Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!I'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that determination.
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:50 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.I'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that determination.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the question.
Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?
On 2022-11-15 10:22, Irving S wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:50 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.I'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that determination.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the question.
Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY IMPOSSIBLE?No. I wouldn't.
And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?Probably some would.
But just as last time, there will be allegations made of irregularities.
And I guarantee you, they're going to get tossed...
...just like they did last time.
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:34:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2022-11-15 10:22, Irving S wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:50 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:No. I wouldn't.
On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost everyI'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that
case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some
technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the
Democratic trends up and wins.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE
ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
determination.
Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the
question.
Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY
IMPOSSIBLE?
Probably some would.
And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would
the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would
unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?
But just as last time, there will be allegations made of
irregularities.
And I guarantee you, they're going to get tossed...
...just like they did last time.
Good, at least you answered. Yes, all the allegations will get
tossed. It is going no where, we can agree on that. But from a
common sense and gut level, it all does not feel right. Something
stinks. Both sides have done it for sure, and both sides will
continue for sure. Makes you almost not want to even cast a vote
again.
On 2022-11-15 10:40, Irving S wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:34:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2022-11-15 10:22, Irving S wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:50 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:No. I wouldn't.
On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost everyI'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that
case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some
technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the
Democratic trends up and wins.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE
ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
determination.
Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the
question.
Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY
IMPOSSIBLE?
Probably some would.
And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would
the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would
unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?
But just as last time, there will be allegations made of
irregularities.
And I guarantee you, they're going to get tossed...
...just like they did last time.
Good, at least you answered. Yes, all the allegations will getNo, "Irving".
tossed. It is going no where, we can agree on that. But from a
common sense and gut level, it all does not feel right. Something
stinks. Both sides have done it for sure, and both sides will
continue for sure. Makes you almost not want to even cast a vote
again.
You have no evidence that "both sides have done it for sure".
Literally none.
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:got really bitter. I stayed out of it. but yes things might be rigged at the level of an HOA, school board, whatever.
On 2022-11-15 10:40, Irving S wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:34:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2022-11-15 10:22, Irving S wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:50 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:No. I wouldn't.
On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost everyI'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that
case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some
technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the
Democratic trends up and wins.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE
ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
determination.
Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the
question.
Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY
IMPOSSIBLE?
Probably some would.
And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would
the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would
unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?
But just as last time, there will be allegations made of
irregularities.
And I guarantee you, they're going to get tossed...
...just like they did last time.
Good, at least you answered. Yes, all the allegations will getNo, "Irving".
tossed. It is going no where, we can agree on that. But from a
common sense and gut level, it all does not feel right. Something stinks. Both sides have done it for sure, and both sides will
continue for sure. Makes you almost not want to even cast a vote
again.
You have no evidence that "both sides have done it for sure".
Literally none.As long as their have been elections, there has been fraud on all sides. Sad to say that, but it would be naive to think otherwise. Corruption is rampant to the left and right.
From the beginning of time, elections have been rigged. Happens at the local, state, and federal level. You know what Alan, I have an HOA where I live. Each year we have an election for officers. A few years back there were accusations of rigging that
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
party were favored.
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that
either party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?
I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss,
then the unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that eitherWhat?
party were favored.
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
-hh
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 3:31:22 AM UTC-8, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability thatWhat?
either party were favored.
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I DID, BirdBrain!!!!!!!!
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were. From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.
-hh
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.
The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability
that either party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult mightI think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin
use?
toss, then the unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy
is that he doesn’t know enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how theSince the stats were your claim, you should list what your
"assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
assumptions were. From there, it should be easy for you to then
figure it out on your own, because your model didn't match the
evidence.
-hh
The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election with a
Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:11:27 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
Tommy wrote:
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.
The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.Is that your only required assumption, Tommy?
-hh
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:31:47 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:11:27 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:Is that your only required assumption, Tommy?
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote: >>>>>>> Tommy wrote:
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either >>>>>>>> party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use? >>>>>> I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.
The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.
-hh
Asked and answered, Asshole.
On 2022-11-24 22:37, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:31:47 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:11:27 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote: >>>>>>> Tommy wrote:
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either >>>>>>>> party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use? >>>>>> I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.
The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election
with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.
Is that your only required assumption, Tommy?
-hh
Asked and answered, Asshole.
No...
Asked and dodged.
Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.
THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:34:03 PM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
On 2022-11-24 22:37, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:31:47 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:11:27 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote: >>>>>>> Tommy wrote:
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
party were favored.
What?
Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use? >>>>>> I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.
The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election
with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.
Is that your only required assumption, Tommy?
-hh
Asked and answered, Asshole.
No...
Asked and dodged.Predictably so. Really is a shame how Tommy can’t even bring
himself to answer a direct yes/no question. Gosh, it can’t be
because he knows he’s been caught in yet another lie?
-hh
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:34:24 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,355,818 |