tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post8864792116774304403..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Chronicle, DBR, Miller Endorse Cheekkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31913184895923455262010-01-02T18:44:45.948-05:002010-01-02T18:44:45.948-05:00Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your ol...Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3110338196108709392006-11-07T15:32:00.000-05:002006-11-07T15:32:00.000-05:003:08PM
Thank you for the high praise, which comin...3:08PM<br /><br />Thank you for the high praise, which coming from you it is.<br /><br />Nothing's quite so <i>pathetic</i> as a man (or woman) who, finding themselves mistaken, refuses to acknowledge his (or her) error and then wants to place the blame for it on the party who'd proved them wrong. Unless, of course, we're talking about folks with so little courage that they want to hide behind anonymous posts and tell those who don't how pathetic they are, which folks, of course, are all the <i>more</i> pathetic still...Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807244058439606546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65305719299391422002006-11-07T15:08:00.000-05:002006-11-07T15:08:00.000-05:00Smoke, Mirrors and Mr. Irrelevant...when facts fai...Smoke, Mirrors and Mr. Irrelevant...when facts fail roll out the fake polls and start attacking the students... Cliff you are pathetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39364890087315949062006-11-07T14:12:00.000-05:002006-11-07T14:12:00.000-05:00Smoke, Mirrors, and Lewis Cheek – When the Facts ...<i><b>Smoke, Mirrors, and Lewis Cheek – When the Facts Fail, Roll Out the Fictions</i></b> <br /><br />Casey Shanley, in his letter here earlier this week endorsing Lewis Cheek on behalf of Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, does nothing so well as put the world on notice of just how hollow Cheek's candidacy actually is. Setting reality aside, Shanley first attempts to replace one of its most troubling features with a misleading speculation and then to draw attention away from it with a statistical "analysis" that is fundamentally flawed. <br /><br />Shanley writes, "Should Cheek choose not to accept the district attorney position…the governor would have to appoint someone to fill the position". This, of course, implies that Cheek might accept the position if elected, which, in view of his repeated public assertions that he will not, suggests a remarkable act of intellectual dishonesty or, considering the capacity in which Shanley wrote, ignorance on an amazing scale.<br /><br />Shanley then goes on to tell us that "Write-in candidates virtually never win" and attempts to support this proposition with a statistical deception that manages to ignore the fact that they very rarely run. We are told, in effect, that in over 21,300 Congressional elections since 1913, only six write-in candidates have won. While it may be convenient for Shanley to assume that his readers are so naïve as to believe that the data he cites has any bearing on the proposition he attempts to advance, it does not. The only <i>real</i> measure of the success of write-in candidates is, of course, how many have won in elections <i>in which they have actually run</i>. <br /><br />The answer to this question, as provided by Congress's own history offices, supplies the truth. Of the nine known write-in candidates who have run in the elections in question, five have won, yielding a success rate of 55.6%. Not only is 55.6% exponentially beyond "virtually never," it just happens to be a <i>mere</i> 1,986 times greater than the .028% rate that Shanley would like us to accept.<br /><br />I cannot help but wonder, if Lewis Cheek is such a worthy candidate in this race, why his supporters have chosen to advance nonsense as the truth, when they could have advanced the truth instead. It seems to me that to the Cheek camp the truth is not so attractive and that Lewis Cheek, in his refusal to serve, is not so much a candidate as a concept and, in reality, a rather unattractive one at that.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807244058439606546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37410387398274972402006-11-07T14:04:00.000-05:002006-11-07T14:04:00.000-05:00KC write on the main page today: Monks’ claim that...KC write on the main page today: <i>Monks’ claim that 55.6% of the congressional candidates who have run write-in bids have succeeded is demonstrably false</i>.<br /><br />As anyone can determine if they actually want to do the research (as opposed to engaging in careless and feverish speculation), Monk's claim is actually demonstrably <i>true</i>.<br /><br />Five (55.6%) of the nine known write-in candidates who have run in general elections for the U.S. Congress have won. When most people speak of <i>congressional candidates</i>, they are, in fact, referring to candidates in the general elections to the U.S. Congress. Before those elections, the candidates who run in them are generally candidates for their party's <i>nomination</i> as a <i>congressional candidate</i>).<br /><br />Interestingly enough, the success rate of 55.6% posited in this demonstrably <i>true</i> claim just happens to be a <i>mere</i> 1,968 times the success rate of .028% suggested, at best, by Duke Students for an Ethical (?) [sic.] Durham in their endorsement of Cheek last week in the Duke <i>Chronicle</i>.<br /><br />Even more interesting is the <i> Chronicle's</i> refusal to print a letter to the editor which I repeatedly submitted attempting to correct the statistical deception in which the Ethical (?) Durham endorsement presents and has done so notwithstanding a professor in Duke's own Statistics Department advising that the correct analysis of the data presented by the endorsement is the one I'm <i>attempting</i> to offer in my unaccepted letter.<br /><br />Perhaps the <I>Chronicle</i> just doesn't want the truth to get out here, as they too must know that the truth and Cheek's candidacy don't necessarily go hand in hand. I mean if you're endorsing Lewis Cheek, as the <i>Chronicle</i> did yesterday, why get the readers confused with the truth, when you can let stand unaddressed a statistical fiction that another endorsement of the same candidate in the same paper set forth only last week?<br /><br />The editors of the <i>Chronicle</i> may <i>think</i> they're journalists, but with the disdain they have shown for the truth in this instance, I'm not quite sure how their thinking can be sustained.<br /><br />In the post below, you'll find the text of the letter I submitted on this issue to the <i>Chronicle</i>, which, when I was a student at Duke, we would often refer to as the <i>Comical</i>. I'm beginning to remember why.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807244058439606546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23119773848489078452006-11-06T23:11:00.000-05:002006-11-06T23:11:00.000-05:00It is so wild to be in agreement with Stephen Mill...It is so wild to be in agreement with Stephen Miller. He is to the right of Rush and I am a liberal from Mass who lives in Durham. But we are together on this issue.<br /><br />I wish Cheek would have actually run, he would have had a better chance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-308170529168413412006-11-06T13:34:00.000-05:002006-11-06T13:34:00.000-05:00"Five of Nine"? What the heck is Monks thinking/s..."Five of Nine"? What the heck is Monks thinking/smoking? (And as KC points out, where's the journalistic follow-up to either a) point out the error, or b) ask what he means?) <br /><br />I'd be willing to bet there are more than nine write-in candidates for Congress just in North Carolina alone, this year.... <br /><br />Who wants this man, who apparently doesn't even understand basic civics, to be running a DA's office??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81884599989680292842006-11-06T12:57:00.000-05:002006-11-06T12:57:00.000-05:00To the 11.40: the answers to your questions are ye...To the 11.40: the answers to your questions are yes and yes.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88503982435948253602006-11-06T12:27:00.000-05:002006-11-06T12:27:00.000-05:00Steve MOnks should bow out gracefully now. When N...Steve MOnks should bow out gracefully now. When Nifong is ousted he will look like the a good guy. Even if Nifong does get elected he will be facing the NC Bar Investigation, Department of Justice and FBI Investigation and the numerous civil suits from all the lacrosse families. Nifong will not have time to go after real criminals in Durham. I would think the citizens of Durham be they black or white would at least want a safe place to live. Or is it just filled with drug dealers, gun runners and diamond smugglers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-92193800808085495672006-11-06T11:50:00.000-05:002006-11-06T11:50:00.000-05:00Happy to see the endorsements for Cheek. Stephen ...Happy to see the endorsements for Cheek. Stephen Miller has written excellent articles about the lacrosse case. As has been the case repeatedly, once again, the Duke students display more leadership than those at the adminstrative level. Duke students continue to impress. Considering the initial descriptions of the "hooligan" Duke students, it is ironic that they have diplayed greater integrity and leadership skills than the adults in Durham.<br /> Now, the students need to get out and vote Cheek.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com