Reply #22: "... behavioural arguments, not mathematical. I do not dispute your math."

[autorank]

That's why I included the link. That's my favorite febble line. The behavioral arguments are up for grabs but there are inferences that can be made.

One of the strongest inferences is that "they've got something to hide." Land Shark will understand this from his court room experience but it's axiomatic for the masses.

If EM and the Network consortium have "nothing to hide" they would release the EM data in a verifiable way (to let us know it's really what was collected). They would do this in a way that protected any confidentiality concerns (which happens all the time in other fields and is done well). People would examine the record, which really belongs to us just like a picture belongs to us when someone takes it without our invitation.

Then we would know the truth. But the networks and EM will not release and open up the data to full, intense inspection. It's our election after all, if it hadn't occurred, they would have no product.

Open the files, free the data. You can support that as can OTOH (actually I think he has).

Why don't the two of you write a public letter to EM and the Network consortium, publish it in the NY Times, and we'll settle this?