The Election Results

"Mike Kruger"

wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 12 Nov 2004 16:34:25 GMT, (Hunrobe)
wrote:

How does the judge tell the difference between verdicts
based on the evidence and verdicts based on keenness to
get home in
time for Oprah?

Insult #1 for Oprah.

2- One result of so many people avoiding jury service is
that not
always but too often we end up scraping the bottom of the
barrel for
jurors.

Insult #2 for Oprah, who recently served on a jury in
Illinois which convicted a man of murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3578906.stm

You are darned lucky my wife doesn't read this newsgroup. In
the chaos of our house, there is one little corner where all
he old Oprah magazines are neatly arranged. I can make the
occasional snide comment about in-laws, but I've learned not
to speak unkindly about Oprah.

Just in case your wife ever *does* read this NG, only the second statement
above was mine. The Oprah insult was Guy's.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S. to Guy- Sorry for ratting you out like this but accuracy demands I correct
the accidental misquote. Besides, Mike lives in my area and I could conceivably
meet his wife someday but I doubt she'd fly to GB just to punish you for your
humor. ;-)

"Hunrobe" wrote in message
...
"Mike Kruger"

wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 12 Nov 2004 16:34:25 GMT, (Hunrobe)
wrote:

How does the judge tell the difference between
verdicts
based on the evidence and verdicts based on keenness to
get home in
time for Oprah?

Insult #1 for Oprah.

2- One result of so many people avoiding jury service
is
that not
always but too often we end up scraping the bottom of
the
barrel for
jurors.

Insult #2 for Oprah, who recently served on a jury in
Illinois which convicted a man of murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3578906.stm

You are darned lucky my wife doesn't read this newsgroup.
In
the chaos of our house, there is one little corner where
all
he old Oprah magazines are neatly arranged. I can make
the
occasional snide comment about in-laws, but I've learned
not
to speak unkindly about Oprah.

Just in case your wife ever *does* read this NG, only the
second statement
above was mine. The Oprah insult was Guy's.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S. to Guy- Sorry for ratting you out like this but
accuracy demands I correct
the accidental misquote. Besides, Mike lives in my area
and I could conceivably
meet his wife someday but I doubt she'd fly to GB just to
punish you for your
humor. ;-)

I plead not guilty. As you can see above,
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
has two "", so what he wrote has three ""

Your identification above begins
On 12 Nov 2004 16:34:25 GMT, (Hunrobe)
which starts with three "", so what you originally wrote
has four ""
(which is indeed the second statement).

I think this pretty much dead-ends this part of the thread,
so we can return to other ranting

"Mike Kruger"

wrote:

I plead not guilty. As you can see above,
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
has two "", so what he wrote has three ""

Your identification above begins
On 12 Nov 2004 16:34:25 GMT, (Hunrobe)
which starts with three "", so what you originally wrote
has four ""
(which is indeed the second statement).

I think this pretty much dead-ends this part of the thread,
so we can return to other ranting

I plead guilty to a lapse in attentiveness. My apologies.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:06:48 -0600, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:

Insult #1 for Oprah.

In what way? I thought Mike Moore's idea of a write-in campaign for
was one of the best ideas I've heard for ages.

Oprah for President! You know it makes sense. She'd have sorted out
Israel and Palestine by now and be working on the Balkans :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Fx199 wrote:
What do the results MEAN to you?
Do you think city people voting for Kerry is an excuse to act elitist about
Kerry?
Bush's poll approval ratings are way up...

i'm, uuhhh, gonna sit this fight out and hang with the females and groom and
play with the kids and stuff.
--
david reuteler

Subject: The Election Results
From: David Reuteler
Date: 11/23/2004 9:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Fx199 wrote:
What do the results MEAN to you?
Do you think city people voting for Kerry is an excuse to act elitist about
Kerry?
Bush's poll approval ratings are way up...

i'm, uuhhh, gonna sit this fight out and hang with the females and groom and
play with the kids and stuff.
--
david reuteler



hmm, you were so interested in the stats, just wondered what it all meant to
you, it wasn't an invitation to fight, you have the right to like whichever
candidate you prefer...

Fx199 wrote:

Subject: The Election Results
From: David Reuteler
Date: 11/23/2004 9:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Fx199 wrote:
What do the results MEAN to you?
Do you think city people voting for Kerry is an excuse to act elitist about
Kerry?
Bush's poll approval ratings are way up...

i'm, uuhhh, gonna sit this fight out and hang with the females and groom and
play with the kids and stuff.
--
david reuteler



hmm, you were so interested in the stats, just wondered what it all meant to
you, it wasn't an invitation to fight, you have the right to like whichever
candidate you prefer...

well, obviously i can't answer whether city folk vote for kerry to act
elitist.

... but look at the first maps

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...dbluelarge.png

there are two factors that make it look like the republicans received
considerably more votes than they really did and need to be correct for
in the original map.

1) a polarized non-continuous colour map artificially exagerrates the
differences. when one state is red and its neighbour blue and the
difference in the vote was only 2% you're losing information.
going to a county level is better as well but not as bad as this.
2) state sizes do not represent equal populations, thus wyoming looks
more important in the overall popular vote than new york when it isn't.
people realize this but they don't "get it" when they see the map and
they think, wow .. bush must have won by the %age of red area. that's
just how we interpret things.

one interesting thing w/r/t to 2) that's not mentioned much is that the
electoral college artifically inflates the value of votes in smaller states
since the number of electoral votes is the # of house of reps (which is
based purely on population) plus the # senators (always 2) .. thus a
the state of wyoming with a population of 500,000 or so gets 3 electoral
votes while minnesota with 5,000,000 gets 10. .. so wyoming gets 1 electoral
vote per 166,667 voters while minnesota gets 1 per 500,000.

just one more reason why i think the electoral college is junk.

to see the effect the first map is by population, the second by electoral
college votes. look at the size of wyoming, idaho and montana between the
two and also check out california which shrinks.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...dbluelarge.png
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...llegelarge.png

and no, it would not have had any effect on the outcome. fwiw, i voted
third party anyway.
--
david reuteler