(And yes, I prolly should've realised that arguin' statistics with the Chump was never gonna come to anything other than him scrabblin' to save face. The idiot can't even add with a calculator for god sake. I will try to remember that for next time).
"…with the moron claiming to be unable to connect my term 'black-on-white deaths' with his term 'blacks kill whites'…"
It's not a matter of me being unable. I speculated earlier that the term might mean black on white murders. (@ Mon Oct 16, 02:28:00 am ↑↑). You refused more than one chance to confirm that speculation. So, we were going no further. This has been about denying you the deniability you craved.
So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?
Well, while we're waitin’ for an answer, there is this other thing:
"The idiot can't even add with a calculator for god sake…"
There it is. He's scared now. There's the ‘tell’. He can't control it, even after he knows we see it. I presume he's long ago learned to not play poker face to face.
And, just for the record: Admitting that ‘black-on-white deaths’ connects with ‘blacks kill whites’ is a step short of admitting that they have an equivalent definition. I am watching you for the laying of new escape routes, and I spotted that one, so we're going to clear up that those terms actually mean the same thing going forward, not just ‘connect’ with one another in some undefined manner. No more built in deniabilities for the fat Irishman.
[Chump]: "So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term?"
I ain't descendin' to the moronic depths with ya Chumpy. I already rewrote my objection without adding any new terminology over and above yore own. Not lettin' ya weasel out with some new dictionary definition yore gonna conjure out of yore ass. And I ain't letting' this inanity spill over onto yet another thread now that Lynnette has opened one. Here it is for ya one more time:
Just to explain it -- Chumpy got his 729 number by adding 500 to 229.
Then he multiplied by the proportion of blacks in the population, to get a value. He won't tell us what that value is supposed to signify, but here's his exact statement:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one? He dudn't seem to want to take it from me that it's total hogwash.
"I'd be wondering: what the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???"
Ah, but, that wasn't the question you originally asked, was it? You have learned a few things since you first hung that out there. You've been ‘googling furiously’ I'd reckon. (Still, if you were actually a statistician you would know better than to ask that new question as well, but that's another issue entirely.)
"I ain't descendin' to the moronic depths with ya Chumpy."
Translated, that would mean that you realized you had run out of your last plausible deniability. No ambiguities to exploit anymore, so the fat boy bails.
LOL. So that's the moron's get-out clause? He's puttin' his refusal to answer down to his own inability to understand the question, even after it's been simplified for him. Ain't nobody but him thinks that ain't moronic.
So we shall keep askin' usin' his words, not mine:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
LOL again. So now the moron's get out clause is yet another lie.
[Moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number. [Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: "500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result. Sometimes also called a ‘sum’, but colloquially at least, it's a result. Not a lie.
So he did mention a 500 number. That' a moronic lie.
So we shall keep askin' usin' his words, not mine:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm (previous page)
All this just because you're afraid to answer the basic questions:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
You would lose your deniability if you answered. And you simply cannot bring yourself to give it up.
And the moron continues to obfuscate by layin' down as many diversions as he can, across hundreds of posts. And yet:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 with one hour of original post
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
Face it Chumpy. They're yore numbers. Nobody else decided to use them the way you did. Yore "cheerful denials" jes' mean you ain't man enough to own them.
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" [Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions." NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"Have you not figured out that you might as well give up asking?"
Oh sure. That's not what this is about. Nobody that ever watched ya string out yore lies over day, weeks, even years, has any expectation y'all will ever own up to yore repeated stupid errors. It's just an interesting anthropological exercise to watch yore pathological squirmin'. The extents to which ya will go always boggle the mind. All just to avoid sayin': "I was wrong". Ain't such a bad thing ya know. I get things wrong all the time. Do my best to learn from them. Yore different approach explains why y'all seem not to have ever learned anythin' much.
"Moron thinks the whole thread is populated by morons."
Nope, I think I give them more credit than you do. But I will repeat the questions you can't bring yourself to answer, more for your benefit than anyone else:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
Face up to it fat boy. You're stuck here. You can't get past this point in the conversation without answering those questions. It's your final opportunity to preserve your deniability and I'm going to take it away from you. That or you're just stuck here.
LOL. A true chump to the end. Ok, just out of curiosity as to the extremes of lyin' and obfuscation ya will go:
[Chump]: "So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
No. Neither is correct. The term ‘black-on-white deaths’ was just a label, like 'x' in an equation. It was supposed to refer interchangeably to either of the summands in your post, whichever you prefer. Your post is wrong, whichever of them it refers to. Hence it doesn't matter.
And now let's see ya bein' true to yore word (not) ...
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" [Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions." NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
No answer to my primary question. I will repeat the (two part) question you choose not to answer:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct."
You gotta go there first. I will strip you of your deniability, or you are gonna be stuck here. That's just how it is fat boy.
[Chump]: "So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
[Petes]: "No. Neither is correct. The term ‘black-on-white deaths’ was just a label, like 'x' in an equation."
[Lyin' Chump]: "No answer to my primary question. I will repeat the (two part) question you choose not to answer: So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct."
Uh, what? Ya think ya can just repeat the same question and pretend I didn't answer it? Scratch that. Of course ya can. You are the self-admitted cheerfully lyin' Chump.
You are truly a moron and are treatin' "yore audience" like morons. See the two questions I bolded for ya above? They're yore questions. Same both times. Both of them answered. (I included the answer for ya again too).
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions." [Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:52:00 am]: "No answer to my primary question." NB: Both his primary and secondary questions were answered. Asshole would cheerfully lie about anything.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
Still no answer to my primary question. Claiming you've answered it without doing so will not suffice. I will repeat the (two part) question.
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct?"
You must answer both parts, or you're stuck here. No going on. Get used to it.
Answer to part 1: no. Answer to part 2: no. Told ya twice already.
And now:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions." [Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:52:00 am]: "No answer to my primary question." NB: Both his primary and secondary questions were answered. Asshole would cheerfully lie about anything.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
I was sort of expecting a yes and then a no. But I'll deal with the answers you gave.
Your original question was as is quoted below (emphasis yours):
"Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the number of black-on-white deaths got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???" Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm
Since the term ‘black on white deaths’ is apparently unrelated to the statement you attempted to tie it to, the terms do not match up; the numbers do not match up; i.e:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Then we can safely assume that your question is entirely unrelated to anything I wrote there. Therefore nothing you asked has anything to do with anything I wrote. If you were actually a statistician you'd have known that.
Perhaps ‘unrelated’ is not quite the correct word there in the ‘apparently unrelated to the statement’ phrase above. I'll substitute ‘not equivalent’, figure that'll cure a lot of your sputtering and nonsense over irrelevancies.
[Moronic Chump]: "Since the term ‘black on white deaths’ is apparently unrelated to the statement you attempted to tie it to..."
Not unrelated at all. I said the term ‘black on white deaths’ was like 'x' in an equation. A variable. I used the same term in two places. So it is not unrelated. It is the same variable. But no matter -- that's algebra and we know from ample experience that ya can't handle that.
The main point now is that yore question is answered, whether to yore satisfaction or not. Yore latest attempt at obfuscation has been overcome. And now back to the actual question...
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions." NB: He accepted his questions were answered. Let's see what happens now.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
Well, I hadn't gotten away before that struck. I will deal with it briefly:
"I used the same term in two places. So it is not unrelated."
No doubt your new jargon relates to itself in all the places that you use it. But that doesn't connect it up with anything I wrote. So, what does it have to do with anything I wrote? Answer is, "Nothing apparent."
Now, this time for real. I will not be diverted again.
Ciao for now. I'll look back in on you after I get some sleep.
Damn, ain't one thing it's another. Well, as long as I had to get back up…
"It was supposed to refer interchangeably to either of the summands in your post.
Either you say. So…. This was supposed to make sense?
"What the hell has [‘black-on-white deaths’] and [‘black-on- white deaths’] got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???" Petes @ Tue Oct 17, 03:44:00 am ↑↑
‘Come on…. Get real…. Ain't nobody gonna believe you thought that made any sense. You can't sell that one.
[Chump]: "Come on…. Get real…. Ain't nobody gonna believe you thought that made any sense. You can't sell that one."
