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

Reply #135: Whatever the premise, [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
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
135. Whatever the premise,
Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 11:33 PM by Bouvet_Island
I notice and I mean I read your threads since before the election, I noticed that you only calculate STANDARD MARGIN OF ERROR.

Which, as I believe your stack of statistics books will tell yah, it only regards the kinda error you get under straight flush perfect conditions.

Like, it does only say something about the error you get because the poll wasnt large enough. Like if you draw a map of the world, you make it smaller than the earth itself, your plastic globus perhaps isnt precise enough to plan your sightseeing inside New York and your tourist map of New York might not have that tiny side street on it? Please clarify, this is the problem you are talking about?

It actually doesnt say anything about any other possible human or machine error, no matter the cause or intent? So, to give a direct answer to your question, if the world would adhere to really really simple rules like in Microsoft Minesweeper tm or Ludo, your logic would be a full 100% correct. I mean given that noone used the official cheat to Minesweeper tm?

It just seems to me that anything beyond that simply arent analysized in your analisysus or calculacated in your calculacations? So, clearly, Deep blue would simply have to agree, given that the pawn have no mind of it own to tell it to move sideways facing the queen, its check mate?

I mean if there are or were no sources of error in any science, at any time through history, beyond sampling error, I mean then your logic is as hard as the diamond and to be frank as flat as flat earth.

And if else you are simply not that sure about your point as you say, I mean since if there were other things to consider, I mean then you would say so? That the margin of error could just as well be 20% as .3% for such a complex material as the US vote count, depending on HUMAN FACTORS. That if say Mr MITOFSKY is a raving loon or as previously discussed here a Bush Croonie, that your point here could go both ways? That if the leaked polls were planned, that it would mean that nothing of what you say would be correct? How on earth can you be sure the Leaked polls wasnt a trick, that it was intended as distraction? Whats your material?

Now to "change the subject" or "spin" or whatever you might like to call it. I have a question, I read a fair amount of your stuff and in particular I just read this whole thread, I believe I have the right.

1. What on earth gives You the right to act errh RUDE (or substitute) with anyone of different opinion on the particular question of Exit Polling Methodology and Results, given that they still count themselves at our side, or at least lending us their ear? I mean about every single thread you post here is like watching the Hindenburg land, to quote your own title ""EXIT POLL NAYSAYERS: HERE'S A 3RD GRADE ARITHMETIC TEST FOR YOU."

In grown up terms you are calling me, being of a different opinion than you on a question so *mhmfffh* marginal given what we really are talking about, US election fraud since the 19th century and in particular the past few elections, and in many cases I mean we are *talking* about it, we are having civilized and open discussions about it, considering both sides of the question, trying to give our own arguments the same critical treatment we give our opponents. And before I even get to read your *mfmmfm mfm point, You are calling me a Naysayer, sorry, A NAYSAYER, NEGATIVE a description as is.

To illustrate my point I am calling you to your face a YES-SAYER, I sincerely believe you are saying to much "yes" for your points to be scientificly valid. Notice how you sound Positive and I, I the NAY-SAYHYENA, I sound NEGATIVE.

And frankly I suspect the reality is the direct opposite, I just got a job as a cook on an Island in the Mexican Gulf! :] Wohooo! How about that !?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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