Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlackVision
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Race Statistics
Click For Summary
Homicide statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice reveal significant racial disparities, with Black individuals having a homicide offense rate of 39.3 per 100,000 compared to 5.1 for Whites. The data also shows that the majority of Black homicide victims are killed by other Black individuals. Discussions highlight that similar racial crime patterns are observed in other countries, suggesting a global trend. The conversation touches on the socioeconomic factors influencing crime rates, particularly in melting pot countries like the U.S., Canada, and the UK. Overall, the discourse emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of crime statistics and their implications across different racial and ethnic groups.
  • #151
BlackVision said:
Number of people? New York City. I believe is the most populated and most crowded city in America correct? Why does New York not have an extraordinarily high crime rate as Washington DC. New York even has a lower median household income than DC.

So let's sum it all up. New York is more populated, more crowded, has a higher cost of living, and has a lower median house value, but has a crime rate about 6 times less than DC. Hmm.

What's mind boggling is that you refuse to accept New York ghettos. New York's got some shi*ty ghettos. LA also has shi*ty ghettos. Ever hear of South Central? There's a higher percentage of people in New York below the poverty line in a city that has a HIGHER cost of living than DC. Now what do you think of that? What weird twisted story will you come up with to explain this one?
The number of people living below the poverty level, not the population of the city, why do you keep pulling things out of context?

Showing homicide rates proves nothing if you do not factor in all the variables that affect the numbers. Of course you refuse to do that because it would disprove your little theory. Until you take these other factors into consideration, there is no point discussing this, it's meaningless.

BlackVision said:
This is absolutely hilarious. Because when someone commits a crime, they're first adjusted for BMI and waist circumference too?
Your comment doesn't even make sense.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
BlackVision said:
Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J Rushton
Do you have a source that is not a known racist that was investigated for hate crimes and is on several "watch lists"?
 
  • #153
Since BlackVision won't define his own terms, I thought I'd go find the information for myself. The White/Black/Other categories used by the BJS website (source of the stats in the first post of this thread) are based on the DOJ Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines. I've included these below. Note in reporting statistics they have two separate categories, race, which is white, black, American Indian/Alaskan native, and Asian or Pacific Islander. The other category is ethnicity, which distinguishes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic. This is not the same set of categories used by the Census Bureau, as BlackVision earlier implied. Under DOJ guidelines, Hispanic individuals are included under the white category, then later divided by ethnicity as non-Hispanic White and Hispanic White. In the excerpt below, the definitions refer to the victims, because that is where the specific definitions were provided. The same definitions are used for offenders.

From:
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting
National Incident-Based Reporting System
Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines

28 Race (of Victim) - one character (A): If the victim was a person (I = Individual was entered into Data Element 25 [Type of Victim]), his/her race should be indicated in this data element.
Allowed entries: (Enter only one.)
W = White
B = Black
I = American Indian/Alaskan Native A = Asian/Pacific Islander U = Unknown
According to page 48 of the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition, racial designations are as follows:
White–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black–A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
92
Data Elements and Data Values Example: If the victim was a white person, W = White should be entered.
29 Ethnicity (of Victim) - one character (A): If the victim was a person (I = Individual was entered into Data Element 25 [Type of Victim]), his/her ethnic origin should be entered into this data element.
Allowed entries: (Enter only one.)
H = Hispanic Origin N = Not of Hispanic Origin U = Unknown
Example: If the victim was not of Hispanic origin, N = Not of Hispanic Origin should be entered.
Note: This is an optional data element. Ethnic origin is recorded at the discretion of the reporting agency.

I also checked on the BJS definition of an offender, since that's what we are discussing statistics about. Offender information is collected at the time of the incident report, and does not rely on arrest or conviction. The description of the offender, when a suspect is not caught, is based on the victim's or witness' description of the offender. The site has a disclaimer that it recognizes there is inherent bias in this system, especially for homicides in which there are no witnesses and that remain unsolved.
 
  • #154
Bias in homicide testing

Moonbear said:
I also checked on the BJS definition of an offender, since that's what we are discussing statistics about.
Could you provide links to this sort of information, so readers can see what it is (instead of just your personal interpretations) that you are discussing?



Offender information is collected at the time of the incident report, and does not rely on arrest or conviction. The description of the offender, when a suspect is not caught, is based on the victim's or witness' description of the offender. The site has a disclaimer that it recognizes there is inherent bias in this system
Doesn't it seem strange that they would report bias without saying what direction it runs in or along what axis or axes it runs along?



especially for homicides in which there are no witnesses and that remain unsolved.
There does not seem to be a clear connection between non-witness and unsolved status, and introduction of bias.
 
  • #155
Moonbear said:
He says this, I saw those same quotes on his website, but he does not cite sources for those statements. This is not based on his own work, he isn't reporting experiments or studies and their methodology. There's a saying in science, "anyone can write a book." Which means, if you write a book, you can say anything you want, there's no criteria for truth or fiction, fiction sells very well. Show me a study that shows a causal relationship between testosterone and "explosive energy." If a white man increases his testosterone concentrations (many do so illegally), he doesn't become a better runner or jumper, he adds muscle mass. Higher testosterone concentrations do not explain these characteristics in blacks. That's also a pretty huge leap from athletic ability to hip size (hip size is different than pelvic girth, and completely ignores the relaxation and expansion of the pelvis during labor and delivery). It also glosses over how evolution works. Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth. This also ignores that the cranial bones compress during delivery to permit the baby to get out. He also makes a huge leap between his studies of cranial size in adults (which have been debunked in other threads here, and is not relevant to this debate), and cranial size in babies. Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions. What is Rushton's evidence that testosterone increases restlessness in school? And what is his evidence that it makes someone more prone to committing crimes?
Step #1: You need to stop lying and trying to twist statistics. Each time you do, your credibility drops further lower and lower. You stated that you didn't write the whole article to your source cause it was "copyrighted" NOTHING prevented you from providing a link, yet you did not do this. And even if you did not want to provide a link, you could of at least given an unbias summary of that whole study which clearly you did not do. Anything that irrefutably mentioned the white-black testosterone gap, anywhere where it stated that the reasons why blacks are more prone to cancer or etc is due to that gap, you seemed to have "conveniently" omitted. I kindly ask you not to lie and twist data whenever you "think" you can get away with it.

Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth.
I'm not going to even bother explaining to you the fundamentals of evolution but it's very clear you lack that knowledge. But to help you, bigger heads, causing more small pelvis women to die, will change the gene pool.

Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions.
Every characteristic, be it intelligence, be it atheletic abiliity, be it motor skills, etc has a bell curve. With the majority in the middle. And an extreme on both ends. Blacks have a higher median level in testosterone driven sports than whites do. They also completely dominant the very high end of the bell curve in athletic ability which is somewhat expected since they would have a higher median level.

If you're going to continue to argue that higher testosterone does result in increased crime rates
This one is NOT in question. Higher testosterone level IS an increased risk of crime. There is more evidence to support this than the theory of evolution. You can try to argue that the reason why men commit about 90% of murders is due to the environment, but I assure you, you will look very silly doing so.

The testosterone concentrations reported are means, those means are pretty close between blacks and whites, so plenty of individuals overlap between the two groups.
The vast majority of both whites AND blacks do not commit murder correct? But as blacks have a higher median level, they will also have a higher extreme level and have a higher abundance of people on the very right hand tail of the hormone bell curve. The group most at risk.

What you would be trying to suggest by saying the higher mean among black men is related to the higher crime rates among black men is that there is a level of testosterone that would be a "threshold" for committing crime. If your testosterone concentrations surpass that level, you are going to commit crime, and if they are below that level, you won't, and then you would argue more black men than white men have testosterone levels above that threshold. So, what is that threshold?
Ok before we go further. You need to understand the difference between "increased risk of" and "threshold" With higher testosterone level comes increased risk of criminal behavior. It DOES NOT mean one will commit criminal acts. A person with an extremely low dose of testosterone will still have the ability to commit murder. A person with a extremely high dose of testosterone will still have the ability not to commit murder. But odds, the risk increase and decrease with that level.
 
