Law Covering Sexual Contact With Students Passes House

[Al Swearengen]

Just so everyone understands, republicans can be just as liberal as any democrat.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

Actual numbers:

City of Natchitoches total population: 17,815 (2004 census estimate)
Natchitoches Parish total population: 40,805 (2004 census estimate)
NSU total undergraduate enrollment: 8,034
NSU freshman population: 2,431 (Fall 2006)
Female/Male undergraduate ratio: 68%/32%
Total undergraduate population from outside Natch. Parish: 89%

Well there you go, 68% of 8,000+ in a city population of 17,000+ is still about 1/4th of the total adult city population. Keep in mind, we don't just have undergraduate studies either, we have Graduate Studies and the Scholars College too, so that number would be inflated by several hundred students, and let's not forget that 17 is the age of consent in Louisiana, this also encompasses most high school seniors and a significant portion of juniors regardless of how anyone feels about that, which brings the Louisiana School for gifted children, into the mix, which brings in students from abroad as well as the 2 local high schools within the city limits.

To large of a portion of society to make it a crime to "socialize" with....

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by rhertz

It is my theory that "rock and roll" and "R&B", and "jazz" are artistic responses to political ideologies gone awry.....

The "man" is keepin' me down, power to the people ! Rock On Dude. TGIF

[joepole]

You said about 9,000 Freshmen move to Natchitoches each year, about half of whom were women. I was giving the actual numbers: about 1,471 people meet those criteria so nobody was utilizing incorrect figures to make decisions or form opinions.

The census numbers for Natchitoches don't include students from outside Natchitoches, so you have to add those to the total to figure percentages. And my population numbers were just for the people in the actual city limits. The Natchitoches MSA (which I believe includes students, but I could be wrong) is (as of 2004 census estimates) 38,741, meaning about 3.8% of the population meets your criteria of (incoming female Freshman) if you consider "Natchitoches" to mean the Natchitoches MSA instead of the actual city limits. If you just include the people inside the city limits (a number of about 25,000 once you include NSU students) it's about 5.8%.

You now seem to be talking about all female students affected by the law instead. Let's look at those actual numbers:

NSU has (as of Fall 2006) 3,375 total students age 20 or under. This includes the Scholar's College (which only has 108 students total of any age/sex), grad students (NSU only has 61 of those), and part-time non-degree-seeking students. I don't have the non-undergrads broken down by sex, but there's no reason to think it deviates much from the 68% female rate, especially since undergrads make up the bulk of the under-21 students. That would be 2,295 under-21 female students. That's ~9% of people inside the actual city limits (a population, including students, of around 25,000) or ~6% of "Natchitoches" as most people consider it.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Let's look at those actual numbers: I will have to place my chip on joepole. Good post joepole

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

You said about 9,000 Freshmen move to Natchitoches each year, about half of whom were women. I was giving the actual numbers: about 1,471 people meet those criteria so nobody was utilizing incorrect figures to make decisions or form opinions.

The census numbers for Natchitoches don't include students from outside Natchitoches, so you have to add those to the total to figure percentages. And my population numbers were just for the people in the actual city limits. The Natchitoches MSA (which I believe includes students, but I could be wrong) is (as of 2004 census estimates) 38,741, meaning about 3.8% of the population meets your criteria of (incoming female Freshman) if you consider "Natchitoches" to mean the Natchitoches MSA instead of the actual city limits. If you just include the people inside the city limits (a number of about 25,000 once you include NSU students) it's about 5.8%.

You now seem to be talking about all female students affected by the law instead. Let's look at those actual numbers:

NSU has (as of Fall 2006) 3,375 total students age 20 or under. This includes the Scholar's College (which only has 108 students total of any age/sex), grad students (NSU only has 61 of those), and part-time non-degree-seeking students. I don't have the non-undergrads broken down by sex, but there's no reason to think it deviates much from the 68% female rate, especially since undergrads make up the bulk of the under-21 students. That would be 2,295 under-21 female students. That's ~9% of people inside the actual city limits (a population, including students, of around 25,000) or ~6% of "Natchitoches" as most people consider it.

I understand you weren't arguing with me, Joe, and I'll admit the number of incoming freshman was considerably larger in my day than it is currently specifically because they have raised the qualification standards at NSU. I am also speaking specifically about people who live within the city limits of Natchitoches. It might not be anything for you to drive 10-20 miles to pick up a date in Shreveport/Bossier, but 10-20 miles puts you in another town in any direction you leave from Natchitoches...and let's not forget that people who have not lived in the same dwelling for a significant period of time aren't actually considered part of the population just like a student attending BPCC isn't counted in the Bossier population especially if he missed the census. Simply put, they aren't counting dorms rooms or post office boxes as permanent residences.

