The Reverse Racism Effect

[Kidlicious]

But whatever. This is what I expected. This is everyday here.

[Ming]

Gee... I only posted stuff from your link. But I guess you don't like actually seeing things you link to.

As far as your supposed claims of "Knowing about Research"... I'll leave it up the posters to decide... Let's see.

Kid = no practical experience in this field
rah = an expert on market research, has spent more than 30 years doing it for a living and getting paid well for it
Ming = nowhere near the expert of my brother, but has designed and implemented many large and small research studies on behalf of clients who actually pay me to do so.

Yeah... I'll leave it up to the posters to decide

[rah]

You question the work of a criminologist. That means that you think you know more about how to research criminology.

Please keep playing your little games.

So much for trying to have a civilized discussion with you.
I obviously do know more about sampling than your criminologist. Didn't they even criticize the work based on the small unrepresentative sample?

I see you couldn't find a quote where I editorialized his results, just that they were invalid based on the sampling. Which hasn't changed.
The facts mean nothing to you. You just make crap up.

But as always, you don't want a discussion, you're just looking for an excuse to insult people. Why do you even bother?

More importantly why do I even bother.
So much for being civil to the village idiot.

[Kidlicious]

Gee... I only posted stuff from your link. But I guess you don't like actually seeing things you link to.

As far as your supposed claims of "Knowing about Research"... I'll leave it up the posters to decide... Let's see.

Kid = no practical experience in this field
rah = an expert on market research, has spent more than 30 years doing it for a living and getting paid well for it
Ming = nowhere near the expert of my brother, but has designed and implemented many large and small research studies on behalf of clients who actually pay me to do so.

Yeah... I'll leave it up to the posters to decide

You posted stuff from the link that was not being disputed, just like BK does.

Both you and your brother think you know how to research criminology issues. You don't period. It would be different if you weren't criticising a professional. I've suggested over and over again that
you back up your POV, but you don't, because you're just talking nonsense.

....

I actually have high blood pressure now, and this issue has me a bit pissed, so I'll likely take a break.

[rah]

Run away, little boy.
Keep changing your argument. Before I didn't understand research, now since I've proven I do, you change it to research criminology. Despite the fact that not once did I say I was an expert at researching criminology. You just make things up and change things when people make you look like an idiot.

Again, post where I challenged his conclusion and not his sampling methodology which no one seems to be disputing, unless they're mentally deficient. Which seems to be your area of expertise.


Go burst an artery.

[Kidlicious]

So much for trying to have a civilized discussion with you.
I obviously do know more about sampling than your criminologist. Didn't they even criticize the work based on the small unrepresentative sample?

I see you couldn't find a quote where I editorialized his results, just that they were invalid based on the sampling. Which hasn't changed.
The facts mean nothing to you. You just make crap up.

But as always, you don't want a discussion, you're just looking for an excuse to insult people. Why do you even bother?

More importantly why do I even bother.
So much for being civil to the village idiot.

Find a criminologist that backs up your opinion. Heck, I'll even settle for an expert in market research. If you and your brother are the only people who believe what you do, then you're nothing but twaddlers..

Now your information on market research is interesting, so thank you for that.

[rah]

Now your information on market research is interesting, so thank you for that.

You're welcome. But it seems that all you could do is repay me with insults. That's why people respond to you the way they do.

[Kidlicious]

You're welcome. But it seems that all you could do is repay me with insults. That's why people respond to you the way they do.

For the record you can respond to me anyway you want. You're actually quite civil comparably, and I'm sure that you are good at your profession.

[rah]

If so, then discussion is possible. Even if I find it difficult sometimes. (ok all the time)

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm happy that the side with the expertise is apparently the side I'm on.

[Giancarlo]

If we are going to be in the business of citing research studies, please make sure they have credibility and a representative sample. A sampling of one city is not significant and therefore the study should not be taken seriously. Many "research studies" are false and/or based on a false premise. Many "research studies" are funded by certain special interests that have ulterior motives.

There have been research studies done on the LGBT community by groups like Focus on the Family and other similar organizations. These groups do not have credibility.

The certain study cited in this thread has about as much as the polling agency "Rasmussen", meaning zilch. Funny how "Rasmussen" is the only one that gives Trump a lead, and all the others have him way behind. Bad methodology and a poor sampling leads to unscientific and false results.

[rah]

Especially with the internet these days. You can find a crappy survey to back almost any opinion. It's one of FOXs greatest strengths.

And the worst thing is the for every crappy survey, there's some fool that will use it as proof for his opinion.

Not all are bad but anyone can post bogus/made up results.

I've watched the government bend definitions and twist numbers to prove what they set out to prove for decades. (usually because if they don't they lose funding)

[Kidlicious]

If we are going to be in the business of citing research studies, please make sure they have credibility and a representative sample. A sampling of one city is not significant and therefore the study should not be taken seriously. Many "research studies" are false and/or based on a false premise. Many "research studies" are funded by certain special interests that have ulterior motives.

There have been research studies done on the LGBT community by groups like Focus on the Family and other similar organizations. These groups do not have credibility.

The certain study cited in this thread has about as much as the polling agency "Rasmussen", meaning zilch. Funny how "Rasmussen" is the only one that gives Trump a lead, and all the others have him way behind. Bad methodology and a poor sampling leads to unscientific and false results.

Are you a criminologist?

[Kidlicious]

Especially with the internet these days. You can find a crappy survey to back almost any opinion. It's one of FOXs greatest strengths.

And the worst thing is the for every crappy survey, there's some fool that will use it as proof for his opinion.

Not all are bad but anyone can post bogus/made up results.

I've watched the government bend definitions and twist numbers to prove what they set out to prove for decades. (usually because if they don't they lose funding)

Anti-science

[Giancarlo]

Are you a criminologist?

No. But I don't see how that is relevant to the subject at hand. Keep diverting and deflecting. It is clear you lost here.