Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Kerry Losing Ground (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Kerry Losing Ground
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And that is before the RNC.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... as I keep mentioning.

Hey, a new bit of news from Reuters: Apparently a number of people are registered to vote in both New York and Florida (that's ilegal, by the way).

Thousands Registered to Vote in 2 States

quote:
About 46,000 people are registered to vote in two states, New York and Florida, a violation of both states' laws that could affect the outcome of the November presidential election, according to an investigation by the Daily News.
Many New Yorkers spend the winter months in sunny Florida, which played a pivotal role in the 2000 election after George W. Bush narrowly won the state in a contested ballot recount. Florida could be a crucial state in the November presidential election.

The New York tabloid examined computer records to ferret out duplicate registrations in New York City and Florida.

The Daily News said it could not provide an exact count of how many people vote in both places, because millions of names are purged between elections. But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday.

The duel registrations have gone undetected because election officials do not check voter rolls across state lines, the newspaper said.

"There's no extensive investigation normally on a voter registration form," Steven Richman, general counsel for the city Board of Elections, told the paper. "We accept it at its face value."

Hmmmmm...
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. And the RNC hasn't even happened yet. This is going to be a close one.


[Big Grin]

But seriously,
quote:
And a little less than half the country still hasn't seen the Swiftobat vets ad.
I think at this point, everyone concerned has at least heard of and most everyone has heard (or at least read) the quotes from the guys in it. I mean, hasn't this been all over the debate shows and whatnot?

-Ivan

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey guys, I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread, but I think we should all consider the fact that the RNC has yet to happen.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It'll be interesting to see if the RNC creates a boost for Bush. The Kerry's team's excuse for the DNS not creating a push for Kerry was that this is a unique election in which the bases for both parties are already as mobilizied as they can be - if Bush doesn't get a boost from the RNC it would support that idea.
Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You've just got to love the boldness of the Kerry campaign and the various lefty kool-aid drinkers. They've been benefiting from (and no doubt playing footsie with) the lefty 527's for months, yet they have the cojones to complain that the SBVFT are somehow breaking campaign finance law. Sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh.

The bottom line is this: Kerry can't rebut what the Swifties are saying so he tries to throw some doubt on their testimony by trying to link them with those "unsavory" Republicans. I believe there is a logical falacy somewhere in that plan; I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what that falacy is.

Face it, Kerry's story about his VietNam service has changed numerous times now while the Swifties have held firm on their testimony. That's a pretty clear indicator of who is telling the truth and who isn't.

The fact that Kerry brought all of this on himself just adds to the humor of the situation. Obviously, he didn't believe that his experience in the Senate or as Lieutenant Governor qualified him to be president, so he had to invent this great "warrior" persona (we'll just ignore the schizophrenic side of this -- that Kerry would attempt to paint himself as a "hero" for taking part in what he and his buddies termed an unjust war). Now that his grandstanding and lies are coming back to bite him in the gluteus maximus, you just have to smile at the cosmic display of karma.

[Edited to add a missing "the"]

[ August 23, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: meworkingman ]

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You've just got to love the boldness of the Kerry campaign and the various lefty kool-aid drinkers."

Out of interest, why has this whole "kool-aid drinker" thing been revived? Is it considered a more effective insult than "Volvo-driving" or "turtleneck-wearing?"

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's funny how both sides have complained about "soft money" ads, and both sides have such ads running. I think the Republicans have been most outspoken against it...so it's interesting that the most important ad that doesn't come directly from the candidates is anti-Kerry.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Out of interest, why has this whole "kool-aid drinker" thing been revived? Is it considered a more effective insult than "Volvo-driving" or "turtleneck-wearing?"

When did "kool-aid drinker" go out of style? I must've missed it. In case you're unaware, the term is used to describe, admittedly in a negative way, true believers who refuse to consider (even for a second) the other side of a debate. The term comes from the Jonestown cult in Guyana, where the followers all killed themselves by drinking poisoned kool-aid. Also, the term "kool-aid drinker" can be used to deride either the left or the right so it's a much more useful term than "Volvo-driver" or the like. [Wink]

quote:

It's funny how both sides have complained about "soft money" ads, and both sides have such ads running. I think the Republicans have been most outspoken against it...

