How do we have engaging, civilized debate around here?

There are things worth airing that have more than one side. The truth is a big multifaceted place. Words only dance around the edges of it. I like dissenting information because sometimes it brings truth into sharper relief. This place can be a drag when it gets hit too hard with Freeps but it is also a bit of a drag when we only preach to the choir. What does it take for us to civilly look at dissenting or discrepant data?
I'm confident in the truth and what's more I'm interested in finding out about things I don't already know. How can we make this happen?
How do others feel about this? What do others think?

:-)

When I think that this country is safe from becoming fascist, then I will want to discuss the little things. Right now I am focused on saving the country from disaster.

I had in mind as well as collecting evidence to kick the fascists out. These are emotional topics with a range of charged opinions. I was wondering how we might look at them a bit more civilly and objectively as a group?
(Sorry, I forget other folks talk about other things than saving democracy and election fraud in their spare time so I neglected to specify topic.)

you can a civilized debate on around here. I would settle for a civilized debate on Tom Cruise.

:-)

Good to review what any individual has said in their past to get a thorough understanding of where they are coming from. Advanced searches can be very useful if you want to understand someone's history and can be helpful making a decision about where they are coming from.

edit for clarity..

to have a good debate on election fraud. This includes maintaining a positive tone, sticking to substance, ignoring provocation wherever possible, and carefully selecting which replies and threads to post in.

DU does a better job than most boards, but maintaining civility is an impossible task.

I was definitely not referring to our conversations, but a lot of the other comments that were swirling about.

I've been here since January 2001, but I've been called a Freeper more often in the last month than in the previous four years put together. (That was when I decided to start posting in the election fraud threads again.)

I think this is the way to approach the issue. Use the analogy suggested by many: Can you have a democracy when the votes are counted in a locked room in secret by only the extreme partisans of one side or the other and where the results cannot be questioned, no audits or recounts, in fact in 30% of the cases where it's impossible to even have an audit or recount, where even the elections officials are kept out, where you're labeled a conspiracy theorist if you even question the outcome?

If you approach it from that angle, you are at least being civil. You can't control the reactions of others. It seems obvious to me the issue cuts across party lines. You can always qualify any statement about fair voting by noting that it is perhaps the most bi-partisan issue possible. What are the requirements for democratic voting?

DU is already a good place to discuss our varied opinions. Liberalism is not one opinion on all topics. Its what seperates 'us' from 'them'. One can disagree with someone else, and as long as it is civil, and not an overtly conservitive viewpoint, it will be heard.

The problem is, how will it happen?

And more to the point, have we ever had it?

Neither side in today's political spectrum is innocent of rude speech. However, and I admit my bias, it seems the Neo-cons are over the top- taking no time to attack the issues itself, but rather the messenger.

Compare articles by each side's most venting syndicated columnists: the Left's Ted Rall (who once inferred "hero" Pat Tillman was an idiot for swallowing the administration's lies and dying for them) and the Right's Anne Coulter. The majority of Rall's work focuses on attacking the policies of this administration. Sometimes, though, he attacks Bush or the other members of his cabal directly, but these attacks are usually focused on the motivations of these greedy oilmen and their lackeys. He is also quick to attack anyone who, on the surface, would appear to already be on his "side"- capitulating Democrats, hypocritical liberals, etc.

Coulter, on the other hand, prefers to begin by attacking her targets directly, ignoring the issues, often focusing on, of all things, the perceived sexuality of anyone who is not 100% in line with the neo-cons (i.e., "girlie-men").

Is this much different from the heady days of yellow journalism in the days of Hearst, when it was not considered unseemly to mention racial origins as motives for crimes?

While not old enough to be able to rely on first-hand experience of the political spectrum of the post-Watergate 70's, is it possible the Republicans seemed so much more polite from that time to the Gingerinch revolution because they were not in charge of Congress?

Now that they are in charge, are they going to grab as much as they can before enough of the United States wakes up and restores the balance of power to the liberals? This would explain the vicious attitude they have to power, like a dog growling when they sense a hand nearing their supper dish.

Evil Kumquat

These are very difficult times. I've never been so concerned and afraid for the fate of the world as I have been since November 3rd.

Therefore, even though I've been attacked a fair amount lately (for you know what), still I can understand the motivation of those who do it, even though I disagree with them.

I think that a lot of people who frequent this forum are seriously paranoid -- and probably people in this country today have reason to feel paranoid.

I guess it's too much to ask for an organization with 60,000 people (is that how many people belong to DU?) that there won't be some people who are so unbalanced that they can't or won't act civilly or abstain from being disruptive. So I guess that we just have to handle them as best we can, without getting too upset ourselves. Reply honestly but quietly, and then ignore them if they persist. That's easy to say, and I probably have not done that as well as I should lately. But we should keep on trying.

with folks' paranoia, although I too understand it and have been known to share it.

If someone is a troll, which is what we are mostly paranoid about or if our threads are being turned to evil purpose, which is another thing we get paranoid about, there are civil ways to deal with this. There are Alert buttons. There are pms to your friends to help you out. There are your own (again) civil, but brilliantly slicing to Ideas (not persons) posts. There are remedies to our concerns that still allow for discourse. I hope we can remember to use them.

and Reform group. It's been a bit rowdy around here lately. hence the topic...(btw my daughter loves your name and now wants to be evilkiwi..She is 12 but already an activist...):hi:

edit sp

buy yourself a ring! OK, OK, just kidding again. What can I tell you? I'm a kidder.

One of the things we can do is to not focus on any one piece of evidence for the fraud to the exclusion of others. To do so is to be unproductive and also to develop a true-believer mentality -- sort of like a Bush supporter. If the exit polls turn out to be junk, think of how badly some of us will feel and for no good reason at all.

Look, it's bad enough that Shrub got the Aug 6, 2001 PDB a month before 9/11 and did absolutely nothing about it. Probably didn't even read it, esp. Page 2. That's the part about preparations for hijackings and attacks on buildings in New York. Duuuuuuhhhhh!

This should have been enough for him to be removed from office, right? So what difference does it make if he planned 9/11 and flew those planes himself by remote control using that thing inside his suit jacket? The result is the same -- it's totally unacceptable.

Now, it's also bad enough that elections have been privatized and vote counting can't be verified and is conducted largely in secret, right?

So what difference does it make if the election was actually stolen by count corruption by Karl Rove personally or if the exit polls don't match the vote count due to reluctant responders or reluctant Kerry voters who decided to stay home on election day? Either way the situation is unacceptable.

Even if Bush really won, the situation is unacceptable!

Both are totally unacceptable and both need to be fixed. Even if the electoral process had removed Bush from office, it would still need to be fixed.

All this haggling over the precise magnitude and methodology of these crimes can be unproductive.

To argue that it would be worse for Bush to have planned 9/11 than to have ignored the warnings about it is to give him a pass for ignoring those warnings. He's guilty and that's that and he's been riding Bin Ladin's coattails ever since. (Why I don't do 9/11 forums!)

To argue that it's worse to actually steal an election than to enable same by privatizing the process and allowing secret vote counting is to give the voting machine companies and legislators a pass. They are guilty too, even some of the Democrats.

The rest is really trivial when you think about it -- mere points of interest in the larger scheme of things.

So I hope we can come together and try to rectify this situation without beating each other up about it because the latter is a huge waste of time.

Does this make any sense?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It overwhelms me even though i know it is important. I just work on VVPB so we can actually VOTE the jerks out of office and get our democracy back.
I like your close a lot..
To argue that it's worse to actually steal an election than to enable same by privatizing the process and allowing secret vote counting is to give the voting machine companies and legislators a pass. They are guilty too, even some of the Democrats.
( mg...TOO many DINO"S out there in Ohio and Florida esp messing with our ballots)

The rest is really trivial when you think about it -- mere points of interest in the larger scheme of things.

So I hope we can come together and try to rectify this situation without beating each other up about it because the latter is a huge waste of time.

(edit to talk about Bad DINO"s)

There can not be civilized debate between true-believers and skeptics. They do not share common assumptions about what happened and do not share common assumptions about the rules of the game. Therefore the true-believers look upon the skeptics as potential evil-doers, and the skeptics look upon the true-believers as irrational, intolerant and biased.