Ok, no problem. You ain't buyin' it. I get that. Now, you had your questions answered. Your turn:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result." NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number." NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm" NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions." [Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:52:00 am]: "No answer to my primary question." NB: Both his primary and secondary questions were answered.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"And once again: What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???" Petes @ Tue Oct 17, 09:15:00 am ↑↑
Or, as it's explained to equally mean:
"What the hell has the [‘black-on-white deaths’] and the[‘black-on- white deaths’] got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???"
Or, as it's explained to equally mean:
"What the hell has the [number of blacks killed by whites in 2015] and the [number of whites killed by blacks in 2015] got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???"
I look at that Petes and I'm content with my previous answer. The term ‘‘black-on-white deaths’, as you've defined it, has no fixed meaning. And therefore your question was nonsense right off the start. One might as well ask:
"What the hell has the [variable x] to do with the random chance of random chance of whites killin’ anybody."
So long as your ‘variable x’ has no fixed meaning then the question has no fixed meaning. And I am quite content with answering that there is no apparent relationship of a question with no fixed meaning to anything that I wrote. And, being persistent you ask again, "What is the relationship?" And the answer remains, as many times as you want to ask, the answer remains, "Nothing apparent".
Meantime, I've figured out how to explain your current position to our friends. You're just makin’ up shit as you go along now! You got pinned to a definition and stripped of your ambiguities, and so you jumped up ran off screaming in fear into your own imagination where you made up a brand new definition with even more ambiguity than the original. Except this time you ran over the line a bit. (Comes from making moves during that panic you had when you got stripped of your ambiguities the first time I reckon.) So, now you've redefined ‘black-on-white deaths’ to mean 1) The number of blacks killed by whites in 2015 (229) and 2. The number of whites killed by blacks in 2015 (500) and 3) The total of those two numbers.
I.e. it simultaneously means 229 and 500 and 729. And for some weird-ass reason you decided to call this ‘algebra’.
And in the process of this new stuff you keep trying to convince folks that I'm a liar in bold letters with capital bold letters for the intro, so they just gotta know how sincere you are on account of the big bold letters and all.
Yeah, right.
I think you're done now. I don't think you can do yourself much more damage here. I guess you can always try harder. But, I think you're pretty much done.
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
He ain't ever gonna explain what the hell any of that is supposed to mean. No sane and reasonable person reading his posts could imagine he has any intention of ever addressing that. 'Cos he realised too late it didn't mean shit to begin with. But he can't take it back and he can't go back and fix it.
Well, he could, but he'd have to admit he got it wrong. And everyone here knows the Chump is mentally incapable of such a thing. The anguish of that has kept him awake for two nights already.
So all he can do is waste everyone's time with hundreds of obfuscatory posts about why he won't explain what he thought it implied. (Well, apart from the implication that 229 is greater than 107. We got that bit. LOL).
Chumpy, ya got no sense and ya got no integrity. Thread's all yores now to shit all over on yer own. Bye.
Were he not a compulsive, he could provide an actual definition for his new, self-coined jargon. But, he is a compulsive and he just can't bring himself to do that.
648 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 648 of 648(And yes, I prolly should've realised that arguin' statistics with the Chump was never gonna come to anything other than him scrabblin' to save face. The idiot can't even add with a calculator for god sake. I will try to remember that for next time).
"…with the moron claiming to be unable to connect my term
'black-on-white deaths' with his term 'blacks kill whites'…"
It's not a matter of me being unable. I speculated earlier that the term might mean black on white murders. (@ Mon Oct 16, 02:28:00 am ↑↑). You refused more than one chance to confirm that speculation. So, we were going no further. This has been about denying you the deniability you craved.
So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?
Well, while we're waitin’ for an answer, there is this other thing:
"The idiot can't even add with a calculator for god sake…"
There it is. He's scared now. There's the ‘tell’. He can't control it, even after he knows we see it. I presume he's long ago learned to not play poker face to face.
And, just for the record: Admitting that ‘black-on-white deaths’ connects with ‘blacks kill whites’ is a step short of admitting that they have an equivalent definition. I am watching you for the laying of new escape routes, and I spotted that one, so we're going to clear up that those terms actually mean the same thing going forward, not just ‘connect’ with one another in some undefined manner. No more built in deniabilities for the fat Irishman.
[Chump]: "So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term?"
