Comments on: Maybe we should hire Diebold

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:07:47 +0000

So what’s up with he vote totals now? 20,000 even? Seems fishy, this whole poll has no credibility in my book.

By: The Centipede

The Centipede — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:50:19 +0000

Bwain:

Apology accepted. I’ll admit I was somewhat miffed, but I know that such things happen and so I’m certainly not going to hold it against you.

Truce?

>> I might have jumped to conclusions, but then that seems to be a difference in our approaches to science.

Ah, but these are internet postings, which have a bit more to do with diplomacy and communications than science. I’ve made the ‘limited data set conclusion’ many times in my life and been wrong enough and burnt enough to try and be careful of such things nowadays. Prevents the added aggravation which may prevent further evidence from ever coming along.

By: jfatz

jfatz — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:05:35 +0000

Moose: Philâ€™s well known as an established Farker. That has always had a lot of currency on Fark.

I guess more of an “in the past” thing after setting up his own site, eh? I don’t recall running across a post of his since I started following BAB a while back, and I think we’re likely to visit the same kinds of threads.

At any rate, I was not insinuating he created an account just to get people to show up and vote, but rather to say I was amused to see his comment in the thread, and in general to point out that a Fark-mention is not likely to work out favorably. Hehe…

By: papertiger

papertiger — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:52:46 +0000

If, say, papertiger were to call on CAâ€™s mad statistikx skillz to be brought to bear on the voting patterns, that might be a good startâ€¦

Is it a call for a Florida style recount I’m hearing? Cool with me.
But nix the hanging chad crap.
Have your lawyer contact my lawyer.

By: Bwian

Bwian — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:14:46 +0000

“I think you missed the part where I was posting on this blog long before the weblog awards.”

Indeed I did. I just saw 8 comments, none of them particularly vitriolic, followed by 2 saying “Don’t be so vitriolic!”. I might have jumped to conclusions, but then that seems to be a difference in our approaches to science. I think you can form a tentative conclusion based on 10 data points, and use that as a guideline unless later data shows you wrong.

Key to that approach, of course, is to be open to new data. I appologize for calling you a concern troll; that seems to have been a premature conclusion. I do not appologize in the case of some other posters, although I’d be happy to get new data in their case as well. If, say, papertiger were to call on CA’s mad statistikx skillz to be brought to bear on the voting patterns, that might be a good start…

By: bjswift

bjswift — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:43:24 +0000

Makes my heart sad. I voted for you every day, Phil!

By: The Centipede

The Centipede — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:31:42 +0000

Ibrahim:

I understand where you’re coming from and I don’t disagree. I do wonder though why it was directed at me when all I’ve been saying throughout is:

1) We can get through this without ideological vitriol

and

2) both sides have probably cheated.

*thwaps papertiger*

Okay, the childish gloating’s wearing thin. Worn thin. Worn to the bone.