The USCV debate thread is a very good example.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=374482&mesg_id=374482

It's actually amusing. There is a messy scientific debate occurring simultaneously with an absolute defense of all arguments for election fraud by true believers/polemicists. By the rules of scientific debate, the true believers often look ridiculous in their arguments. By the rules of polemics, the true believers have crushed their "Trojan-horse" adversaries, whom they consider misguided at best, and evil at worst.

The only solution would be to segregate the groups. Since they will not segregate themselves, I think the most useful approach would be for members of each group to ignore the other. However that will not work for true-believers, since they need to defend their beliefs and it will not work for scientifically-minded skeptics because they have been trained to answer all serious criticisms.

The rules of the game lead to Stalemate.

I personally think that andym's description of what is happening here is pretty accurate, if the terms true-believers and skeptics apply mostly to rules of the game, and to how we treat our assumptions or beliefs about what happened. To me, the skepticism described by andym is a habit of mind, not a particular belief about the 2004 election. (I think this is what he means too.)

I am probably the most skeptical of the skeptics here, but that doesn't mean that I assume, or am here to argue, that fraud didn't happen or that Kerry didn't win the popular vote or any such thing. Time for change opened a post -- the first one of his I had read -- by saying he thought it was 97% or 99% likely that Kerry had won the popular vote, and I knew I didn't agree with that. I was thrilled! I figured I would learn something from him, and maybe vice versa. TruthIsAll asked for input on his optimizer, I found a glitch in a formula, he agreed and improved it. AFAIK we were both happy. We still disagree about what the results mean, but that's life.

"Scientific debate" isn't like Crossfire, or at least it isn't supposed to be. It's not the fraudsters vs. the naysayers. It's lots of people trying to reason together about lots of things, in order to determine what they agree about, what they disagree about, and how the disagreements might be resolved.

andym nails something at the end: people like me have been trained to answer all serious criticisms. On DU, I can't always tell whether a question is serious (i.e., the person is actually interested in my answer) or rhetorical (i.e., whatever I say will be used against me). And even if I'm sure the question is rhetorical, I always wonder whether someone out there might be seriously interested in the answer.

So, it would be tragic to segregate "the folks who believe in fraud" from "the folks who don't," but some sort of mutual benign neglect between what andym calls "the skeptics" and "the true-believers" would certainly make it easier for me to participate. Which, by his argument, is exactly what makes it unlikely. I think that is correct.

P.S. on edit: although no one is a pure skeptic or a pure true-believer, I think the number of hard-core true-believers is small.

"although no one is a pure skeptic or a pure true-believer, I think the number of hard-core true-believers is small".

The number of true-believers in fraud is growing every day -as the number of skeptics decline.

You are floating in classic denial - now.
Even you will come around and hop on the bandwagon of truth.

We are getting very near the tipping point of critical mass.
It is only a question of when, not if.

Was Stolen is growing everyday. That so many of of doubt the outcome is a call to the nation for more transparency in the process.
We Need Voter Verified Paper Ballots Now before 2006 gives us another disastrous election.

:hi:

Roll call everyone? I'm here and I know 2004 was stolen.

I'm here and I know 2004 was stolen.

it happening in the future! Great work !:hi:

(edit to clarify the "you" in the last graf)

Again, the skeptic vs. true-believer continuum doesn't have to do with whether one believes in fraud or not.

Time for change and I argue about this stuff, but it isn't a "debate," because we are on the same side, trying to answer the same questions. A lot of folks who seem to agree with TFC about fraud also seem to think that he is on the opposite side. A lot of people seem to think that Bruce O'Dell is on the opposite side. I don't see how that can be, but if we are going to be on opposite sides, maybe we should figure out what the sides are, which is what andym was trying to do. (I think some folks have proposed "academic" vs. "activist," but Bruce O'Dell has better activist credentials than most of us, so that doesn't seem right.) I guess like anything else on DU, if it doesn't work for you, you can ignore it.

I'm not going to make any predictions about how many people will believe in the future that the 2004 election was stolen. Time will tell. But I thank you, TIA, for giving me credit for being open to persuasion. And I totally agree with MelissaG (and you) that the status quo is intolerable. Arguing about who won an election 7 1/2 months ago -- that stinks. On that, I see no sides here.

I just think it is good to have civilized discussions like the DU rules say. It is good for folks to click on them once in a while to review.

that the rules would be written in our hearts, and manifest in our actions.

So if someone took a shot at someone else, out of passing pique or for whatever other reason, others -- from every discernible faction, or none at all -- could be counted on to intercede and say, "Let's not go there."

So the self-appointed enforcers would feel less welcome than the people they are enforcing against.

So people would go out of their way to cover the backs of the people they disagree with, as long as they were bona fide participants.

This is good. Everyone should have the experience of being in a stigmatized minority, and having a well-intentioned member of the majority say, "I don't think the status quo is intolerable. I'm pretty happy here."

Hey, I guess it isn't intolerable -- I'm still here. Happy? Sometimes.

Pretty much anyone can be a member here as long as they say they are a Dem and even some independents and greens also seem to make there way in. As long as you are obeying the rules you get to hang here.
Most of us are anonymous. We are just the sum of our words on the screen. If the sum of the words on the screen are comforting to folks' world view they trust you faster. Also if you deliver for the group, information, good feelings or valuable insights they also appreciate your merits faster.

If one come in giving folks who have no knowledge of you
a lot of lectures,(even if you they they are very deserving of them)as well as discordant information with the dominant world view. Well... it may take them a little while to warm up to you.

and I was too distracted to point it out. Sorry, I should have cleaned up the mess instead of creating a different one!

I had written: "...I thank you, TIA, for giving me credit for being open to persuasion. And I totally agree with MelissaG (and you) that the status quo is intolerable. Arguing about who won an election 7 1/2 months ago -- that stinks. On that, I see no sides here."

You (MelissaG) replied: "I don't think the status quo is intolerable. I'm pretty happy here."

That wasn't the status quo I meant, actually. I don't object to the fact that people on DU are arguing about who won the election -- some people may, but I don't. The status quo I meant was that the election system is broken, so that we have no way of knowing for sure who won the election, which is why we are having the argument. And we all agree that the country deserves and needs an election system that lets everyone know who won.

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?
--M. Lamar Keene

http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

If I were you, I'd argue that the self-proclaimed true believers are really the skeptics of the "official theory", and the skeptics are the ones clinging to false hope in the form of Mainstream-Media-Dogma.

If you were me, you'd respond by noting the Manichean strawman argument, and pointing out that few of the skeptics are defending the "official version of events", but instead are skeptical of faith-based conclusions in general, whether or not the "official version" is also faith-based.

To which me-as-TIA would respond: why do this on a board advocating activism? Isn't that throwing monkey-wrenches, and implicitly "helping" the "official version"?

To which TIA-as-me would respond: not at all; the truth is a much stronger argument than a persuasive-sounding falsehood.

</talmudic self-argument>

The terms skeptic and believer were extracted from many threads here on DU. True believer is the strongest way to describe a believer. Both terms also have the ironic property of having a very positive connotation by those who self-identify with the term and a negative connotation with those who self-identify with the opposite of the term.

"True believer" connotes an enlightened person in religious circles, or for those who hold strong beliefs.

"True believer" connotes a person with irrational beliefs to a skeptic, as the "skepdic.com" (a site for skeptics) definition exemplifies.

"Skeptic" connotes an apostate, equivacator, doubter, or "misleader" in religious circles or for those who hold strong beliefs.

"Skeptic" connotes a person who uses the hypothesis disproving aspect of the scientific method, ironically, "the one true path to finding truth", for skeptics.

Eric Hoeffer's The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements is the source for the term--it is linked to fanaticism (most likely fascism given the time period). Read it in Eighth Grade by probably one of the sharpest history teachers in my school--don't recall much of it, other than it strongly agreed with my stressing my individualism at the time. I've always thought that William Carlos Williams poem--At the Baseball Game, caught the ideals well.

Skepticism is a Neoplatonic school of philosophy: Pyrrho is the earliest noted adherent. The greatest exercise in skepticism is Descartes' First Meditation where he posits--ergo cogito sum, I think therefore I am--the solipsism that is the basis for the radical empiricism of Hume, and the bedrock of the scientific method. The only way the external material world could be known was through shared experience, obtained by similar methods. The hypothetical deductive method plays to the concern with predicting the future, or explaining the past--it is odd to say that one employs this method ironically, since the method is developed to address the skeptical critique. It is only truth about the material world that this addresses, not the greater philosophical truths that Pyrrhonic skepticism sought to critique.

Mike

I think you and I have gone at it on threads in the past, but this is the kind of reference remark that i so enjoy about DU. Even the folks you really don't agree with often, occasionally have these references that really make you smile. (One of my best friends is a Philosophy prof and you reminded me of him);) :toast:

I didn't know that Hoeffer was responsible for creating the negative connotations for the term "True Believer." But it is not surprising that a political scientist would make the negative connotation.

However, are you sure that Hoeffer is the original source for the phrase?

It is interesting that it is in widespread use as a positive term for someone who is religious by those who are religious.

Do any google search like http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=true-believer+god&btnG=Google+Search
and you will find many hits, similar to

"To the true believer God is not some far off entity in the sky..."

"One revelation that comes through very clearly is the definition of True Believer, which is given in 7 places-the Biblical number of perfection and completeness." etc

Interesting etymology of the word "believer" itself is that it used to be a synonym for "Christian."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=true-believer&searchmode=none
"As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549."

But most of interesting of all is the Arabic word "mu'min" which literally translated means "true believer" and may be how the phrase entered the English language
Take a look at this google search for confirmation:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=mu%27min+true-believer&btnG=Search

So it's not surprising that the term "true believer appears in English poetry and literature written long before Hoeffer.

For example 19th century adventurer and literary figure Richard Burton wrote in "The Arabian Nights"

"Thou hast saved a True Believer from slaughter, and it
happed after this fashion."

and that the expression was in definitely in literary use then,
eg 19th century poet William Ernest Henley wrote:

"The lady of my heart, like me
A True Believer, and like me
An outcast thousands of leagues beyond the pale! . . ."

So, the phrase predates Hoeffer and given its history, it is not surprising that "True Believer" maintains a positive connotation among believers.


As for the irony of disproving hypotheses, it was a kind of joke. I used the expression "the one true path to finding truth" which is of course a phrase that might be used more by believers than skeptics.

Hoeffer's treatise is the one many look to for the definition in this nation. Even a fanatic like the Unabomber quoted it. Perjorative it may be, but I doubt that usage of 'true believer' has wide usage within Christian theology save maybe fundamentalism.

The term true believer also has some literary problems--it often was employed in medieval romances to characterize the love of the knight for his lady (I believe Gower, and sometimes in the Matter of Spain). The term is conspiciously Arabic in origin, as you note. Burton's translation is from the Arabic, and was the source for the Arabic concepts and practices that were commom liet motifs for Romantic English poetry, and French painting of the same period. But, the term should not necessarily be construed as originating in Christian thought or theology, since usage post dates the crusades.

Not having my OED handy, I would suspect that there was no need to address believers as true in the Christian context, one was a believer or apostate. If you consult William Langland's Piers Ploughman, one of the earliest expressions of English protestantism, the expression 'believer' is missing the modifier 'true'--though the poem takes to task some excesses of the Church.

Having been raised Congregationalist and with a step father trained for the ministry (at Wheaton), I had never encountered the term until junior high.

Mike

IMHO, the most common current use of True-Believer is by the strongly religious/fundamentalists. There are some crude ways to test this. For example, look at the number of google hits for "True believer" and "God" (217,000) versus searches that make use of Hoffer's connotation "True Believer and "fanatic" (11,400) or "True Believer" and cult (57,800) with the large majority of "True Believer" and god hits to be positive. Just to make my point even stronger about the positive self-identification of true believer, take a look at truebeliever.com (a very pro-Christian site).

Now your point about fundamentalism is well taken. The reason for this is that the phrase "true believer" has great historical resonance for Baptists. The phrase is actually in "The Baptist Confession of Faith" (1689, London) "A true believer may wait long and fight with many difficulties before he becomes a partaker of it."
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

I believe more Baptists are also fundamentalists than members of any other denomination. The historical association with Baptists also perhaps explains why you were not exposed to it as a Congregationalist with an intellectual background, although Baptists and Congregationalists do hold fairly similar doctrines and their denominations do share some history.

Btw, look at the google search for "true believers" and baptist (47,300 hits), it appears that "true believers" is actually being used in naming Baptist churches: True Believers Missionary Baptist Church, and True Believers Baptist Church are both used.

True believer and mass movement 1,240,000 hits. (mainstream Hoeffer)

True believer and allah: 137,000 hits

True believer and communism: 98,800 hits

True believer and fascism: 47,400 hits

Its the words and terms one chooses to use. IMO, a Google search is more subjective than objective, as many of the hits may be duplicative; but I agree it is indicative of where things stand.

But you are right, I have no familiarity with Baptist convention, theology, or tenets. I'm much more familiar with Engish protestant sects. BTW, my step father was raised fundamentalist; its my mother who raised us Congregationalist.

Mike

call me a tinfoil-hatter, call me hard-core, call me angry, call me over-the-top, call me a DUmmy...call me anything.

It doesn't change the fact that the election was stolen.

:hi:

Loud enough for the the whole nation to hear! 2000 and 2004 were stolen. Wake up America before it happens in 2006!:toast:

Oh...and we aren't going away!


:hi:

NGU! NEGU!:kick:

I kicked Sequoia outta Jersey.
And next I'm going kick Bush outta DC.

I gotta belief thats pure and true--
in my red, and white, and Blue---
If you wanna join my crew---
Saving democracy is what I do--

I aint afraid of no heavy lifting -- ya know--

What version of Acrobat do I need?
Is anyone else having this problem?

(I still think he put it out there just to see if the attack dogs would bite without even reading it!)

An interesting idea, but no. The paper exists, and I just linked to it OK. If you have tried to download it and can't, then that can't be an Acrobat problem.

At least for now I will leave O'Dell's paper out of the thread. I will PM you and see if we can sort this out.

but have yet to make it all the way through it...

Much more important than the exit polls!

Imagine trying to convince the MSM that it's all about the exit polls and then telling them to read Appendix 1. Which do you think they will be more likely to believe or report about? (But that's just me.)

For some reason I could only open and read the copy that Febble has on her geocities site. It should be the same, but since she's a known plagiarizer and all that, it could be bogus! :)

It has Bruce's name in the by-line though so I think it's the real thing, although not digitally signed. Thanks Febble! :)

Haven't been able to stop by here in a while... What have I missed?

A huge explosion of fraud blurring debris, and distraction.
Much ado about little.

Turns out the worst case is that RBR OR fraud was at fault for the bad exit polls (Febble, Mitofsky, Bruce O'Dell, OTOH,).

And best case is the exit numbers were near impossible to duplicate using Baiman's simulator or TIA's optimizer indicating fraud (Dopp, Baiman, TIA, etc.).

The saddest part is USCV is splitting into camps, and someone there seems to be deliberately misleading others (you'll have to figure out 'who' for yourself).
A dark tale of espionage, deceit, and the dark arts (OK, maybe just a bad tude) 8)

Mistwell hasn't been seen
Q got himself tombstoned
Wilms scared everyone into nominating the daily election fraud thread, every day (just kidding big guy).
And Jacko was found guilty of being the stupidest adult on the planet.

I think that about covers it 8)

How's things in the land of unsigned poll tapes?

That is the finest (and funniest) short summary any person could ask for. Thank you, dear colleague.

It's great to be back in Florida...

The Dark side:

Bush the Younger is finally in full stride. It is now a crime here NOT to shoot someone who sets foot on your land. They have a new racket to kill all public schools - they cut the budget, test the schools, and use the results to take away the rest of the money. Meanwhile, rivers of cash flow through the "finer" parts of the state. Mini mansions on steroids explode out of postage stamp lots. One more tax cut and they will have to burrow underground... like Morlocks.


The Bright side:

I love it here. The New struggles everyday to burst out of the Old. Culturally, it is amazing. The illusion of "Hispanic" homogeneity has long ago disappeared as each new wave has brought critical mass to each of the national groups. Peruvians, Brazilians, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans and so on and so on. Not just every town but every street and every strip mall sprouts a micro-ethnicity with new ideas, new art, new food and NEW MUSIC! I imagine New York in 1900...

