Longwood50

22 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Have you checked your warranty details, my Daikin has just developed a fault and did have a 5 year warranty with it, unfortunately the fault occurred at 8 year old.☹️

Mine says 1 year 10 years on compressor

Have had a LG Dual Inverter that is only 3 1/2 years old and it failed.  

For those of you with some experience with air conditioners, is this issue repairable.  I had one repairman say he thought cost might be 7,000 to 8,000 baht.  Which sounded high.  This is a picture that he said showed the oil had leaked.  

Do you know of any good AC guys that might be able to repair.

Live in Pattaya

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show me where I made such a claim?

 called out your Strawman argument regarding FOX and the statement “The election was rigged”. Ask and you shall receive.

Now  your arguement that the 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

The article also shows how a low county count can result in the number of votes won by Biden. It is not a statistically anomaly as you claim.

Again you are misquoting me.  I did not say it was impossible.  I said it was an anomaly.  That means when tested it was out of the normal range.  As said, you can flip a coin 100 times and get all heads. Can that result, yes.  Is that normal.  No. and neither is winning 477 counties 30% less than the all time low recorded by Obama and getting 11% more vote.  That sir is an anomaly.  His voting pattern did not pass Benfords law which statisticians use to determine when statistics are out of the normal range.  Benfords law is used to determine when things like spending, tax deductions, insurance claims etc are out of statistical and therefore SUSPECT.  It does not prove fraud.  It merely says the numbers presented are significantly out of the range of normal.  

CNBC - President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that...

I did say he won 477 counties  I also said that was 30% lower than Obama who previously held the record at 689.  So if you subtract 477 from 689 he won 212 FEWER counties.  212/689 = a decrease of 30.7%.  However he reportedly won 81,284,000 votes compared to Obama at 69,498,516  That is 16% increase over the previous Obama record. 

Winning fewer counties and getting more votes are incongruent. Particular when one considers that Obama was a rock star candidate and Biden was so mediocre he could not win his own parties nomination two previous times. 

Now perhaps you think that is "normal" But then again you may believe in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.  

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are deflecting.

No you are as said never backing up anything you say. The Biden vote failed the statistical modeling by Benfords Law methodology.  That meant it was "suspect"  The modeling does not prove fraud, it proves that the results were so far out of norm that they deserved investigation., 

As said now for the third time.  Show me just one time, that Fox said the election results were fraud and that the Dominion systems were altered.  If you can't then stop repeating the assertion that you can not back up. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339615418_Benford's_Law_As_a_Useful_Tool_to_Determine_Fraud_in_Financial_Statements#:~:text=Benford's law is a mathematical,than valid or random samples.

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Per usual your facts are not correct.

Read this for more accurate information and an explanation.

Your article backs up my comments does not refute them.  It states and I quote. 

On Nov. 10, the Brookings Institution published a report on county-level results. The report showed that Biden won 477 counties, But according to the updated data, Biden won 16.7% of counties with finalized results. That represents a record-low proportion for a winning presidential candidate.

Now is that an abberation, a statistical anomaly.  Perhaps.  but as said when you have Obama who won 689 counties the lowest on record of a winning presidential candidate and it drops by 30% but the vote count goes up by 11% is enough to raise eyebrows.  

Are those counties large.  Of course.  However for him to win by such a large margin those counties would have had to vote in such a huge disproportion that as mentioned, it failed statistical modeling meaning it was "suspect"  Hence Fox was well within bounds to call into question how such a statistical anomaly could occur. 
 

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What?

 

I called you out for your Strawman argument regarding FOX stating ‘The election was rigged’ and pointed out that’s not why FOX are in court.

As I said, you always think you know but you never show any evidence to back up what you say. 

This is from Cornell University regarding the statistical modeling called Benfords Law.  It is used to identify statistical numbers that are statistically out of the norm.  Note, Cornell states that Benfords law is uncanningly accurate. 

The Biden vote was out of the norm according to Benfords law.  That does not prove fraud.  It points out that it was statistically so out of the norm that it warranted investigation. 

If you don't find it strange that a candidate could win 30% fewer counties than ever recorded but somehow get 8 million more votes, then I suspect you would not find the need to investigate the weighting of a coin that if flipped 100 times comes up a statistically improbable amount of times heads.  

The Dominion systems may be ok and perhaps no fraud.  However given the statistical abberation and anomoly Fox was totally correct in questioning it.  Again, you "say" Fox said that the Dominion Systems were manipulated.  I say you are wrong.  Try backing something up just once with a valid source.  Not just your rhetoric. 

 Forensic accountants, fraud examiners, accountants, and auditors use Benford's law to detect anomalies that require investigation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08894

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Strawman argument.

 

FOX are not in court for saying ‘The election was rigged’.

As always Chomper you reply, but of course you don't back it up with anything.  Show just one time that Fox actually stated the election was rigged.  You are inferring something that just was not done.  Did they question the safety and security of the Dominion voting systems - yes.  Was that reasonable given that Biden won 30% fewer counties than the lowest ever recorded yet somehow managed to get 8 million more votes than any other candidate in history. Of course that was cause to question if there were bugs in the system.  

As said numerous times now.  I believe Dominion is foolish to bring this action.  They are opening their entire company up to a corporate colonoscopy where every email, memo, and error noted in one of their machines will be scrutinzed by an army of investigators and computer experts.  They may find that process is not pleasant and may have the unintended result of pointing to deficiencies in the Dominion system.  Will it?  Who knows.  I am pointing out the risks associated with going to trial and exposing all your companies secrets. 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Fox gave lots of prime air time to election deniers without ever pointing out that their disproven claims were nonsense and without giving time to contrary (real world) views.  Fox's dimwitted viewers ate it up.  It did this because presenting the truth was bad for ratings.

As said you can flip a coin 100 times and can it always come up heads. Yes. 

Can you can have Joe Biden win only 477 counties and get 8 million more votes than Obama did when he won 679 counties which was the lowest in recorded history.  Yes, but statistically improbable.  

I don't believe Fox ever stated the Dominion machines were in fact reporting incorrect totals.  However the fact that several statisticians reported that the results stretched statistical norms made the subject of the security of the Dominion voting machines fair commentary. 

When you had a presidential candiate who was so unpopular he failed to garner even enough support inside his party to win the nomination and then suddenly get more votes in history despite winning 30% fewer counties than any candidate in history could make a story on "untold mysteries"  

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencyfuture.asp

You can trade in currency futures.  Many companies do that when dealing with foreign purchases or sales to prevent loss from currency fluctuations. 

15 hours ago, candide said:

Just trying to move the target. The issue is not what Fox news argues in court. It is that it has been publicly and repeatedly stated on Fox News that elections have been rigged thanks to Dominion machines.

I "think" you are wrong. Quote a link to where Fox has said that elections were rigged.  Their attorney's have publicly stated, that at no time did Fox make any such statement. 

17 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

In this defamation lawsuit, Dominion is not claiming that its systems could not be hacked. They may be doing that elsewhere, but if they are it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever here.

This is not Thailand.  In the USA truth is a complete and affirmative defense.  I have no idea what you say the judge ruled on.  However if Fox stated the Dominion Voting System could be hacked and in fact that proves to be true.  Now Fox makes the claim that it never claimed that Dominion rigged the election which if false is defamation.  They did claim the Dominion had security issues.  

I am of the opinion that you have a liberal judge who is biased making a ruling that even if upheld will be overturned on appeal.  The only way that by US law Fox could be held to be defaming is if it knew its claims that the Dominion systems were vulnerable were false and chose to present them as true.  Kind of like on the opposite side, that the media knew there was no Russian collusion and that there was the fake dossier but kept pushing the story as if it was true. 

Fox News has never argued in court that Dominion rigged the 2020 election, but its lawyers have repeatedly made the point that there are longstanding and bipartisan security concerns about its voting machines.

I gave up on Nord.  It did raise its cost but also whenever I was using it, the internet speed slowed down to a crawl. 

5 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Biden better wake up soon before it's too late.

You could have stopped this sentence at Better Wake Up. 

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Republicans are more interested in instant gratification actions, such as tax cuts, with no regard to the long-term consequences.

The tax revenue went up and the IRS already shows the tax cuts hurt did not help the top 1%.  The problem in the USA is not that it collects too little tax, it spends too much. The top 1% pay more in total taxes than the bottom 90%. 

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The US's stubborn refusal to provide health care like every other rich country has put all of our industries at a competitive disadvantage.

Now as to health care your response is non-sensicle.  It is as if somehow if the government pays for health care 'IT IS FREE"  No it is not.  It just shifts the cost to the taxpayer instead of the the employer. 

If there is one thing that is true, anytime the government is placed in charge of something don't expect it to be cost effective.  The employer will work hard to keep healthcare costs down.  The government doesn't care.  The bureaucrats have no incentive.  They are spending someone elses money, on someone else.  Case in point.  is social security.  Social Security taxes were first collected in January 1937, with workers and employers each paying one percent of the first $3,000 in wages and salary.  That rate is now 6.2% on the first $147,200.  So the rate went up by 620% and the taxable maximum went up at the same time by 490%.  AND THE SYSTEM IS BROKE.  THERE IS NO MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY.  It has all been spent, and the trust fund has only IOU (treasury bonds) in it.  A bond is a promise to pay the bondholder back.  So the U.S. Treasury s promising to pay social security the money that it borrowed from it.  That is like your left pocket promising to put back the money it took from the right pocket. 

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/

13 hours ago, Slip said:

Way back when, I asked you what evidence you had for your claim, and wondered if you pulled it from 'where the sun don't shine'.  All of your responses since then validate my original query.

You obviously can't read.  The fact is that Biden won fewer 477 counties versus Obama's 689 and yet somehow got 8 million more votes. 

Now is that possible.  Yes if Biden won virtually all of the votes in those counties.  That sir is a stretch and a person would any common sense would at the very least question it. 

Kind of like flipping a coin 100 times and having it always come up heads.  Is it possible yes.  Is it likely no. 

13 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Showing that the Dominion systems had vulnerabilities (if indeed they do) will not help Fox.

I said 

Giving someone access to your corporate records HAS PERILS

I also disagree that showing vulnerabilities would not help Fox.  If Fox proved the system COULD BE HACKED it would raise doubts as to if it was hacked.  

Again, if there were any cases were it was shown the Dominion System was compromised uncovered during discovery, it would greatly undermine Dominion's claim that its systems could not possibly be hacked. 

On 4/7/2023 at 8:59 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s not in dispute is FOX’s campaign of lies.

As Stalin said.  It matters precious little who votes.  It matters only who counts the vote. 

Same with the Truth.  It matters only who determines what the truth is, and candidly, I would sure not bet my life on your version. 

On 4/7/2023 at 9:05 AM, heybruce said:

As noted, your post rests on a big "If".  What makes you think that the Dominion voting systems can be better analyzed by Fox than by Dominion and its many customers?  Also, if some obscure bug is found without any evidence that it was exploited, or could be exploited, why would that put the election in question for any rational person?

Yes it is based on a supposition.  My point is when you give a legal team access to your corporate records, you have 'RISK"  Should they find anything that suggests that the Dominion Voting machines are vulnerable, it both destroys their suit against Fox, and it destroys their reputation.  

Which part of that is too complicated for you? 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Finding vulnerabilities, if they exist, will not change the lawsuit unless Fox can show that the vulnerabilities were exploited somehow to change the election result.  That's not going to happen.

I disagree.  If it raises the issue that the Dominion voting systems were not fully secure it raises "doubt" that the election results were accurate.  The election does not have to be overturned for Fox to prevail.  

Also as said, you have no idea what may show up in the discovery process.  When you are forced to give access to your company records, you never know what secrets may be discovered.   The entire process of discovery in a lawsuit is full of perils for both sides. 

4 hours ago, Slip said:

Any source other than your proverbial?

4 hours ago, Slip said:

Any source other than your proverbial?

https://bc-llp.com/civil-litigation-discovery-process/

How Does the Discovery Process Work?

During discovery, opposing parties should turn over emails, electronic documents, paper documents, and other information that could be relevant to the claims. Parties can submit motions to the court asking for specific information to be turned over, and this is common in situations where plaintiffs believe they have not been given all relevant documents.

In addition to turning over information, the discovery process can also involve interviewing witnesses and finding out what the witnesses know. Witnesses can be sent written questions, called interrogatories, or can be interviewed on the record in person through depositions.

Things like this have a tendency to have unintended consequences.  Fox will be able to through discovery obtain some pretty secretive information on the Dominion voting system and if it does have any vulnerabilities.  

4 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

Conspiracy theories have become more prevalent than ever, and according to researchers, combatting conspiracies with factual evidence is largely ineffective in quashing conspiracy beliefs.

Kind of like Stalins comment about voting.  It matters precious little what the facts are, it matters greatly who determines what are facts.