On Nov 6, 2004, at 12:17 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:wrongOut of _how_ many voters? 2000 votes is probably below the number of voters who put a mark in thebox.
About a million. Turns out the "none of these" voters were over 3500 in number:<http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/NV/>
And you think that 3500 out of a million votes (that is, 0.35%) is somehow indicative of a large group of the population?
Um, wow, no. I don't even know how you got that from what I sent, ever. I certainly never suggested it and I'd be interested to see you cite me to the contrary.
All I was saying was that NV had a "none of the above" box and it was amusing. And I thought it was amusing that some voters used it.
As in: Wow, funny, ha fucking ha, Nevada has a "none of the above" box. Funny funny laugh laugh ha fucking ha.
I guess that the idea (humor?) sailed clean over your head.
Dude: Re. Fucking. Lax. Man.
Last I checked, Gautam, not every opinion, hunch or feeling had to be supported by empirical data. In fact, TTBOMK it's only declarations that purport to be factual that need to be supported by hard evidence at all.
Yes, but an "opinion, hunch or feeling" that is not supported by data is essentially valueless for discussion.
Oh. So if I prefer vanilla over chocolate, it's invalid. Got it. (Never mind that I was not the one trying to insert feeling and conjecture into the discussion to begin with.)
If you don't have data you're just asserting your belief indepednent of rational argument.
Hope the religious guys don't see this.
You believe this to be true, but have no evidence for its accord with reality. So why should anyone listen to you?
Are you really asking me to defend emotion, feeling and passion? Now who seems out of touch?
1914? 1944? (Asking; how was turnout then?)
We weren't at war in 1914, so I would assume quite low, although I don't know with any certainty.
Mea culpa; I meant WWI years.
In 1944 vague memories of my long-ago American politics classes suggest that turnout was very high despite being somewhat depressed by the very high number of people in uniform during an age when soldiers were expected to abstain from political activity. Nonetheless, I think a dataset covering the last ~40 years of American Presidential elections is pretty good.
"Vague memories" ... and you dare to ask me for empirical citations?
I find it interesting that when you have an opportunity to show yourself as superior by holding solid facts, you don't. I think you're an ideologue and you really don't have anything at all to back you up apart from your own delusions.
You had a lot of opportunity in the last few grafs to correct me and didn't. This indicates to me that either you are lazy or the facts didn't fit your ideas. Given the quantity of your posts, I'll have to assume the latter.
I would ask you what's your particular resistance to supporting ideas with evidence from the real world, not just speculation?
Are you seriously asking an atheist this question?
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