If this is what worries them in Montana, they just don't get it.

I am much too visual of a person (I keep vacillating between being traumatized, and LMAO). Really... Thanks much for the chuckle - with this fraud business, I need all I can get. I got one here yesterday, and now another one today. All-in-all, that's pretty good for one thread.

I wonder, since we have had a nice thread, if we could pull off a funny one? Actually, it's not a bad idea. For one thing, humor is an excellent way to "break through" and communicate information. I have one cartoon, and an excellent funny animation comes to mind. I will see what else I can find.

BTW: Did you misspell "little"? I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I didn't catch it until the second reading. ;)

...well I should only speak for myself. I'm sure some astute observer will invoke RICO.

Chi said it best: "A dark tale of espionage, deceit, and the dark arts (OK, maybe just a bad tude) 8)"

Either way, it's a bit curious. Why here? Why now? Why the incessant need to create what could be seen as a "false flag" operation to show "true dissent" in the most partisan of Democratic groups. Why the Salon article justifying Mitofsky? (I canceled them immediately.) Another "false flag?" Don't know.

At this point, it's of little consequence. The plane is taxiing down the runway and it's about to take off, with a huge blast. Bush at 42% (and you know it's lower) and falling; 96% of MSNBC responders think * lied about the war; Conyers laying it out as a grounds for impeachment.

We will be justified in our beliefs and research by events. * is headed for such depths, nobody will want to think that "we the people" actually elected this creep. And you know what, they're right.

Contact the DNC and Tell Them to Do More to Stop Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

find you on a thread. I see your name and I know I am in for an amusing read!:toast:

Hi Chi:

"And best case is the exit numbers were near impossible to duplicate using Baiman's simulator or TIA's optimizer indicating fraud (Dopp, Baiman, TIA, etc.)."

Should read: "...Baiman's manipulation of O'Dell's optimizer...." One should always have to remember where issues arose; and where credit is due. Glossing it over gives the appearance of bias. Afterall one of the issues in the thread was academic honesty.


Mike

Hi Mike,

'And best case is the exit numbers were near impossible to duplicate in Baiman's simulations or TIA's optimizer, indicating fraud (Dopp, Baiman, TIA, etc.).'

How's that sit with you?
(Thanks, I've been wanting to get that comma in there) 8)

Furthermore, Q had some help getting tombstoned, and
Jacko wasn't found guilty of anything....let's be thorough now.

There really needs to be a giggle smilie....:hi:

:eyes:

Hi Chi:

I had the impression that your real intention was the edit. This entire matter is a little too touchy to misrepresent with the wrong suffix.

Q should have been tombstoned with all the provocation he was throwing around the site. Good analytical mind, way short on the civility--it's one thing to be rude in response, it's another to initiate.

I will leave the Michael Jackson issue alone. Let the civil case sort it out.

Mike

Enough unsubstantiated talk...

How exactly did Q get guillotined?

Probably we can all agree that some strange and hard things have been said, even if we can't agree on who said them. But I do not believe that anyone presently or previously connected with USCV has ever set out to get anything wrong.

Has now lost quite a bit of credibility.
Who's gonna believe anything from an organization which fights among themselves, of publishes papers that some of their members run around crying foul about (most of all anyone new to the topic).

Damage done, what a shame.

At least Febble got her limelight out of the deal.
Too bad it came at such expense.

it was to remind themselves that no matter how high a person is esteemed the(y) are still fallable. It is the same with the momento mori, and with the subaltern who's sole respo(n)sibility is to whisper in Augustus' ear--'Ceasar is just a man.', every free moment.

Frankly, I really don't know if the organization lost credibility (if it had it to begin with) with the in-fighting or with presenting an in-completely vetted minority paper at AAPOR that may have given a poor impression of the group to the professional community. The process was to gain credibility with those that did not recognize that fraud may have had some role in the election, and may have been detectable in the exit polls. Traction can still be gotten, and it is not too late.

We have had five people associated with the organization on this site, interacting, commenting, arguing with us over how to assess the data or how to interpret it. Overall, they have left me with a stong and good impression as to their overall good intentions--I really do not see that any of them entered into the fray with the intention of making a name for themselves. If anything, Febble's correction may have been the only means for USCV to gain any credibility with a wider professional audience. Her correction made the exit polls better, and that is precisely one of our needs.

Remember our strongest fraud issue is yet to play out--the legal cases in the Ohio courts. It's about as exciting as watching paint dry right now, but it will pick up its own momentum. Keep the faith.

Mike

edited for spelling

Heya Mike

Febble got the record, at a lean 6 minutes after my last post.

"Remember our strongest fraud issue is yet to play out--the legal cases in the Ohio courts. It's about as exciting as watching paint dry right now, but it will pick up its own momentum. Keep the faith."

I'll stick with agreeing with you there.
Thanks for the words of hope.

Chi

they're designed to bring about the quality discussion you're asking for.

And just because a thread hasn't been locked doesn't mean they're following the rules. The mods only lock them when people alert them, and some people really really push the mods.

Why not appeasers and freedom-fighters? How about the gutless and the alienated? Turtle doves and owls? Republicans and Democrats? The silent majority and the rejectionists? Methinks the message is in the "framing"...

More, lemme get this straight... the skeptics are those who think that wide spread fraud is "inconceivable", etc. etc... Do I get that right?

As for polemics, polemics are the natural language of politics going back to the Greeks. You can certainly retire to the woods to try to "fix" that but "they" will most certainly steal your vote (and probably your social security) while you are gone.

As for civility, civilized discussion, the norms of civil society, etc.... they are predicated on a degree of agreement and common purpose. The citizens of Athens were certainly civil to each other but somewhat less than that to the other 31/32nds of the population who were slaves and other non-status persons...

To butcher Rousseau, the first man who enclosed a piece of land previously held in common by all, declared loudly "this land is mine", and found those stupid enough to believe him... that man was the true founder of civil society.

His descendants invented "civility"...


Let me try a different explanation: the debate gets heated because the issues matter. Not only isn't it a "problem", it's part of the solution.

I can usually hang in there when it gets hot. As long as it can still remain civil enough for debate to keep happening I think it's great.
Others with thinner skin bail faster sometimes and that limits what it is possible to discuss. Not judging, just observing.

This debate has taken over a major portion of my life. I try to wake up at least one new person a day to info about either election Fraud or election reform depending on what i think that particular audience can hear. All my regular circle of aquaintances have had several earfuls.
Drip.. Drip... Drip... Dam is gonna break soon!

But when the debate consists of nothing but personal attacks, as a way of avoiding the actual issues, then I think that it is counter-productive. I have seen a lot of that around here lately.

As more and more learn that ad hominen arguments are logically suspect, the appropriate tact in addressing personal attacks is to strike through the offending passage, without deleteing the entire post.

I have found it daunting that a six paragraph post was deleted because one sentence was 'taunting'.

Mike

I am surprised that some people's posts appear at all.

The matter is more subjective, as there is a continuum between ad hominen attacks that may just challenges someone, to where one is vilified. An alternate method would be to just delete the offending passage.

In my case, the concern was is that there was a lot of information and argument that would stand equally well with or without the offending passage.

In any deliberation one cannot completely get around using inappropriate rhetorical arguments, however, the gist is what is within the argument that is not. Many here provide that candy M&M shell without ever providing that chocolate reward.

Mike

Neither logic nor the rules of rhetoric are impacted by the policy of the board.

Your criticism of "nothing but personal attacks, as a way of avoiding the actual issues" is entirely subjective. In this context, it could even pass for "sour grapes" (or a "personal attack").

Why would anyone agree to be governed by your sense of what is "good" and what is "counter-productive"? The opposite is likely. You will take backlash for trying to control the debate by controlling the rules (shades of the Senate).

The moderators do a good job. They constantly remind everyone to not bend the rules to allow personal attacks and as soon as they are done and the debate gets heated, then the participants immediately try to make personal attacks within the new interpretation (i.e. to "bend the rules"). Part of the reason is that politics and political debate ARE personal.

So... we have a standoff. Go too far this way or that, and the debate moves to another part of cyberspace. So far, DU has been pretty good about drawing the line correctly.

