Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 32665
 Berkeley CSUA MOTD Match all Match any Histogram Relevance Most current Least current

 WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ http://csua.com/feed/
2018/08/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 8/16

 2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32665 Activity:very high 8/3 Oh wow, a politics purge. You're an asshole. \_ I second that. \_ The politics on the motd are something like 95% noise 5% signal. Everytime someone tries to point out the truth (at any place in the political spectrum) he's drowned out by inanity. It's truly sad, IMO. But as a result, I'm not crying when the political threads get nuked. -emarkp \_ aren't you the guy who deletes swearing? don't you have a couple of kids you should be teaching how to sharpen an ax instead? \_ 1) fuck you. 2) I know you're responsible for some of the purges. \_ I won't ask you how you "know" -- I see far more claims about people knowing than are likely true. Yes, I've done my fair share of purging, typically when the garbage ratio goes too high, when factual responses get repeatedly deleted, or the thread gets partially deleted. And? -emarkp \_ I don't think it's reasonable for you to appoint yourself the arbiter of motd political-thread 'accepatbility'. It's often interesting and informative to see what people are thinking or saying about current politics. If a thread offends you don't read it: motd doesn't need a self appointed nanny to cleanse threads based on obscure and subjective metrics -- especially if they don't take activity into account. \_ don't fuck with him. he has root power and can nuke a lot more than just motd. he could make a lot of "accident" happen to your account. be wise. \_ On a world writable forum, we're all nannies. I'm not appointing myself "THE" anything. When I purge, I try to purge obvious noise or the whole thread, not simply points with which I disagree--unlike other people. -emarkp \_ there are exactly two types of purges that don't make you a fucking asshole: 1) purging old stuff, as in more than two days old 2) purging stuff that has been messed up in some way, like when some tool uses a script to reverse all the words. \_ So you're appointing yourself as the nanny now? -emarkp \_ Don't get all huffy, dude -- just stop censoring the motd. \_ from /csua/adm/doc/policies/motd Destruction of the MOTD (by repeated deletion, jive, or any other method) is severly frowned upon and will result in the termination of your account. i'd argue that 1) doesn't count as destruction. as for 2) its a grey area as messed up text is sometimes still readable. i would count selective purging based on what one considers "noise" to be destruction under the above policy. -erikk \_ Gee, I wonder where the policy police is when people repeatedly fuck up my posts (Delete a few lines, change some things, sign my name to things I didn't write, etc.) This entire thread is bullshit. Apply 'The Policy' uniformly, or don't bring it up at all. -- ilyas \_ Ilyas, 'The Policy' can't en enforced in your favor if you just sit back in silence and allow yourself to be violated. And no, one line quips probably aren't enough to make it clear you're being victimized. If you're not going to stand up for your rights, then I have a hard time understanding your tone here. \_ Last time some mental giant decided to sign my name to some shit I didn't write, I made a post about it to the motd, which got promptly ignored and soon deleted. People regularly edit and delete my posts, it's pretty clear if you have been paying attention. I guess next time it happens I ll just snitch to the politburo... *sigh* It's clear to me people have a huge double standard for 'The Policy.' When some people do stuff, it's harmless fun and pranks, when others do it, it's Censorship with a capital C. These days, my policy is, if I see someone fuck up (which is different from an overwrite) what I wrote, I nuke the thread. As far as I am concerned, the conversation is then over. If that's a violation of 'The Policy' take it up with people who fucked up the thread first. -- ilyas \_ I do pay attention, and you're not the only victim by a long shot. So why do you sign your name? why does anyone sign their name? I still don't see the advantage, and I see many disadvantages. \_ I don't always sign my name. When I do, it's because I want to own what I say. The proper response to a macaque having fun at someone else's expense is to not stop signing like a coward, but to make sure the macaque understands its fun will soon end if it does it (i.e the thread will get nuked). -- ilyas \_ I still don't see the point. How exactly do you "own" your posts? who cares? you know you posted them, and i'll read them regardless, so who cares? I think a lot of the funniest, most interesting stuff is by anon. posters, and some of the most useless drivel is by the name-signers (I'm not talking about you here.) \_ So this is some sort of vague threat? Or is it just a lesson that those who nuke threads should remain anonymous? Seriously. -emarkp 3) fuck you. 4) some of us get a lot out of those discussions that you identify as "noise." \_ So identify "us". I've seen the same rabid partisan back-and-forth for years now. I have learned a few things, but the biggest thing I've learned is that most people aren't listening to each other, nor do they care about the truth. Most people on the motd are partisan nutjobs. -emarkp \_ I guess you missed the poll a couple weeks back of how long people have spent doing background research relating to a motd discussion. One guy spent a month researching WMD claims 20 hours a week. I spent two weeks researching the 2000 election debacle because of a motd discussion, and ended up reading the supreme court decision and actually changing my opinion on the issue. I'm afraid it is you who are the partisan nutjob if you're incapable of seeing that people are getting something real out of these discussions, in spite of all the flameing. \_ Just out of curiousity, what's your current opinion of the 2000 election? \_ That it was a total clusterfuck, and that neither side really cheated. I had previously bought the democratic party line that the republicans had "stolen" the election, but became convinced that the things that were broken in florida were just good ol' fashioned bipartisan idiocy. I was also amazed at how much other idiocy there was outside of florida that no one cared about because it didn't come down to so few votes. There was one county in South Carolina where the official tally had one vote for Gore, one for Bush, and several thousand for Nader and Buchannan. and several hundred for Nader and Buchannan. \_ What? Are you serious? How did that happen? (about the county in SC) \_ well, I got it from this paper: http://elections.fas.harvard.edu/pc01/node5.html But for details, you'd have to look up the reference from there. That paper is *really* worth reading, by the way, if you want the whole story about the "butterfly ballot." 5) did i mention fuck you? \_ You know he's responsible for some of the purges, huh? Why, because he's got the guts to sign his name and you don't? Oooo.. that's ome pretty hard evidence. -jrleek \_ Look, the Mormons are banding together! You know what, sometimes the trolls annoy me too but I don't want your self-appointed cleansing going on with active discussions. If other people are using the motd then you're just a stupid dick to wipe it all out. But hey I'll be a dick too: I only care to see that Doom 3 thread. \_ Yeah, that's mature. You're really swaying my opinion with your masterful argument. -emarkp \_ I'm not the "fuck you" guy by the way but I agree. Re: your "truth", do you have the truth? I think not. That's the point of discussion. \_ Again, why do you keep claiming I, or he, have wiped anything? I've personally never deleted anyone else's stuff from the motd on purpose. Hello? Any proof, at all? No? Bye troll, I'm done. -jrleek \_ emarkp admits it a few posts up. \_ Whoops, didn't see that. I stand corrected. -jrleek \_ What does my being Mormon have to do with anything? Besides, if you want to criticize our connections, complain that he's my brother-in-law, not just that both of us are Mormons. -emarkp \_ We already know you guys are all related. \_ Aren't all mormons in-laws of each other? \_ Hope you didn't pay much for that bait. I don't think you're gonna catch any billy-goats. \_ Those who don't participate don't care. In any case, it's not so hard to nuke the political threads at the end of the day when everyone's gone home and eating dinner instead of in the middle when people are loafing.
2018/08/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 8/16

You may also be interested in these entries...
 2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil 11/2 California Uber Alles is such a great song \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I can't believe we elected this retread. \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground ... 
 2010/9/17-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:53960 Activity:low 9/17 "Report: Los Angeles spent $70 million in stimulus funds to create 7.76 jobs" Yes, that's seven-point-seven-six jobs. http://www.csua.org/u/rmu (news.yahoo.com) \_ It is Obama's fault? \_ Then: The Buck Stops Here ...   2010/7/12-8/11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53882 Activity:low 7/12 "Debt commission leaders paint gloomy picture" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_governors_debt_commission "... everything needs to be considered . including curtailing popular tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, ..." Housing market is going to crash again? \_ Doubt it, not with NSFW marketing tactics like this: ...   2009/8/12-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53268 Activity:moderate 8/12 Thanks for destroying the world's finest public University! http://tinyurl.com/kr92ob (The Economist) \_ Why not raise tuition? At private universities, students generate revenue. Students should not be seen as an expense. UC has been a tremendous bargain for most of its existence. It's time to raise tuition to match the perceived quality of the ...   2009/2/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:52556 Activity:low 2/10 http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be ...   2008/11/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51801 Activity:nil 11/3 "Obama's grandmother dies a day before election" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_grandmother Poor lady. Couldn't hang in there for even one more day. \- i'm pretty unsentimental at the passing of strangers but this is poignant and moving. it's like a literary epic part of "obama story". ...   