I ain't descendin' to the moronic depths with ya Chumpy. I already rewrote my objection without adding any new terminology over and above yore own. Not lettin' ya weasel out with some new dictionary definition yore gonna conjure out of yore ass. And I ain't letting' this inanity spill over onto yet another thread now that Lynnette has opened one. Here it is for ya one more time:
Just to explain it -- Chumpy got his 729 number by adding 500 to 229.
Then he multiplied by the proportion of blacks in the population, to get a value. He won't tell us what that value is supposed to signify, but here's his exact statement:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one? He dudn't seem to want to take it from me that it's total hogwash.
"I'd be wondering: what the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???"
Ah, but, that wasn't the question you originally asked, was it? You have learned a few things since you first hung that out there. You've been ‘googling furiously’ I'd reckon. (Still, if you were actually a statistician you would know better than to ask that new question as well, but that's another issue entirely.)
"I ain't descendin' to the moronic depths with ya Chumpy."
Translated, that would mean that you realized you had run out of your last plausible deniability. No ambiguities to exploit anymore, so the fat boy bails.
LOL. So that's the moron's get-out clause? He's puttin' his refusal to answer down to his own inability to understand the question, even after it's been simplified for him. Ain't nobody but him thinks that ain't moronic.
So we shall keep askin' usin' his words, not mine:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"What the hell has the 500…"
I didn't mention any 500 number. I'm not responsible for your embellishments.
Or, to put it another way…
"So we shall keep askin' usin' his words, not mine"
Those are not my words. I didn't mention the number value of 500.
LOL again. So now the moron's get out clause is yet another lie.
[Moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number.
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: "500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result. Sometimes also called a ‘sum’, but colloquially at least, it's a result. Not a lie.
So he did mention a 500 number. That' a moronic lie.
So we shall keep askin' usin' his words, not mine:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"So he did mention a 500 number."
But, not in connection with phrase you were asking about. That was a different matter.
I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm (previous page)
All this just because you're afraid to answer the basic questions:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the
same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate
with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those
correct? If only one correct, which one?"
You would lose your deniability if you answered. And you simply cannot bring yourself to give it up.
You have the most curious fears.
And the moron continues to obfuscate by layin' down as many diversions as he can, across hundreds of posts. And yet:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 with one hour of original post
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
Face it Chumpy. They're yore numbers. Nobody else decided to use them the way you did. Yore "cheerful denials" jes' mean you ain't man enough to own them.
First you conquer your fears. First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Side note:
(He won't be able to do it. Easy as it should be for someone more, well, sane; he won't be able to bring himself do it.)
Oh, yeah, and just for convenience:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the
same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate
with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those
correct? If only one correct, which one?"
By the way, has it not occurred to you yet that nobody is coming to your aid?
Have you not figured out that you might as well give up asking?
LOL. Moron thinks the whole thread is populated by morons. Only a moron would believe this...
"First you conquer your fears. First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
... in the light of this...
" I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
He's a liar. I proved he's a liar. He admitted he's a liar. In fact, he admitted that he lies cheerfully.
And so...
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"Have you not figured out that you might as well give up asking?"
Oh sure. That's not what this is about. Nobody that ever watched ya string out yore lies over day, weeks, even years, has any expectation y'all will ever own up to yore repeated stupid errors. It's just an interesting anthropological exercise to watch yore pathological squirmin'. The extents to which ya will go always boggle the mind. All just to avoid sayin': "I was wrong". Ain't such a bad thing ya know. I get things wrong all the time. Do my best to learn from them. Yore different approach explains why y'all seem not to have ever learned anythin' much.
"Moron thinks the whole thread is populated by morons."
Nope, I think I give them more credit than you do. But I will repeat the questions you can't bring yourself to answer, more for your benefit than anyone else:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the
same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate
with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those
correct? If only one correct, which one?"
Face up to it fat boy. You're stuck here. You can't get past this point in the conversation without answering those questions. It's your final opportunity to preserve your deniability and I'm going to take it away from you. That or you're just stuck here.
LOL. A true chump to the end. Ok, just out of curiosity as to the extremes of lyin' and obfuscation ya will go:
[Chump]: "So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
No. Neither is correct. The term ‘black-on-white deaths’ was just a label, like 'x' in an equation. It was supposed to refer interchangeably to either of the summands in your post, whichever you prefer. Your post is wrong, whichever of them it refers to. Hence it doesn't matter.
