UCI points by age

[TritonRider]

>From: h squared [email protected]

>did you read the analysis starting at the bottom of page 12 - 14?
>http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf
>
>heather
>

Just went back and re-read it. It follows with my point. Where they are saying
that Bush's supporters were following the administrations line that's fine. My
point was that those news outlets are the ones the administration talks with
and uses to spread their take on information. It really is a self perpetuating
system. Take someone who liked Bush. He sees Bush raked over the coals in most
of the media, but here's Rush and Hannity say "This is what that really means"
and finding a way to put a positive spin on the event while painting the other
news outlets in a bad light. This is re-enforced time after time with the
administration pointedly supporting it's friends in the media world, and so it
goes on and becomes an even more concrete belief in the spin, not the reality.
BTW I think that the left does the same thing with different outlets, but I
will admit not to quite the same extent.
Bill C

 

[Robert Chung]

TritonRider wrote:
>> From: h squared [email protected]
>
>> i'm not saying it can't be
>> done, but i'm curious what you think they did exactly?
>
> If I wanted those type of results I'd my hands on member lists for
> things like Moral Majority, NRA, Fox-Drudge-Weekly Standard subscriber
> lists. Anything on Limbaughs hardcore listeners and target the survey
> to those groups. I'd also target primarily rural, conservative, bible
> belt areas. My point is that if I want an leftist poll I target SF,
> NYC, Cambridge Ma. If I want the opposite I target the rural south and
> midwest.

It's easy to skew a sample to change distributional effects using the
method you've described (like, for example, skewing a sample to show 90%
Kerry support vs. 10% Bush support). However, these particular results are
not comparisons across Bush vs. Kerry supporters. Instead, they're
descriptions of the characteristics of the supporters themselves, so the
sample skewing has to be focused on the characteristics you're trying to
skew. That's hard. In order to get a disproportionate share of
misperceptions from Bush supporters by cherry-picking the sample from
Moral Majority, NRA, and Weekly Standard lists as you suggest, you'd have
to believe a priori that those misperceptions are more common among Moral
Majority, NRA, and Weekly Standard lists. Conversely, you'd have to
believe a priori that inhabitants of SF, NYC, and Cambridge have fewer
misperceptions. Are you saying that's what you believe?

> This means that I think that they lied about the details of
> the procedure.

Perhaps, but sample skewing is probably the most troublesome way to do it.
The preferred technique is what is known in the academy as MSU--making
**** up. That's far easier.

>They have outlined the general procedure they use, but
> we have seen so many studies that have been seriously flawed, either by
> intent or sloppiness that given how far their results differ from other
> surveys on this data I think that there was a problem.

Oh? You've seen other surveys with similar data?

> I'm trying to remember who sent me a couple of surveys on this. I
> think it was Howard, or Brian. They showed that Fox viewers were
> significantly more likely to be misinformed on Iraq than other outlets
> customers, but they weren't anywhere near this extent.

Then you're not going to like this:
http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view

--
A proud member of the reality-based community.

 

[Robert Chung]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Perhaps, but sample skewing is probably the most troublesome way to do
> it. The preferred technique is what is known in the academy as
> MSU--making **** up. That's far easier.

Sorry, I meant to add this link after that sentence:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.,bookID.605/book_detail.asp

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: h squared [email protected]
>
> >did you read the analysis starting at the bottom of page 12 - 14?
> >http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf
> >
> >heather
> >
>
> Just went back and re-read it. It follows with my point. Where they are
> saying that Bush's supporters were following the administrations line
> that's fine. My point was that those news outlets are the ones the
> administration talks with and uses to spread their take on information.
> It really is a self perpetuating system. Take someone who liked Bush.
> He sees Bush raked over the coals in most of the media, but here's Rush
> and Hannity say "This is what that really means" and finding a way to put
> a positive spin on the event while painting the other news outlets in a
> bad light. This is re-enforced time after time with the administration
> pointedly supporting it's friends in the media world, and so it goes on
> and becomes an even more concrete belief in the spin, not the reality.

I think what you're saying is pretty accurate, though there is something
to be added to the part about him (Bush) seeing himself "raked over the
coals." It's pretty widely known that he doesn't read or watch much media
himself; he has others do that for him, and they seem to give him the news
that they know he will like (which narrows the sources considerably). But
when he does read the paper himself, he does it with an eye toward bias.
From the book "Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John
Kerry and the Bush Haters" by Bill Sammon (who could well be described as
***very*** Bush friendly) [1]:

------------
"I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest,
I'll skim it."

The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly
objective news stories.

"My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what
so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to
news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du
jour. But I'm also aware of the facts."

Those facts are extracted from news stories each day and presented to the
president by a half-dozen aides, Mr. Card among them.

"Since I'm the first one to see him in the morning, I usually give him a
quick overview and get a little reaction from him," Mr. Card explained.
"Frequently, I find that his reaction kind of reflects [first lady] Laura
Bush's take."

Indeed, the president often cites articles that Mrs. Bush flags for
greater scrutiny, even when he has not personally slogged through those
stories. Mrs. Bush routinely delves more deeply into the news pages than
her husband, who prefers other sections.

"He does not dwell on the newspaper, but he reads the sports page every
day," Mr. Card said with a chuckle.

'A clear outlook'

Mr. Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly
liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking and even hinder his
efforts to remain an optimistic leader.

"I like to have a clear outlook," he said. "It can be a frustrating
experience to pay attention to somebody's false opinion or somebody's
characterization, which simply isn't true."
-----------

So if it doesn't jibe with what he already has decided on an issue, GWB
simply doesn't want to know.

> BTW I think that the left does the same thing with different outlets, but
> I will admit not to quite the same extent.
> Bill C

True enough, particularly when one considers that the head of the Fox
News Division, Roger Ailes, frequently works very closely with the Bush
admin. to develop propagate admin. talking points.

[1] This is via Josh Marshall,
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002957

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[TritonRider]

>From: "Robert Chung" [email protected]

>That's hard. In order to get a disproportionate share of
>misperceptions from Bush supporters by cherry-picking the sample from
>Moral Majority, NRA, and Weekly Standard lists as you suggest, you'd have
>to believe a priori that those misperceptions are more common among Moral
>Majority, NRA, and Weekly Standard lists. Conversely, you'd have to
>believe a priori that inhabitants of SF, NYC, and Cambridge have fewer
>misperceptions. Are you saying that's what you believe?
>
>

Yes. I do think excatly that. Especially the real hardcore Drudge types who
believe things like the UN weapons inspectors under French supervision moved
the weapons to Syria. I've actually heard them come up with **** like this.
>

>http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&
a=02free&format=view

That is very closely related to the first. I didn't print them out and go
through the details of it, but considering it was done by the same people in
the same time frame, more or less, you'd have to expect a reasonable
correlation between them unless one was completely wrong.
A lot of those questions are tough to answer too. If you were to ask me now
"Did the UN aid Iraq militarily leading up to the war?" I'd have to answer yes
because of the corruption in the Oil-forFood program and all of the money that
they were letting him skim off and use for other things like buying the Russian
jamming units that we found in Baghdad.
I think that we are going to continue to disagree on this. But here is a
discussion of just what I thought they did and it looks like they did it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25245-2003Oct14?language=printer
<excerpted>
Washington, D.C.: Do you think the misconceptions from Fox News are a result of
the editorial delivery of the network or the narrow-minded ideological
perceptions of their viewers?

Harold Meyerson: Or, as Yeats put it, who can tell the dancer from the dance?
Obviously, there's a pre-selection factor in viewership, but the folks
conducting the survey found that among the people they were polling who said
that they were sure to vote for Bush in '04, 78 percent of those who watched
Fox thought the U.S. had uncovered clear links between Saddam and al Qaeda,
while just 50 percent of those who got their news from PBS-NPR thought that.

The answer to your question is, I think it's both. The audience is
pre-selected, but the news often seems that way, too.
<end excerpt>
Here's a comment on Iraq and Al-Quaeda
from another source.

It was Tenet’s letter that later led James Woolsey, Director of the CIA under
President Clinton, to remark,

"Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi
intelligence going back to the early '90s; they can only say that if they're
illiterate."3

e
Bill C

 

[TritonRider]

>From: "Robert Chung" [email protected]

>Sorry, I meant to add this link after that sentence:
>http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.,bookID.605/book_detail.asp
>

So you have something solid showing that he made the stuff in his book up?
I've seen studies that indicate both including past and current US govt
studies that say Gun Control has not reduced crime at all. I think this is
another hot button area where there is a ton of junk science being done. This
book very well might be part of it, I don't know.
Bill C

 

[Robert Chung]

TritonRider wrote:
>
> So you have something solid showing that he made the stuff in his book
> up?

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html

 

[TritonRider]

>From: "Robert Chung" [email protected]

>http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
>
>

Thanks. That pretty much put's him alongside Jayson Blair doesn't it.
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: "Robert Chung" [email protected]
>
> >http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
> >
> >
>
> Thanks. That pretty much put's him alongside Jayson Blair doesn't it.
> Bill C

Blair was actually small time compared to Jack Kelly, imo. One of the
stories he fabricated ended up putting him in the running for a Pulitzer
Prize. Check out some of the stories he faked, they're about 2/3 the way
down in this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A7340-20
04Mar19&notFound=true

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[TritonRider]

>From: Howard Kveck [email protected]

> Blair was actually small time compared to Jack Kelly, imo. One of the
>stories he fabricated ended up putting him in the running for a Pulitzer
>Prize.

Yeah, forgot about him. My expectations of USA Today are so low that it didn't
really stick. I still have trouble with how far down the drain the NYT has
gone. They still haven't addressed a ton of their integrity and credibility
problems. I have no problem with their editorial slant on the op-ed pages, but
when it permeates everything in the paper that's a problem. Especially for what
once was the example of how to do it right.
Bill C

 

[Nev Shea]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> TritonRider wrote:
>>> Who's funding them?
>>>
>> From their site:
>> It's the usual left/center left groups.
>
> Well, I've got a confession to make. As you've almost surely guessed,
> I clicked on the "About Us" link on PIPA's home page about 4 seconds
> after I read your first message, so I already knew who the sponsors
> were when I sent my first reply. I think the sponsorship leans
> internationalist, but not necessarily lefty. However, my mistake was
> thinking that if you'd seen the list you couldn't possibly have
> thought it was so horrible that you could dismiss the study out of
> hand, without even looking at it. I was wrong.


Perhaps PIPA should try to study misperceptions about the research. Kerry
supporters may see research as unbiased, while Bush supporters whose
minds are already addled by dissonance overloads will perceive the
research as supported by left wing Al Qaeda sympathesizers.

NS

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: Howard Kveck [email protected]
>
> > Blair was actually small time compared to Jack Kelly, imo. One of the
> >stories he fabricated ended up putting him in the running for a Pulitzer
> >Prize.
>
> Yeah, forgot about him. My expectations of USA Today are so low that it
> didn't really stick.

USA Today has put a lot of effort and money into becoming something more
than the, well, USA Today of the news world.

> I still have trouble with how far down the drain the NYT has gone. They
> still haven't addressed a ton of their integrity and credibility
> problems. I have no problem with their editorial slant on the op-ed
> pages, but when it permeates everything in the paper that's a problem.
> Especially for what once was the example of how to do it right.
> Bill C

I think they've slipped enormously in the last few years, too, but my
take on it may be somewhat different than yours. I look at the reporting
during the lead-up to the war and see that they seem to have forgotten how
to do actual reporting. They pretty much lead with any story that the Bush
admin. put out, and people like Judith Miller were very instrumental in
propagating the admin.'s POV. At least a couple of months ago, they issued
a sort of mea culpa, saying that they had not been objective enough or gone
to enough alternate sources. Those are two things that are part and parcel
of the game of "reporting", imo. Of course, I've never seen a word said
about the poor job done by Jeff Gerth on Whitewater.

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

TritonRider wrote:
> Yes. I do think excatly that. Especially the real hardcore Drudge types who
> believe things like the UN weapons inspectors under French supervision moved
> the weapons to Syria. I've actually heard them come up with **** like this.

Kunich is going to have to increase his vitamin intake if you keep on
insulting him like this.

 

[Kenny]

based on UCI-ranking 17 october 2004:

°1987
1. TAARAMAE Rein EST 6,00

°1986
1. OLMAN Miles AUS 4,00

°1985
1. VELITS Peter DUK SVK 40,00
2. IGNATIEV Mikhail RUS 35,00
3. PARK Sung Baek KOR 33,00
4. AGNOLI Valerio ITA 28,00
5. REUS Kai NED 28,00

°1984
1. DEKKER Thomas NED 372,80
2. LÖVKVIST Thomas SWE 339,00
3. JURCO Matej SVK 97,00
4. VASTARANTA Jukka FIN 96,60
5. SANTAMBROGIO Mauro ITA 59,00

°1983
1. MONFORT Maxime BEL 365,00
2. SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon ESP 171,00
3. FAILLI Francesco ITA 131,00
4. FRANCA SIDOTI Breno BRA 100,00
5. SCOTTO D'ABUSCO Michele ITA 89,50

°1982
1. GILBERT Philippe BEL 710,00
2. GOUSSEV Vladimir RUS 323,00
3. VAITKUS Tomas LTU 197,00
4. KOSTYUK Denys UKR 175,00
5. VENTOSO ALBERDI Francisco ESP 175,00

°1981
1. CUNEGO Damiano ITA 2245,40
2. CANCELLARA Fabian SUI 602,00
3. KOLOBNEV Alexandr RUS 394,00
4. SELLA Emanuele ITA 385,00
5. SCHUMACHER Stefan GER 365,00

°1980
1. VALVERDE Alejandro ESP 1892,00
2. BOONEN Tom BEL 1449,00
3. DAVIS Allan AUS 904,25
4. PINEAU Jérôme FRA 819,00
5. NUYENS Nick BEL 716,00

°1979
1. CHAVANEL Sylvain FRA 818,00
2. VOECKLER Thomas FRA 741,00
3. ROGERS Michael AUS 691,00
4. SCARPONI Michele ITA 634,00
5. KESSLER Matthias GER 583,00

°1978
1. HUSHOVD Thor NOR 1084,00
2. MENCHOV Denis RUS 937,00
3. GUTIERREZ José Ivan ESP 810,00
4. PELLIZOTTI Franco ITA 727,00
5. SANCHEZ Samuel ESP 704,00

°1977
1. BASSO Ivan ITA 1424,50
2. MAYO Iban ESP 1033,60
3. FLECHA Juan Antonio ESP 961,00
4. PEREZ Santiago ESP 872,00
5. LÖWIK Gerben CHO NED 532,45

°1976
1. FREIRE Oscar ESP 1993,00
2. MANCEBO Francisco ESP 1322,00
3. MCGEE Bradley AUS 856,50
4. DI LUCA Danilo ITA 843,40
5. JAKSCHE Jörg GER 662,00

°1975
1. KLÖDEN Andreas GER 990,00
2. SASTRE Carlos ESP 633,00
3. LANDIS Floyd USA 608,00
4. ARVESEN Kurt-Asle NOR 582,00
5. MONCOUTIE David FRA 484,00

°1974
1. BETTINI Paolo ITA 2239,00
2. PETACCHI Alessandro ITA 1464,00
3. HONDO Danilo GER 1374,75
4. HERAS Roberto ESP 1303,60
5. CIONI Dario David ITA 763,00

°1973
1. O'GRADY Stuart AUS 1701,00
2. ULLRICH Jan GER 1318,00
3. VAN HEESWIJK Max NED 860,00
4. VINOKOUROV Alexandre KAZ 803,00
5. GARZELLI Stefano ITA 792,00

°1972
1. MARTIN PERDIGUERO Miguel ESP 1351,00
2. MCEWEN Robbie AUS 1305,00
3. BOOGERD Michael NED 946,00
4. SERRANO Marcos ESP 627,60
5. MORENI Cristian ITA 553,00

°1971
1. REBELLIN Davide ITA 1883,00
2. ARMSTRONG Lance USA 1726,00
3. VOIGT Jens GER 1276,00
4. HAMILTON Tyler USA 1070,00
5. SIMONI Gilberto ITA 1034,00

°1970
1. ZABEL Erik GER 2011,00
2. DEKKER Erik NED 1303,45
3. HONCHAR Serhiy UKR 751,00
4. VAN PETEGEM Peter BEL 457,00
5. ROUS Didier FRA 453,00

°1969
1. KIRSIPUU Jaan EST 746,00
2. RICH Michael GER 637,00
3. WAUTERS Marc BEL 511,00
4. LAISEKA Roberto ESP 387,75
5. MICHAELSEN Lars DEN 307,00

°1968
1. BROCHARD Laurent FRA 748,00
2. JEKER Fabian SUI 627,00
3. ALDAG Rolf GER 465,00
4. PESCHEL Uwe GER 264,75
5. BALDATO Fabio ITA 238,00

°1967
1. KEMNA Rudi NED 195,45
2. ROMANIK Radoslaw POL 189,00
3. ZAMANA Cezary POL 96,00
4. BUENAHORA Hernan COL 93,00
5. SIERRA PENA Alvaro COL 81,00

°1966
1. EKIMOV Viatcheslav RUS 556,00
2. KONYSHEV Dmitri RUS 190,00
3. MONINGER Scott USA 140,00
4. PIATEK Zbigniew POL 112,00
5. SUNDERLAND Scott AUS 52,20

°1965
1. WOHLBERG Eric CAN 199,00
2. FARESIN Gianni ITA 155,00
3. MUSEEUW Johan BEL 134,00
4. KOHNEN Michel LUX 22,00
5. CHAMBERLAIN Roy GBR 4,00

°1964
HEPPNER Jens GER 91,00
DIERCKXSENS Ludo BEL 85,00
VANDELLI Maurizio ITA 77,00
SCIREA Mario ITA 20,00
RNJAKOVIC Mikos SCG 17,00

°1963
MUNOZ Federico COL 49,00
CARTER Michael USA 18,00
PAPE Peter AUS 5,00

°1962
MCMURDO Hilton AUS 13,00

°1961
MOREIRA Federico URU 55,00
ELLIOTT Malcolm GBR 37,00
DALEZIOS Iosif GRE 6,00
COPELAND Bruce CAN 2,00

°1954
ALABASTER John NZL 4,00

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Kenny <[email protected]> wrote:
> ?1954
> ALABASTER John NZL 4,00

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2003/nov03/southland03/?id=southland036

A stage win in a 2.5 race is worth 4 points. Since this race was
in November, outlier John will likely be gone by the end of the
year. Still, a pretty cool ride.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]