Ray Pooch Wrote:
Ray Pooch Wrote: (sigh) It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who (a) often makes mistakes (b) is convinced he never does (c) gets mad at anyone who challenges him (d) accuses people of mischaracterizing him even when they quote him exactly and (e) insists instead that people quote his whole post, because anything else is "selective".
Tougher still when the person is a moderator with an itchy trigger finger.
Sigh... (a) I have never claimed I don't make mistakes (b) I've never claimed I don't
Well, to get back on topic, I allege that you made a mistake above, re the margins of error.
What say you?
I'll say that I'm simply encouraging you to read what I wrote in response to you yesterday afternoon: "They also didn't get the (key) states "badly wrong." Donald "won" because a handful of pissed off white people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showed up by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points more than Hillary voters. That is WELL within the margin of error that any poll could EVER have predicted."
I am concerned that you are selectively quoting yourself to your own advantage. Could you please quote yourself in full, so that I don't have to scroll back?
I'm kidding. But maybe you see the point I am making.
Those are the final tallies of the popular vote. As I said yesterday - those tallies are WELL within the margin of error of every single major poll.
It appears that you still don't understand.
The numbers you provided are just Trump's victory margins. But you have to ADD the margin of victory for Trump TO the margin of victory that the poll predicted for Clinton. That's how you get the total error. Then you compare the total error to the margin of error.
Until you either show me that you comprehend this, or show me that I don't, we can't make further progress.
You responded by linking me to a Business Insider article about one polling agency in one state getting it wrong,
It appears that you did not read the article. It is subtitled "How everyone blew it on Trump's huge upset" (my emphasis) and it interviews a number of professional pollsters who offer explanations for why they themselves, and many others, screwed up the state by state predictions.
so I admit to being wrong when I said "any poll could EVER have predicted" because you were able to provide me proof that one random state poll was an outlier. Bravo!
Well, you have gone from belligerently making an error to sarcastically diminishing its importance. I suppose we can call that a breakthrough.
However, you are still terribly confused. Business Insider weren't fascinated by one "random" "outlier" poll in one state, and wondering how that lonely poll got it wrong. Not only did they discuss a number of polls, their article was explicitly about "How everyone blew it on Trump's huge upset". It's right there in the title, so there can be no misunderstanding.
However, that doesn't negate the fact that the will of the American people was overruled by a handful of angry white people in three states.
We are not talking about white people or why Clinton lost. We are talking about the accuracy of polling. Please don't change the topic.
Ray Pooch Wrote: I haven't misquoted anyone. Ever. That's simply a lie.
I consider selective quoting the same as misquoting.
Then you consider wrong.
Misquoting is representing a person to have said something completely different from what they actually said. Selective quoting is picking out something that they did in fact say, and choosing not to quote the rest. In a place like this forum, where anyone can simply scroll up to see the original context, it makes no sense to misrepresent people in either of these ways. When the person's actual words are right there, just a finger swipe away, one would only damage one's own credibility by trying to misrepresent them.
So you can intelligently assume that when I quote part of a post, that's not what I am trying to do. And if I am quoting the wrong parts of a post, omitting relevant context, and generally damaging my own credibility by misunderstanding what others are trying to say, be assured I am making a fool of myself by accident.
My aim in "selectively" responding is to avoid writing tedious posts where I address everything... like this one. Sometimes it is better just to let part of a post go, even if you disagree, in order to focus on the most important and relevant parts.
Highlighting one sentence of a quote while ignoring the sentences before or after is no different than misquoting someone. Ever.
If you really thought that those were the same, why did you explicitly accuse me of both?
You're obliging me to address each and every point you make, or else be accused of selective quoting.
Hmm. Maybe I shall. Just for a little while, just to show you how it results in long excruciating posts. After that, I will return to my previous practice of "selectively quoting" the important parts, and disregard your complaints. You can then use it as a pretext to ban me, or not. It depends on whether you're serious about welcoming rigorous debate.
Ray Pooch Wrote: I don't really care. Just cut the provocative and belligerent language, stop accusing people of dishonesty and stick to the topic.
Then why did you accuse me of being a moderator with an itchy trigger finger
Let me clarify. When I said I didn't really care, I meant that I don't really care to continue this tedious discussion of your moderating abilities. If you were anyone else, I would just let this part of your post go, even if I disagreed, so that we could talk about something more interesting. If that meant you got the last word, I could live with it.
However, if I let any part of your post go, you accuse me of selective quoting. Very well.
even though you have zero proof to back that up? None, zero, nada of your posts have been removed since our private conversation,
You can hardly blame me for being amused. I was banned within a few posts of my arrival and for a pretty tame post. One that, the moderator himself has since proved, was not worth the time to delete.
After my shocking post, which I am sure left the members here so traumatized that they've all repressed their memories of it, I would have expected a fair moderator to reach out to me to give me an opportunity to explain myself. After that, if I persisted, a polite warning would put me on notice. However, I was banned from almost the moment I arrived, for a mild post, without prior warning or explanation. In fact, without any prior contact whatsoever. In my view, that’s an itchy trigger finger.
Your response is that you have only silenced me once, and you haven’t done so since the last time you did so. True. But I have to wonder why a mod who has already banned me would falsely accuse me, over and over again, of misquoting folks, unless he were building to the moment when he gives me the chop.
If that's what's going on here, you really needn't work so hard. There are three billion people on the internet, and always another forum down the way. If you want me to leave, you could just ask. I promise I won't weep myself into a coma.
but you continue to bring up the one time I removed your thread for breaking our community rules.
BTW, which thread did you remove? I don't remember you removing a thread. Far as I recall, the offending post is still on the forum, making people cry.
I am happy to let this go. However, if you want to continue discussing your moderating, I have some other things to say. Just let me know if you are interested in receiving more of my feedback.
Get over yourself, Ray. We welcome rigorous debate here.
That is yet to be proved.