Personally, I would prefer looser rules on personal attacks. I am deeply troubled by people who talk about life in terms like "skeptics" and "true-believers" and I have to restrain some very choice words that otherwise I could "express".

Oh well, I guess I'll have to stop by HannitySquacks.com...

"Your criticism of "nothing but personal attacks, as a way of avoiding the actual issues" is entirely subjective. In this context, it could even pass for "sour grapes" (or a "personal attack")."
<How about setting ones-self up to appear as "the victim"?>

"Why would anyone agree to be governed by your sense of what is "good" and what is "counter-productive"? The opposite is likely. You will take backlash for trying to control the debate by controlling the rules (shades of the Senate)."
<Also, like saying in a previous thread, "Should I ask the administration to make everyone post "nice" posts?>

"I am deeply troubled by people who talk about life in terms like "skeptics" and "true-believers" and I have to restrain some very choice words that otherwise I could "express"."
<How about... that's an example of the fallacious argument of the "excluded middle" ("skeptics" and "true-believers" - there is no middle ground allowed). I guess that's the "choicest words" I dare say either. ;) >

The reference to personal attacks centers upon an unfortunate reception given to current and former USCV members, that had little to do with their qualifications, or positions, but centered upon the unease with dissent within that group--exit polls may not be able to discriminate between fraud and sampling error. I think, to many who witnessed them, the attacks were intended to stifle open and continued debate, and smacked to me of a Kangaroo Court or McCarthyism at its best.

The thing that we all need to recall, is that personal attacks reflect an emotional investment in a position, not an intellectual one. I am troubled by your desire to loosen this standard.

Quite frankly, given TFC's evenhandedness, I would want him in my jury. His approach to issues and openmind are qualities to aspire to.

Mike

...or is it stream of consciousness?

Do you have any idea how badly what you just wrote might sit with someone?

I far prefer to think that you are intentionally provoking me. Well, not today... I invited myself to Melissa G's house (this thread) and the sign says "Be Nice" and I don't always agree with Melissa but I always respect her sooooo..... Thanks anyway for making my point. I'm just going to answer you directly:

1) Thank you for your forgiveness but I didn't say I was ignorant. I quickly read through the uscv threads and some others when I got back here. Frankly, I was a bit disappointed with how far in the weeds and how personal the accusations (something different from "personal attacks") were. I was also disappointed by the diversionary nature of what has been discussed so far. But hey... I recognize the contribution and will stay tuned a while longer. Almost all of the above disappointment was in the uscv types themselves. Even here, what I thought was on display was the dark side of "academic debate". I get it. Been there, seen that....

2) As far as DUers go, I didn't have any problem with what I read. Could'a missed something but I don't think so.... I've seen obvious trolls sustain much more skepticism and still manage to effectively make their points. I didn't see the deleted posts but I did a quick count and didn't see that many.

3) The crux may be your point that the "exit polls may not be able to discriminate between fraud and sampling error". Frankly, this suggests to me that the dispute is substantial, not stylistic. Well might such an assertion draw fire. I saw no evidence that anything that far reaching was even seriously debated. I saw a MUCH narrower debate.

4) Your analogy to McCarthyism or Kangaroo Courts is really inappropriate. This reference does not make sense in the context of "intolerance in debate". To be "like McCarthy", you have to have the power to stifle debate... to put people in jail or take away their jobs, etc. I see no such power here. In fact, the closest thing to that is the proposal for "administrative sanctions" earlier in THIS thread. ....it's a stretch, I admit, but ya know, mgr, I rarely agree with what you post but it has never entered my mind to propose changing the rules to limit your posting "behavior".

5) I accept that you have concluded that TFC is a peach of a fellow but I have only had one interaction with him. It was just a few posts up and he was exceedingly comfortable with a subject that would make St. Augustine blush - the ability to easily discern the difference between "good" and "counter-productive". That, of course, immediately made me exceedingly "uncomfortable". I'll keep an open mind but you'll forgive me for not inviting him just yet onto my jury.

6) Is this just another "TIA was mean to me" thread because if it is, you're barking up the wrong tree. I think TIA is not just a DU but a National treasure. He absolutely will not stop. He spins the data this way and that way and back again and, through minor miracles, ALWAYS advances the debate. I don't even agree with him all the time (maybe 60 to 75%) but the fucker (is that a "personal attack", when it is said with affection?) is a fully self correcting system, much like German philosophy. By the time he's on his second or third pass, I agree with 75% of the 25% I didn't buy in the first place. AND, I think he has the patience of Job (he attracts more genuine freeps than everyone else put together). On this subject, I am not "open minded".

7) My last line in my post (about wanting looser rules on personal attacks) was actually said tongue-in-cheek You need be "troubled" no longer. I blew my punchline by saying HannitySquaks.com because I had two competing thoughts: HannityQuacks and HannitySquawks. In any event, you've made me rethink this. I now think there should be two permanent personal attack threads: The first should be a generic venting thread - "and then the asshole said this" - no names, just rants. The other should be a "TIA was mean to me" thread - "I told him he should do something else and he told me to go away", "no shit, he told me that too...". I don't think there will "many" posters on that thread but I could be wrong... I'm guessing maybe 10 or so DUers plus a couple of "short-term visitors" and maybe a newbie or two asking "what's a tia?".

Anyway, Melissa was right... I am feeling really mellow and nice now.

Cheers...

OK, I had different words in mind; but, in the spirt of being nice, I will refrain - even though I'm less-than-convinced that is the true intention of this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x377607#378134

EDIT for link

enjoy your warm spirit. I utterly agree with you about TIA. He is a national TREASURE! I'm glad he finally got to have a head to head chat with the academics which was what I wanted to see in the first place and what I had bought my popcorn for!:popcorn:
Glad to see you back!:toast: Come to my 'house' anytime. You are a very welcome, interesting and well mannered guest!
:loveya:
Very Best Regards,
Melissa

O8) Actually, if I were the recipient of a message as thoughtful and thorough as the one above, I would think that was both "nice" and helpful.

The phony resistance to truth is emerging as a back-fire to prevent the coming storm of revelation and public fury. Enjoy the relative calm while it lasts. When the truth emerges, it will be a very exciting yet dangerous time for us and our system of government.

Contact the DNC and to Do More to Stop Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

You have a daunting habit of speaking in blithe generalities, that disguise your lack of specifics, that make it appear your understanding is greater than it is. The problem with much of your argumentation is that you tend to address the form rather than the content or intent of others. Let me address your points in an order that makes my issues clearer. The issue I take is clearly related to being 'nice'.


3.) I suggest you re-read the thread, and remove the blinders. You may wish to lessen the discussion to a small academic debate, but if you were to quiz those from USCV, I think you will find that my account is accurate--what the majority from DU expresses on the the thread would be beside the point. I like the poetic license of 'dark side of academia'-but could you elaborate? Note that it was OK for Febble, O'Dell, and OTOH to have done work in the past on the fraud issue, but now that they dissent from a minority paper, their ethics and expertise are criticized. Anyone address the possible ethical bias or lack of personal qualifications of Sunshinekathy or RonB? This argumentation strategy will suggest to others that this an acceptable tactic, when it really does nothing to further the debate.

4.) Power is a subtle thing--it may be manifested by the threat of the loss of life to being shouted down every time one opens ones mouth. I think your standard as to what McCarthyism is misses the point, the ends and means thing, you know. Constant personal attacks will inhibit one from expressing one's mind, particularly if everytime they pose their position, they come under the same attack. McCarthyism quintessentially is attack by innuendo, and personal attacks meant to inhibit expression of unpopular ideas. By that definition, the behavior by some in the USCV thread meets that test.

5.) TFC is the originator of the USCV thread, read his intro, and posts. To state that you quibble with one of his statements in this thread, but not to have noted that, suggests again that you need to take a closer read of the USCV thread. After that I think you may come closer to my position. You may also want to look up his analysis of the touchscreen vote switching--it is very sober, readable, and something I personally would be proud to have produced.

1& 2.) I believe that you are ignorant. For reasons given above, and that was the only motivation in even addressing your previous post. Quantity over quality--that is a good litmus test for someone that did not see the original posts--I prefer contextual analysis.