And now let's see ya bein' true to yore word (not) ...
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"No. Neither is correct."
No answer to my primary question. I will repeat the (two part) question you choose not to answer:
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the
same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate
with that term? Is that correct."
You gotta go there first. I will strip you of your deniability, or you are gonna be stuck here. That's just how it is fat boy.
"That's just how it is fat boy."
Get used to it. Man up. Face your fears.
[Chump]: "So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct, are those correct; both of those correct? If only one correct, which one?"
[Petes]: "No. Neither is correct. The term ‘black-on-white deaths’ was just a label, like 'x' in an equation."
[Lyin' Chump]: "No answer to my primary question. I will repeat the (two part) question you choose not to answer: So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate with that term? Is that correct."
Uh, what? Ya think ya can just repeat the same question and pretend I didn't answer it? Scratch that. Of course ya can. You are the self-admitted cheerfully lyin' Chump.
You are truly a moron and are treatin' "yore audience" like morons. See the two questions I bolded for ya above? They're yore questions. Same both times. Both of them answered. (I included the answer for ya again too).
And so ...
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:52:00 am]: "No answer to my primary question."
NB: Both his primary and secondary questions were answered. Asshole would cheerfully lie about anything.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
Still no answer to my primary question. Claiming you've answered it without doing so will not suffice. I will repeat the (two part) question.
"So, the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ is supposed to mean the
same as ‘blacks kill whites’ and 229 is the correct number to associate
with that term? Is that correct?"
You must answer both parts, or you're stuck here. No going on. Get used to it.
Answer to part 1: no. Answer to part 2: no. Told ya twice already.
And now:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:52:00 am]: "No answer to my primary question."
NB: Both his primary and secondary questions were answered. Asshole would cheerfully lie about anything.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
I was sort of expecting a yes and then a no. But I'll deal with the answers you gave.
Your original question was as is quoted below (emphasis yours):
"Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the
number of black-on-white deaths got to do with the random chance of
whites killin' anybody???"
Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm
Since the term ‘black on white deaths’ is apparently unrelated to the statement you attempted to tie it to, the terms do not match up; the numbers do not match up; i.e:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person
selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black
people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Then we can safely assume that your question is entirely unrelated to anything I wrote there. Therefore nothing you asked has anything to do with anything I wrote. If you were actually a statistician you'd have known that.
Perhaps ‘unrelated’ is not quite the correct word there in the ‘apparently unrelated to the statement’ phrase above. I'll substitute ‘not equivalent’, figure that'll cure a lot of your sputtering and nonsense over irrelevancies.
Ciao for now; I'm down for the night, but I'll look back in on tomorrow.
[Moronic Chump]: "Since the term ‘black on white deaths’ is apparently unrelated to the statement you attempted to tie it to..."
Not unrelated at all. I said the term ‘black on white deaths’ was like 'x' in an equation. A variable. I used the same term in two places. So it is not unrelated. It is the same variable. But no matter -- that's algebra and we know from ample experience that ya can't handle that.
The main point now is that yore question is answered, whether to yore satisfaction or not. Yore latest attempt at obfuscation has been overcome. And now back to the actual question...
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
NB: He accepted his questions were answered. Let's see what happens now.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
Well, I hadn't gotten away before that struck. I will deal with it briefly:
"I used the same term in two places. So it is not unrelated."
No doubt your new jargon relates to itself in all the places that you use it. But that doesn't connect it up with anything I wrote. So, what does it have to do with anything I wrote? Answer is, "Nothing apparent."
Now, this time for real. I will not be diverted again.
Ciao for now. I'll look back in on you after I get some sleep.
Damn, ain't one thing it's another. Well, as long as I had to get back up…
"It was supposed to refer interchangeably to either of the
summands in your post.
Either you say. So…. This was supposed to make sense?
"What the hell has [‘black-on-white deaths’] and [‘black-on-
white deaths’] got to do with the random chance of whites killin'
anybody???"
Petes @ Tue Oct 17, 03:44:00 am ↑↑
‘Come on…. Get real…. Ain't nobody gonna believe you thought that made any sense. You can't sell that one.
And, I'll try for those zzz's once again.
[Chump]: "Come on…. Get real…. Ain't nobody gonna believe you thought that made any sense. You can't sell that one."
Ok, no problem. You ain't buyin' it. I get that. Now, you had your questions answered. Your turn:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
[Petes @Sun Oct 15, 03:56:00 pm]: I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015".
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: 500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
NB: Moron confirms where he got 729 within one hour of original post.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:04:00 am]: "I didn't mention any 500 number."
NB: He did.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 02:25:00 am]: "I also mentioned the number 21.7 in another place, and 249. I'd cheerfully deny those were my words as well if you tried to insert those numbers into my post of Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm"
NB: Asshole would cheerfully deny anything. We don't need him to tell us that.
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:04:00 am]: "First you answer my questions. THEN I answer your questions."
[Lyin' moron @Tue Oct 17, 03:52:00 am]: "No answer to my primary question."
NB: Both his primary and secondary questions were answered.
And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out with this total hogwash?
"And once again:
What the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random
chance of whites killin' anybody???"
Petes @ Tue Oct 17, 09:15:00 am ↑↑
Or, as it's explained to equally mean:
"What the hell has the [‘black-on-white deaths’] and the[‘black-on-
white deaths’] got to do with the random chance of whites killin'
anybody???"
Or, as it's explained to equally mean:
"What the hell has the [number of blacks killed by whites in 2015] and the
[number of whites killed by blacks in 2015] got to do with the random chance
of whites killin' anybody???"
I look at that Petes and I'm content with my previous answer. The term ‘‘black-on-white deaths’, as you've defined it, has no fixed meaning. And therefore your question was nonsense right off the start. One might as well ask:
"What the hell has the [variable x] to do with the random chance of
random chance of whites killin’ anybody."
So long as your ‘variable x’ has no fixed meaning then the question has no fixed meaning. And I am quite content with answering that there is no apparent relationship of a question with no fixed meaning to anything that I wrote.
And, being persistent you ask again, "What is the relationship?"
And the answer remains, as many times as you want to ask, the answer remains, "Nothing apparent".
Meantime, I've figured out how to explain your current position to our friends.
You're just makin’ up shit as you go along now! You got pinned to a definition and stripped of your ambiguities, and so you jumped up ran off screaming in fear into your own imagination where you made up a brand new definition with even more ambiguity than the original. Except this time you ran over the line a bit. (Comes from making moves during that panic you had when you got stripped of your ambiguities the first time I reckon.)
So, now you've redefined ‘black-on-white deaths’ to mean
1) The number of blacks killed by whites in 2015 (229) and
2. The number of whites killed by blacks in 2015 (500) and
3) The total of those two numbers.
I.e. it simultaneously means 229 and 500 and 729. And for some weird-ass reason you decided to call this ‘algebra’.
And in the process of this new stuff you keep trying to convince folks that I'm a liar in bold letters with capital bold letters for the intro, so they just gotta know how sincere you are on account of the big bold letters and all.
Yeah, right.
I think you're done now. I don't think you can do yourself much more damage here. I guess you can always try harder. But, I think you're pretty much done.
So there we have it folks:
[Moron @Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm]: "(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107). Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
He ain't ever gonna explain what the hell any of that is supposed to mean. No sane and reasonable person reading his posts could imagine he has any intention of ever addressing that. 'Cos he realised too late it didn't mean shit to begin with. But he can't take it back and he can't go back and fix it.
Well, he could, but he'd have to admit he got it wrong. And everyone here knows the Chump is mentally incapable of such a thing. The anguish of that has kept him awake for two nights already.
So all he can do is waste everyone's time with hundreds of obfuscatory posts about why he won't explain what he thought it implied. (Well, apart from the implication that 229 is greater than 107. We got that bit. LOL).
Chumpy, ya got no sense and ya got no integrity. Thread's all yores now to shit all over on yer own. Bye.
"The anguish of that has kept him awake for two nights already."
You can only wish you were that important or that I was that anguished even if….
Strikes me, before we close this page out….
Were he not a compulsive, he could provide an actual definition for his new, self-coined jargon. But, he is a compulsive and he just can't bring himself to do that.
Post a Comment