yeah, you're right. Misquoted right out the encyclopedia. What ever you say champ.

And for the record... Look at whos dissagreeing with me...

People sympathetic to who your arguing for.. People with a pre-concieved bias towards your argument simply cause I'm the big bad guy whos being realistic...

You little clown..........

Apexx. "Black people in australia 1%"

Encyclopedia. "Aborigionals 1%"

???????

ok, watch this....Who am I "arguing for"? In two words or less, instead of a long ass blabber about something irrelevant again.




There you go assuming again. "Aboriginals AND OTHER". ALL other races are accounted for, white, middle eastern, asian....then "Aborigianals" (who are obviously black) and "other" hmmmm..........lets see...it's certainly not other birds. it's certianly not other cars, or other shoes......what could it possibly be hmmmm...... Other...other....hmmmm...


cmon son. you'd be a dumbass not to see that "other" means "other blacks". There's no other category thats even close, not asian, not middle eastern, and not white, which to any logical human being would mean "other blacks".


You're beyond ignorant. You're to the point of conveniently adding and subtracting shit to suit what ever you want to assume.


Which is why it's been so easy to make you look dumb. Technically, I'm letting you make your self look dumb and simply pointing it out. Yay.


I gotta send you an Apexx bobble-head so you can sweat me in the privacy of your own home son. you're embarassing your self now.

No.. It said 1% aborigionals.. You are ASSUMING that it meant all black people...

What are you, fucken retarded?

false. You're ASSUMING that it said "1% aboriginals" but watch this:


From right here (for the 3rd time):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy


I wonder who the "other" could be!! All other races are mentioned except black, yet aboriginals are black..so lets see how hard it is to figure out what "other" might possibly be. The same "other" that you once again assumed wasn't there has been there, in the article you're too ignorant to read, STILL.

Like I just said:

You should find some way to make money off of making your self look stupid, because it's one thing you excell at. Maybe clown college is the way!

HAHAHAHHA You know what other means dude?

Torris strait islanders..

BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.... Apexx.. Things like this report do not tell you everything.. Your not an expert..


Omg.. Just go crawl into a corner and die.. LMFAO

So
92% white
+7% asian and/or middle eastern
+1% Aboriginal/"other"
--------------------
= 100%

So the black people that you say is missing and unnacounted for from your national CENSCUS that "dosen't tell you everything" what percentage are they over this 100%? another 13%? 15%?

You can't even count man. First you deny that it says "and other" then you try to make up something for the same words you KNEW weren't there in the first place - and now you can't even count!!!!

Why do you bother? Do you hate your self?

1) These statistics you claim are not from a few days ago like you assumed...

We havnt had a cencus for ages.. (And I would know.. I AM in this country remember)...

2) These statistics are not very exact either... There is no source that they can get exact information like this.
Your assuming a lot of things in your own argument...... And you dont even realise it..

But look.. I am not interested in continually arguing with you about how many friggen black people there are in the country over some statistics from a fair while ago that are meaningless to the fact that this country is heavily populated with forigners...

I mean shit apexx.. What ARE you trying to prove?

The oldest source on that page is from feb 2006. It says so right in the "History" tab. Please learn to read.

Also, what happened to this "other" that you didn't even think existed, where'd that come from??? You swore that I made that up and I sure didn't. You swore that this info is old, and it ain't older thna feb 06.

Wanna try again? Here's the question:

How the hell can they get info from feb 06 when there was no census in feb 06?

Sure that page might have been updated in feb 06 with information about the race riots...

But there is no possible way they could have obtained any new information on that date about statistics of different color percentages..

Your arguments are dumb... Just face it and move on.. Theres no point arguign with you because your not being intelligent here.. Your just nit picking and pretending to be right.... I have no interest in discussing anything with you....

And the 'other' is torris straight islanders.. I knew other looked weird.. And then it clicked....

mmmmm NAH, Not buyin it. You're still duckin the issue. Here it is again

Now you got 2 questions to answer in this thread alone

The oldest source on that page is from feb 2006. It says so right in the "History" tab. Please learn to read.

1: Also, what happened to this "other" that you didn't even think existed, where'd that come from??? You swore that I made that up and I sure didn't. You swore that this info is old, and it ain't older thna feb 06.

2: Quote:
So
92% white
+7% asian and/or middle eastern
+1% Aboriginal/"other"
--------------------
= 100%

So the black people that you say is missing and unnacounted for from your national CENSCUS that "dosen't tell you everything" what percentage are they over this 100%? another 13%? 15%?

You can't even count man. First you deny that it says "and other" then you try to make up something for the same words you KNEW weren't there in the first place - and now you can't even count!!!!

Why do you bother? Do you hate your self?



Now you're saying I shouldn't believe the census and should believe you. And when you're pinpointed on a real issue, liek a complete lie, you call it "nitpicking" lmao.

And I still haven't seen where there's a a missing portion of this 100% for black people kid. You seem to conveniently forget!

Because there is no way that they could pull that information out of their ass and have it be 100% correct..

Apexx there IS guesswork in those figures..
You assume them to be fact..

And even though a census doesent cover skin pigment (which inevidibly means they are assuming peoples color based on the part of the world they are from, which = guesswork).. And a cencus hasnt been carried out for looooong before feb 06..

What your saying has no real backing.. The other exists as part of the 92% white residents as a margin of error that you so convieniently fail to take into consideration..

Say what you like. But your not gonna win this argument.

You obviously don't know how a census works. They don't guess your race, you TELL them your race. The numbers aren't guesses, they're figures accumulated from accounted-for people.

But now you're telling me that the census is wrong, and you're right.

Once again, whered this "AND OTHER" come from that you said didn't exist. And where do black people factor into an equasion goes exactly liek this, if according to you...the census forgot to mention black people

92% white
+7% asian and/or middle eastern
+1% Aboriginal/"other"
--------------------
= 100%

If other isn't inclusive of black people, where does black people factor in on this? Under middle eastern/asian? Oh wait....yeah...you're right...under whites....

Oh no, you were saying there's a percentage missing and that percentage is the black statistic. What "magically missing" percentage is that on top of this 100%?

I know how a cencus works.. Where do you think there is a section that says..

"Tick the box of your color Black .....Yellow....White...........Green"..

Apexx lets not be silly here..

Just admit your wrong and its all good... Lmfao :thumbup: