POLLS

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

POLLS

Postby kate520 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:36 pm

2Gs= Geezer and Grifter?

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

POLLS

Postby Slartibartfast » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:45 pm

aarrgghh,I found this compelling argument against Nate being gay on the Twitter feed you linked:

Aaron Law ‏@anlaw23@fivethirtyeight You wore brown shoes with a gray suit on Jon Stewart. The counterargument writes itself. That is 100% badass stathead.

and this gem from the article you linked:

He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was. But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election.

What a remarkably fact and insight free analysis.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18663
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Contact:

POLLS

Postby Foggy » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:50 pm

2Gs= Geezer and Grifter?

Sí, señora. :-bd

User avatar
aarrgghh
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:05 pm
Contact:

POLLS

Postby aarrgghh » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:55 pm

Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election.

concern troll is very concerned!

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

POLLS

Postby Slartibartfast » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:15 pm




concern troll is very concerned!

Yes, it is---even though it just said that Nate had TEH GAY.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

POLLS

Postby esseff44 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:52 pm

O.D., I was reading about someone who kept getting his signs torn down until he started smearing the edges with vaseline. The sign vandals apparently don't like getting sticky stuff on their hands. :D

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

POLLS

Postby kate520 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Mix it with some opened fish oil capsules first. ;;)

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 21784
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

POLLS

Postby SueDB » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:43 am

Mix it with some opened fish oil capsules first. ;;)

Cod liver oil mixed with some vaseline...capsicum cream/ointment....Cut open a habenero/jalapeno or those nasty little red Thai peppers that rot your sinuses out --- rub some of that on the edges.....Whew! That or find an el cheapo wireless video camera with the infrared lighting for nightime. Lots of the game cameras will use the flash at night. This would be a problem where the perp could locate and destroy the camera (but might miss the sd card.) It either needs to be unnoticeable or attended unless you are going to invest in a security lock box for the camera guts. A cheapo wireless camera and your computer can do many things grasshopper.
"Scientific Research: A whole lotta tedious attention to detail followed
by a lovely payoff too esoteric for your friends to understand."
anon--

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

POLLS

Postby Suranis » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:00 am

A summery of this thread[BBvideo 425,350:1l1w00mj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvPugcb7QGE[/BBvideo]
Have you tried the Internet? It's made out of millions of people missing the point of everything and then getting angry about it.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15720
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

POLLS

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:26 am

[link]According to the headline,http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121028/NEWS010601/310280047&Ref=AR[/link], the Cincinnati Enquirer/Ohio News Organization Poll shows President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each with 49 percent support from likely voters.

“In the final days before the election, both campaigns will focus on turning out their bases, appealing to independents and attracting the few undecided voters that remain,” said Eric Rademacher, co-director of the University of Cincinnati’s Institute for Policy Research, which conducted the poll. “Absent any more twists and turns, a remarkable presidential campaign may end with the campaign that executes the best ‘ground game’ narrowly delivering Ohio for the next president of the United States.”

However, [link]the "live" poll results,http://desktop.websurveyor.net/analysis/generatepublicreport.aspx?esid=382012&subaccountid=89350[/link], based at the moment on a sample of 2,690 respondents, show President Obama at 58.3% in Ohio. This kind of reporting from a poll is unfamiliar to me. Presumably, interviewers from this Institute are now calling landline and cell phone users and entering their results in real time. The "sample" currently stands at 2,709, with Pres. Obama's support at 58.4%. I would not infer anything from these results.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 9001
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

POLLS

Postby Plutodog » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:50 pm

No like.[/break1]ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html]http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking ... 20598.htmlNSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) insist there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

[edit]for link font size[/edit]
We are not sinners. We are not abominations. We were not born broken, and we do not need salvation. We have embraced our right to think beyond the boundaries of religion. We are living and loving our lives free from faith. -- Sarah Morehead

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

POLLS

Postby kate520 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:54 pm

Dawg, you have to make the text regulAr size for it to be a linkadoo.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 3617
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

POLLS

Postby Chilidog » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:58 pm

No like. http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.htmlNSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) insist there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately, as it were) the analysis appears to be crap and wrong.From the comments:

As much as I'd like to believe this, the analysis of the data is incorrect. The cumulative value is used incorrectly on the X-axis, instead of just the Y, giving statistical bias to the large numbered precincts due to the accumulation. If you use column L instead, which is the integer total number of votes per precinct, you get the flat line you are expecting with the cumulative still used on the Y axis. If you generate the resulting graph it also produces a lot of variance in the smaller precincts before it levels out, which is what I would expect intuitively, it's unlikely that smaller precincts will have such a consistent curve shown in your graph with such a small amount of data, ie 10 voters.


User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15720
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

POLLS

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:00 pm

No like.[link]NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections,http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html[/link]

I would like to hear from pretty Hektor and anyone else who is mathematically literate. Whatever the judgment, we simply must go to voting machines that leave a paper trail. It strikes me as sinister that many machines do not do so.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

POLLS

Postby Suranis » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:09 pm

Getting some old guys to count the Xs on different ballots from a pile of paper. Its a system that is used the world over and no-one has any real problem with it yet.
Have you tried the Internet? It's made out of millions of people missing the point of everything and then getting angry about it.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 9001
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

POLLS

Postby Plutodog » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:27 pm

Getting some old guys to count the Xs on different ballots from a pile of paper. Its a system that is used the world over and no-one has any real problem with it yet.

:-bd
We are not sinners. We are not abominations. We were not born broken, and we do not need salvation. We have embraced our right to think beyond the boundaries of religion. We are living and loving our lives free from faith. -- Sarah Morehead

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

POLLS

Postby Slartibartfast » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:57 pm

I would like to hear from pretty Hektor and anyone else who is mathematically literate.





Whatever the judgment, we simply must go to voting machines that leave a paper trail. It strikes me as sinister that many machines do not do so.

My initial take is that there are some things in the analysis that make me suspicious about the conclusions they claim (like they found it in every state except Utah---to me, this makes it look like Utah is an anomaly [and there are obvious reasons why it might be] rather than the only state where the "fix" wasn't in) and that the objection that Chilldog quoted seems valid. I'll take a more thorough look at it and post something later tonight or tomorrow...

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

POLLS

Postby Hektor » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:18 pm

I would like to hear from pretty Hektor and anyone else who is mathematically literate. Whatever the judgment, we simply must go to voting machines that leave a paper trail. It strikes me as sinister that many machines do not do so.

Well, I've just looked at it briefly. Remember I am not a statistics major, but some things about this study are troubling to me in terms of its validity. What the study seems to be doing is simply analyzing vote percentages by relating them to voting precinct size. Unfortunately, I don't know a lot about the demographics of Arizona (where this study seems to take place). So I'm going to go by someone whose opinion I value, Nate Silver and link to this [link]blog post,http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/why-arizona-isnt-a-battleground-state-and-why-it-may-be-soon/[/link] on 538.From the Link

Arizona is a Republican-leaning state largely because [highlight=#ffff00]Maricopa County is a Republican-leaning[/highlight] county. With about [highlight=#ffff00]60 percent of the electorate[/highlight], Maricopa County’s political preferences tend to carry the day.While Phoenix itself skews Democratic, most of the vast suburbs do not. “The East Valley — including Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa — tend to be quite Republican,” Mr. Berman said. The East Valley also has a large Mormon community.[snip]Maricopa County is so big that even though it leans Republican, Democrats get the bulk of their votes there, too. But the main Democratic-leaning county in Arizona is Pima County, which is more than one-third Hispanic and includes Tucson, where the University of Arizona is situatedPolitics in Arizona’s less populated counties tends to be determined by a mix of demographics and religion. Democrats normally carry Coconino County, which includes Flagstaff and is about a quarter Native American and 15 percent Hispanic; Apache County, which is about 72 percent American Indian; and Santa Cruz County, which is almost 83 percent Hispanic.

While there are rural low populated heavily Republican leaning districts, there are also low populated heavily leaning Democratic districts. Plus Pima County which according to Silver has about 17% of the population skews Democratic. Low population districts as a group can have higher variability in any breakdown simply because they're small. Without more data I can only speculate, but it is possible that the total small lean Democratic and it looks like Pima county leans Democratic (17% of the population, so possibly a large number of the medium sized districts) The resulting trend line doesn't surprise me though because Maricopa County which has 60% of the population (and thus likely a majority of the large population precincts) leans Republican. That's where most of the voters are and though Phoenix leans Democratic, a lot of the suburbs go the other way. So the trend line reflects what I would expect at least for medium to high simply because of Maricopa county. I'm not saying that there aren't shenanigans. But I am saying that just generating a trend line from small population centres to large ones doesn't necessarily scream conspiracy. Sometimes there are very logical demographics which justify such a thing. The study seems to be just Arizona and as I said because there is one county which dominates the state population-wise and it leans Republican, the trend-line isn't surprising to me. To me though, single variable analysis isn't a good way to detect voting fraud. They catch cheaters in statistical data all the time academically because usually the person doing the cheating has no understanding how their data doesn't withstand modern statistical scrutiny. That is not my area of expertise (I've taken a grand total of 4 courses that deal with probability and statistics, two of which were introductory ones), HOWEVER I know such analysis carefully examines multiple variables to detect data that doesn't behave "normally" in a statistical sense. This to me seems more like I've arranged data in a particular way to make it look alarming without giving context to those numbers. I always say to my classes that numbers are meaningless without context. That Maricopa county is the largest county but leans Republican gives a lot of context. I'm not saying that there are not shenanigans going on. I've always wanted paper trails with electronic voting machines for obvious reasons. But the simplicity of this study makes me quite skeptical. It is quite possible this trend line is just a byproduct of the partisan and population centre organization in Arizona. If a similar trends were seen in a variety of different states with different partisan/population centre distributions then perhaps it would be more alarming.[edit]Sorry I was looking/responding to Duniho's analysis. I stand by my analysis in regard to Duniho. In regard to Choquette and Johnson I will have to read further but I am a bit perplexed that even for that study they chose to as well exemplify Arizona and not other states. Will read/post further when I have time.[/edit]

