On Nov 24, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Strippers at a local "high class"
strip club, had put together a charity fund, and then voted to have it go
to groups of sexually abused children. Teri talked to them, and they all
had been sexually abused as children.
Do you find this surprising? I mean, the group self-selected. Of course they were all abuse victims. They set up a charity to *help* abuse victims. But it doesn't follow that all strippers are abuse victims, or even more likely to be abuse victims. Your sample size is *far* too small and is *not* random.
Suppose a group of CPAs put together a charity to assist victims of mugging. Would you be even remotely surprised to learn that most CPAs who participated in or gave to that group were themselves victims of mugging? Probably you wouldn't. But you would be very off center to suggest that this locally high correlation of CPAs to mugging victimhood meant that a "preponderance" or even "overwhelming" numbers of CPAs were victims of mugging.
As to the citations you sent along -- I haven't dismissed them out of hand; I haven't even referenced them beyond saying I'd look at them. I haven't had an opportunity to do that yet. All evidence to the contrary aside I've got other work to do.
If your numbers for abuse victims are somewhere in those references, fine -- but if not, I'd like to know, still, what you define as a "preponderance" and what you think the actual numbers are, as well as your basis for them. I don't believe that's an unreasonable request, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