6.) Interesting extrapolation--"TIA was mean to me." Summing up my position as TIA should work on something else (strawman). My position is that he should stop, his behavior and the co-dependency of others to need his position to be right, chills discussion of alternate points of view, as they attack dissenters from an emotional, not intellectual point of view. What this manifests itself is with personal attacks--in my case, I don't particularly appreciate being called or implied as being a republican, or freeper, or troll by anyone--and it paints me in the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" modus operandi of McCarthyism. Am I to shut up then because I don't meet your litmus test. Should I forgive you, or should I make it known that this was done to me?

The primary issue I have with TIA is that he may have the mathematical skill to manipulate spread sheets (most on DU do), but he does not possess the acumen of any practicing statistician when it comes to understanding the underlying preconditions for which the analysis applies. This comes to issues of independence, application and delimitation of MOEs (or confidence intervals), and understanding how and when parsimony applies. When these mathematical strictures are in place, much of what he argues melts away like the morning fog (Much as what happened to the German philosophical tradition from the nineteenth century--I suspect their revival with post modernism will be short lived--after all it is difficult to put the dialect on the ground and get it to walk--it can only explain the past but not predict the future).

One may view TIA as a national treasure if one ignores what others have done prior, and that much of what he has done is redundant. He's pretty much summed up the exit polls recently as "circumstantial evidence", and hopefully everyone here understands what that implies in Scottish law. I think the jury at large is still out on this one.

I THOUGHT you were trying to provoke me... Well, it ain't gonna work. I can't play witch you today. Maybe another time, OK (wink)?

I can't avoid one shot though:

"Psychic McCarthyism" is just more psycho-babble...

When I see a thread like this that I "question" (IMO: possible manipulative intent - i.e. to promote a hidden agenda?), I will often wait like this to see how it all plays out, before making judgment. This is especially true if I see a pattern of threads (more than one), which also seems questionable to me.

So what do I find questionable? First, the framing. For example, referring to those you disagree with (would like to discredit?) as paranoid (paranoia), etc. (search this thread, and a previous related one, to see what I mean). Others in this thread have pointed out how some have attempted to "frame" here - there ARE many more examples - but I won't belabor the point.

But, if we are "suspicious" of motives, etc., are we automatically "paranoid"? Isn't that like when the neocons label those who criticize them, as "hating America"? Isn't such a label an attempt to both discredit and inhibit? I.E: You can't trust a paranoid; and, "I don't want to be labeled as a paranoid, so I better "shut up" on this issue".

BTW: Is it "OK" to be suspicious? YOU BET! Lynn Landes (a long-time, highly respected fraud-fighter) has said: "I've learned you just can't be too suspicious in this business."

Those of us who have been labeled as "paranoid", have also been implied to be "intolerant" of differing viewpoints. Ironically, the same Lynn Landes article that I just quoted from - I strongly disagree with her main conclusions there (IMO, the premises are right, just the conclusions are off - i.e. the US exit polls ARE bogus, but the early 2004 unweighted (unfixed) ones were right; AND certain people in an organization would "turn"; but NOT the ones she thought). As I said, I STRONGLY disagree with her; but am totally tolerant of our differences.

Why is this so? Because there does NOT appear to be any hidden agendas in Landes claims. I believe, if you asked her a direct question, you would get a direct, "no-spin" answer. You may not agree with the answer, but you would CLEARLY know what she thought.

So, I suggest, when evaluating the “message” someone is trying to convey here, ask yourself: what (if any) is the real agenda behind what they are saying? Is it a clear, straight-forward communication - or is it something else?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Another related suggestion:

I recommend that all serious fraud-fighters here watch the movie "Shattered Glass" (on DVD).

It's the true story of how a young writer at the New Republic fooled all the staff (and two seasoned editors) for over two years with fabricated stories.

The movie explains how someone could gain the confidence of others, and even use the carefully calculated emotional bonds he made with them, to cloud their vision of what was really going on. I recommend you watch the movie, then the "60 Minutes" interview with the real Steve Glass, and then re-watch the movie with the commentary from one of the editors that explains how it could all happen.

When I watched it, it was a real eye-opener, and has helped me in evaluating posts (and actions) in this forum.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A stolen election is much too serious (too much is at stake) to just be "pathetic". :(

Edit for spelling

I'm not sure what you meant. Did he/she use the innuendo tactic" against the three people mentioned in that PM to me?

Please clarify

Thank you

This conversation is not polite. If you you do not care for someone's comments please use the ignore button.
Best,
Melissa

We are NOT the moderators of our own threads, and for good reason. It's very hard to remain unbiased when we are "involved" in one way or another.

For example, you had no problem when mgr claimed someone was using the "innuendo tactic" against someone else?

But, you have problems with someone asking him to make further clarification?

In another example in this thread... it's OK for others to label some other DUer's as "paranoid"?

Also, you made an assumption that I "do not care for someone's comments..." In this case, I am very interested to see his further elaboration (should he care to do so).

So, once again... I am VERY glad that we have unbiased moderators to watch over our threads; and it is NOT the prerogative of the thread starter to censor/control what can and can not be said.

eye opening experience. The only forums I have previously been apart of were on topic and by invitation and moderated a lot more tightly.

People around here seem to be sure of things a lot faster than I can fathom. I like to assume that folks are intending to be honest and have good intentions. That, of course, may mean different things to different people and lead to different actions.
I assume that you are a good and honest person. I'm curious what you would do if you had made bad assumptions and were doing damage to someone who you would normally like and respect?

your headlights shine only a little way out in front of you. That's an apt image (IMO) of what fighting election fraud is like. Because the stakes are so high; and, there is nothing the Bushbots won't stoop to, we have to: "be sure of things a lot faster" around here.

Also, for the same reasons, this is NOT the best forum to "assume that folks are intending to be honest and have good intentions."

You say: "I assume that you are a good and honest person." IMO, you shouldn't. You should judge my motives by objectively (as you can), assessing the motives of my current actions/posts, etc. Answer, to the best of your ability, why did he/she really make that post, etc. I don't hardly consider past actions - I just mostly focus on the present - and, as one of the relative "old timers" here, this has served me well. (I think you would find a lot of the "seasoned veterans" here feel similarly.)

Being influenced by th past too much creates a potential for emotional loyalties to cloud our vision. That's exactly what happened in "Shattered Glass". Everyone liked him so much (because he was so "nice") that they couldn't see what he was really up to.

You also say: "I'm curious what you would do if you had made bad assumptions and were doing damage to someone who you would normally like and respect?" First, I try only to act on accumulated information (again: much less on "history", unless there is a bad "track record" - and more on the present). If it appears as a "surprise", I will PM, assuming good intentions, and: inform, give info if available, ask why, etc. and wait for a response. It could be bad judgment (we all make mistakes), a misinterpretation, I could be wrong, etc.

Then I judge on the response, or lack there-of. Also, if intentions are ill, that person will likely ignore those who are of good faith (for example, their pleas for reason-ability in the thread(s), etc.), and charge ahead with their agenda. Also, a pattern usually quickly emerges that indicates bad faith (such as, painting those they oppose with "loaded words" to discredit and inhibit them from speaking out).

Also, If I get an email "after the damage is done"; or it appears the attempt has failed, from the person in question; and that person is appearing to do "damage control"... well... that's part of the limited information we have here to go on, isn't it?

I hope that answers your questions. If you have more, or need further elaboration, please let me know.

You described a process and worldview that could lead you to an erroneous conclusion but you did not say what you might do if you found out you were doing damage to someone you would like and respect?

I suggest reading more closely what was actually written (maybe lifting quotes from the post you are asking for a reply to would help - personally, I find that very useful). For example: I said, "...what fighting election fraud is like...", and "...this is NOT the best forum to "assume...".

Now, right away, these two passages would tip me off that the person WAS NOT expressing a "worldview", but rather, views specific to: 1) "fighting election fraud", and 2) this "forum". Does that make sense to you?

So, your statement actually starts off with an "erroneous" assumption in it, doesn't it? "You described a process and worldview that could lead you to an erroneous conclusion..." IMO, that's a bad way to start off. It's similar to labeling people as "paranoid", etc., when they are just expressing their concerns in a very serious situation, don't you think?

Finally, you say: "...but you did not say what you might do if you found out you were doing damage to someone you would like and respect?" Actually, what you really said originally: "...what you would do if you had made bad assumptions and were doing damage to someone who you would normally like and respect? <bolding mine>

Actually, I thought I had answered that clearly enough; although admittedly in a circumspect way. (To follow the rules of the message board, as I am also doing here.)

It comes down to this: Because of the nature of the subject matter of this forum, we (who are seriously fighting to uncover the election fraud); must make assumptions with limited information on many issues (see the car analogy). But, we do our best to make them with as much information as possible (see all the points I laid out in the last post).

On the specific point: "bad assumptions". Three thoughts on this. 1) We all do make assumptions here - after-all, the nature of the medium limits the amount of information we have to work with, doesn't it? 2) Efforts should be made to minimize bad assumptions (i.e. see "contact in good faith", etc. above). 3) Would it be surprising if someone who "correct assumptions" were made about, were to claim bad assumptions were made about them? (For example: That's what Steven Glass did in the movie (described above) in an attempt at "damage control".)

Edit:
I hope you find this helpful.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/mi/misleading_vividness.htm

“Everything around him turned out to be incredibly vivid or zany or in some other way memorable,” says Wieselteir. “And at the meetings, we used to wait for Steve's turn, so that he could report on his next caper. We got really suckered.” source


So what's an "availability heuristic"?


http://www.explore-dictionary.com/science/A/Availability_heuristic.html

and:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/availability_heuristic.htm
http://heuristics.behaviouralfinance.net/availability/

"“Everything around him turned out to be incredibly vivid or zany or in some other way memorable,” says Wieselteir. “And at the meetings, we used to wait for Steve's turn, so that he could report on his next caper. We got really suckered.”

It is also easy for people to be misled, if something is quoted out of context.

If you watch the movie (and with the commentary on), it is very clear that, in retrospect, that it was even more amazing that they were taken in, considering how "zany" his stories were - the reason for the "We got really suckered" statement. They were NOT taken in because the stories were so "zany", etc.; but, in retrospect, it was all the more amazing they were taken in, because the stories WERE so zany, etc. Get it? Good. ;)

In fact, if the passage you quoted is looked at IN CONTEXT (in the article you just quoted from); the REAL MEANING IS VERY CLEAR:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml
"Wieseltier has worked at the magazine for 20 years. He says he never suspected that Glass was making things up, but it did seem as though he had an uncanny knack for stumbling onto people and stories that seemed too good to be true. It became the trademark of a Stephen Glass story.

“Everything around him turned out to be incredibly vivid or zany or in some other way memorable,” says Wieselteir. “And at the meetings, we used to wait for Steve's turn, so that he could report on his next caper. We got really suckered.”

His imagination knew no bounds. There was a piece about a political memorabilia convention featuring Monica Lewinski condoms and one about an evangelical church that worshiped George Herbert Walker Bush. But his articles could also be vicious, taking on public figures, like former presidential advisor Vernon Jordan."

So, I think, after looking at this IN CONTEXT, it becomes VERY CLEAR that Wieseltier was explaining, in retrospect, considering just how zany the stories were, it is amazing they were "suckered" so bad.

Just in case it still isn't clear to you, again, watch the movie with the commentary on (DVD).

except "Glass illustrates our susceptibility to misleading vividness". And he does, whether or not he illustrates many other things.

The real "point" is: that, in retrospect, his "misleading vividness" should have been a dead-giveaway - but his manipulative attempts to ingratiate, build alliances, etc. caused them to miss the obvious.

Again, watch the DVD - this was NOT an ambiguous point. (If you still are not clear on this; why don't you write one of the involved principles - anyone but Glass, that is ;) )

Hayden C. was great, far scarier than his Darth Vader.

"Misleading vividness" appears to be a feature common to all journalistic confabulators, like Glass, Jayson Blair, and Mike Barnicle. Not to put too fine a point on it.

I haven't studied those two (plus Jack Kelley, Former USA Today Reporter). I wonder if they also hoodwinked people so well by manipulating their co-workers loyalties?

For example, I followed the Blair story in the news; and it seemed they emphasized the "pressure to produce" (numerous stories - "approximately 600 articles he had written over four years" - compared to Glass' approx 50 over two years) and "fast-tracking" a rising young minority "star".

In contrast, "Shattered Glass" opens with Steve Glass walking through the "Monica convention", narrating about how important it is to "please" to be successful. This becomes the incessant theme running through the entire movie. For example, do you remember, at his party, when he had the special bottle of diet coke (with her name on it), just for the one reporter? She was incredulous! She asked him how he remembered, since she only briefly mentioned it two years earlier. (He would go to amazing lengths NOT to pass up an opportunity to build loyalty/alliances.) Later, that same reporter was ready to quit if Glass was fired - despite overwhelming evidence as to his fraudulence.

The movie is riddled with examples; and, as I mentioned earlier, the commentary version of the DVD (with the editor) really hammers this theme home.

Again, what I have found MOST valuable in how the "lessons" of this movie can apply to what we do here, is that seemingly innocent actions, may not be. For example, if someone seems to be going to extreme lengths to build loyalties here (so they can "call up" their "friends" later to defend them, as Glass did); that may indicate something more than just a gregarious personality. ;)

Of course, that alone should not "raise many eyebrows'; but combined with other actions (some mentioned in earlier posts in this thread); it could be a clear indicator of a "pattern".

In contrast, "Shattered Glass" opens with Steve Glass ... This becomes the incessant theme running through the entire movie ... The movie is riddled with examples ... what I have found MOST valuable in how the "lessons" of this movie can apply to what we do here

Bear in mind, the movie was a dramatization of actual events.

The New Republic editor (and the film director) do the commentary. They make VERY clear (scene by scene) what was dramatization, and what was not. In making the movie, they were exceptionally careful only to dramatize those parts where it would move the story along, but not impact the pertinent facts. (They even discuss this in the commentary.) This is one movie where I believe the commentary is more important than the movie itself.

At the end, the director asked the editor if he would trust Glass now - since he had been through therapy, and said he has seen the error in his ways.

The editor answered, that even if it was a sunny day, and Glass said the sun was shining, he would still get a second opinion. ;)

“I would tell a story, and there would be fact A, which maybe was true. And then there would be fact B, which was sort of partially true and partially fabricated. And there would be fact C which was more fabricated and almost not true,” says Glass.

“And there would be fact D, which was a complete whopper. And totally not true. And so people would be with me on these stories through fact A and through fact B. And so they would believe me to C. And then at D they were still believing me through the story.”

Glass on Glass

Because...
( insert your entire previous post here)
You could not possibly find out you made a mistake
and so then you don't even need to consider the possibility of a giving an apology?

Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" MG. ;)

You seem to over look that occurrence on this thread. If it's a "nice" thread, why allow that to pass? Or are you being "nice" to people who "aren't nice," in which case it's a "nice" thread for "people who are not nice but seem nice." The possibilities are endless.


Today's lesson

And while you're at it...

Contact the DNC and to Do More to Stop Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

and "disruptive?" I have not noticed you telling them to shape up or suggesting that they hit the ignore button. I think you need to work on your "nice radar" for messages like #6. It's been there for five whole days. Very not "nice" but you say nothing about that. "Selective enforcement" does not endorse the purpose of this festive dialog on the rhetoric of "nice."

Here is something appropriate for this thread. The self-described
"Queen of Nice," Rosie O'Donnell:

Maybe she could make a post or two here.


Contact the DNC and Tell Them to PREVENT Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

preferably about election FraWd...Not monitoring every comment on a very long thread. If you have an issue with post 6 feel free to civilly address it. I thought your comment was just rhetorical as I have never seen you shy about addressing your concerns personally.

addressing others on being "nice" (you said, "this conversation is not polite"). As a result, I maintain that this is a blatant inconsistency. After all, how can you have a "nice" discussion of election fraud when the user from #6 alludes to those who disagree with him/her as "unbalanced" and "disruptive." Unlike you, I make no claim to the mantle of "niceness" and I did not start a thread on being "nice." You did. (btw Melissa G, it wasn't a "long" thread when the comment was made, it just sat there for days.)

If you really are the ERD "nice" monitor, then address #6 and condemn it for what it is, "not nice" (or in my terms, a backhanded slap at those who have very strong beliefs in election fraud).

If you don't, then you must relinquish your crown.

I could never compete with you in the enforcement department anyway:)

All I said was,
"I guess it's too much to ask for an organization with 60,000 people (is that how many people belong to DU?) that there won't be some people who are so unbalanced that they can't or won't act civilly or abstain from being disruptive."

I did not say or imply that all who disagree with me are unbalanced or disruptive. Most people who have disagreed with me on this forum I don't consider to be in that category at all. I said that in a large organization there are bound to be some people like that. Furthermore, it is attacking people that I consider disruptive, not disagreeing with them.

The record speaks for itself. Deal with it.

Oh yes, I see, you quoted me using the words "unbalanced" and "disruptive", and I did in fact use those words, so you did in fact quote me correctly.

So it's your contention that anyone who uses those words is not engaging in a civil conversation?

And where in my post do you think that I implied that anyone who disagrees with me is "unbalanced" or "disruptive"?

"unbalanced" in your statement. Carefully couched in generalities, located on the "nice" thread, you said that of the DU population there are "some people who are so unbalanced..." (you use a double negative but these are your words and this is the clear meaning. IMHO). Wow, you come here and call "some" DUers "unbalanced." Now that's not "nice" behavior, whether or not the "unbalanced" DUers disagree with you. Is is possible, by the way, to agree with your posts and be "unbalanced." (I'm having a Karl Popper moment here).

In my post below, "The Sorrow and the Pity" I did interpret your rhetoric as implying that "some" of those who disagree with you share that characteristic. How would you form such a judgment about your clearly stated phenomenon without direct experience? In order to be correct, the proposition needs to be capable of being proved incorrect, another Karl Popper moment. That's the nature of interetation. We disagee about these things sometimes.

Interpretation of posts is part of what goes on here. This forum is not just a recitation of facts, it's a dialog on opinion. My opinion is that the "straw man," the generic "unbalanced" and "disruptive" DUer is really a response to your experience at those who have taken strong exception to some of your opinions and actions. There you go.

Now, you said some time ago that you were not going to respond to my posts. That's why I posted my comment to Melissa G. I couldn't really let such a remark go unmentioned but I didn't want to post to you since you'd said you wouldn't respond (kind of like posting to someone who has you on ignore, not "nice"). Now your talking to me. Which is it? I will gladly go back to not posting to you, as I honored that request previously.

If you are going to respond, here are some questions from this post you might address in our dialog on civility (an interpretation of "nice").

1) Are you going to dismiss the posts of your hypothesized "unbalanced" DUers by saying, "You're obviously 'unbalanced'? or just leave it as a general claim, e.g., "I have a list (in your mind or on paper) of 400 (or whatever number) "unbalanced" DUers...but I can't/won't show it."
2) How did you hypothesize and test this proposition? Is it from direct experience or observation or both?
3) What is your definition of "unbalanced?" Do you mean this in a psychiatric sense, referring to some sort of mental health condition? 4) If so, what qualifies you to make such a statement?

There is a simple solution. You could just apologize for calling an unspecified number of DUer's "unbalanced." That would end the dialog and that would be a good thing.

First of all, since I very much resent having my statements mischaracterized by you repeatedly, I am pasting here the paragraph from post # 6 that you seem to be so upset about:

"I guess it's too much to ask for an organization with 60,000 people (is that how many people belong to DU?) that there won't be some people who are so unbalanced that they can't or won't act civilly or abstain from being disruptive. So I guess that we just have to handle them as best we can, without getting too upset ourselves."

This statement was in response to Mellisa G's question in her original post to this thread, where she asked how it might be possible to have civilized debate on the DU. What I was attempting to do with this statement was to note one of the major obstacles to civilized debate, in my opinion.

Now, to answer your specific questions:

1) My statement was simply that it is to be expected that in an organization with 60,000 people there will be some unbalanced and disruptive people. That is a general claim, and it does not apply specifically to the DU. I feel that the DU as a general rule is composed of highly intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic people who are greatly concerned about the future of their country and the world. That is why I spend a lot of time reading what other DUers have to say, and posting here myself.

2) My experienc is that almost ANY large organization is going to have some unbalanced and disruptive people in it. I don't intend to "test" that proposition. It is merely based on my experience and observation.

3) My definition of "unbalanced" is someone who is so obsessed with minutiae or hate that he or she tends to engage in uncivilized and unproductive debate with other people.

4) I have had courses in psychiatry, but actually I don't need any special qualifications to make the statement noted above. I was merely expressing my opinion.

Adios.

I think you may be presuming that the comment was addressed to you or others specifically. There is no reason to assume the subset of DU that is 'unbalanced' or 'disruptive' would intersect with the set of those that feel strongly about fraud.

Quite frankly, I have seen many of your posts, and it may be a misreading on your side--I would not say that they are unbalanced or disruptive. Given that we come to the issue from opposite angles, and disagree on much, I do not know if that is much comfort.

However, there is reason to attend to concerns about the 'unbalanced'. I think we need to keep in the back of our minds Bernard Schlepian, and ask ourselves if in our vitriol, we would compell some progressive to take matters similarly into their own hands.

Mike

And, it is very impolite and very destructive--it attempts to damn by guilt of association, but one can never confront their accuser.

Mike

To use your words (not easy)... "one" has "confronted" their "accuser".

Now, in much less inflammatory (i.e. nicer, civil) words. "One" has asked the "other" to explain more what was meant.

Hey, lay off the red meat mgr. ;) Remember, this is the nice thread, huh?

It was irresponsible. You deleted names, true; but you pilloried someone openly in a discussion forum. Not acceptable form, I see it as violating someones privacy--one is always allowed to express opinions away from the light of day--I would expect that individual to challenge you. Who made you the Grand Inquisitor?

Second, others may read names into the post, and come to some troubling conclusions.

I think you need to realize that debate requires the individuals leave their egos aside, it is the only means one has to both present their point of view, and to be receptive to others. In part, the reason the ad hominen argument is eschewed is that it destroys this separation, and moves debate to emotional levels inappropriate to the discourse. The rule of thumb is that after all discussion is complete, can we still sit down and share a beer.

Michael

I suggest you go back and re-read your post. (It's ALWAYS a good idea to go back and ACTUALLY read what you wrote, as if someone else would be reading it, right? ;) ) After-all, it would be "irresponsible" not to, right?

You have a very good day Michael.

Right after "Shattered Glass", this film would be most informative.

I refrained from posting again on this thread in order to let it die a natural death. However, tommcintyre's comments on the use of "paranoia" in connection with true believers in election fraud compel me to make another point along those lines.

Above, a user says "I guess it's too much to ask for an organization with 60,000 people ... that there won't be some people who are so unbalanced that they can't or won't act civilly or abstain from being disruptive." (#6)

Well, that about sums it up. As I read it, the statement says disagree with us and you're "unbalanced" and "disruptive." The sorrow and the pity of it all. And not "nice" either.

* did an excellent job of leading many to believe that Saddam was involved in terrorism by mentioning Saddam in one sentence and then quickly switching to talk of "terrorism." As we all know, the public was duped into making that association stick.

It won't happen on DU, not now, not ever.

If your viewpoint doesn't match the rest of those here, even if
you exhibit the values of a democrat, then your thread can end up locked, and also you will can be called a freeper or
people will ridicule you rudely.

I only post about election issues here because my I have been treated quite hatefully here.

I don't believe in name calling, insults, or throwing out innuendos. However, they do occur here.

For example:
Not all democrats agree with what is posted here about Terry Schiavo.

Not all support Kerry
or they have someone else they don't support.

See? But try and go against the grain, and brace yourself.

Maybe being a registered democrat and voting democrat isn't enough.
Perhaps you have to think like everyone else.

Some of the hateful or insulting messages on this board
could be due to the lowering of educational standards in our country.

Everyone should be taught manners and civility
Everyone should be taught how to write a persuasive
article which has documentation to support it

When people interject insults into their posts,
Or just says "I'm right, you are delusional." -
it casts aspercion on everything else that follows.

This sort of behavior is similar to regurgitating on
other's feelings.

We have become a country of rude and thoughtless people.

Definitely debate and outside thoughts are important, but also need to know how to generate conversations with those of different leanings, and action.

Get the hundredth monkey thing working to get the message out about the stolen election and the Chimp and company!
Drip by drop, the tides gonna turn!