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

POLLS

Postby Hektor » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:45 pm

A few more thoughts about Choquette and Johnson before dinner.





The thing about this study is it only is about the GOP Primary Results rather than a general election. So comparing its results to those of Duniho when he's analyzing say the Giffords special election for instance is apples to oranges.





I have some big problems with the methodology of this study. Again it is looking at the data from one angle: vote total as arranged via size of district. Usually fake data exhibits multiple anomalies from different kinds of analysis. The trend line looks dramatic but it represents a singular analysis.





Some of my beefs include that they are comparing caucuses (which I believe are run by the parties) with primaries (which correct me if I am wrong but are run by the individual states). That's just bad analysis. Most graphs have different scales, which reflects the different percentages of the results but also put the emphasis on the trend line. Romney is also apparently cheating in West Virginia and Kentucky after both Newt and Santorum withdrew.





There are five graphs that deal with the primaries and caucuses up until Super Tuesday (March 6). Of them Mitt Romney won 3 (Ohio,New Hampshire and Arizona) and lost two (Iowa and Oklahoma) But Mitt Romney won 13 states (and 393 delegates). His opponents combined won 8 states (and 315 delegates).





There are two graphs for the primaries/caucauses in March that weren't on Super Tuesday: Louisiana (which I think has a typo in the study on it since [link]Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Republican_primary_and_caucuses,_2012[/link] has the primary on March 24 and the caucuses in April). But there were 10 states decided in this period with 7 states and territories and 223 delegates going to Romney and 3 states and 144 delegates in total to his opponents. Romney's total is now 20 states and 616 delegates. His opponents have won combined 11 states and 459 delegates. Romney needed 1,144 delegates to win the nomination.





There's one graph from April (Wisconsin) I'll quote Wikipedia


The Super PACs supporting Romney also helped him to win the state using more than 3 million USD, almost four times more than spend by the Super PAC supporting Santorum in Wisconsin

But this was very typical for Romney. From what I remember, Super PACs allied with him spent bundles burying his opponents in TV and radio ads (and not just in Wisconsin). In April Romney won 7 states + DC (Total now 28) and 258 delegates (total now 874) and his opponents no states and only 24 delegates (total 483)





Finally there are two graphs from May which I have already complained about. But to me it's very intellectually dishonest to do any sort of analysis on those two races since the last two competitors who stood a "chance" at winning the nomination to Romney (sorry Ron Paul) had withdrawn.





Much of the analysis seems to be on the results from just 11 states not all 50. Of those 3 elections (West Virginia, Kentucky and Utah) come from after Romney has pretty much won. And two of them have this "anomaly" even though Romney wins both with over 60+% of the vote. I'll get to Utah in a second.





One simple way to refute this argument is to look at the same candidate (Mitt Romney) in the same state in the same election, but 4 years ago. In fact, the same candidate did not have this density-related slope factor in 2008 in Maryland or in 2012 in Utah (see Figure 12 and Figure 13), while he had it in 2012 in the same state in the same type of elections

Note: They of course strangely do not analyze Maryland in 2012 or West Virginia in 2008 where Romney came in second. That might be meaningful. They didn't. That stands out to me. Comparing states that Romney Won both in 2008 and 2012 like Michigan and Massachusetts might also been more informative. They didn't.





Also, Utah. Romney got 93.07% of the vote but they found it strange that there was no trend line. When his opponents combined got less than 7% of the vote. That it is easier for the total percentage to vary when there are more opponents in the race winning larger percentages of the vote seems to escape them.





