Did you read it? Or are you just cherry picking from my quote?
Because the entire article is about how it is difficult to measure these things, and discussing the many different ways which have been tried. The 11% is actually UP TO 11%. Not exactly, not just below, using up to indicates a range of figures and that 11 is the highest. Different analyses (not the one based on our SuppHomReport figures) have come up with different answers.
Similarly the 40-50 % is from "Researchers that use city- and State-generated databases for analysis". So not the national SHR data which is used in most general studies. Again, the whole piece is about different methods yielding different results, and of course there are variations from year to year and place to place as well. Thats just how the world is.
It isn't a matter of you finding the proper equation. Try reading footnotes or even opening paragraphs before arguing the toss next time, or better still avoid arguing over numbers altogether. As soon as the source data was found, and that first footnote about ex-wifes etc was found it was obvious you were wrong and you have done the opposite of covering yourself in glory by arguing over it ever since. That set of FBI statistics just is not as malleable as a lot of the evidence in this case. The other poster who was mocking you was being shtty, but they were right. Whereas I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are obviously keen, so perhaps you could take a course. Or, if that sounds like too much effort, do me a favour and just avoid discussing numbers on here from now on, and have a new podcast recommendation - it is both funny and informative. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless