The Bobcat Nation

http://madamenoire.com/29757/10-major-m ... community/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh dear Jesus....

Billings_Griz wrote:Oh dear Jesus....

What? I thought it was a good article/opinion. Tell me one of the ten things she stated that doesn't need to change? Makes sense to me! Many of the same things could be said for the American Indian population.

When addressed to a large black audience by a black person, articles like this appear to be sincere and likely constructive.

When posted by a white person on a website whose demographic is 99% non-black ... it doesn't quite come off the same way.

Bay Area Cat wrote:When addressed to a large black audience by a black person, articles like this appear to be sincere and likely constructive.

When posted by a white person on a website whose demographic is 99% non-black ... it doesn't quite come off the same way.

Wait a minute, how are you keeping track of what color the demographics of this website are? Or did you just make up those numbers like all the liberals do?

cats2506 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:When addressed to a large black audience by a black person, articles like this appear to be sincere and likely constructive.

When posted by a white person on a website whose demographic is 99% non-black ... it doesn't quite come off the same way.

Wait a minute, how are you keeping track of what color the demographics of this website are? Or did you just make up those numbers like all the liberals do?

Wait a minute, is this yet another example of you arguing against a statement even though it is obviously true and based on common sense? Of course it is ... carry on.

Bay Area Cat wrote:When addressed to a large black audience by a black person, articles like this appear to be sincere and likely constructive.

When posted by a white person on a website whose demographic is 99% non-black ... it doesn't quite come off the same way.

First of all I dont care how it came off.

Second, a friend of mine that was a former cat football coach suggested I post that article on here so he could see the reaction of the posters on your site. (hint, hes not white)

He said it would turn into a redneck lynch party and I told him it would not because most people are too afraid to voice any opinion they have on this kind of stuff because the first cry out is always like BAC, "your racist". Guess I won.


People need to quit being cowards and speak their mind no matter what side of the argument you are on. Its just a kneejerk label and it only hurts or is demeaning if you empower it. I personally dont care if people think I am a racist or I am not, I know who I am and thats all that matters to me.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

cats2506 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:When addressed to a large black audience by a black person, articles like this appear to be sincere and likely constructive.

When posted by a white person on a website whose demographic is 99% non-black ... it doesn't quite come off the same way.

Wait a minute, how are you keeping track of what color the demographics of this website are? Or did you just make up those numbers like all the liberals do?

Wait a minute, is this yet another example of you arguing against a statement even though it is obviously true and based on common sense? Of course it is ... carry on.

I'm arguing against someone using made up numbers as fact. Where did you get the 99% figure? Is it based on some study by the liberal news media or what. If you had made a statement such as "a very high percentage" or something on that order then I would not have an argument. Instead you trot out the number of "99%" indicating an exact amount which indicates that you have something to back it up.

So is that a made up number or do really have some facts to show me that it couldn't be 98% ?

this is gonna be a great thread....

99% of the time I would agree......................

Cats2506: If you truly want me to treat you like a person who needs to have these sorts of things explained to you (which you claim to be ... which is an odd way to hold oneself out), I will do so.

You see, 2506, sometimes people use numbers and measures as figures of speech, and they aren't meant to to represent a scientific measure. You know when your mommy said, "Just give me one second?" And then it took 15 seconds? Well, she didn't literally mean one second, she meant instead that it was a very short period of time. So when you threw a fit and broke her vase after waiting three seconds, you weren't understanding the context of what she said, which was unfortunate for you (because of the spanking that resulted) and for the vase.

Likewise, people in America use phrases like "99% of the time" in ways to mean "almost all." In virtually no instances does that person have a detailed survey in their hand documenting that exactly 99.0000% of the time would that be the case, but rather they are relying on a universally understood notion that what they are saying is true in nearly every case. So therefore, when one demands documentation to show precision for a figure like that, one is showing their lack of understanding of the context of the statement.

In my case above, I was not relying upon a survey or any other scientific or mathetmatic means of coming to a precise 99% figure. It was used in the generally accepted "almost all" usage, the context of which is clear to everyone who has a good understanding of the American culture and language (and has even the slightest understanding of the demographics of the people who tend to frequent this site).

Thank you for your question, and I hope this explanation will allow you to better understand this country's language. Welcome to America. Enjoy your time here.

i was right. this is gonna be great.

Bay Area Cat wrote:Cats2506: If you truly want me to treat you like a person who needs to have these sorts of things explained to you (which you claim to be ... which is an odd way to hold oneself out), I will do so.

You see, 2506, sometimes people use numbers and measures as figures of speech, and they aren't meant to to represent a scientific measure. You know when your mommy said, "Just give me one second?" And then it took 15 seconds? Well, she didn't literally mean one second, she meant instead that it was a very short period of time. So when you threw a fit and broke her vase after waiting three seconds, you weren't understanding the context of what she said, which was unfortunate for you (because of the spanking that resulted) and for the vase.

Likewise, people in America use phrases like "99% of the time" in ways to mean "almost all." In virtually no instances does that person have a detailed survey in their hand documenting that exactly 99.0000% of the time would that be the case, but rather they are relying on a universally understood notion that what they are saying is true in nearly every case. So therefore, when one demands documentation to show precision for a figure like that, one is showing their lack of understanding of the context of the statement.

In my case above, I was not relying upon a survey or any other scientific or mathetmatic means of coming to a precise 99% figure. It was used in the generally accepted "almost all" usage, the context of which is clear to everyone who has a good understanding of the American culture and language (and has even the slightest understanding of the demographics of the people who tend to frequent this site).

Thank you for your question, and I hope this explanation will allow you to better understand this country's language. Welcome to America. Enjoy your time here.

Using a statement as a figure of speech like "99%" is usually acceptable when coming from a layman, however when coming from someone that may have inside knowledge or **cough** someone of authority **cough** like a moderator of a message board that may have additional knowledge of a user base it becomes untruthful to use it as a statement of fact. Take this analogy, if a regular citizen says 99% of the government budget is waste then we take it as a figure of speech, but if a member of the CBO says that 99% of the governments budget is waste then people want to know what the factual basis for the statement is, since their knowledge of the governments budget is assumed to be greater.

Now if yo were really just using it as a figure of speech you could have just said that, but instead you had to accuse me of arguing against something that was known fact, in reality this doesn't seem to be the case, since you have now backpedaled to the "figure of speech" argument and leave your original statement as an unsupported "fact"

Most people masturbate in private, 2506. Just sayin'.

Since you don't seem to want to back up any of your numbers and are just hiding behind personal insults, (nice moderator huh)

I did a little looking for you, let assume that the ethnic makeup of Bobcat Nation is more diverse than the state of Montana is. I believe that this is a safe bet since the majority of posters follow MSU sports which certainly has a "higher percentage" of non-white participants than the Montana population. Since the race makeup of the state of Montana is only about 90% white that would mean that the makeup of the user base of Bobcat Nation would be less than that. Only 8% points off of your "figure of speech", but I believe that is most probably of statistical significance. So it seems to me that your "figure of speech" is an attempt to marginalize and even discredit the ethnic diversity that is most likely present on this board. I guess I am only able to wonder what your motives might be for attempting to disenfranchise members of this board that may be part of that minority ethnic group.

http://fastfacts.census.gov/servlet/DTT ... 000_B02001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cats2506 wrote:Since you don't seem to want to back up any of your numbers and are just hiding behind personal insults, (nice moderator huh)

I did a little looking for you, let assume that the ethnic makeup of Bobcat Nation is more diverse than the state of Montana is. I believe that this is a safe bet since the majority of posters follow MSU sports which certainly has a "higher percentage" of non-white participants than the Montana population. Since the race makeup of the state of Montana is only about 90% white that would mean that the makeup of the user base of Bobcat Nation would be less than that. Only 8% points off of your "figure of speech", but I believe that is most probably of statistical significance. So it seems to me that your "figure of speech" is an attempt to marginalize and even discredit the ethnic diversity that is most likely present on this board. I guess I am only able to wonder what your motives might be for attempting to disenfranchise members of this board that may be part of that minority ethnic group.

http://fastfacts.census.gov/servlet/DTT ... 000_B02001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not a personal insult. If you enjoy masturbatory actions like this, I'm not going to judge you. Of course, your whole point of starting this masturbatory tangent was so you could call me a liberal, so I guess the whole faux-victimhood thing falls a little flat, eh?

And it appears my "BAC's post for Dummies" lesson wasn't thorough enough.

Non-black is not the same as "white." Why don't you re-run your numbers there and get back to me (oh, you're going to hate doing it, though ... totally f's up your little rant in an embarassing way). You clearly have nothing better to do.

"Disenfranchise" ... good lord, 2506. I know your only point here is to try to annoy me (and anyone else who ever had the audacity to make sense contrary to your worldview), but you're just making yourself look like a arse. Really? You're going to play the race card on me? How precious.

sorry, I don't have time anymore to debate these issues with a liberal racist such as you, all I can hope is that some day you will become enlightened to reality

Ok, so if choosy moms choose Jif does that mean 100% of choosy moms? Or just 99% of choosy moms? And is choosy even a real word?

damn liberals.

CapitalCityCat wrote:Ok, so if choosy moms choose Jif does that mean 100% of choosy moms? Or just 99% of choosy moms? And is choosy even a real word?

damn liberals.

93% of moms are Choosy.


I would bang at least 87% of the "hot brunette" choosy moms.............and I might even use some Jif while doing it.



Oh and 71% of non white people polled think "choosy" is in fact a real word. Awight.

AlphaGriz1 wrote:

CapitalCityCat wrote:Ok, so if choosy moms choose Jif does that mean 100% of choosy moms? Or just 99% of choosy moms? And is choosy even a real word?

damn liberals.

93% of moms are Choosy.


I would bang at least 87% of the "hot brunette" choosy moms.............and I might even use some Jif while doing it.



Oh and 71% of non white people polled think "choosy" is in fact a real word. Awight.

False. And with your 1/257,000 chance of nailing a hot mom its not good odds. However I agree 93% of the time 100% of hot brunette moms choose jif. 30% of the 99% of choosy moms choose the chunky jif. The other 43% choose smooth jif 87% of the time. With my math that means I'm getting a f##k'in chunky Peanut Butter sando after cleaning their pool.

I didn't even read the article but agree with AG1. We are WAYYYYYY to politically correct in this world. Speak your mind and stand behind what you say. But not online, I love being an internet tough guy....hence the fact I could beat all of you with only a tube of toothpaste, a celery stick with peanut butter with chunky jif, and a George Bush mask.