concerned for the injured and victims

[Lydiot]

Now, again: Where did I say only one "attribute" is used in profiling? When did I ever say that "flour" is the only "attribute" in "cake"?

Every time you highlighted only word like "statistical" and "Probably" but forgot to add for example "neighborhoods" or "bubble"

Just use your own example - according to your logic above:

"Cake contains flour" .....................is exactly the same as saying
"Cake only contains flour."

But that is illogical. Here's another example:

Frank: "I don't think we should vote yes for this budget. Spending money on subsidizing video games is wrong."
Lisa: "You think the the budget only contains spending on video games. That's a lie. It contains more."

And yet another:

Concept (C) contains X AND Y.

Frank: "C contains X."
Lisa: "You're wrong. C doesn't contain only X."

But"C contains X" is correct, regardless of whether or not C also contains Y.

That's what you're doing right now. In addition, you're missing something in the explanation I gave earlier, but I doubt I can write it more clearly than what already has been done.

And no, we don't have a language problem

I hope that's the problem we're having. Because if the first part of the post isn't an example of us having communication problems then the problem is far far worse (and exclusively yours it seems). But let me give you a few examples of just why I would possibly get confused by your use of language:

First off is the use of "bubble". Where do we find that term? Is that term a 'technical' term used in your line of work? Is it used in your line of work in your native language, which you then translated into English, or is that term used the same way, literally using the word "bubble", 'natively' by English speaking professionals in the US? Because guess what: I googled "bubble neighborhood" and terms related to what we're discussing, and there's not a whole lot to see. Yet you insist that I should know this term and its usage.

But I DID meet you halfway! I actually used that term, specifically, to say that you can investigate a"bubble neighborhood". And not only did I do that, but I made sure to make it clear that several different attributes (as I believe you called it) can be used to identify just what "bubble" to investigate. Where you and I appear to have been differing from the very beginning is just which attributes out of many should be given what "weight" in an analysis.

we have a basic problem with you talking, without the faintest knowledge about it, about my area of expertise and try to teach me bull and use lines like "hell bent to agree".

The word "it" above, considering the sentence structure, appears to refer back to "you talking". In other words it looks like you're saying that I don't have the faintest knowledge of me talking, and that that is a basic problem. Of course I have knowledge of myself talking. This is just one example of your posts being confusing because it's sometimes hard to see just what you're referring to and thus follow your line of reasoning.

Further more, you're playing fast and loose with attributing statements to me which simply aren't true. You say I "use lines like 'hell bent to agree'." There are two problems with that:

1) No, I did actually not use that "line"! What I DID say was "I'm really trying to just meet you halfway here, but you seem hell-bent on not doing that." A fairly big difference.

2) The way you object to me using the line (that I didn't use) make it seem like I accused you of being "hell bent to agree" as opposed to "hell bent to DISagree". Not a subtle difference.

There are two possible reasons for the above: You're careless, or you're deliberately doing it. I think you're just being careless. But that still points to a big problem; if you can't be careful enough when having a simple conversation with someone online then can you be trusted to be careful and diligent when performing your other duties? And if you don't have to be that careful when performing those duties, that then tells us something about the quality required to perform that work.

I asked you to quote me making statements exactly because of the above. You say I said certain things and put them in quotes, yet it's not what I said. It would be fine if it was at least the gist of what I was saying, but it wasn't even that. So how can you be trusted to correctly convey the sentiment of other people?

Please tell me the above are language issues and not you doing this on purpose.

while you are trying to convince me of your infinite knowledge, people are dying, so I suggest you hurry.

Another appeal to emotion. You're not fooling anyone.

[jwocky]

Well, it is clear, you don't understand ... you call it an appeal to emotion ... I call it daily business. And no, I won't try to meet you halfway. Because meeting you halfway in this business means, people die if I would try to transfer your lack of knowledge into real life. Thus, sorry, can't do! See, the example I gave you, the one you refuse to go with, is real life. Those bodies were found and we know, someone is out there killing women in a pretty cruel way. Of course, a good profiler could say something about the killer's ethnicity, based on signature and victimology. But if I do ... will another Lydiot jump on me for that? So, I am not fooling anyone ... says the fool who lets people die!

[Lydiot]

Of course, a good profiler could say something about the killer's ethnicity,

I remember not long ago some idiot was telling me that only talking about one thing meant that only that one thing existed as an attribute, and nothing else, and here you are talking about only a person's ethnicity. I'd call that ironic, but then again that would make you the idiot.

[jwocky]

I could say of course more about this guy, actually at the right place, not here, I did. And yes, my profile INCLUDED also his ethnicity. But you are so sick to have to twist my words, just to show, you're the Lydiot.
So, I hope you feel better now ... you made successfully a useless point and proved your obsession once more, even down to the point, it costs human life. I guess, we can let this discussion now end in the empty room. You will never admit, you have no knowledge whatsoever abotu what you are talking and I won't take any compromise in this subject that would willingly nod off the killing of innocent victims to feed your obsession.