I guess it depends on what you mean by "outspoken." Of course the Repubs have complained about the sewage coming out of moveon.org and the like, but they've never taken legal steps to stop it like Kerry's people have. This is why this whole episode is such sweet justice: Kerry has benefited from the swill being pumped out from the lefty 527's for months but when the shoe is on the other foot, he squeals like a stuck pig (how's that for mixed metaphors? [Big Grin] ).
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In case you're unaware, the term is used to describe, admittedly in a negative way, true believers who refuse to consider (even for a second) the other side of a debate."

Yes, in theory. However, I have NEVER seen this term applied by a liberal to a conservative; it appears to be used exclusively in modern parlance to describe dyed-in-the-wool Democrats -- and not liberals, particularly, as it tends to describe partisanship more than ideology.

"Of course the Repubs have complained about the sewage coming out of moveon.org and the like, but they've never taken legal steps to stop it like Kerry's people have."

This is not true, by the way. Both MoveOn and Michael Moore have been sued by Republican organizations over alleged violations of campaign finance law.

[ August 23, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

This is not true, by the way. Both MoveOn and Michael Moore have been sued by Republican organizations over alleged violations of campaign finance law.

Really? The RNC and the Bush campaign have sued moveon and moore? I was unaware of this. Do you have a source for that claim? I assume that is what you are saying since what I was clearly talking about was the KERRY CAMPAIGN itself taking legal steps rather than some fringe Democrat organization.

[ August 23, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: meworkingman ]

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
meworkingman- I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what kind of "controdiction" do you want from Kerry? I don't really see a way he can controdict SBVT in any way that he already has not. The only other step he could possibly take would be to release his records, and even then there probably wouldn't be anything that would tell us whether or not these guys were lying. I mean, how is Kerry going to prove that the doctor fellow is mistaken that he treated Kerry's wound? Or that his memory is faulty? I mean, the doctor who signed the form is long-since dead. There is no possible way for Kerry to counter that claim. And anyways, most of the other accusations are about how Kerry "betrayed" his fellow troops and whatnot, which has everything to do with his post-war testemony about attrocities and nothing to do with his actual performance in Viet Nam.

So far I have seen one vet quoted on this site that has said something against Kerry's leadership ability. And incidently, that is just one man's opinion! The only thing Kerry has to go against that is... the opinion on the people who served under him and the official records of service that are available to us, all of which are complimentary or at the very least neutral.

What do you want Kerry to do besides disagree? These are opinions based on events more than 30 years ago. How can you factually prove or rebut one opinion or the other?

As I've said before, I think Kerry should release all records that he can, but I don't really expect this to shed any light on the subject. But at least then we'll know exactly what they say...

-Ivan

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the latest result of the on-going Detroit News online poll:
quote:

Whose version of the truth about John Kerry's service in Vietnam do you tend to believe?

John Kerry's 49.90%

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's 50.10%

Yesterday, it was 50.5 in favor of Kerry's version vs. 49.5% in favor of SBVFT's version. It is now even closer to even, but slightly in favor of SBVFT's version. Looks like SBVFT is still winning more and more people to its view, as more and more people see the ads.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, it's worth noting that online polls notoriously skew to the right by an average of 14 points.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Based on what report?
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RonL-
They're statistically identical. I'm sure the margin for error for that poll is far larger than 0.6%.

Ron-
I personally havn't read any report (perhaps Tom has?), but isn't it ituitive? The internet as a whole is generally more conservative than Real Life. At least that's been my experience.

It's one of the reasons I like to discuss politics more online than in RL: more conflicting views. Especially more informed ones. [Wink]

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree given there are so many liberal sites unless one has to consider liberals to in general be luddites, but then some conservatives fall on that level too. It isn't as intuitive as some would like to claim. Whats interesting is that Tom said "by an average of 14 points when referencing online polls in general. That is pretty specific and so it demands a source.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tell you what, Ron. [Smile] Bet you ten bucks that the Internet not only skews conservative relative to the general population, but that it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE among journalists, politicians, and statisticians that it does.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Statistics of this; marigin of errors for that; Republican boosts after the RNC--it's all smoke obscuring the really important issue that I want to know:

Which are the liberal and which are the conserative flavors of Kool-Aid? [Smile]

[ August 23, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All I am asking for is the report or basis for that 14% statement. Its not a lot I am asking for. It was specific and I assume rather than being pompous and trying to get out of saying that you were mistaken about the so called 14% margin, that you have a report or know of a report that says exactly that.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Otherwise just say you were wrong about the number that you don't know and you kind of threw it out there.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward Son - Republicans commonly claim both Watermelon and Cherry; this has been widely known since the eighties. Tropical Punch has been out of style because Hawaii's Democratic votership appealed to turn the traditionally red tropical punch packaging into a blue monstrosity.

