concerned for the injured and victims

[jwocky]

Oh my gosh ... the population can't be reduced by profiling! And your "this is not how the word profiling is used" to me is like if a three year old child goes to one of the top mathematicians in the world and tries to explain to him "how the word add" is used. You have no idea, you don't know what you talk about, but you talk and talk.
Why do you talk and talk? Because your ideology addled brain has seen a keyword and now, despite being wrong on all accounts, you try to lead a flame war because your obsession with race forces you.

See, Side and me for example flew a lot of USA Tour legs together. I see him as a fellow pilot. Vincent and me had some flights together. I see him as a fellow pilot. Well, given my landings, they see me probably as a lousy fellow pilot. Israel is my best friend in the flightgear world. I flew a lot with David. Some of the people, I fly with or talk with, I have not even an idea from where they are. H1an is from Malaysia, I think.
Same with my other activities. I work with black, brown (several varieties), yellow, a red and obviously also white profilers. It is not a problem, it never was. Because race plays not the big role, not for me, not for most people I work with or fly with. Problems occur, if someone is obsessed with race, like you, and jumps drooling and screaming on the normal people. Food for thought!

[Lydiot]

Ok, hear me out for a second:

I think a lot of confusion here stems from the fact that I choose to quote what I think is relevant and then address that, whereas you for the most part appear to prefer to just write a bunch of text. It's incredibly hard to follow a "thread" when that's the case. So, of course you have your impression of what my points are, but it's very difficult to show you how your impression is inaccurate when you can't address one point at a time, by responding to a quote in turn by quoting it. Do you understand what I mean?

So let me just give you one example so you understand what I'm talking about:

Oh my gosh ... the population can't be reduced by profiling!

This is what you just wrote to me. Now, let''s just go back and look at that exchange, and that exchange only:

Again, you're barely making sense. Perhaps it's a language problem. "Profiling", the way the term is used in the US, has to do with having a profile and using it BEFORE taking action - in order to reduce a population to a smaller group, a subset. by Lydiot » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:04 am

I rarely heard anybody get so much wrong in so few words. Actually profiling happens during cases as a process as new information becomes available. And profiling doesn't "reduce population", that would be really bad. Actually profiling creates and narrows down suspect pools.

That's exactly what I meant by reducing a population to a smaller group. The narrowed suspect pool is a subset of the larger population. The population has been reduced.

So here's the problem:

- If you say that "the population can't be reduced by profiling" and criticize me for proposing that, then you ignore what I said above. I said we used different words to illustrate the same principle. So, if we mean the same thing, then it no longer makes sense to say that what I mean is wrong (because it is the same as what you meant).

And here is how the word "population" is used:

noun
1.
the total number of persons inhabiting a country, city, or any district or area.
2.
the body of inhabitants of a place:
The population of the city opposes the addition of fluorides to the drinking water.
3.
the number or body of inhabitants in a place belonging to a specific social, cultural, socioeconomic, ethnic, or racial subgroup:
the native population; the working-class population.
4.
Statistics. any finite or infinite aggregation of individuals, not necessarily animate, subject to a statistical study.

(There's also wikipedia, which also includes the term "subset", should that too need clarification)

------------------------------------------------

In other words, can you at least either:

a) Explain how I do not mean the same thing as you (by pointing out how, specifically) despite me telling you I mean the same thing

or

b) Acknowledge that possibly despite using language differently we mean the same thing

?

[jwocky]

You still don't get it. You can't start profiling with an entire population ... I know, that hangs a little high, but if you have to work with en entire population, you have millions and millions of people and on average not even nearly enough parameters to narrow anything down. Or "reducing" it as you insist to wuse wrongfully.
So, you don't even know the terminology, you have no what is going on and how it works ... but of course, it had to be all about race ... yeah, right!
And then, in your infinite wisdom, you marked in your post dictionary entry 4

4.
Statistics. any finite or infinite aggregation of individuals, not necessarily animate, subject to a statistical study.

I know, despite my attempts to explain it to you, you never understood, that profiling is much more than just statistics. Any stupid who ever saw an episode of Dexter or Criminal Minds seems to believe nowadays, it's all about statistics. But actually, things are far more complex than that, we talk about the human mind here. Add to that a basic misunderstanding about statistics (that statistics tells us reasons when it in fact only mirrors underlying still invisible reasons) and you got yourself a fine mess. But despite neither experience, not knowledge, you tell me about profiling. Well, then lets do the acid test, Lydiot ...

You have 4 stabbed victims, two with cervical compressions
You have also in the same area two more who died by blunt force trauma
You have two more strangled, one of them also beaten ante-mortem.
And since you like race so much ... of the total 7 are 5 African-American, one is Caucasian and one is a quarter Hispanic/3 quarters Caucasian, so, in photos she looks Caucasian.
The age bracket is 20 to 45 years
All victims were found in an area with an African-American population of about 85%, 5% Caucasian, ab. 5% Hispanic, the rest is from all over.

