"TruthIsAll's got a book coming out." - x

[tiptoe]

Announcement by byronius

 

[mr715]

1. BS For Beginners that dropped out of intro stats?

[tiptoe]

2. Author credentials at links in announcement. n/t

[mr715]

5. Where are his credentials?

What peer reviewed publications does he have?

What university is he affiliated with?

[Zynx]

11. The problem isn't in his technical statistical work. That's pretty solid (relatively).

The problem is in the assumptions he made. Those are bogus and used a selective methodology. If you run Monte Carlo simulations, but have defined them wrong then it doesn't matter.

[mr715]

13. Statistics are logical.

They rely on assumptions.

A good statistician will use good data. Stats just make lies seem more rational. The average of bull and shit is bullshit.

And this guy is regressing towards the mean.

[Vadem]

3. I'm so thrilled that TruthIsAll is now healthy enough to write a book!!!!

That means that I will certainly be buying his book because I know it is true!!!

Hi TruthIsAll!!!!! We have so missed you and are so happy that you are well enough to be writing a book about the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004 (and perhaps even more!!!) Thank Goodness that you are restored to good health!!!!


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Peace Patriot]

4. K&R!!!!!!!!!! Given the mindboggling success of privatized 'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting,'

with virtually no audit/recount controls--all over the country now--there is no way to verify the vote count in any election in half the states in the country and in the other half nobody bothers (miserably inadequate 1% audit in the other half, that is, 99% of the votes are never verified against machine totals), and thus the only thing we can do is what "Truth Is All" has been doing since 2004: put together a statistical picture with available data (exit polls, turnout, registration numbers, year to to year comparisons, etc.) to know whether or not our elections are being rigged. "Truth Is All" thinks they ARE being rigged, and I would trust his word and his hard work far more than I would trust the private, rightwing corporation that now has an 85% monopoly of U.S. voting systems--ES&S, which just bought out Diebold and whose initial funder and major investor is rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things).

That's the sort of people who are now 'counting' almost all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code and little or no verification. You wonder why things are so bad? This is why. 'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting' is the final blockade to reform, giving the far rightwing the capability--the EASY capability--to rig any election in the country including the next presidential election. You wonder why the rightwing dares to raise their heads after the Bush Junta? This is why. They are guaranteed a big trumpet--way out of proportion to their numbers--in the corpo-fascist media, and they are guaranteed continued control of U.S. domestic and foreign policy through rigged elections.

I was wondering why a first term senator from South Carolina, Jim De Mint, seems to be running Obama foreign policy in Latin America, then I realized that, of course, SC is an all touchscreen state. No verification possible.

Restoring vote counting that everyone can see and understand is still DOABLE, since control over voting systems still resides at the local/state level, where ordinary people have some potential influence. The county registrar who decides to turn your vote over to ES&S may live right down the street from you. For most Americans, their state capitol is not that far away. It will take a huge, widespread, persistent citizen movement but it can be done and it MUST be done. We MUST restore transparent vote counting. It is the bottom line of democracy. Without it, we don't really have a democracy. We have a rightwing, corporate/war profiteer tyranny.

"Truth Is All" is the passionate, devoted statistical expert who opened my eyes, here at DU. I think he is the greatest hero of this era. I am very glad that he has written a book and I hope it receives vast circulation--to get this absolutely necessary transparent vote counting movement off the ground!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I love the shit Dick's getting in that other thread.

Is it self published?

[mr715]

7. Credentials.

Waiting.

Published, peer reviewed works?

University affiliation?

Professional associations?

ANYTHING?

[Igel]

8. In my exchanges with him years ago,

he was proud that he could use the menus in Excel.

He never did answer me concerning what the underlying formulas were that Excel used. Or the assumptions behind them. Or how, exactly exit polls worked. Or whether or not there was any proof that, after numbers passed through a non-state-controlled server the numbers in the voting machines were overwritten. No.

He could put numbers in a spreadsheet and "use Excel." And he had the unrevised early exit poll numbers. I mean, given that profundity of understanding, who needs credentials?

Hire the man with tenure. Quick, before MIT snaps him up.

[mr715]

9. Holy God!

Has he discovered game theory or just thorazine?

[BeFree]

15. heh

He proved that the exit poll numbers were cooked up bullshit.

The same exit poll numbers that were bought and paid for by the mass media for $10 million in 2004.

What have you proven? That you can ask questions?

[BeFree]

14. What do you have?

Do you know anything about the vote and how it is counted?

I figure you are ignorant, or you wouldn't be jacking this thread.

[mr715]

17. I am asking for credentials.

Why can I not be informed of them?

When I go to the doctor, I want to know he went to medical school.

[BeFree]

18. I am asking you

What do you know about the way our votes are counted?

TIA's credentials are simply that he showed the count was cooked.

What have you done besides jack this thread?

