OT: Why does fraud go unchallenged?

I wish he would learn to go there *first*, rather than post his cut-and-paste drivel for all to see.

*Every time* he posts one of these, search the text, there it is, FALSE. Yet another hoax for the incurably gullible...

--

John Devereux

Who cares? Get over it. Obama is going to be Our Great & Glorious Leader for Life. Elections have consequences >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I don't find Snopes being any better than the news agencies.

I tend to believe with my own eyes and ears.

Jamie

For those that don't believe, no proof is possible. For those that believe, no proof is necessary.

However, I do approve of your logic. I only trust those that agree with my political views, ideology, dogma, and assertions. Everyone else cannot be believed or trusted. If it's useful at furthering my agenda, then I'll believe and promote almost anything.

Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

But many of those lies can be verified by looking up the stats at the respective SOS office. Certainly the lies about more vote than registered voters.

What I want to know is who writes these wing nut emails with obvious lies. Does some tea bagger wake up, sees the sun is shining, and says "Today is a good day to write some lies!"

And if any of this tea bagger wing nut stuff was true, don't you think Mittens would be all over it?

Yeah, that's the plan, but it doesn't work because:

1. There's so much junk on the internet that it's difficult to separate the facts, fiction, distortions, misinterpretations, and fabrications. Pick any position or opinion, and you'll find a web pile or blog that substantiates it.
2. The internet tends to exponentially distribute the lies, distortions, etc until they're found everywhere. Someone starts a rumor or a hoax and within a few hours, it's all over the internet. 3. Once wrong information is distributed and converted into a web page or blog, it tends to remain, usually uncorrected. News sites, who value their reputation as far as a defamation of character and libel suit will carry them, tend to make corrections. Smaller news sites, that only recycle someone elses news feed tend to be permanent.
3. It's much to easy to lie with a web page. That's because we tend to believe properly formatted pages and documents more than a pile of raw numbers. If it looks correct, spell checked, and properly formatted, it must be the truth or something like that.

Back in the stone age of computing, when Usenet consisted of 16 newgroups and I was running a Bnews 2.11 server, I posted a hoax announcing that I was really a werewolf in disguise. Nobody was expected to believe it, or so I thought. I received a phone call from a very angry skool teacher demanding to know why I was posting false information in public. One of her students (my guess is 14 years old) found my article, and brought it to skool as proof that there are really werewolves. I diplomatically apologized, but couldn't resist laughing after she hung up. I've been doing the fake werewolf ever since. I hate to admit it, but such stories (and lies) are fun. My guess(tm) is that whomever originated the voting statistics message, probably had a similar idea of what constitutes fun.

Well, I've done a few fabrications. I did one today in this newsgroup with my bogus explanation of how a smartphone rotates the display from portrait to landscape. That was fun, but had the topic been political, I'm sure I would have been justifiably denounced. However, I'm equally certain that in the immediate future, my explanation will appear in some students school report, or some Usenet experts recycled explanation.

It's kinda scary how often I see what I'll call distortions of the truth. While not exactly lying, a distortion is more careful selection of facts and numbers to reach a biased conclusion. Last week, I read a medical research paper (that wasn't peer reviewed) which summarized available research from available footnotes to reach a bogus conclusion. When I dived into the footnotes, I found that the original research had reached quite a different conclusion. Of course, the author didn't expect anything to research the footnotes and sources. Same with the voting statistics. The author of that piece of selective statistical analysis was fairly certain that 99.9% of the readers would not exert the effort to research the data.

Incidentally, it's possible to distort facts even without lying. I've read a few radiation biology research papers, where the data shows disturbing correlations, but the summary shows that nothing was found. That's because the paper was funded by an organization with a vested interest in producing a negative report. The GUM (great unwashed masses) will read only the summary. Those involved in the affected industry will look at the data, draw their own conclusions, and ignore the summary.

Nope. That's because both parties stand to benefit from having crooked elections, and gain nothing from honesty. Note that ballots are burned immediately after they're counted in order to eliminate any possible evidence of wrong doing. Electronic voting is even better, since there is no hard (paper) evidence. Neither party wants a controversy or a scandal, so despite widespread suspicion of voter fraud, it's kept rather low key with no investigations.

In the distant past, I volunteered to work with the local elections commission. I saw plenty of "irregularities" that I dully discussed with the elections commissioner. Predictably, nothing happened.

What's interesting about voter fraud is that it doesn't need to be widespread to be effective. Most of the voters in the US can be classified as a member of some voting block or special interest group. Once the label is attached, that persons vote is very predictable. For example, the minorities will vote Democrat even though they've done much better under Republican administrations. That's because the Democrats know that they will vote Democrat, while the Republicans have to offer them something in return for their vote. Therefore, rather than waste time, money and resources campaigning to groups that vote predictably, both parties concentrate of voters that are either impressionable, or vote for the highest bidder. If they can't get their attention, they resort to fraud. That's really a small number of voters, which may explain why the necessary fraud isn't very widespread.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

One of the myths promulgated about 'critical thinking is it's "don't believe what you read" (except what 'we' tell you, of course) when the point is to know how to judge what's written/said, not just dismiss things you don't like to hear (or vice versa).

I don't take anything at 'face value' but that Snopes article provides references for it's claims, and that adds credibility (one must apply 'critical thinking' to the source material as well)

The original post, which appears to be taken from a circulating email, makes 'controversial' claim about a major event which just happens to be what the intended audience would 'like to hear' but the big red flag waving in the breeze is there's not a shred of evidence presented for any of the claims.

That can be just as misleading as well.

But you lend more credence to a non sourced email than a source referenced article?

Btw, you will also note that I did not say "here are the facts." I simply presented a referenced article for consideration.

They do what you just did: fabricate stuff from that they 'think' they saw and know.

I was in Ohio for the elections. Romney lost because people didn't understand his proposals, which in turn was because R didn't explain them, and his competitor massively misexplained them. For example, folks thought Romney was going to lower taxes on upper income people-- and Obama constantly said that--but it was never true.

Okay, the Treasury figures the nation's current estimated total liability (debt plus unfunded liability) is $86.8 trillion.[1]

[1] 36.html

Financed for 50 years at 5% interest (roughly the long-term Treasury average), the payments would run $394 billion a month, = $4.73 trillion a year. That covers Medicare, Social Security, and the federal employee pensions, but not the other programs or functions of government.

Question: should we re-double foodstamps, repeat "balanced approach" over and over, call people tea baggers and racists, or all of the above?

--
Cheers, 
James Arthur

How about the fraud in your "Cute amplifier" ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

o

e.

I sympathize with Mr. Baer, but agree there are enough issues to go around--no need for wild goose chases.

It's really pretty simple: the govt's promising and spending far more than we have, with no chance it'll be paid, and wants to spend even more. Some people (like Krugman) think that's the solution, that taking from A to give to B makes them both produce more, the rest of us think it's nuts.

--
Cheers, 
James Arthur

The only fraud I could see was calling it a quasi-gyrator and statements like "Grounding the input, it is certainly stable, with ~100° of phase margin, but barely shows 20dB of loop gain."

--
Mike Perkins 
Video Solutions Ltd 
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

No fraud there. It's exactly that... and it fits with the slip of the tongue (of the OP) that the input is grounded and the "input capacitor" is a transducer.

If you want to claim knowledge-ability, I'll look for your loop and nodal analysis in the morning.

I don't expect to see anything ;-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.