On 8/24/26 18:44, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 3:07 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/21/26 11:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 8:53 AM, -hh wrote:
And the comparison of Vancouver Metro area to the overall US rate...? >>>>>...
...gosh golly, it just _disappeared_!
I do not recall comparing Vancouver to the U.S. average. You say it
disappeared. I cannot delete it.
Yet you did totally ignore it.-a The US National average was the
original portion of the statement:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
OK, if I said it it's not relevant.
Which actually means ... what?-a-a Is that an apology for your error?
I have a PhD minor in stats.
So? How did that cause you to completely ignore the base statement?
I do not need advice on variance versus sample size. You, citing a
metro area with known lower incidence relative to a subset within
that larger area, apparently need a lecture on cherry-picking samples. >>>> Did you REALLY think I would not pick up on that?
Any 'lecture' from one who just ignored the "whole forest" to try to
pick on just one FYI "tree" isn't going to be credible.
-hh
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-
housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
Not part of this subthread.
Not true, you lied again.
Nope!
"The Whole Forest" is in the PEW report cited in another thread.
Nope, not true, because my "Whole Forest" statement was referring to the OVERALL RATE OF THE ENTIRE USA of 227.
It wasn't referring to some other thread from some other time that
wasn't even cited in my subthread:-a it was _my_ contextual statement of comparison which you totally ignored:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K, whereas
the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
The point being that the Baker ...
Nope, this isn't about Alan.-a Its about you fucking up.-a Again.
And you're not going to try to twist to play victim on it.
-hh
On 8/24/26 9:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/24/26 18:44, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 3:07 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/21/26 11:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 8:53 AM, -hh wrote:
And the comparison of Vancouver Metro area to the overall US rate...? >>>>>>...
...gosh golly, it just _disappeared_!
I do not recall comparing Vancouver to the U.S. average. You say it >>>>> disappeared. I cannot delete it.
Yet you did totally ignore it.-a The US National average was the
original portion of the statement:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
OK, if I said it it's not relevant.
Which actually means ... what?-a-a Is that an apology for your error?
I have a PhD minor in stats.
So? How did that cause you to completely ignore the base statement?
I do not need advice on variance versus sample size. You, citing a
metro area with known lower incidence relative to a subset within
that larger area, apparently need a lecture on cherry-picking samples. >>>>> Did you REALLY think I would not pick up on that?
Any 'lecture' from one who just ignored the "whole forest" to try to
pick on just one FYI "tree" isn't going to be credible.
-hh
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-
housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
Not part of this subthread.
Not true, you lied again.
Nope!
"The Whole Forest" is in the PEW report cited in another thread.
Nope, not true, because my "Whole Forest" statement was referring to
the OVERALL RATE OF THE ENTIRE USA of 227.
It wasn't referring to some other thread from some other time that
wasn't even cited in my subthread:-a it was _my_ contextual statement
of comparison which you totally ignored:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
The point being that the Baker ...
Nope, this isn't about Alan.-a Its about you fucking up.-a Again.
And you're not going to try to twist to play victim on it.
-hh
You lie again. The thread was Alan claiming that Vancouver's relatively
mild climate was a meaningful factor in a relatively high homeless rate.
As the Pew report states weather is not a major contributor.
Unaffordable housing is. Vancouver has, by most standards, very
unaffordable housing.
On 9/10/26 09:20, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/24/26 9:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/24/26 18:44, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 3:07 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/21/26 11:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 8:53 AM, -hh wrote:
And the comparison of Vancouver Metro area to the overall US...
rate...?
...gosh golly, it just _disappeared_!
I do not recall comparing Vancouver to the U.S. average. You say
it disappeared. I cannot delete it.
Yet you did totally ignore it.-a The US National average was the
original portion of the statement:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
OK, if I said it it's not relevant.
Which actually means ... what?-a-a Is that an apology for your error?
I have a PhD minor in stats.
So? How did that cause you to completely ignore the base statement?
I do not need advice on variance versus sample size. You, citing a >>>>>> metro area with known lower incidence relative to a subset within >>>>>> that larger area, apparently need a lecture on cherry-picking
samples.
Did you REALLY think I would not pick up on that?
Any 'lecture' from one who just ignored the "whole forest" to try
to pick on just one FYI "tree" isn't going to be credible.
-hh
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/
how- housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
Not part of this subthread.
Not true, you lied again.
Nope!
"The Whole Forest" is in the PEW report cited in another thread.
Nope, not true, because my "Whole Forest" statement was referring to
the OVERALL RATE OF THE ENTIRE USA of 227.
It wasn't referring to some other thread from some other time that
wasn't even cited in my subthread:-a it was _my_ contextual statement
of comparison which you totally ignored:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
The point being that the Baker ...
Nope, this isn't about Alan.-a Its about you fucking up.-a Again.
And you're not going to try to twist to play victim on it.
-hh
You lie again. The thread was Alan claiming that Vancouver's
relatively mild climate was a meaningful factor in a relatively high
homeless rate. As the Pew report states weather is not a major
contributor. Unaffordable housing is. Vancouver has, by most
standards, very unaffordable housing.
So what does this have to do with how you've tried to ignore how
Vancouver's rate is lower than the rate of the entire USA?
You're trying to claim that Vancouver's rate is so high because its
housing is unaffordably expensive, yet totally ignoring how the USA's homeless rate is higher despite having a lower average housing cost.
-hh
On 9/10/26 12:47 PM, -hh wrote:
On 9/10/26 09:20, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/24/26 9:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/24/26 18:44, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 3:07 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/21/26 11:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/21/26 8:53 AM, -hh wrote:
And the comparison of Vancouver Metro area to the overall US...
rate...?
...gosh golly, it just _disappeared_!
I do not recall comparing Vancouver to the U.S. average. You say >>>>>>> it disappeared. I cannot delete it.
Yet you did totally ignore it.-a The US National average was the
original portion of the statement:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
OK, if I said it it's not relevant.
Which actually means ... what?-a-a Is that an apology for your error?
I have a PhD minor in stats.
So? How did that cause you to completely ignore the base statement? >>>>>>
I do not need advice on variance versus sample size. You, citing a >>>>>>> metro area with known lower incidence relative to a subset within >>>>>>> that larger area, apparently need a lecture on cherry-picking
samples.
Did you REALLY think I would not pick up on that?
Any 'lecture' from one who just ignored the "whole forest" to try >>>>>> to pick on just one FYI "tree" isn't going to be credible.
-hh
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/
how- housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
Not part of this subthread.
Not true, you lied again.
Nope!
"The Whole Forest" is in the PEW report cited in another thread.
Nope, not true, because my "Whole Forest" statement was referring to
the OVERALL RATE OF THE ENTIRE USA of 227.
It wasn't referring to some other thread from some other time that
wasn't even cited in my subthread:-a it was _my_ contextual statement >>>> of comparison which you totally ignored:
"For example, the Vancouver Metro area's rate is ~165 per 100K,
whereas the overall US rate is 227 (and FYI..."
The point being that the Baker ...
Nope, this isn't about Alan.-a Its about you fucking up.-a Again.
And you're not going to try to twist to play victim on it.
-hh
You lie again. The thread was Alan claiming that Vancouver's
relatively mild climate was a meaningful factor in a relatively high
homeless rate. As the Pew report states weather is not a major
contributor. Unaffordable housing is. Vancouver has, by most
standards, very unaffordable housing.
So what does this have to do with how you've tried to ignore how
Vancouver's rate is lower than the rate of the entire USA?
You're trying to claim that Vancouver's rate is so high because its
housing is unaffordably expensive, yet totally ignoring how the USA's
homeless rate is higher despite having a lower average housing cost.
-hh
Comparing a city to an entire country? Wow, that is a stretch.
U.S. homelessness is highly concentrated in cities with very expensive housing.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:20:44 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,157 |