Reply #73: Lame. [View All]

[The Doctor.]

If this isn't evidence of Psuedo-Intellectual Condescension; "(you just invented the term 'AWPE' in a statistical context)" when it should have been obvious I was using the extant term "absolute WPE", which would read "Absolute Within Percent Error", and turning it into an acronym for brevity's sake, then no such thing as PIC exists.

I'm very familiar with what MOE means. I was using it as an index as the function of the WPE is comparable to the funtional basis of the MOE. Either you couldn't figure that out, or you're just looking for something to be a prick about.


You wanted proof, I gave you the link, your response is "I didn't ask for a link".

It's apparent that, for whatever reason, you want to dismiss much of the uncomfortable facts and focus on a point of barely pertinent minutia.

You say that 'exit poll have been wrong before' without knowing for certain whether there was fraud on those occasions, forget the fact that in the last 8 years, my statement seems to hold true.

You would rather avoid going to one of the best resources for information than educate yourself, and your lame excuse is that it's a "link". I suppose if someone provides a link to anything, you will be just as dismissive if your aim is condescension.

Go learn some stuff. If you have specific questions, I'll answer them until you've proven you're really not interested in election fraud.