I'm just seeing a lot less here than Romney rigged the Republican primaries and caucuses in 49 states. Romney had large advantages (big war chest, divided and weak opposition, establishment backing). While I am sure it is possible he engaged in a massive amount of electoral fraud in 10 states (including at least two where he absolutely didn't need to), I don't find this report especially damning. I find some of the things that it doesn't compare though to make me a bit suspicious of its results.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15720
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

POLLS

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:14 pm

Hektor, with help from Chilidog, has demolished both analyses as far as I am concerned.I think that Romney cheats in lots of ways, starting with theft of American jobs and Americans' life savings.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 9001
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

POLLS

Postby Plutodog » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:27 pm

Yep. Myth busted. And of course Reepub against Reepub would seem to go against the fear of a unified Reepub Party having the power, money, dishonesty, computer geek skills and resolve to manipulate vote results. Not sure about that but at least this case is thoroughly debunked. Without the math/statistical analysis skills or anything even minimally approaching it, I knew I had to bring it here to where it could be analyzed by our experts.Thanks Hektor, Chilidog, Slartibard and TollandRCR!
We are not sinners. We are not abominations. We were not born broken, and we do not need salvation. We have embraced our right to think beyond the boundaries of religion. We are living and loving our lives free from faith. -- Sarah Morehead

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15720
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

POLLS

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:31 pm

From Orly, news that a poll taken by an unknown polling organization for Fox Channel 2 in Detroit shows President Obama and Romney in "a dead heat:" Obama at 46.92% and Romney at 46.56%. [/break1]myfoxdetroit.com/story/19905504/michigan-poll-obama-and-romney-in-dead-heat]http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19905 ... -dead-heatThe poll was entirely automated (no cell phones) and used a screener statement that asked respondents to participate only if they were very likely to vote. That resulted in 1,122 respondents who "fully participated in the survey." 1,122 respondents out of "about 35,000 telephone calls." There is the dirty little secret of modern automated polling. That is a response rate of 3.2%. To be sure, some proportion of those 35,000 calls were to non-working numbers, businesses, fax machines, and acoustic modems operating at 300 baud. Many of them were refusals, although we are given no idea as to how many.As with every other pollster, this firm assumes that it has randomly drawn a sample that is representative of likely voters in Michigan and quotes a "margin of error" of 2.93% at a 95% level of confidence.I consider such a claim to be garbage. Even if high non-response rates do not matter, as the industry insists, there is no way that they should assume that the laws of probability apply to a sample that may be representative of nothing. It is possible that high non-response rates do not materially affect results, but it is either stupid or deceitful to pretend that the laws of probability apply to this disaster.

User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3537
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

POLLS

Postby Highlands » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:49 pm

From Orly, news that a poll taken by an unknown polling organization for Fox Channel 2 in Detroit shows President Obama and Romney in "a dead heat:" Obama at 46.92% and Romney at 46.56%. [/break1]myfoxdetroit.com/story/19905504/michigan-poll-obama-and-romney-in-dead-heat]http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19905 ... -dead-heat

Keep fuckin' that chicken, Orly!
If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7416
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

POLLS

Postby PatGund » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:13 pm

Maybe it's just after four years of staring into that abyss, the abyss is winking back at me, but I confess some paranoia about the "unskewed polls" thing.Basically it's:1) If they are going to steal or otherwise manipulate the vote counts, then it somehow gives legitimacy to their theft if "unskewed polls" just happened to have the closer numbers to the "win".2) If they aren't and President Obama wins, then they can used the "unskewed polls" thing to claim that the Democrats committed voter fraud, with the "unskewed polls" giving those claims a veneer of legitimacy.lose-lose situation.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

POLLS

Postby Slartibartfast » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:53 pm

Maybe it's just after four years of staring into that abyss, the abyss is winking back at me, but I confess some paranoia about the "unskewed polls" thing.Basically it's:1) If they are going to steal or otherwise manipulate the vote counts, then it somehow gives legitimacy to their theft if "unskewed polls" just happened to have the closer numbers to the "win".2) If they aren't and President Obama wins, then they can used the "unskewed polls" thing to claim that the Democrats committed voter fraud, with the "unskewed polls" giving those claims a veneer of legitimacy.lose-lose situation.

Pat,Just for perspective, when it comes to relative expertise, what do you think the answer of the following analogy question is?Dean Chambers : Nate Silver and Sam Wang :: ________________________________[*:kmeukzgx]Orly Taitz : Scott Tepper[*:kmeukzgx]MichaelN : Jack Maskell[*:kmeukzgx]"Doctor" Polarik, Martha Zebest, and the rest of the clown car : John Woodman[*:kmeukzgx]Leo Donofrio* : Phil Hellmuth[*:kmeukzgx]Donald Trump : President Obama[*:kmeukzgx]All of the above* he isn't calling himself a lawyer anymore and I don't know who to compare his expertise at being the Paraclete to, so I went with poker... :-While the points you raised might play in the RWNJ court of public opinion, I don't think they are at all persuasive anywhere else.


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest