5forfighting wrote:

jc wrote: 5forfighting wrote: Jtornado wrote: If it is a "Fact" that you are stating then you must have some stats to back it up. How is it my "homework"? You are making the claim. For the 5th time, please cite your proof. He won't do it. He likes to throw out random bullshit claims and then refuses to provide proof, because none exists and he knows it. Or, in other cases, someone does some digging and finds his source & it turns out that he didn't want anyone to know where he got his information because it's easily disproven and he knows it. i know you boys think that "links" have magicalal internet powers and are proof of something. they aren't. and you have proved that time after time. i don't post them because people like you can easily find some internet bullshit that you can say disproves what i say. like the 43x gun study, i quoted a valid, reliable, scientific study and you tried to refute it with so-called "studies" that turned out to be nothing but opinions and commentary from the gun lobby. and, when pressed to provide one valid, reliable sicentific study, you couldn't. not in all of the many "links" you provided. Actually, that "study" was done by an anti-gun nut to begin with. He had his results in mind beforehand, and then altered his research to fit his hypothesis. By the way, it doesn't take studies or research to refute the 43X bullshit. It just takes logic.

the 43x study was a scientific study meeting all of the requirements for same. if it was untrue, any gunut could replicate it and prove it was incorrect by getting different findings. they won;t do that......because they know the study is true and theri findings will be the same.
ps-opinions do not trump science. except in the bush white house.

5forfighting wrote:

jc wrote: i won't be putting up any links. all that leads to is all of us having to look at a massive number of links to bullshit internet sites with so-called facts that are nothing but made up info to support a specific position. At least you finally admit it.

yes, i freely admit that if i post links to actual scientific studies people like you will post links to shit studies to dispute it.

jc wrote:

yes, i freely admit that if i post links to actual scientific studies people like you will post links to shit studies to dispute it.

Now that would be a hypothesis. Which is what it will remain until you actually test the theory by posting an actual source.

I love the word "hypothesis" and ow many people just say "theory"....again, "PROVE IT"

mschris wrote:

jc wrote: yes, i freely admit that if i post links to actual scientific studies people like you will post links to shit studies to dispute it. Now that would be a hypothesis. Which is what it will remain until you actually test the theory by posting an actual source.

1. you shouldn't mounthpiece for racists. someone might get the idea that you're one, too. 2, i've posted lots of sources. that's how i know the dynamic.

Jtornado wrote:

I love the word "hypothesis" and ow many people just say "theory"....again, "PROVE IT"

it has been proved. go back and look at all the crap that was posted after the 43X gun study link was posted. the stuff linked to dispute that scientific study was the saddest, most pathetic bunch of total shit imagineable. not one legit piece of research in the whole bunch. not even close.

jc wrote:

Jtornado wrote: I love the word "hypothesis" and ow many people just say "theory"....again, "PROVE IT" it has been proved. go back and look at all the crap that was posted after the 43X gun study link was posted. the stuff linked to dispute that scientific study was the saddest, most pathetic bunch of total shit imagineable. not one legit piece of research in the whole bunch. not even close.

Which just goes to show it was a flawed study.

6th time...please cite your source. Here is how I know that the majority of kids in the Dallas School District are minorities...not being a racist, just stating a fact which is backed up by this study...(which cites its sources as well)

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2004/dallas/graphics/12_disd.pdf

Jtornado wrote:

jc wrote: Jtornado wrote: I love the word "hypothesis" and ow many people just say "theory"....again, "PROVE IT" it has been proved. go back and look at all the crap that was posted after the 43X gun study link was posted. the stuff linked to dispute that scientific study was the saddest, most pathetic bunch of total shit imagineable. not one legit piece of research in the whole bunch. not even close. Which just goes to show it was a flawed study. 6th time...please cite your source. Here is how I know that the majority of kids in the Dallas School District are minorities...not being a racist, just stating a fact which is backed up by this study...(which cites its sources as well) http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2004/dallas/graphics/12_disd.pdf

gunnut bullshit does not trump science and it certainly does not "prove" that actual scientific studies are "flawed". it proves that gunuts don't have any FACTS to back up their claims.
your problem here is you seem to think i care whether you believe what i post. i don't. in fact, i know you won't. it conflicts with your racist and bigoted belief system. i post for those who might want to see the truth for a change.............rather than the usual constant stream of racist and bigoted crap.

jc wrote:

1. you shouldn't mounthpiece for racists. someone might get the idea that you're one, too. 2, i've posted lots of sources. that's how i know the dynamic.

I'm not mouth-piecing for anyone, never do. All I'm asking is your source(s) that prove that 75% of high school gun violence is perpetrated by white students. I would like to see this for myself. Everything I've read for myself (Violence as Seen Though a Prism..., When White Boys Kill, Safe School Initiative Findings, Post-Columbine Reflections on Youth Violence, etc) all dispute those numbers.

mschris wrote:

jc wrote: 1. you shouldn't mounthpiece for racists. someone might get the idea that you're one, too. 2, i've posted lots of sources. that's how i know the dynamic. I'm not mouth-piecing for anyone, never do. All I'm asking is your source(s) that prove that 75% of high school gun violence is perpetrated by white students. I would like to see this for myself. Everything I've read for myself (Violence as Seen Though a Prism..., When White Boys Kill, Safe School Initiative Findings, Post-Columbine Reflections on Youth Violence, etc) all dispute those numbers.

of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt .

jc wrote:

of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt .

Again, I'm not mouthpiecing for anyone. And unlike you, I did cite my sources. I'm waiting for you to do the same.

mschris wrote:

jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . Again, I'm not mouthpiecing for anyone. And unlike you, I did cite my sources. I'm waiting for you to do the same.

you did mouthpiece for jt. he made a racist statement, i called him on it, 5for jumped in to mp for jt and then you jumped in to mp for 5for.
ps-you better go back and read the secret service report again. you flat out lied about what it says. again, i wonder why you lie to support racists.

jc wrote:

mschris wrote: jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . Again, I'm not mouthpiecing for anyone. And unlike you, I did cite my sources. I'm waiting for you to do the same. you did mouthpiece for jt. he made a racist statement, i called him on it, 5for jumped in to mp for jt and then you jumped in to mp for 5for. ps-you better go back and read the secret service report again. you flat out lied about what it says. again, i wonder why you lie to support racists.

for the 7th time (and 2 from MSCHris)...please cite.

Goes to show you are a dumbass troll that doesnt have a clue. 9 times asked to cite and won't. What a liar. I would rather be a mouthpiece than a liar.

Jtornado wrote:

jc wrote: mschris wrote: jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . Again, I'm not mouthpiecing for anyone. And unlike you, I did cite my sources. I'm waiting for you to do the same. you did mouthpiece for jt. he made a racist statement, i called him on it, 5for jumped in to mp for jt and then you jumped in to mp for 5for. ps-you better go back and read the secret service report again. you flat out lied about what it says. again, i wonder why you lie to support racists. for the 7th time (and 2 from MSCHris)...please cite. Goes to show you are a dumbass troll that doesnt have a clue. 9 times asked to cite and won't. What a liar. I would rather be a mouthpiece than a liar.

but you are a liar. every racist statement you make here is a lie. or they have been so far. as far as the links, i won't post them. i've explaine why and i've also explained that i'm not trying to get racists to believe what i say - you will not believe it no matter how much proof is presented.
i said that white kids do 3/4 of the school shootings. that is a FACT. you being a racist won't change that fact. if you doubt it, you can check ms-c's secret service cite.

jc wrote:

Jtornado wrote: jc wrote: mschris wrote: jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . Again, I'm not mouthpiecing for anyone. And unlike you, I did cite my sources. I'm waiting for you to do the same. you did mouthpiece for jt. he made a racist statement, i called him on it, 5for jumped in to mp for jt and then you jumped in to mp for 5for. ps-you better go back and read the secret service report again. you flat out lied about what it says. again, i wonder why you lie to support racists. for the 7th time (and 2 from MSCHris)...please cite. Goes to show you are a dumbass troll that doesnt have a clue. 9 times asked to cite and won't. What a liar. I would rather be a mouthpiece than a liar. but you are a liar. every racist statement you make here is a lie. or they have been so far. as far as the links, i won't post them. i've explaine why and i've also explained that i'm not trying to get racists to believe what i say - you will not believe it no matter how much proof is presented. i said that white kids do 3/4 of the school shootings. that is a FACT. you being a racist won't change that fact. if you doubt it, you can check ms-c's secret service cite.

1) Prove I am a racist.
2) Cite your sources.

what a troll

The sad thing is, there are some really interesting topics. We could have some intelligent discussions on here but jc's trollass ruins it every time. What a troll.

Oh yeah...and a liar. Better a mouthpiece than a liar.

Cite...liar.

jc wrote:

of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt .

I didn't lie about any of it. Perhaps you should reread the report. And make sure you read the interim report as well, or your take on the results in the final report will be skewed. On page 19, right above where it says "Three-quarters of the attackers were white", it says "There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence." If you had bothered to read the entire reports, you would see that they didn't write the report about every school gun violence victim or perpetrator, just a select few. Saying that 76% where white doesn't mean that 76% of all school shooters are white. It just means that 76% of their sample was white. If you read it the way you did, it would also mean that no girl has ever committed any school gun violence, but that's untrue as well.

So the question here is, did you take it out of context to suit your needs, or are you a liar?

mschris wrote:

jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . I didn't lie about any of it. Perhaps you should reread the report. And make sure you read the interim report as well, or your take on the results in the final report will be skewed. On page 19, right above where it says "Three-quarters of the attackers were white", it says "There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence." If you had bothered to read the entire reports, you would see that they didn't write the report about every school gun violence victim or perpetrator, just a select few. Saying that 76% where white doesn't mean that 76% of all school shooters are white. It just means that 76% of their sample was white. If you read it the way you did, it would also mean that no girl has ever committed any school gun violence, but that's untrue as well. So the question here is, did you take it out of context to suit your needs, or are you a liar?

DAMN!!!!!!! RACK 'EM!

One more thing. I had a Brutha as a roommate for 2 years after HS. Their were 6 out of 2400 in my school. He is the reason I developed my love for rap/hip-hop. If that is a racist, then you must be more of one. How many black dudes have you roomed with?. BECAUSE....you don't have the facts. troll...

mschris wrote:

jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . I didn't lie about any of it. Perhaps you should reread the report. And make sure you read the interim report as well, or your take on the results in the final report will be skewed. On page 19, right above where it says "Three-quarters of the attackers were white", it says "There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence." If you had bothered to read the entire reports, you would see that they didn't write the report about every school gun violence victim or perpetrator, just a select few. Saying that 76% where white doesn't mean that 76% of all school shooters are white. It just means that 76% of their sample was white. If you read it the way you did, it would also mean that no girl has ever committed any school gun violence, but that's untrue as well. So the question here is, did you take it out of context to suit your needs, or are you a liar?

thank you for showing exactly why i do not post links. the very report that you yourself cite proves what i said - 3/4 of the school shooters are white. that is what i said and that is what the secret service study PROVES. yet you get on here and tell a blatant lie about what the report says. again, the real question isn't what the report says (that is right there in the report) the real question is why you lie to support racists.

Jtornado wrote:

mschris wrote: jc wrote: of course you are mouthpiecing for racists. you jumped in and specifically did that for jt. if you have links to those studies you should post them. in fact, please do. that way i can PROVE that you are lying about the findings of some of the studies you cite. what i really want to know, though, is why you would lie like that. maybe because its the only way to support the racist statements of people like jt . I didn't lie about any of it. Perhaps you should reread the report. And make sure you read the interim report as well, or your take on the results in the final report will be skewed. On page 19, right above where it says "Three-quarters of the attackers were white", it says "There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence." If you had bothered to read the entire reports, you would see that they didn't write the report about every school gun violence victim or perpetrator, just a select few. Saying that 76% where white doesn't mean that 76% of all school shooters are white. It just means that 76% of their sample was white. If you read it the way you did, it would also mean that no girl has ever committed any school gun violence, but that's untrue as well. So the question here is, did you take it out of context to suit your needs, or are you a liar? DAMN!!!!!!! RACK 'EM! One more thing. I had a Brutha as a roommate for 2 years after HS. Their were 6 out of 2400 in my school. He is the reason I developed my love for rap/hip-hop. If that is a racist, then you must be more of one. How many black dudes have you roomed with?. BECAUSE....you don't have the facts. troll...

rack 'em is right! i said that 3/4 of the school shooters are white and the secret service says that 3/4 of the school shooters are white. the only reason people like you, ms-c and 5for (and most likely fred and bb if they weigh in) want it to be some other way is because you want it to say they are black. but, they aren't black. they are white. and you are racists.
ps-yes, i know you can't be a racist because "some of your best friends are black". keep using that line. it is great!