UCI points by age

Robert Chung said:

2004: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/pointsbyage04.png
2003: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rechung/temp/pointsbyage.png

Right. I think I should update
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~dronkert/cycling/ucipoints.php

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://www.getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://www.gettbird.com/

Quoted message said:

Right. I think I should update

No wait, there are still UCI points to be won this year.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://www.getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://www.gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

Right. I think I should update

No wait, there are still UCI points to be won this year.

Yes, but we're not jumping the gun by much. BTW, I think the story here is
kinda depressing:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/uci.png

--
Differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters: http://www.pipa.org

Robert Chung said:

BTW, I think the story here is kinda depressing:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/uci.png

What, it takes 10 years to get really good?

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://www.getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://www.gettbird.com/

Robert Chung said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

Right. I think I should update

No wait, there are still UCI points to be won this year.

Yes, but we're not jumping the gun by much. BTW, I think the story here is
kinda depressing:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/uci.png

I don't know riders' ages. Who's the 40 year-old with all the points?

Steve

Quoted message said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Robert Chung said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

> Right. I think I should update

No wait, there are still UCI points to be won this year.

Yes, but we're not jumping the gun by much. BTW, I think the story
here is
kinda depressing:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/uci.png

I don't know riders' ages. Who's the 40 year-old with all the points?

Steve

Oh, and who's the 50 year-old?

Steve (older than him/her)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the story here is kinda depressing:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/uci.png

I don't know riders' ages. Who's the 40 year-old with all the
points?

You probably mean the 39 year-olds. There are only five of them, and the
median rider was pretty good:

Eric Wohlberg, CAN, 19650108, 199 pts.
Gianni Faresin, ITA, 19650716, 155
Johan Museeuw, BEL, 19651013, 134
Michel Kohnen, LUX, 19650108, 22
Roy Chamberlain, GBR, 19650316, 4

Quoted message said:

Oh, and who's the 50 year-old?

John Alabaster, NZL, 19540101, 4

Robert Chung said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

>I think the story here is kinda depressing:
>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/uci.png

I don't know riders' ages. Who's the 40 year-old with all the
points?

You probably mean the 39 year-olds. There are only five of them, and the
median rider was pretty good:

Eric Wohlberg, CAN, 19650108, 199 pts.
Gianni Faresin, ITA, 19650716, 155
Johan Museeuw, BEL, 19651013, 134
Michel Kohnen, LUX, 19650108, 22
Roy Chamberlain, GBR, 19650316, 4

Quoted message said:

Oh, and who's the 50 year-old?

John Alabaster, NZL, 19540101, 4

Thanks. I seemed to remember at one point that the UCI put a mandatory
retirement age of 40--obviously I'm mistaken. Or was there a mandatory
retirement age that was revised upward or removed?

Steve

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters: http://www.pipa.org

Considering who's paying their bills it could've just come from Soros.
Not what I would call unbiased research.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters: http://www.pipa.org

Considering who's paying their bills it could've just come from Soros.
Not what I would call unbiased research.

Who's paying their bills?

What would you say is biased about saying that Bush and Kerry supporters
differ in their perceptions? Are you saying that you think they have
exactly the same perceptions? Here's the questionnaire:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf

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

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

What would you say is biased about saying that Bush and Kerry supporters
differ in their perceptions? Are you saying that you think they have
exactly the same perceptions? Here's the questionnaire:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf

--

No, What I am saying is that like statistics, you can "prove" anything you
want by where, how, and when you run the poll. Given the fact that most
colleges are predominantly for Kerry, I can go dig up the report if you really
want but I don't think that I need to, and given the peiople funding this
research group I am not surprised that they have provided results saying that
Bush supporters are idiots.
I can't seem to get it through the heads of the people here who support Kerry
that calling anybody who doesn't think the way you do, or live in a college
town idiots is not the way to get their vote, even if they are disgusted with
Bush.
The incredible arrogance they have is just bolstered by studies paid for by
the people who are pushing this theory. What a surprise, we found Sugar Daddy's
bigotry is right, can we have another check now?
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

Considering who's paying their bills it could've just come from Soros.
Not what I would call unbiased research.

and then

Quoted message said:

and given the
peiople funding this research group

Who's funding them?

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

Quoted message said:

Who's funding them?

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

From their site:
It's the usual left/center left groups.

PIPA's Foundation Sponsors

Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
German Marshall Fund of the United States
Compton Foundation
Carnegie Corporation
Benton Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
Circle Foundation

Bill C

On 10/23/2004 07:49 AM, in article
[email hidden], "TritonRider"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who's funding them?

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

From their site:
It's the usual left/center left groups.

PIPA's Foundation Sponsors

Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
German Marshall Fund of the United States
Compton Foundation
Carnegie Corporation
Benton Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
Circle Foundation

What's amusing is that the Rockefellers (except for Jay), Henry Ford, and
Andrew Carnegie are not known for being "left/center-left" ...

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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.

I'm not dismissing it out of hand because it really seems to be incredibly
skewed, not because of the sponsors. I would be surprised to find any study
funded by that group of sponsors to be positive towards Bush. I have seen other
studies that indicated some of what this did, but to nowhere near the degree
this one did.
I think they know what the people writing them checks want to see and plan
their sudies to provide them with data that supports their position. Usually
it's nowhere near this blatant though.
Just my opinion though.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

I think they know what the people writing them checks want to see and plan
their sudies to provide them with data that supports their position. Usually
it's nowhere near this blatant though.
Just my opinion though.

here is the information provided about how the study was done (and
robert has already given the link to the questionnaire.) that i could
find on the pipa site. i'm curious how they plan their studies to get
the data that makes their sponsors happy. i'm not saying it can't be
done, but i'm curious what you think they did exactly?

"The polls were conducted October 12-18 and September 3-7 and 8-12 with
samples of 968, 798 and 959 respondents, respectively. Margins of error
were 3.2 to 4% in the first and third surveys and 3.5% on September 3-7.
The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel,
which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and
subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this
methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. "

from knowledge networks website-
Our surveys are conducted with probability samples of persons who are
members of the web-enabled panel, which is designed to be representative
of the U.S. population. Initially, participants were chosen
scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers. Persons in
selected households were then invited by telephone to participate in the
web-enabled panel. Those who agreed to participate were sent an Internet
appliance and received an Internet service connection provided by
Knowledge Networks.

In some cases, people who already had computers and Internet service
were permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then
received unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and
then were sent emails three-to-four times a month inviting them to
participate in research.

Our customers include academic researchers from Duke University, Harvard
University, MIT, New York University, Stanford University, UCLA, and the
University of California, Irvine, as well as Federal agencies such as
the CDC, the Census Bureau, and EPA through collaborations with the
Research Triangle Institute, the Resources for the Future, Stratus
Consulting, and with university-based principal investigators. We
partner with the Program on International Policy Attitudes for public
opinion research on foreign policy issues, and conduct surveys of
seniors for AARP.

The key staff responsible for government, academic, and non-profit
research each have had long careers in designing and conducting surveys
sponsored by the Federal Government and major universities. The staff
have also participated in methodological research on data collection
mode effects, nonresponse bias, and panel effects.

Quoted message said:

From: h squared [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

here is the information provided about how the study was done (and
robert has already given the link to the questionnaire.) that i could
find on the pipa site. i'm curious how they plan their studies to get
the data that makes their sponsors happy. 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.
This means that I think that they lied about the details of the procedure.
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.
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.
I'm not saying that the basic facts are wrong. I'm saying that I think they
cooked the survey, probably the way I have suggested, to distort the results.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

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

who do you mean by they? pipa? or knowledge networks?

Quoted message said:

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.

well, studying the awareness of fox viewers is not entirely the same as
studying the awareness of bush supporters. fwiw.

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