What's your opinion on TruthIsAll: Genius or Fool?

[LeftCoast]

There's been considerable debate about TIA's statistical analysis and I'm curious to see the general numbers. Who believes what?

I get the impression that a lot of people don't want to chime in on this fight so here's a way to register your opinion without getting flamed.

[shadowknows69]

1. edited because I'm a dunce

move along nothing to see here.

[LeftCoast]

2. TIA is not a DUer

I also wouldn't exactly call it ridicule...but whatevah!

[salin]

15. I dunno

given that he can't defend himself at DU anymore - it seems rather... unseemly - and personal (not talking about his work - but characterizing him, himself.) No thanks.

[Peace Patriot]

3. I would choose no. 2 for the pollster. n/t

[KoKo]

4. Why do this? TIA was a former DU'er. n/t

[LeftCoast]

5. Do what?

[asthmaticeog]

6. Since he's been banned and can't defend himself...

...(though apparently it's OK for him to continue posting by proxies :eyes:) I don't think this is fair.

[aquart]

7. I'm sorry, but where is the reasoned refutation?

If you think he's bunk, prove it. That's fine. But the guesses of non-statisticians are worth what? Less than nothing?

This poll is deliberate flamebait.

[Demit]

8. I'm not worried about registering my opinion and getting flamed.

I think posts like yours should contain more information about a subject, or at least links to the debate you are referring to, before setting up such an either-or construct like "genius or fool". And TIA used to be a member, so though you might not be exactly violating the rules about casting aspersions on members, I have to wonder what your purpose here is.

[eyesroll]

13. Oh, no, apparently we are allowed to cast aspersions on former members.

Otherwise there is a post from yesterday, wherein one DUer in good standing remarked about a banned DUer that he "threw up a bit in mouth" at the thought of reproducing with her (it was a "put two DUers together and name their offspring" Lounge thread), that I alerted on as a personal attack, and was still there the last time I checked.

So, TIA is fair game, I think.

And in any case -- I suppose we shouldn't call HIM a fool. But we can say his posts or statistics are foolish (or whatever -- as I do not understand them, I can't say). It's not against the rules to say someones methodologies or ideas lack merit (and it's not against the rules to use coarse language to say so, either).

[tbyg52]

9. I voted for "no idea"

Because I cannot make heads or tails of it. Sorry, I'm not trained in statistics. I'd *like* to be able to understand it....

[yella_dawg]

10. Why don't we just go to his house and spit on him?

I mean, since we are willing to humiliate him behind his back, let's just do it in person.

[EFerrari]

11. What an incredibly inappropriate gesture.

[eyesroll]

12. Banned DUer who, in the interest of consistency, should not be able to post via proxy.

Otherwise, I can think of a few banned DUers who would love to send y'all a message through my account.

Anyhow.

As I am not a statistician and therefore I've never been able to figure out just from whose ass his methods are pulled, I will refrain from answering the genius-or-fool question directly. I will elaborate on the fool part: If I can't understand what he's posting because I don't understand statistics, then I'm the fool. If I can't understand what he's posting because what he's posting is at best arbitrary and at worst full of shit, then he is.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. I haven't seen Skinner's response to TIA's defence of his use of the

generic exit polls, but in any event, I'm not competent to express and opinion. Even a tentative one was foolish.

Of course, this will be interepreted by the slippery apologists for the non-fraudulent output of the voting machines as yielding to their arguments, when it is nothing of the kind. I wpuldn't know what they're gibbering about from a hole in the ground - which I'm sure would be much more interesting.

What I do know is that, apart from all the other evidence of fraud and voter suppression, and with all the evidence of grostesque machine malfunctions EVEN IN THIS ELECTION (cited in detail further up the thread in an associated link), ALMOST ALWAYS AT DEMOCRATIC VOTING CENTRES IN HISTORICALLY HEAVILY PRO-DEMOCRATIC DISTIRCTS INHABITED BY MARGINALISED, MINORITY VOTERS, OTOH and febble manage to spend weeks on this board trying to tell us that the machines aren't worth looking at for evidence of fraud.

Nor, evidently, does the neocons adducing copyright to forbid anyone to inspect the machines or their software strike them as very persuasive circumstantial evidence that they have a lot to hide of no little significance to the probity of their voting-machine elections. AS Enrnest Partridge put it, it's like a man at an airport, refusing to open his case for the Customs officers or let the sniffer dogs near it. Privatised elections, by courtesy of a company whose CEO was a highly vocal and munificent supporter of the Republican Party.

I won't be wasting more of my time satirisng you.

[pinto]

16. Locking.

This seems gratuitous flame bait.

Thanks.