You still do not get it. And as usual you completely misinterpret what people write. I wrote that race and socio-economic status are very closely intertwined in the US. Not that one causes the other. Only that the two are related. How much simpler do I have to phrase it so that you will not misinterpret or twist it to suit your own biases?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The math was a lot more white people are poor even though race is > really really really closely tied to poverty. > > Maybe mathematically Larry used too many reallys. > > The point is it's not as simple as skin color = poverty even though > that's what Larry wants us all to believe. So a lousy white farmer is > just as likely not to get a loan as a lousy black farmer. If you want > to talk about culture of poverty than we can compare percentages and > geographics. But we weren't. > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Sisk, Kris <ks...@gckschools.com> wrote: >> >> I think Ian's point was that raw numbers like that are pretty >> meaningless when your talking about statistics. Your math isn't exactly >> wrong but it doesn't paint an accurate picture either. >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323294 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