Democrats prefer any "berry" combo that makes the package blue. For example, there's the Mad ScienTwists Raspberry Reaction.

I can't believe I even had to go into it. This is like when people ask who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman. Obviously Batman since Commish Gordon entrusted him with a Kryptonite ring just in case Superman goes insane.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ivan, there is no margin for error in the Detroit News online poll. [Smile] It is NOT a scientific poll, so no margin for error can be estimated. You just take it for what it's worth, a slight majority of respondents to the Detroit News online poll currently say they believe the version of Kerry's military history being presented by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

Now, the city of Detroit itself usually votes about 80% democratic. The Detroit suburbs are usually evenly split or tilt only slightly toward Republicans, and outlying areas of Michigan, especially rural areas, are highly Republican. The way it usually balances out on national elections, if there is a high voter turnout in Detroit, then the Democrats carry the state. If the voter turnout in rural Michigan is higher than the Detroit city turnout, then the Republicans carry the state.

Of course, the people who own computers and/or have access to the Internet and are likely to respond to an online poll by the Detroit News may not be representative of the general population, and may tend to be tilted toward one party more than another, but I don't know of any study that has established this.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"All I am asking for is the report or basis for that 14% statement."

So you'll grant the larger statement itself? [Smile] I ask this because I don't want to waste time digging through the Google archives of a certain site from 2002, otherwise, and would feel ridiculously silly doing so if you already agree with me. If you DON'T agree with the larger premise, I'm willing to throw in the time to produce a link to back up something that most people consider common knowledge -- but, as I indicated earlier, it's worth $10 to me to do so. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I am looking for is some proof of the the very specific statement you made, nothing more. Nor have I said more. There shouldn't be clauses or requirements in place everytime someone asks you to show back up for such specific statements.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are you prolonging the issue. Its a simple question.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why are you prolonging the issue. Its a simple question."

I answered the question, Ron. [Smile] It's because the 14% is a datum that I saw two years ago on a site which now exists somewhere in the Google archives, if at all, during a class I was taking on statistical analysis in online polls. I can probably go digging to back it up, but that seems rather pointless if my actual POINT -- which is that online polls are known and acknowledged to skew significantly Republican, in general -- is one that you're already willing to accept. (Certainly this particular bit of information didn't come as a surprise to anyone in the class, and certainly every sociologist and webmaster I've discussed survey technique with has been aware of the phenomenon. It's not exactly a little-known piece of esoterica.)

And, as I said earlier, if you DON'T accept this bit of information, I'd prefer to make this worth my time by putting a side wager on the larger issue; that way, if I spend two hours digging for a single specific datum to back up something you should already know, I'm at least up ten bucks.

As any old-timer here knows, I absolutely HATE digging up data; there is nothing in the world I find more tedious. And so unless I've got a compelling reason to look for something specific, I'd rather find common ground with a general concept and move on.

[ August 23, 2004, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the info, WP. I'm glad to hear that Strawberry is still considered independent.

BTW, as anyone can tell you, Spiderman kicks both Batman's and Superman's butt, at least in terms of gross receipts. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then simply produce the source. 14% is a fairly large number. It is not a waste of time backing up your claims, well, you may think so, but it also goes to credibility. Lots of people here who make specific claims are asked to back them up, why should you be different?

If you hate digging things up, don't make claims that you hate digging up. Otherwise lets simply say that you were wrong to produce a number that you could not, or would not back up with any kind of source material.

It is not a question of common knowledge, that is a red herring. All you have to do is show us where you retrieved the information that which you stated quite specifically:

quote:
Ron, it's worth noting that online polls notoriously skew to the right by an average of 14 points
Show us where you recieved this information? I think such a wide margin is news to a lot of people here.

Did you make it up on the spur of the moment to bolster a point?