2008/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51812 Activity:nil 11/4 It's my first time to vote. What prevents me from voting twice by both mailing in my ballot and voting at a poll place? Thx. \_ nothing. well besides the fact that the local fed prosecutor could focus their resources on you and send you to jail for voter fraud. I think it happened to someone a couple years ago. \_ I know in Santa Clara you can track online whether your vote has ...    ...    ...   2008/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51722 Activity:moderate 10/29 What time is Obama's TV infomercial tonight in the Bay Area? Thx. \_ Out of curiosity, are you undecided? How fun is it to watch Obama recite the same stuff he's been reciting for what feels like an eternity at this point? \_ I'm undecided between voting for Obama and not voting for either. \_ I'm undecided between voting for Obama and voting for neither. ...  Cache (4799 bytes)  elections.fas.harvard.edu/pc01/node5.html Robust Estimation of an The Buchanan Vote Across the Country in 2000 To analyze the results of the 2000 election in counties across the country, we define$ y_{i}$to be the number of votes counted for Patrick Buchanan in the 2000 presidential election in county$ i$. The linear predictor is$\displaystyle x'_{i} \beta\displaystyle = \beta_{0} + \beta_{1} x_{1i} + \beta_{2} x_{2i},$where$ x_{1i}$is the proportion of votes officially received by the Republican candidate in the 1996 presidential election in county$ i$and$ x_{2i}$is the proportion of votes officially received by the Reform Party candidate in the 1996 presidential election. It should be clear that our independent variables may be contaminated. The same kinds of irregularities that led to outliers in the 2000 election may have led to outliers in 1996. It is important that the estimator we have chosen is robust to contamination from$ x_{i}$values as well as robust to contamination from the disturbance. We estimate the model separately for each state in the United States. This is done because results not presented here show that we cannot pool the coefficient or dispersion parameters across states. Therefore we obtain separate estimates of$ \beta$and$ \sigma\$ in each state in the analysis. But the residuals of interest are comparable across states because of the studentization described above. Jasper County did not receive much national media attention, because the county's total vote was a fraction of Bush's margin of victory and because the county's vote was immaterial to the outcome of the 2000 presidential contest. The figure plots the expected or predicted Buchanan vote share, based on 1996 presidential returns, versus corresponding studentized residuals. With the exception of Palm Beach County--which is pointed out explicitly--there appears to be no systematic relationship between expected vote share and studentized residual. The quantile-quantile plot is relatively smooth, excluding Palm Beach County, and the jump in the plot indicates that the studentized residual for this county lies far in the tail of the distribution of studentized residuals from Florida. After Palm Beach County the next most anomalous county with respect to 2000 Buchanan vote share is Hancock County, West Virginia. A remarkable feature of Hancock County is that it is part of a geographically contiguous cluster of seven counties that had unusually high levels of votes for Buchanan. Five of the counties are in West Virginia and two are in the state of Ohio. Because it spans two states, it is highly unlikely that this exceptional burst of support for Buchanan reflects problems of ballot format or electoral administration. Most likely the reason is special success in mobilizing voters for Buchanan in those areas, perhaps on a basis of economic interests special to those areas. Another cluster of outlier counties that spans state boundaries includes three counties in Nebraska and two in Iowa. The isolation bolsters our tracing of the anomaly in that county to problems in a single precinct. Palm Beach County also does not belong to a cluster of exceptionally pro-Buchanan counties. Therefore, the explanation for Palm Beach County's large positive residual is most likely at the geographic resolution of county or lower. It is possible that Palm Beach County is an outlier because of only a few anomalous precincts. We engage this issue in Section 3 Among counties with negative studentized residuals, the one with the largest residual is Cook County, Illinois, which is traditionally a heavily Democratic county. Cook County is surrounded by other Illinois counties that contributed very few votes to Buchanan. In other words, while Cook County was unusual insofar as its extreme lack of Buchanan votes, it is not unusual in the larger sense of being located in an area that is generally pro-Buchanan. Post-election news stories documented serious balloting problems in Cook County, although not focusing on the aberration in the vote recorded for Buchanan. The Colorado cluster reflects a huge rift in the Reform Party there, which in addition abetted an extreme kind of ballot problem. John Hagelin--not Buchanan--was on the Colorado ballot as the Reform Party candidate. Buchanan appeared as the Colorado Freedom Party nominee. The detection of an outlier is grounds for further investigation and not proof of voting irregularities as was definitively determined in the case of Jasper County, South Carolina. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that Palm Beach County is one of the most unusual counties in the country. This finding supports--but of course on its own does not prove--that Buchanan received a larger number of votes than Palm Beach County voters intended to give him.