Dear Mr. Arndt:
You have committed fraud to attempt to have input on this site. Despite the fact that you continue to abuse members on the site, just as you did when you were on city council, our committee has made an attempt to carefully consider our next step with you.
Any person that would violate the rules of this site has a lack of boundaries in their use of persuasion.
For instance, numerous times who have admitted to the use of selective information in persuading the public to your position? In Case you have not read my other posts, selective information is telling someone or the public just part of the facts or truth because all of the facts do not support your position.
- understood wrote:
- “That is what you here from a 2 year old. An adult could have a more professional approach. It would be nice if I could here debates about the facts of law enforcement, instead of I want it, I want it, I want it. Until I hear some real good facts that go against what a majority of the council may want, your 2 year old approach won't change my mind.”
“The current council is only percieved as bullys by people like you that they don't listen to. They have done the research for their decisions and are not likely to take uninformed advise from SD residents to make their final decision.”
Just as Mr. Oakes did a few years ago and now you here you use a shotgun approach and want fast responses to massive data. Shotguns approaches are also often times used so that the author appears to usually delights in the fact that he is winning the argument.
The general perception of the public and those who debate frequently is that it is generally a weak method of persuasion.
The third problem with your approach is that of the moving target. An example of that approach was yesterday when I refuted your comparison to Redfield. You then moved the target to Minneota, Pipestone and Waconia and other communities and misread the real statistics.
Are you really ready for the real debate? Then let’s get the playing field evened. What factors are important in analyzing police protection?
Here are some factors that I think are important! What is this population of a radius of 15 miles from Ortonville? What communities have this comparable in Minnesota? What community in the state has three major highways passing through the community? What communities that have police protection other than the county within a 20 mile radius of Ortonville? What is the population of Ortonville and the surrounding communities during peak tourism? What community controls the flooding to most of the state, increasing the likelihood of terrorism? What community you are using has another state boundary as an issue? What impact does a major target of terrorism, such as a power plant have in determining the need for police protection?
By the way the state auditor did not have a report. She compiled data of the individual communities. You and Mr. Oakes took this data and reached the conclusion from your interpretation of the data.
In the definition section of the data, the State Auditor said the following:
“Public Safety. These budgeted expenditures reflect the costs related to the protection of persons and property. This category combines several distinct city departments, including police, fire, ambulance services, and other protection. Other protection includes building inspections, animal control, and flood control.”
That is why in my factors above I named that as an important factor.
My education and the use of statistics say that you look at comparable factors first and then draw a comparison to like communities.
What factors did Mr. Oakes use in drawing his comparisons? This is where we begin and not end.
Let’s first reach an agreement on the factors and then debate. Let’s not put the cart before the horse.
When I listened to Mr. Oakes he did just as you did here and as a result was unable to persuade a majority of the public. Most people will agree with Topgun. We are uninterested in time spent abusing statistics.
Are you ready? Comparisons are tough because each community is unique and Mr. Oakes inability to understand this will be the reason he is unsuccessful in meaningful debate.