’re only looking at 100,000 fruits total when there is another half
to be covered. But we are looking at a whole of 100,000 fruits not the
WHOLE of just all oranges to make such a generalization that all or
most oranges are ROTTEN. However, you take what looks to be the larger
sum (oranges) out of the 100,000 fruits and you've just made a
generalization on the WHOLE of all oranges compared to the PARTS of the
bad oranges in only part of 100,000 fruits rather than comparing the
the WHOLE of the oranges and the WHOLE of the fruits in reference to
the parts of bad oranges (NOT ALL fruits) to allow yourself to see that
ACTUALLY the parts of bad oranges are WAAAYYY lower than the WHOLE of
good oranges. You then say WOOOOOOOO, look at all those ROTTEN
oranges! They are just bound for the rooten route. so you make a
generalization about the whole (which you've never thought about
considereing because you only compared to the number of 100,000
fruits) or don't want to consider based on the small percentage of
parts that are really rotten compared to the whole.
GET IT FREAK!
Face it -- you are not educated and you are an IDIOT!
>Why don't you write the FBI and tell them that niggers aren't that bad
when it comes to murder.
Trying to tell the self gratifying -- but truly inferioir Whitey
something, is like trying to get a pig to act civilized.
>Ask them how much it cost tax payers every time some blue gummed coon
kills.
No more than it costs to pay for the 40% of smelly greasy haired one
toothed Crackers on WELFARE!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
M.McGill
<blackbe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Good post Black Beauty.
> In article <FsBm4.40819$Mg.6...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "elfatvis" <go...@la.mesa.net> wrote:
> > Fine McGill, take it for what it's worth. Educated people look at
> these
> > statistics and can see that you niggers are a murdering race of sub
> > ape.
>
> Educated people do NOT allow themselves to make generalizations. They
> make judgements and conclude with FACTS based on WHOLE and PART. They
> look at the WHOLE in regards to the PART and find what percentages are
> really valuable in deciding stats against the WHOLE. Not just PARTS
> (without the WHOLE)that are easily dissected and EASILY calculated
> (that would be just the parts -- not ncluding the whole) with
> statistics that just represent the PART.
>
> > You can make all the fucking excuses you want, and get WhyneJohnson
> et al to sign off on it.
>
> Excuses are something that Whites make SURE they don't have to partake
> in, by MANIPULATING and changing the FACTS to look good in their favor.
> They just make it so they don't have to defend themselves or
> use "excuses" for thier lack of character, strength, creativity,
> physical and mental strength. Good White boy -- good good white boy.
> You will eventually feel more superioir than a "murderous sub human ape
> like un intelligent inferioir nigger" one day. Its going to take a
> whole hell of alot of TNBs to reassure yourself of this-- but you'll
> get there -- one day. LOL!
ROTFLMBAO!!!!
ROTFLMBAO!!!
Bull Connor
M.McGill wrote in message ...
>
>Good post Black Beauty.
What was good about it? It was more of her typical, stupid, rambling,
nigger profanity, incoherent from start to finish.
And when are you, nigger McGill, going to stop sucking money from the
federal government, and get yo'self a job in de private sector, where your
"black intelligence" will makes you some crazy bank?
As if a dumb, lazy nigger would ever leave a cushy federal job that allows
him to surf the Web all day long....
>ROTFLMBAO!!!
Yeah - I know what that means, you dumbass jig - Rolling On The Floor
Laughing My Bushnigger Ass Off.
Bull Connor
Black Beauty
"Bull Connor" <Master_of...@whites.com> wrote:
>
> M.McGill wrote in message ...
> >
> >Good post Black Beauty.
>
> What was good about it? It was more of her typical, stupid, rambling,
> nigger profanity, incoherent from start to finish.
>
able to GRASP the logical aspects of Whole and part. But what would one
expect from a White boy who has never really had to know anything --
but somebody in the HR department. D-OH!
Black Beauty
em...@domain.com (M.McGill) wrote:
> In article <87fv95$5e4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Black Beauty
> <blackbe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Good post Black Beauty.
Thanks babay! ANytime you need some Black Beauty common sense to back
up your technical points, -- just gimme a hollar.
>
> > In article <FsBm4.40819$Mg.641351@c01read03-