GENIRE-L ArchivesArchiver > GENIRE > 2009-02 > 1234940064
From: CJ Buyers <>
Subject: Re: 90th Anniversary of Dail Eireann
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:54:24 -0800 (PST)
References: <1iu0cj1.1s3w99f91tlyuNemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1iu5hu4.1cod7wa1oesr34Nemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1iv0lm8.1trmjbe13sjmv4Nemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1iv1dzx.1hp1u3fztvydiNemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1iv1kiz.93kyf1dfbzv6Nemail@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><1iv2fz9.1wtl7w7b370tqNemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Feb 17, 11:42 pm, The Chief <> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:17 am, CJ Buyers <> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 11:02 pm, "Graham Truesdale"
> > <> wrote:
> > >http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm
> > > "It seems pretty certain that Sinn Féin would have had a majority of the
> > > votes
> > > if all the seats had been contested. In the contested seats where they won,
> > > the
> > > total valid vote was ...(68.0%); and SF got ...(66.9%). The 25 uncontested
> > > constituencies had a total electorate of 474,778; if we assume an identical
> > > average
> > > turnout and SF vote share, .... This gives SF ...at least 53.0%.
> > Why on earth should one assume an identical turnout? Were there an
> > equal number of polling stations, all equidistant from the elector's
> > place of residence? Did they all have equal access to transport? Were
> > they all of the same level of health and age? Did they all have an
> > equal number of recruits serving in the trenches? Were they all rural
> > constituencies or were they all urban?
> > Any assumptions are entirel meaningless.
> Your assumptions are meaningless. others are not so,
They are meaningless because they are assumptions, not because of who
made them. Assumptions are assumptions, that is all. They prove
> > > The 66.9%
> > > vote
> > > share for SF in constituencies they would have won is a very conservative
> > > estimate;
> > > in nine of the contested constituencies they got over 80% of the vote and
> > > their likely
> > > vote share in the uncontested seats must be nearer that end of the scale.
> > > For their total
> > > vote share to be less than 50% (assuming the 68.0% turnout) their vote share
> > > in the
> > > 25 uncontested seats would have had to be an unrealistically low 54.7%."
> > This is all pie in the sky guesswork. Quite how one can arrive at ANY
> > conclusion on shares of the vote or percentages in 1918, when modern
> > scientifically conducted polls have been manifestly proved wrong. Even
> > when the latter have been done using exit poll information, the most
> > up to date techniques, trained pollsters, modern electronic equipment
> > and communicartions, modern systems of calculations for errors, etc,
> > etc, etc.
> But as I already pointed out, there is no question of relying on
> opinion polls as we have the actual election results, which Sinn Fein
> won overwhelmingly, twist and try to deny it it as you will.
The whole point is that there were no elections whatever in the
constituencies you are making assumptions about. They were
The point about opinion polls is that the electors of those
constituencies were not even asked how they would have voted had they
been given the opportunity. So we have no data on which to base any
> > > > I still believe that the First Dail was an unrepresentative single-party
> > > > pseudo-parliament. 'The Chief' (someone who is, as far as we can tell,
> > > > neither Irish nor British)
> > > Looking at the times of day when he has posted to this thread, they seem
> > > to range from 4.19 PM to 3.56 AM GMT. Which would imply that he is
> > > either an insomniac, a shift worker, or west of the pond. Or possibly all
> > > three ...
> > Clearly an American, as his use of language and spelling show. But
> > then, it is American's that make the best "Irishmen" anyway!
> Buyers, you really are an out-and-out hyprocrite; your double
> standards (or lack of standards?) are amazing. Just a short while ago
> you falsely claimed that I was defining who was and was not an
> Irishman, and had this to say:
> "You may like to think you alone in this world decide who or what an
> Irishman is. Alas, there are very many others who have a different
> idea as to who they are and what they should be. That is a truth
> you "probably" know. Clearly, it causes you to froth a great deal.
> there you are."
> Your own words convict you, for now we find **you** adopting the exact
> position you falsely ascribed to me and said was unacceptable. Ah yes
> indeed, you, CJ Buyers, know who is or is not Irish, British or
> Amercian, and indeed who the "best" Irishmen are. And getting it
> completely wrong in the process, as usual.
So, the product of this further froth and spittel is that you now
confirm that you are indeed American.
|Re: 90th Anniversary of Dail Eireann by CJ Buyers <>|