[mr715]

19. I am not claiming expertise.

I am not making a logical, emotional, or authoritative appeal. The author is making a rhetorical appeal. He is applying ethos to the election of 2004. If you use ethos in rhetoric, you better be able to back it up with credentials.

The author of the book is making a statement. I am asking what his credentials are.

Could you share them?

Notice once more. I am not saying ANYTHING about the votes. I want to know an authors credentials so I can judge that value of the thesis.

[BeFree]

20. It's just math

You do know what math is right?

If you had ever followed TIA's efforts you wouldn't be asking for credentials.
You'd be bowing down at his expertise.

So your here just to try and make a mess?

Do you even care how your votes are counted?

[mr715]

21. I dont know who TIA is.

What are his credentials?

What school did he attend? Did he major in stats or math or regression analysis?

Did he work at a university?

Does he have a degree?

Has he published peer reviewed papers.


Same question, please answer it if you are able.


MR

[tiptoe]

23. All this time you've been screaming, you've still not read the BIO at link in the OP (as per #2) :

 

From the link provided in byronius' announcement, richardcharnin.com:

Upon graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, Richard Charnin (“TruthIsAll”) began his career as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer. In 1976, he moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for three major investment banks. When personal computers became available in 1982, he converted many of these application programs to spreadsheets. As a software consultant, he has specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. He has two M.S. degrees in applied mathematics from Adelphi University and the Polytechnic Institute of NY.
...

 

[mr715]

25. Thank you.

Has he been published in any peer reviewed journals?

[tiptoe]

26. '...peer reviewed...?' -- A response

Peer reviewed?

Do you mean by the top investment bankers on Wall Street who used his models to structure mergers and acquisitions? They peer-reviewed his work, you can be sure.

Do you mean the Aerospace Designers with whom he worked to build commercial and fighter aircraft as well as the Lunar Module? They peer-reviewed his work, you can be sure.

Do you mean the scores of the largest banks (foreign and domestic) and industrial corporations who paid him to develop analytical programs? They peer-reviewed his work, you can be sure.

Do you mean researchers such as Kathy Dopp and Ron Baiman of US Count Votes, who have commented on the quality of TIA's work? Or RFK Jr. and Steve Freeman, who have utilized his findings in their analysis?

Or Ion Sancho, the well-respected Election Supervisor of Leon County, FL? Ion has commented extensively on the value of TIA's work in shining a bright light on the exit pollsters and the media. Sancho is a statistical polling expert who hosted the famous Harry Hursti hack, which proved that voting machines can easily be rigged.

And what about the vast majority of DUers who came to believe that Bush stole the 2004 election — many as a direct result of TIA's postings in 2004-2005?

All DUers, that is, except for one: Mark Lindeman (OnTheOtherHand), who stands virtually alone on DU in believing that Bush won the election fairly in Ohio and nationwide – and that there was no voting machine fraud, just voting suppression. OTOH has consulted with the Mystery Pollster and advised Farhad Manjoo of Salon whose hit piece on RFK Jr.s Rolling Stone article was widely debunked.

Since you have apparently have never heard of TIA, why don't you google his DU postings? And spend a few days reading the threads.

Why don't you comment on the models presented in richardcharnin.com? The track record of his pre- and post-election models is presented there. You can link to the detailed analysis. If you disagree with his methodology, explain why — but be very specific.

Because he will then explain exactly why you were wrong.

 

[mr715]

27. Excuse me,

but the credential you sent me read like a resume - it looked like it was written by him for the purposes of misleading his audience.

Worked for aerospace or top wall street banks sounded like he may be a number cruncher or a low level functionary.

Peer review develops academic thought, business jobs develops... uh... lack of free thought and originality.

Plus, his models rely on flawed data. He makes some really, really improbable assumptions and is fallacious in trying to prove something from flawed assumptions.


Doesn't sound like what a person that fully understanding regression would do unless there is another objective. In which case the burden of foolishness falls on his believers.


Puppies love flying through Mars
Flying through Mars gives people telepathy

QED All puppies have telepathy.


It makes no difference if numbers are used.

2 + 2 = 5
5 + 2 = 6

Faulty assumptions that presented as valid is not what a good mathematician or scientist does.

[tiptoe]

28. No excuse! You don't read! "If you disagree with his methodology, explain why—but be very specific.

...
Because he will then explain exactly why you were wrong."

Your "criticisms" are without substance -- you offer none, despite clearly being asked to do so!

"...his models rely on flawed data." Which models? Which data?? Have you even looked at the models?

"He makes some really, really improbable assumption" Which assumptions??


If all you're interested in is spewing "talking points", try those at the GOP's website -- might be more your speed and style (including screaming).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. That you would say "it's just math" really disqualifies you from this argument.

Clearly, you have no expertise either.

[mr715]

10. Can I have his FREAKING credentials?

[tritsofme]

12. This guy is a nutter.

[BeFree]

16. All this time

And all you have ever done is try to beat back the effort to discover if our votes are counted correctly.

Now who is the nutter?

[mr715]

22. You. nt