Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 32665
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2018/08/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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.
                       \_ 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?
                             \_ 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
                                              \_ 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.
              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.
                    \_ 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:
                                   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.
                    \_ 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

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. (
        \_ 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"
        "... 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! (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
        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"
        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)
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.