You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #34: I have sliced and diced the numbers every way from Sunday. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I have sliced and diced the numbers every way from Sunday.
Edited on Fri Jun-24-05 12:15 PM by TruthIsAll
You say, I have argued badly for fraud. No, you have argued badly for NO FRAUD.

No one, you included, has refuted the correctness of my input data or the calculations which use them. The data is publicly available. The calculations are presented for anyone to duplicate.

THE NUMBERS ARE NO LONGER SILENTLY SCREAMING.
THEY ARE SCREAMING LOUD AND CLEAR.

You voted for Kerry?
You could have fooled me.

Where is the outrage?
Where is the analysis?

I challenge you to rebut any of my 100+ threads, including this one, with more than just hypothetical meanderings.

Do the work. I already did. You have 100+ permutations and combinations of exit poll analyses to tear apart. Saying that I argue badly for fraud is intellectual fraud on your part. That's a copout.

Let's face it. You are defying basic logic. It's rBr or its NEP.
You would like to have BOTH. But you can't. One disproves the other.

The conundrum you are facing cannot be undone by just saying that I argue "badly". You are a victim of your own intransigence. You appear to have a very closed mind.

Right now, I can think of just two instances where Duers have found glitches in my calculations. I acknowledged and incorporated both of them. In neither case did they have they have a material impact on the result, but of course I fixed them anyway. As a quantitative engineer/analyst, that is what I have always done and will do.

One change came from you regarding the optimization model. In the other, a DUer found a slight input error in the Excel binomial distribution probability function. The odds went from 1 in 19 trillion to 1 in 13.5 trillion that Bush would exceed the MoE in 16 of 51 states.

The preponderance of evidence says that Bush lost both the electoral AND popular vote. Until you can undue the overwhelming physical and circumstantial mathematical evidence, I suggest that your arguments no longer have any "weight", just like the 43-37 How Voted 2000 weight and all other Final NEP "weights". They are nothing but pure contrivances which have been incorporated to match a bogus vote count.

The Exit Poll Timeline is like OJ's blood trail. OJ got off because the jury was stacked in his favor. So far, Bush has gotten off because the jury (NEP/MSM) has the evidence - and they won't reveal it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC