Home | Forums | Links | About Us / Rules | Admin Team | Donate



An oasis of independent thought

.... A New Day Is Dawning ...

 

 

JOIN THE BLUE REVOLUTION - Blue Donor stars for this year's fundrive!!  

 


Click here to view: The Impact of Violence in Gaza || Click here to donate to Gaza

Please donate
 Thu Sep 09th 2010, 05:54 AM (-8 GMT)
Top Top Forums Elections & Voting Rights
Welcome to our newest member Jamastiene1850 registered members | First-time visitor? Please register
The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem: A Polling Simulation [View all]
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Reply #7: Excellent - Very Easy to Understand - Good points
sunshinekathy  Click to send a private message to this memberClick to view this member's profileClick to view posts by this memberClick to add this member to your buddy list
Member since Oct 31st 2005
231 posts
Mon May-01-06 08:58 PM
In response to Original Post

Edited by sunshinekathy on Sun May-07-06 12:09 PM

Great Truthisall.

Glad to see you're feeling better.

I sent part of this post and a link to it, to the email list for statisticians of the National Election Data Archive.

I'm trying to get ready for the upcoming AAPOR.org conference.

Would you want to create a one page (2-sided) handout for me to give out there?

I'm readying my own handout (2 page- 2 sided) but its sole purpose is restricted to debunking all the mathematical hogwash that has been proferred by Liddle, Lindeman, ESI, and Mitofsky. (this is really important because they've hoodwinked so many people and plan to hoodwink the entire country in upcoming elections if they can).

Can you believe it - the AAPOR put the self-serving Liddle Liar in charge of the entire topic of whether or not the 2004 election was miscounted or not.

(I say that Liddle is a liar because I began reading the latest rev of her paper and found six lies and mischaracterizations on just the first page of it! She even claims that the volunteer statisticians are "working for" the National Election Data Archive as though they were paid, when in truth she is the only one whoring herself for money and throwing all truth to the wind to support Mitofsky's position. She even made false claims about her paper being the first to present certain facts that we presented in our March 31st paper! Her entire valid claim to fame consists of noticing that the shape of exit poll discrepancy by partisanship is curved - a fact which we would have noticed ourselves within days if she had not noticed it first. It was easy for Lying Liddle to notice since she was not contributing to our paper or doing any of the nitty gritty work to create it - only reading it - and being the completely self-serving person she is, the first time she noticed one tiny thing that the rest of us had not yet noticed, she published independently to gain credit for herself rather than contribute to the group like the rest of us were doing. She didn't do any of our derivations of any formulas for analyzing exit poll discrepancy).

Everything else Liddle has done re. exit poll analysis has been bogus nonsense which is mathematically invalid - including half of the obfuscated junk in her first paper and the parts she did get right were when she used the email list for statisticians to pick our brains - until we finally removed her from the list for her disruptive lying mischaracterization and her almost complete lack of logical ability - yet the AAPOR put her in charge of the AAPOR session on the integrity of the 2004 election as though she has made a significant contribution. Liddle penchant is to "distort the truth, then analyze ad infinitum the distortion as if it were fact" and unfortunately the vast majority never check her every word, and find it incredulous that someone would waste as much time as Liddle does analyzing dishonest distortions, so her whoring lies for Mitofsky end up being believed by people who don't have time or enough skill to doublecheck the work themselves.

The AAPOR has also arranged to give Liddle and Lindeman the last say (be the last two speakers) and have also arranged to have 3 people on their side versus 2 people telling the truth. Although the 3rd person has not to my knowledge yet done research on this issue except about voter disenfranchisement so I believe they may have included him to make the case that the exit poll discrepancy was exascerbated by not counting provisional ballots of minority voters - which is a good point.

Such a nice personality Liddle has - like most lying con artists.

I have just edited this post upon request from Liddle who said Mitofsky is not paying for her AAPOR conference attendance; Liddle said that she "was prepared to pay my own way, but the convenor of the panel, David Moore, arranged some funding, for which I am very grateful."

Liddle also informed me that TIA is still very ill. I am very sorry to hear that.

Any help you might want to provide to get ready for this upcoming May 17th AAPOR conference to fight off the lying Liddle and her Liddlisms would be appreciated.

TruthisAll - this was a great post because you really worked hard to make it clear. Often in the past I haven 't followed your posts.

If anyone would have the time to possibly condense the most important points of this post to a one page two-sided handout and fund printing it up for distribution at the AAPOR conference? If so, I will religiously hand it out to the conference attendees.


Kathy Dopp
US Count Votes, President
http://electionarchive.org

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Permalink | | Reply

9 replies to this thread:
The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem: A Polling Simulation [View all] , TruthIsAll, Thu Dec-08-05 09:26 AM
#1: Required Reading. A masterpiece...and in plain English., autorank, Dec 13th 2005
#2: If you don't have Excel and want to see a sample simulation, TruthIsAll, Dec 31st 2005
#3: Kick, usul, Apr 15th 2006
#4: here you go..., autorank, Apr 17th 2006
#5: The Law of large numbers in relation to...., stealermachine, Apr 25th 2006
#6: You've got that right. Great web site too., autorank, Apr 29th 2006
#9: Yep., stealermachine, May 12th 2006
#7: Excellent - Very Easy to Understand - Good points, sunshinekathy, May 01st 2006
#8: Kathy, davidgmills, May 07th 2006
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Important Notice: By participating on this discussion board, you agree to respect the rules of this website. Messages posted on Progressive Independent are the opinions of their authors and do not represent the opinions of Progressive Independent, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Multimedia | Reference | Links | Donate

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.