  • #156
Moonbear said:
OJ is also filthy rich and could afford all the best lawyers. There are many more blacks below the poverty level than whites. So, this still doesn't refute that ability to hire a good lawyer is the critical factor in whether one is convicted of a crime or not.
It still doesn't change the fact that the victim homicide rate, which is not based on conviction, correlates to the offending homicide rate. Anyway you look at it, there is a gap.
 
  • #157
Moonbear said:
No, we don't agree on that. I am focusing on the testosterone argument for now. I don't have time to debate every issue all at once. I'm willing to table my argument that overcrowding is the issue until we resolve your argument that testosterone is the issue.
The testosterone debate is already done. Settled by even your own source. No more beating a dead horse, move on to the next.
 
  • #158
Moonbear said:
I did not provide a link, I provided the full citation. That's all you need to find the article. You also don't have to look it up online, you can go to the library and get the paper version if you want. Obviously, the information was sufficient since you found the article.
Again that doesn't change the fact that you omitted a lot of important information. That study was showing many instances of blacks being more prone to such thing as cancer, due to the testosterone gap. You conveniently didn't mention this, nor anything else that would put a damper on your argument.

No, what the authors are saying is their population did not start out equal. If you started out with a group of men who were the same age and same body fat content, you would not get these differences.
Again you need to directly answer my question, a random population sample WILL show blacks having a higher testosterone level? Yes or no. Answer DIRECTLY.

And same age and same body fat content, you WILL get these differences, go back and read again. With this it states a 3% testosterone difference.

I'm just telling you that based on your criterion that adjustments for body fat and age are not valid for assessing testosterone concentrations, then the source cited by the person you are saying is the authority on the subject shows that, indeed, Asian men, on average, have the highest testosterone concentrations. Otherwise, you have to accept that the age and body fat adjustments are acceptable.
Since asians have the lowest body fat and the smallest waist circumferences, your argument is just getting thrown out the door. Stop trying to twist statistics.
 
  • #159
Moonbear said:
Nope, they aren't. But in the CARDIA study, they also showed that the UNADJUSTED means did not differ between the two groups in years 2 and 7 of the study, only in year 10.
Why you constantly think you can get away with lying, I have no clue. Here are the data from your OWN source:

Total testosterone level:[/color]

Year 2:
White: 6.4
Black: 6.5

Year 7:
White: 5.75
Black: 5.8

Year 10:
White: 5.69
Black: 5.8

Here is the link:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/10/1041/T1

If testosterone is the cause of higher crime rates, then does this mean black females age 18-24 have higher testosterone than white males aged 25+? Of course this is not the case. Adult women have free testosterone concentrations of approximately 1 - 1.5 pg/ml (that's .001 to .0015 ng/ml).
Who here ever stated that testosterone level was the ONLY factor in crime risk? It is a large factor yes. It is NOT the only factor.

Such things as intelligence is also a factor, the mean IQ in the prison population is approximately 90. About 10 points below the national average.
 
Last edited:
  • #160
Loren Booda said:
Jews have been for the most part tolerated, not constantly branded by their skin color
Not true at all. Although there have been major improvements in the acceptance of both Jews and Blacks today, Jews historically, were very hated.

and had endured especially one decade of terrifying devastation, whereas African Americans had many generations without the privilages
One decade?? You need to look back on history a little bit more. The mass hatred of Jews goes back 5,000 years.

African Americans had many generations without the privilages (education, leisure, some civil rights, etc.)
Africans never even had this in their own homeland. Way before "white man" even stepped foot into the place. And Hispanics, I assure you had far more privileges than Jews during the mass immigration of Jews during WWII.

It would not surprise me from your attitude to find out that you are capable of instigating a parallel thread demeaning Jews.
I have a high deal of respect of the Jewish community. To be able to go through everything they have. The discrimination, the genocide, and still be able to accomplish everything they have done.
 
  • #161
Evo said:
The number of people living below the poverty level, not the population of the city, why do you keep pulling things out of context?
Again completely faulters since both Oklahoma City and New York City has a higher population under the poverty level than Washington DC. And don't try to tell me that NYC doesn't have high cost of living.

Showing homicide rates proves nothing if you do not factor in all the variables that affect the numbers. Of course you refuse to do that because it would disprove your little theory. Until you take these other factors into consideration, there is no point discussing this, it's meaningless.
Yes yes all the variables such as if a US soldier killing an Iraqi soldier constitutes as a homicide and all the other lovely "questions" that Nereid asks. These will of course disprove my fact. Oh how well the logic flows from this.

Your comment doesn't even make sense.
You mean yours right? Yeah I know it doesn't.
 
  • #162
I can't take it any longer. BlackVision says he is a student at a university, yet he writes like an uneducated hick.
BlackVision said:
Step #1: You need to stop lying and trying to twist statistics. Each time you do, your credibility drops further lower and lower.Ok, probably an editing mishap. You stated that you didn't write the whole article to your source whole article to your source? What? cause it was "copyrighted" CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"? NOTHING prevented you from providing a link, yet you did not do this. And even if you did not want to provide WANNA? Did you mean "want to"? a link, you could of COULD OF? did you mean could have? at least given an unbias summary unbiased of that whole study which clearly you did not do. Anything that irrefutably mentioned the white-black testosterone gap, anywhere where it stated that the reasons why blacks are more prone to cancer or etc is due to that gap, you seemed to have "conveniently" omitted. I kindly ask you not to lie and twist data whenever you "think" you can get away with it.

I'm not going to GONNA even bother explaining to you the fundamentals of evolution but it's very clear you lack that knowledge. But to help you, bigger heads, causing more small pelvis women to die, will change the gene pool.

I have left out all the punctuation errors and additional spelling errors.

BlackVision, don't pretend to be highly educated when it is so obvious that you are not. I am tired of wasting my time with you.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
BlackVision
I have a high deal of respect of the Jewish community.
Including their continuing brotherhood and solidarity with a good part of the African American community?

The billionaires whom I have come to know are a Jewish family whose philanthropy includes volunteerism with Goodwill Industries, along with the respect of the hardest working, lowest paid (by technicality) black people in the DC "ghetto." It is not a shame to these impoverished folks that they themselves are also disabled, and must live in substandard neighborhoods. An evident statistic there is that the average (95% black) DC Goodwill worker is genuinely superior to comparatively overprivilaged, unconcerned whites.
 
Last edited:
  • #164
Moonbeare said:
I thought I'd go find the information for myself.
Good job you're starting to help yourself as you should.

White–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black–A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
How are these different from the Census Bureau guidelines again?
 
  • #165
Evo said:
BlackVision, don't pretend to be highly educated when it is so obvious that you are not. I am tired of wasting my time with you.
LOL. When you can't argue the facts, spelling is the way to go. And Lord knows in your 493 posts, you didn't make one single spelling or grammatical error yes? And also "wanna" and "gonna" are considered proper slangs. I didn't know this was such a formal gathering. And if you even try to say that you never used the word "wanna" or "gonna" in your lifetime, you just proved yourself to be the biggest liar on this board.

Also I have a 4.0 GPA at UCLA. So let's see, I have straight As in one of the most respected universities in the country. I also have Professors writing letter of recommendations for Ivy Leagues for post grad. So I'm not pretending to be anything. I am who I am.

Charles Murray was who he was, Harvard and MIT grad. And Arthur Jensen is who he is, a Berkeley and Columbia grad.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
BlackVision said:
LOL. When you can't argue the facts, spelling is the way to go. And Lord knows in your 493 posts, you didn't make one single spelling or grammatical error yes? And also "wanna" and "gonna" are considered proper slangs. I didn't know this was such a formal gathering. And if you even try to say that you never used the word "wanna" or "gonna" in your lifetime, you just proved yourself to be the biggest liar on this board.
I never use want to or going to or could of, I have an education. Your posts are painful to read, they are so full of errors.
BlackVision said:
Also I have a 4.0 GPA at UCLA. So let's see, I have straight As in one of the most respected universities in the country. I also have Professors writing letter of recommendations for Ivy Leagues for post grad. So I'm not pretending to be anything. I am who I am.
ROTFLMAO! BlackVision, want to & going to aren't even in the dictionary, and the dictionary contains slang. "Could of". HAH!
 
Last edited:
  • #167
Evo said:
whole article to your source? What?
Yes. Having trouble understanding?

CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"?
Cause is short for because. Did your mental capacity fail to get this?

WANNA? Did you mean "want to"?
Ah another one that just zips over Evo's head.

GONNA
Opps this seemed to fly over her head as well. Sad.
 
  • #168
Evo said:
I never use want to or going to or could of, I have an education. Your posts are painful to read, they are so full of errors.
Ok so you are the biggest liar on the board. Not actually a surprise.

ROTFLMAO! BlackVision, want to & going to aren't even in the dictionary, and the dictionary contains slang. "Could of".
You're making yourself look foolish. You might want to get yourself a new dictionary. Yes I said wanna. Have a problem with it? Tough luck.

wanna 1: Contraction of want to 2: Contraction of want a:

gonna 1. Contraction of going to:


Source: American Heritage Dictionary.

HAH! I think you are some skinhead from Alabama.
Strange as you're the one that lives in Middle America. A red state. A bush state. An excessively conservative zone. Whereas, I live in Los Angeles. Born and raised. One of the most liberal cities of America.
 
  • #169
Evo said:
ROTFLMAO!
This of course is an intellectual phrase. I see it very often in all my books. :smile: :smile:
 
  • #170
Originally Posted by Evo -
whole article to your source? What?
BlackVision said:
Yes. Having trouble understanding?
It makes no sense.


Originally Posted by Evo - CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"?
BlackVision said:
Cause is short for because. Did your mental capacity fail to get this?
'cause is an illiterate slang for because. You didn't even use it correctly.

Originally Posted by Evo - WANNA? Did you mean "want to"?
BlackVision said:
Ah another one that just zips over Evo's head.
Not in the dictionary. You sound like a 10 year old. Grownups don't talk that way BV.

Originally Posted by Evo - GONNA?

BlackVision said:
Opps this seemed to fly over her head as well. Sad.
Not in the dictionary either.

BlackVision you are speaking with educated adults here. I haven't even seen the children on PF speaking the way you do.

BV it is obvious you lack an education. Who else here talks like that?
 
Last edited:
  • #171
Evo said:
It makes no sense.
Only you would think it made no sense which isn't surprising.

'cause is an iliterate slang for because. You didn't even use it correctly.
ILLITERATE you mean? Learn to spell why don't you.

Not in the dictionary.
I POSTED the source. American Heritage Dictionary is a HIGHLY respected dictionary. Go look it up now.

You sound like a 10 year old. Grownups don't talk that way BV.
What generation are you in?? You're a baby boomer aren't you? I assure you Gen X & Y talk that way regardless of level of eduacation. Actually baby boomers do also. You must be in some strange foreign alien universe.

Not in the dictionary either.
Aw poor Evo. Doesn't even have the ability to open a dictionary. Opps can't use contracting words in front of Evo. Does not even have the ability. Ah. Evo should be happy now.

BlackVision you are speaking with educated adults here. I haven't even seen the children on PF speaking the way you do.
Educated adults? Or people that have too much free time?

BV it is obvious you lack an education.
My credentials would say otherwise. You do not get into UCLA without having a high academic profile. What is obvious though is that you lack the ability to logically carry on a debate and have shown to be nothing more than a sore loser. When you lose a debate, just leave graciously like a normal person.
 
Last edited:
  • #172
BlackVision said:
My credentials would say otherwise. You do not get into UCLA without having a high academic profile. What is obvious though is that you lack the ability to logically carry on a debate and have shown to be nothing more than a sore loser. When you lose a debate, just leave graciously like a normal person.
You aren't in UCLA, what a joke. I think you are a high school kid. Just because you found a dictionary with more slang doesn't make it correct. Here is the definition of slang.

Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 1slang
Pronunciation: 'sla[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 : language peculiar to a particular group: as a : ARGOT b : JARGON 2
2 : an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech

If you are trying to act adult, don't use slang.
 
  • #173
Just because you found a dictionary with more slang doesn't make it correct. Here is the definition of slang.
It seems that you are absolutely unaware that slangs are highly rampant among social gatherings. You're a loner aren't you? Make some friends.

You aren't in UCLA
Want me to scan my student ID? I advise you though if you make this request, after I provide it, you have to agree to stfu. Agree?

P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet? :smile: :smile:
 
  • #174
BlackVision said:
It seems that you are absolutely unaware that slangs are highly rampant among social gatherings. You're a loner aren't you? Make some friends.
Among children, yes. But an intellectual doesn't use slang.


BlackVision said:
Want me to scan my student ID? I advise you though if you make this request, after I provide it, you have to agree to stfu. Agree?
Fake ID's are easy to get. Or did mommy & daddy buy your way in?

BlackVision said:
P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet? :smile: :smile:
My keyboard sticks. I corrected it when I proof read it, long before you pointed it out. Check the times dear.
 
  • #175
Evo said:
WANNA? Did you mean "want to"? GONNA? BV it is obvious you lack an education. Who else here talks like that?

List of people Evo considers uneducated: (the following have used the word "gonna" in their comments)

russ_watters
Hurkyl
Zero
p-brane
chroot
phoenixthoth
LURCH
Ivan Seeking
sbenj
Averagesupernova
jimmy p
Mr. Robin Parsons
Stevo
Chen
turin
Antonio Lao
Arsonade
salamander
gizzybeans
humanino
quddusaliquddus
aroha
PrudensOptimus
ExecNight
oscar
tribdog
the number 42
KingNothing
Ikovian
tribdog
Noah
deimos
Janitor
olde drunk
Lubos Motl
ProdQuanta
AndyPIXEL
Tsunami
Moorglade
mhernan
master_coda
Cliff_J
Imparcticle
ydnef
The_Professional
to_son
the hanged man
anti-christ
pattiecake
peter444
Rut Roh
Hatim Hegab
Gara
olde drunk
xerox2ooo
faust9
cytokinesis
KSCphysics
pantalaimon

Source: The "search" feature of this board (Only a partial list. There's way too many. I have no time to go through them all)
 
  • #176
Evo I believe the admins on this board will be happy to hear that you called many of them uneducated. :biggrin:
 
  • #177
At Yale I remember these two guys, obvious bigots who had nothing better to do but pathologically complain about blacks. There they made no academic distinction for themselves, but I do think they had something for each other.

Here's a statistic - what's the male/female ratio for members of hate groups? It's no wonder they compensate by homophobia!
 
  • #178
BlackVision said:
Evo I believe the admins on this board will be happy to hear that you called many of them uneducated. :biggrin:
When you're fooling around, it's acceptable, because you're not trying to hold an intellectual discussion. You however ARE trying to hold an intellectual discussion. :approve:

It is so funny that you would go to such lengths to see if I ever used any of those words! :biggrin: Found out I don't, right? :biggrin: :biggrin:
 
  • #179
Evo said:
When you're fooling around, it's acceptable, because you're not trying to hold an intellectual discussion. You however ARE trying to hold an intellectual discussion.
What are you talking about? These are full length debates. Go read them yourself. It's not like I'm going to post entire debates here. You're just mad cause you're getting told. :D

It is so funny that you would go to such lengths to see if I ever used any of those words! Found out I don't, right?
How would I know? You think I bothered reading ALL the posts that contained the word "gonna"? You have any idea how many that is? Do a search and see the listings.

You sure go to great lengths to show your spite.
 
Last edited:
  • #180
Evo said:
Who else here talks like that?
A lot. As I have just proven. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
80K
Replies
5
Views
3K