mormont

Board Moderators
  • Content count

    36,173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mormont

  • Rank
    Thread Bear
  • Birthday 05/10/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  • Location St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

19,874 profile views
  1. Batman and Superman III : Batfleck Rises

    I might, actually, because it's got some good reviews. But what I certainly wouldn't do is use it as a point of comparison, because I have no idea whether I'd be making myself look foolish by doing so. Saying 'this sounds bad' is one thing, using something you've never read as a benchmark is quite another.
  2. Hey, 

     I have recently done a fair bit of communicating with Jack Bauer24, and you were absolutely right to call me out for the tone that I had been taking with him. I just didn't realize that I was talking to a 15 year old kid that was doing his best to try and get along and talk about things that he was passionate about. I actually feel bad for some of my behavior. 

     The good news, is that his posts have significantly improved, and he is really starting to contribute. I have done my best to encourage him. In the future, I will pay closer attention to the first time you call me a bonehead about things.

    Hope you are having a fantastic day, and thanks again for keeping this place straight around here.

     

    Howdyphillip

    Philip Marshall

  3. U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire

    I mean, I expect that sort of thing from Trump at this point. I think he's established very firmly that there's nothing he won't say if he thinks it gives him an advantage of any sort. Nothing's shocking when it comes from Trump any more. Awful, reprehensible, disgraceful, embarrassing, perhaps, but not shocking. In a way that's becoming a problem for him. It's not newsworthy any more when he says awful things. He doesn't get so many free headlines out of it.
  4. Batman and Superman III : Batfleck Rises

    So... you admit you haven't actually read the comics you're talking about, but you're willing to say how bad they are anyway?
  5. U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire

    That's fine, but you're disagreeing with a factual statement, not an opinion. Comments on opinion pieces have much more significant validity problems than even telephone polls. For one thing, you're relying on people having an internet connection, which may or may not be as common as having a landline, but undoubtedly leaves out a lot of the same people who are excluded from telephone polling and whose absence makes those unreliable. In addition, as Ormond points out, it's a self-selecting sample, as if you'd given out a number for people to call the telephone poll rather than being called by them, so it's non-random. And it's a sample drawn from people who frequent those particular sites in the first place, compounding that problem. On top of all that, you presumably don't have any age, income, gender or racial data about the commenters, so can't even say whether the sample is balanced or representative of the population at large. So yeah, the telephone polls are still more reliable and valid than your ad hoc sampling. You may believe differently, but beliefs don't change facts, I'm afraid. What you're doing is more like divination than polling. Now, if you want to say that the telephone polls could in theory be replaced or supplemented by some sort of systematic, balanced internet polling, I'd agree, but the main polling companies have been looking for a good way to do that for quite a while.
  6. Batman and Superman III : Batfleck Rises

    I mean, anyone who's seen Watchmen knows that Snyder has form for reading comic books but not actually understanding them. So the above comments don't surprise me.
  7. Nope. The conversation starts on p17 talking about raw vote totals being released (post from Altherion). The DMR editorial is introduced on p18. (Now having read it, I don't think much of it, frankly.) The conversation immediately returns to discussion of the raw vote totals, with asides about whether the Iowa co-chairwoman is in the tank for Hilary and whether caucuses in general are a bad idea. Nobody raises a specific concern about the accuracy of delegate allocation until Nestor does so in the post I'm responding to above. That all being said, if the campaigns had observers on the night and the right to challenge, yeah, it seems to me all of this is water under the bridge. If you want to say how flawed the Iowa Democrat caucus is as a process, I'm right with you. If you want to talk about how it can be improved or replaced, I'm with you on that too. If you want to say this is somehow key to whether Sanders or Clinton should be the Democratic candidate in this election, I'm leaving you to fight that one alone, I'm afraid.
  8. That's not what I said, though: what it is, is a difference of opinion about what 'in any meaningful way' means. For me, the issue is that as I understand it, the thing being asked for, the thing that is under discussion - vote totals - is not possible to verify. It's possible that there was some error in allocating the delegates correctly, of course, but I've not actually heard anyone really suggesting that this is the case*. If you believe it was, that's fine, but it's not what we were actually talking about a page or so ago, and it's not the major concern being raised by Sanders supporters. That concern is very much about perception, it seems to me. If you have another set of concerns, that's fine, but it seems to me you're raising them in opposition to people who're not actually opposing them. *full disclosure, though, I haven't read the Des Moines Register story you're referring to.
  9. Scot, you're simply begging the question here. This assumes that the information a, is reliable and checkable - otherwise it's meaningless one way or the other; b, would in fact be damaging to Clinton; and c, that it matters - that is, that an extremely narrow victory (in effect a tie) for Clinton is somehow less damaging than a revision of that result to an actual tie or a victory for Sanders so narrow that it is in effect a tie. Again - no matter whether this info is released or not, no-one (including the Clinton campaign) is denying that in effect the contest was a tie. That was the story on the night, it's the story now. Wallowing in the minutiae of whether that tie was 0.05% this way or 0.03% that way is not an important issue, any way you slice it. ETA - Nestor, your entire post is pointless. I've already pointed out that as far as I understand things, it's effectively impossible to audit the integrity of this system in any meaningful way. That ship has sailed.
  10. As has already been said: what meaningful data is there that can be accessed about an in-person caucus? As I understand it, there are only various tallies that could be right or could be wrong, but there's no way of knowing for sure. You can't go back and check. Accessing that data doesn't clear anything up. And, to echo the point made by Anti-Targ; what's the issue anyway? There's no suggestion that Sanders actually won by a clear and significant margin. It's just a question of whether a race that was effectively a tie was technically a Clinton victory by a wafer-thin, insignificant amount or a Sanders win by a wafer-thin, insignificant amount. That doesn't alter the basic narrative of the result - that there was little or nothing to pick between the candidates.
  11. Football: gegenposting

    So have I, but not particularly often. Every player finishes a chance now and then. I don't think it's a confidence issue, either, because Walcott has never really had the kind of scoring streak confidence players tend to get. I'd say Giroud's movement is improving much more than Walcott's finishing, which has always seemed to me to be a weakness and doesn't seem to me to be getting better. I'd also say that the very thing Arsenal need right at this moment is someone who can finish chances, not someone who contributes to creating them. Looking dangerous is fine, but scoring is something else.
  12. Football: gegenposting

    I think you and I watched different games. Any time I've seen Walcott at CF, he's displayed decent movement coupled with some pretty awful finishing. That's not a combination that says 'successful centre-forward' to me.
  13. I'm not an American and my constitutional knowledge is not strong, but my impression was that the US system was designed specifically to prevent one individual instituting radical change by winning the Presidency?
  14. I'm trying to picture a scenario where the superdelegates would intervene, and I just can't. It would be political suicide. Imagine the attack ads. 'Why elect the candidate even their own party didn't want!' Just... no way.
  15. Football: gegenposting

    Ultimately, at worst there may be a pre-contract agreement signed with a financial penalty clause if broken. Unless that clause is for a truly unfeasibly large amount (in which case it would likely be contestable in court) then Man U or Chelsea or Arsenal would simply give Pep the money to pay it off - and that's even if a court agrees it's enforcable. So, on its own, a pre-contract (even if it exists) is not much of a protection.