So, since you are the grail of wisdom and know so well about profiling and how things work ... Why don't you write a profile? Reduce the population ... no wait, that is what the serial killers do ... so, "create a suspect pool'". You know everything, you can even look in a dictionary for the wrong terms ... so, shouldn't be a problem ... well of course, you have to catch the unsub ... or maybe several ... without mentioning how they look ... or the Lydiot will jump on you! So, now, show us how good you are!

[Lydiot]

You still don't get it. You can't start profiling with an entire population ...

Look at the definition of the word again, and note "subject to a statistical study".

We're saying the same thing. You chose different words.

I know, that hangs a little high, but if you have to work with en entire population, you have millions and millions of people and on average not even nearly enough parameters to narrow anything down. Or "reducing" it as you insist to wuse wrongfully.
So, you don't even know the terminology

But this is my point - AGAIN :

IF the problem is me not using terminology correctly, do you accept that we MEAN the same thing using different words?

Can you at least acknowledge that?

I'm trying really hard to find at least some common ground here and you're making it about as impossible as possible.

then, in your infinite wisdom, you marked in your post dictionary entry 4

4.
Statistics. any finite or infinite aggregation of individuals, not necessarily animate, subject to a statistical study.

I know, despite my attempts to explain it to you, you never understood, that profiling is much more than just statistics.

Let me show you something:

2,1) Short range
No offense, but ... and that is already the problem. Political correctness forces us to ignore statistical probabilities. We can make a hundred percent sure bet, the next guy who blows himself up in an airport will not be a seven year old Jewish girl. It will be probably a male Muslim between the ages of 20 and 35, he will be with a probability of 88% right handed, he will be with a probability of 93% dark haired and a probability of 97% dark eyed. He will have visited in the year before with a probability of 100% a mosque more than 12 times and then have stopped in the month before or earlier with a probability of 93%.
We can do similiar statistical profiles for any other kind of potential terror bomber. This is of course not complete, but a whole pattern profile would bore people only to death here. Point is, we have to take a closer look at such defined population groups of potentials. And it is, in my opinion justified because the Muslim shop owner who flies with his children to theri grandparents in Istanbul doesn't like blown up more than anybody else. So, we have to look into those groups already in strike distance.

"defined population groups".... "statistical probabilities"..... " "probability".... "statistical profiles".....

You'd have to forgive a person for being confused when "population" is apparently everybody when I use the word, even when I use the word "subset" to imply it isn't, yet apparently when you use the word you can say "defined population groups", which really does sound like the same thing - a common ground between the two of us....

.... and then when you repeatedly talk about statistics and probability and that's apparently fine when talking about profiling, except if I quote a dictionary in which case the word "statistics" is a problem it seems....

For example, what's the difference between a "a subset of the larger population" and "defined population groups"? Is that latter not the former?

I'm really trying to just meet you halfway here, but you seem hell-bent on not doing that.

[jwocky]

Okay ... if you use flour in a cake ... or do you use only flour in a cake?
If the tank of your car contains gas ... does that mean your whole car is made only from gas ...

The real stupid says: "If you use only statistical probabilities"
And yes, I am hell bent not to agree to this kind of utterly nonsense. You use for example "subset". Not a subset is a set derived from a bigger set by use of defined attributes ... only since you don't know the attributes of each element in a set of "population" size, you can't do that in profiling. Which is, why you didn't even try to write a profile in the example, I gave you in my last post. You know exactly you can't. And still you try to twist words. You play it as if you would know everything about profiling, but you argue as if you know nothing. And obviously, you haven't still understood the relation between statistical data and underlying reasons. You arrogance prevents you of course from learning anything about the things, you talk about ... so, what am I supposed to do?

[Lydiot]

Okay ... if you use flour in a cake ... or do you use only flour in a cake?

If you use flour in a cake you use flour in a cake. Cakes consist of more than flour.

When did I say cakes consist of only flour?

[Lydiot]

Btw, is English your native language?

[jwocky]

Nope ... I so waited for that bull to come up. Every time a native speaker is wrong about a fact, he tries that trick. Usually to no avail, but it is fun to analyse the usual grammatical glitches

[Lydiot]

Nope ... I so waited for that bull to come up. Every time a native speaker is wrong about a fact, he tries that trick. Usually to no avail, but it is fun to analyse the usual grammatical glitches

It's not bull. I just wanted to point out that I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. It isn't the topic-specific words that are the problem, it's that your sentence structure makes it hard to understand your explanation of them. That's all I was about to say.

Rather than accuse me of the various things you accuse me of, most recently "arrogance", you would do well to consider that our use of language makes it harder for us to understand each other. And by "our use" I mean to include you without excluding myself. Why the hell do you think I spent time trying to get you to understand that we're trying to describe the same thing?

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"?

[jwocky]

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"
And no, we don't have a language problem, 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". You pretend to know things, but, aside of you demonstrating you have no idea, you consequently avoid the probe on it. I gave you an example, show me your profile. It's from a real life situation ... while you are trying to convince me of your infinite knowledge, people are dying, so I suggest you hurry. And do it without any visual traits in ypour profile because, you know, the Lydiot will jump you if you write any description in it that may helps to catch the killer(s).