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets wait until the new Batman is made to see on the gross reciepts thing. I also understand a new Superman is being looked into.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ivan:

I think you've got me confused with someone else. I've never posted anything that called for Kerry to contradict what the Swifties are saying. The only thing I'm pointing out is that Kerry is trying to get away with a HUGE hypocrisy here.

Consider the following:

Taking the above into account and considering that the Kerry campaign has benefited greatly from lefty 527's, it's more than just a bit disingenuous to be complaining about the lone right-wing 527 that anyone is aware of.

NOTE: You'll also notice that neither of the news stories cited above seems to find anything wrong with high-ranking Dems being involved with 527's, yet they are willing to parrot Kerry's complaint that a low-level Bush campaign volunteer is involved with the Swifties. Is this more evidence of left-wing bias? Hmmm. [Eek!]


Since you've asked the question about what I'd expect from Kerry in response to the Swifties, however, I'll take a stab at answering it.

I would agree that the first thing he should do is release ALL of his military records. These records could go a long way towards rebutting some of the Swifties claims, specifically the extent of his wounds and the documentation that were the bases for his medal awards. Next, he could challenge the Swifties to a debate; he could lay out his proof and the Swifties could lay out theirs. Finally, he could address the question about why he was willing to present heresay evidence in front of the Senate about war crimes without properly vetting that evidence.

Of course, none of that will happen. And, to be honest, I'm not entirely certain that it should. The VietNam war was a long time ago and I doubt that the debate would change anyone's mind. Kerry detractors will remain convinced that he's a political opportunist who is willing to lie for the slightest rhetorical advantage while Kerry supporters will be convinced that he's the greatest hero since Sgt. York.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, Ron, just to clarify: you do not dispute my general claim that it is common knowledge that the Internet population skews to the right in polls, but dispute my specific use of 14% as being improbably high? [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I have to repeat myself I will. Can you show me the source for the following statement you made:

quote:
Ron, it's worth noting that online polls notoriously skew to the right by an average of 14 points
If you can't come up with the source for that statement, then at least be man enough to state that you have no source for that statement and that you cannot back it up.

I think its more than a little dishonest to continue playing your little games. Just answer the question or explain why you can't.

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I couldn't be more clear than that.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried to vote on this poll and though I could see the "results" I could not vote. Maybe it has a sensor that keeps Liberals from voting? That would explain the skew.
Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*grin* I think it's funny that you define "clear" as "refusing to answer the question." [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Tom the question is quite simple, state your source, no preconditions from you should be necessary. Or was it a falsehood?
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raskalnikov
New Member
Member # 1968

 - posted      Profile for Raskalnikov   Email Raskalnikov       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom is asking you, Ron, whether you grant that online polls skew to the right. If you do not grant this, he wishes you to place a ten dollar wager to make it worth his while to spend time digging up the paper he is referencing.

You are both being ridiculous. Ron, Tom has asked you a question you've refused to answer. Tom has clearly answered your question about why he will not dig up the paper, unless you bet money on it. Ron, read more carefully.

Tom, this is an online forum. We're not wagering here. If you want to work something out with Ron to compensate you for wasted time, don't bother US with that negotiation. Do it via email. There is no need for us to read this. There is also no real need for you to spend 8 posts asking Ron whether he grants a point. He clearly does not grant your larger point, and wants to see a source for your statement.

Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing is, I think Ron DOES grant my larger point. I think he's just being bloody-minded. And while I'll freely admit that digging through the Pew Center's ten years of SPSS data looking for the specific 14% figure that I noticed two years ago is going to be a pain in the butt -- particularly since I don't have access to SPSS at home and Pew doesn't appear to make their archival data available in any other form nowadays -- it's especially galling when it's completely irrelevant to the larger point: a point that is backed up immediately by even casual Google searches on the topic. Heck, even Zogby, Harris, and Gallup have links on their home page which explain why they don't generally use Internet polling (except for Harris, which instead provides an explanation of how they weight their Internet polls to compensate for the demographic elements online.)

But I'll freely concede to Ron that I can't find the stupid number -- saving us all a great deal of pain -- if he'll concede that the actual thrust of my comment is completely accurate.

[ August 23, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The answer Raskalinikov is "I don't know" one way or the other since I haven't seen much reference about it in general. Its not a question about wasted time, it is a question about the willingness of Tom to make a clear statement and show the reference for it.

Tom has yet to provide the source material.

And 14% is a huge number in statistics like this.

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1