Once again, we are in near total agreement on the issue, but you're an ******* who tries to make a mountain out of every molehill you find and I'm an idiot for thinking a habitual criminal who regularly puts the life of his own children in danger would be any different. Not to mention you seem to have this overwhelming desire to separate graduating seniors, Graduate school students, Scholars college students, and High School student of or beyond the age of consent from your numbers, just like you wanted to omit the clarifications I made on the water topic.

It's was fun, but you're predictable and apparently not as smart as you pretend to be......

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Beat at your own game Knowing you have totally lost the debate you turn to insults and name calling very cheap defense.

[BrainSmashR]

LAF

Only an idiot who doesn't know HOW to debate would call exposing the errors in his "stats" to be losing a debate OR calling a spade a spade an insult.

and imagine my surprise at YOU being the first to chime in.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

I have read all of your post Tracy and all of joepoles post too. You are not even in the same league as joepole. joepole does not have to beat his chest or go on rants to make a point he does it in a way that we all can learn from even when we do not agree. I will give you a E for effort

[joepole]

>you seem to have this overwhelming desire to separate graduating seniors, Graduate school students, Scholars college students, and High School student of or beyond the age of consent from your numbers, just like you wanted to omit the clarifications I made on the water topic.

You specifically mentioned incoming Freshmen:

"a city with about 15-16,000 people and have an influx of about 9000 freshmen, over half of which are totally legal females on their own for the first time and ready to party!AND it happens EVERY fall."

...so my original numbers only included those. I didn't include graduate students because I didn't have the same age/sex/hometown breakdowns for them and they were so small in number (I was actually wrong, about the number, it's more than 61.) I broke them down by age, regardless of school year because the law only applies to people up to age 19. I went up to 20 because that's how the data I had listed the age groups. High school students don't apply because your statement specifically applied only to incoming college Freshman girls.

>I'll admit the number of incoming freshman was considerably larger in my day than it is currently specifically because they have raised the qualification standards at NSU.

When were you there? Enrollment has been increased fairly steadily at NSU from the mid 80s until a few years ago. It never (in the data I have) had Freshman classes near 9,000, however.

Total (male/female/total) undergrads in:
1974-2,307/2,777/5,084
1984-1,955/2,594,4,549
1989-2,379/3,881/6,260
1994-2,866/5,040/7,906
1999-2,807/5,233/8,040
2004-3,198/6,216/9,414

>I am also speaking specifically about people who live within the city limits of Natchitoches.

That's fine, but you should keep in mind that when most people speak about the citizens of a town they talk about something similar to the MSA, not the city limits. I live in Shreveport and I would certainly consider people living out on Ellerbe Road to be in the potential dating pool.

>we are in near total agreement on the issue...

There really isn't an "issue," I was just giving the actual, correct numbers to go along with what you were saying. Yours were way out of line with reality.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>you seem to have this overwhelming desire to separate graduating seniors, Graduate school students, Scholars college students, and High School student of or beyond the age of consent from your numbers, just like you wanted to omit the clarifications I made on the water topic.

You specifically mentioned incoming Freshmen:

"a city with about 15-16,000 people and have an influx of about 9000 freshmen, over half of which are totally legal females on their own for the first time and ready to party!AND it happens EVERY fall."

...so my original numbers only included those. I didn't include graduate students because I didn't have the same age/sex/hometown breakdowns for them and they were so small in number (I was actually wrong, about the number, it's more than 61.) I broke them down by age, regardless of school year because the law only applies to people up to age 19. I went up to 20 because that's how the data I had listed the age groups. High school students don't apply because your statement specifically applied only to incoming college Freshman girls.

>I'll admit the number of incoming freshman was considerably larger in my day than it is currently specifically because they have raised the qualification standards at NSU.

When were you there? Enrollment has been increased fairly steadily at NSU from the mid 80s until a few years ago. It never (in the data I have) had Freshman classes near 9,000, however.

Total (male/female/total) undergrads in:
1974-2,307/2,777/5,084
1984-1,955/2,594,4,549
1989-2,379/3,881/6,260
1994-2,866/5,040/7,906
1999-2,807/5,233/8,040
2004-3,198/6,216/9,414

>I am also speaking specifically about people who live within the city limits of Natchitoches.

