I guess it can be done if one is willing to try:
<Kathy is the President of US Count Votes (USCV)>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x374482#376900sunshinekathy (38 posts) Fri Jun-10-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #257
289. Dishonest statements are always destructive IMO.
Edited on Fri Jun-10-05 02:50 PM by sunshinekathy
Bruce said that:
QUOTE: Robust debate is never "destructive" in pursuit of the truth! A "volunteer scientific research project" is successful when differing opinions are expressed, not suppressed. ENDQUOTE
There is a huge difference between "robust debate" and dishonest misrepresentations of the facts.
Making false statements is always destructive in my opinion, and Bruce has yet to retract any of the false statements that he continues to make about our working paper, despite my repeatedly pointing out to him in emails that the mischaracterizations he has been making about our working paper were not supported by any sentence in our paper.
I have asked Bruce dozens of times to constructively find the exact sentence, or mathematical or logic error anywhere in our current working paper. He has never done so.
I informed Bruce repeatedly over a period of weeks that the mischaracterizations he made about our paper were not supported by any sentences in our paper that I knew of, and asked him to find the sentences in our paper that matched his characterization of it. He never did.
I have offered many many times via emails to work with Bruce if he would specify even one exact sentence in our paper that he did not agree with, yet he has never taken me up on my offer to listen to any constructive criticism he had of the paper.
I stayed up all night the night before the AAPOR conference trying to incorporate as many of the points of Bruce's last minute, paper that he insisted we substitute for the one all of us had been working on, trying to please him.
I can only guess what O'Dell's motivations are, but his actions have been and remain very destructive.
Distorting the truth is always destructive IMO and never has a good outcome and should be retracted.
People may want to know that our main two detractors, Mark Lindeman and Bruce O'Dell have not contributed any mathematics to any of our papers to my knowledge, although Bruce has contributed some programming work. Both Bruce and Mark seem to excel at writing and communicating.
Perhaps Mark and Bruce may just have a little difficulty understanding the math that Ron and I have done, and are emotionally attached to a position that is not supported by the facts without some pretty implausible assumptions about the size of exit poll variance that are not generally accepted.
There is a LOT of work to be done now at USCV and Bruce could be helping to push forward our work rather than misrepresenting our work and refusing to give us any constructive criticism of it.
Right now, we need to:
1. Finish the working paper that is truly groundbreaking.
2. Write recommendations for states on what election data to collect.
3. Write letters to state elected officials convincing them to request the data we need from their county election offices.
4. Write a grant proposal for designing the database to obtain the funding we need for the next phase of implementation.
Plus a gazillion other things. Bruce could be helping with those tasks and many others rather than trying to tear apart what we've accomplished thus far.
We've been trying ever since the AAPOR conference to get Bruce to behave constructively again, without success. Ron Baiman has been working very hard to show him the mathematics of it all, and pleaded over and over to Bruce to make constructive specific honest criticisms of our working paper if he didn't agree with something in it.
Best,
Kathy
=====================================================================
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x374482#376334sunshinekathy (38 posts) Wed Jun-08-05 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
244. Kathy Dopp here - Even Mitofsky doesn't agree with Bruce O'Dell
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 08:04 PM by sunshinekathy
I'm sorry to join this conversation so late, but I've been on the road and Bruce posted a bunch of anti-USCV posts before I even had a chance to get home and begin to edit and add to our current working paper.
Just some brief points:
1. Even Mitofsky is now saying that he "never said that the exit poll discrepancies could be explained by a response bias with a constant mean". Unlike O'Dell, Mitofsky understands that the math as demonstrated by Ron Baiman and myself in our recent papers clearly refutes the possibility of a response bias with constant mean.
2. O'Dell apparently used highly implausible LARGE variances to get his erroneous conclusion. The variances he assumes would make any glob of data have a constant mean, and are not justified.
3. Bruce does not seem to understand the difference between saying that possible explanations of the exit poll discrepancies "include" certain possibilities and "require" these same possibilities. So Bruce continues to misrepresent and distort what our current working version of our paper says as well as misunderstand its mathematics, despite that I have pointed out many times to him via email that he is distorting and not honestly reporting the contents of our current working paper. He has not located a specific flaw with any sentence, mathematical or logical assertion in our current working paper, despite my repeatedly asking him to so that we could discuss it to his satisfaction.
4. Bruce's own numbers can probably be used to refute his own conclusions, but we are very busy and haven't had time to spend on it. There are a gazillion important projects in the works that must be done. USCV REALLY needs funding and more staff. I have set aside a bedroom w/ private bath in my home with its own entry and porch for someone who would like to come work and live in Park City Utah and help operate the business of USCV and be provided room and board.
5. I have informally asked Bruce O'Dell to either make a public retraction or resign from the Board of USCV and to resign as Vice President due to his destructive actions against USCV both on our statisticians list and now publicly.
6. Not even ONE PhD mathematician or statistician in America has refuted anything in our current working paper or in our prior paper to my knowledge (please inform me if I'm wrong), with the exception of the one minor mistake we found ourselves in our last finished paper that we are going to clearly correct in our current working paper prior to its finalization. We did not catch it until we did the analysis of the patterns of exit poll discrepancies that are produced by vote shifts.
I do not know why Bruce has done the destructive things that he has done ever since the AAPOR conference. Bruce O'Dell donated a lot of his own money and time and was one of the founding members of USCV and contributed a lot to USCV. We are very disappointed that he has become so destructive of USCV in recent weeks and we are hoping he will come around and have tried and are still trying to get him to recognize and publicly admit his mistakes, but it doesn't seem likely considering how long now he has stuck to them, and his inappropriate behavior. I am surprised that someone who is usually so rational has stuck for so long to a mistake.
Bruce is 100% wrong on his mathematical claims, as Mitofsky realizes, even if Bruce, and perhaps Liddle, do not.
It is unfortunate however, that Bruce is muddying the waters so, as most people do not understand the mathematics enough to know who is right and who is wrong.
Best,
Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org