Reply #43: for the record

[OnTheOtherHand]

"So why aren't any statiticians assigning a numeric value to these items:"

As I've already noted, actually that isn't true. But on a board where TIA passes as a statistician, I can understand your confusion. (It's true that we don't have the data that would allow us to give precise answers.)

The truth is, no one needs a degree in statistics -- or any knowledge of statistics whatsoever -- to see through a lot of TIA's claims. It does require the patience to filter out lots of the handwaving and focus on specific assertions that don't stand up.

A lot of good people have busted their butts trying to figure out how many people may have been affected by all the bad stuff in 2004. Many of them are doing their part not only to understand the past but to improve the future. There isn't much room for them here, because they subscribe to a professional norm of reality-testing that many on DU seem not to understand.

To me it seems grimly fatalistic to recommend an OP that you (is this fair?) find incomprehensible. (I would hazard that you find it incomprehensible not just because you aren't a statistician, but because TIA doesn't write well. Heck of a way to keep a discussion going, isn't it?) But I do understand that for many people here, what TIA's posts mean is no more or less than a validation of their beliefs and fears about 2004. Responding to his posts as if they were intended to convey specific meaning -- well, it seems bizarre. I suppose it is bizarre. But from time to time, I encounter people who assumed that TIA actually makes sense, and I think they have a right to know the truth.

(I can talk about Mitofsky if you want, but I'm guessing not so much. Let me know.)

If we were learning useful things from TIA, I would be fine with that -- but since we aren't, I would rather get and keep the discussion going around how to fix elections.