That's fine, but you should keep in mind that when most people speak about the citizens of a town they talk about something similar to the MSA, not the city limits. I live in Shreveport and I would certainly consider people living out on Ellerbe Road to be in the potential dating pool.

>we are in near total agreement on the issue...

There really isn't an "issue," I was just giving the actual, correct numbers to go along with what you were saying. Yours were way out of line with reality.

1. The bill DOES NOT specify freshmen only. You are arguing me, not the topic, and although not a violation of the rules the admin reposted, it is annoying none the less and why you remain on my ignore list even though I choose to read some of your posts. It's all females, 19 and under I think it was, that are enrolled in school....and that encompasses pretty much over half of the TOTAL posts you've wasted on this subject. Feel free to carry on like you're retarded or something if you wish...we all know better and the chances of me reading two replies if your next one is even similar in nature are slim and none.

2. I realize 10-20 miles in the Shreveport/Bossier area is insignificant but it IS in Natchitoches. That's specifically why I picked MY city and those distances instead of YOUR city and another distance.....AGAIN you are arguing a moot point just for the sake of arguing.

3. I'm not way out of line with reality, you chose to argue my random estimate of the number of citizens this would be affected in a special town with special settings....namely Natchitoches, then attempted several times to justify your pitiful argument by consistently excluding students from 2 colleges and 3 high schools.....and as you can see by Isaac's post, this type of "propaganda" can be quite effective....but you already knew that too, huh?

[joepole]

>The bill DOES NOT specify freshmen only.

I never said it did, You were the one that specified Freshmen-only:

"...have an influx of about 9000 freshmen..."

>I realize 10-20 miles in the Shreveport/Bossier area is insignificant...

I never said anything about 10-20 miles, I said the Natchitoches MSA which is more like what most people consider to be "Natchitoches" when discussing people that live there. I also gave numbers for the strict city limits.

>I'm not way out of line with reality,

You said over 4,500 Freshman girls come to Natchitoches each year. the actual number is much smaller than this so I was correcting your way-off estimate. You then tried to justify your estimate by claiming that the numbers were higher when you were there. I again gave you the correct numbers that showed this was not the case.

Someone that consistently misunderstands and misinterprets clear contradictory evidence shouldn't throw the word "retarded" around so freely.

>justify your pitiful argument by consistently excluding students from 2 colleges and 3 high schools

"My pitiful argument" consists of the actual, correct population numbers, they don't need justification to any reasonable person. I excluded nothing. The numbers I gave included the Scholars College (total enrollment 108). The numbers in the first post didn't include grad students because you had specified incoming Freshmen.

My entire point was that "a city with about 15-16,000 people and have an influx of about 9000 freshmen, over half of which are totally legal females on their own for the first time and ready to party!AND it happens EVERY fall!" is not an accurate description of Natchitoches. I then provided evidence to support this. Then you rambled, changed the subject, and flung ad hominem arguments to deflect the fact that you are unable of admitting when you're wrong, just like when you couldn't read and comprehend LA's castle doctrine statute.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>The bill DOES NOT specify freshmen only.

I never said it did, You were the one that specified Freshmen-only:

"...have an influx of about 9000 freshmen..."

More of your crap that I didn't read after you choose to make your very first point out of pure crap

I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman. My original statement was neither misleading nor unclear in any way as we can ALL see in your quote of my text. You didn't even bother to add ONLY to my text, dummy!! (see people, I'm trying)

As I have stated in just about every post now, you are creating arguments out of nothing just for the sake of arguing and that's why you'll remain on my ignore list. I specifically asked you in my previous post to refrain from such activity and your post above shows a blatant disregard for my wishes as well as noncompliance with the Admin's wishes to keep threads on topic.

Should I choose, at some point in the future, to start reading your posts again , feel free to remind me again why you were on my ignore list in the first place.


Have a nice day.

[joepole]

>I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman.

If you cannot see that contradiction then I am genuinely surprised you have the motor function to operate a computer keyboard.

>My original statement was neither misleading nor unclear in any way as we can ALL see in your quote of my text.

Correct, it was neither misleading nor unclear, it was just wrong. I corrected it. then you changed the subject.

>you are creating arguments out of nothing just for the sake of arguing

I corrected your erroneous numbers and then you began arguing against my actual, factual, legitimate numbers with ad hominem and straw man arguments.

>feel free to remind me again why you were on my ignore list in the first place.

We all know why, because I constantly correct you erroneous posts.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Joepole you have it nailed and you can not talk to a tree stump and expect it to listen. Good post Joepole