Look who commissioned the poll - look what they are doing with the poll 'results' - look at the demo of the people polled - look at the questions asked - and then compare that to the agenda that Morris is trying to push.
Shag - all the classic earmarks of push polling.
...or it is simply circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove anything.
Those are also "classic earmarks" of other possibilities as well which you have not even considered, let alone discounted.
The results that Zogby released doesn't have that information and if you use rough percentages you end up with the same data that Morris has quoted (comparing percentage of younger people polled against the percentages of people polled who are against the healthcare proposals). You can't do that - because you can't just blanket-ly carry those age qualifiers across the question results.
You have clearly never operationalized data and analyzed stats using specialized software. You are now changing your story
again to say that you can not compare different variables in stats analysis. So you can't do different things like a very basic crosstab analysis, etc.?
You
may have looked at simplified
results of stats analysis (as reported in the news and by most polling companies), but you clearly have no idea
how those results are reached or the various methods and techniques used to analyze results.
Shag - I deal with comparable data on a daily basis, I am sorry if I got one word wrong. You can continue to berate me, fine - but I know what I am talking about.
Again, your arguments indicate otherwise. Once again, you are misrepresenting yourself. Your knowledge of stats analysis is as non-existent as your knowledge of political philosophy.
the results that are available to us aren't keyed to age breakdown - can you find it shag - I certainly can't.
More strawmen. Go back and read what I said. I never
said the result in the pdf file can be keyed to breakdown age. I said that the data from which those results are drawn can be (and clearly
have been) used to to reach the results Morris gave in his article.
However, you
are spamming the
fallacious argument being perpetuated by your cheerleaders; you are deceiving. Again
Heck shag - I don't know what Morris has, but I suspect he doesn't have full data.
Why would you think that? It would simply take a freedom of information type request for most anyone to get it. And the analysis' he presented as well as the pdf file give all the info to logically infer the existence of that information, if you know how that data is gathered and analyzed.
He didn't even link the data we are using to his story, probably knowing that it wasn't complete, nor did it confirm his points in the story.
Again, his not "link[ing] the data" in no way disqualifies his results. All it does is serve as a basis for exaggeration and speculation on your part. Most people don't have the knowledge or means to analyze that data.
You are simply moving the goalposts here. Deceiving. Again.
You had one brief moment where you demonstrated some honesty and are now trying to exagurate that claim and have gone back to deceiving by using fallacious arguments.
In this last post you have; attempted to
move the goalposts, set up
strawmen, made
absurdly ignorant and irrelevant arguments and misrepresented your background (pretending you know more then you do).
For a sixth time; Why do you attempt to deceive people on this forum?
However, we both know you won't answer that question. Instead of confronting it in some way, you will dodge it, like you always do.
If you are simply going to continue spamming your lies and disinformation, I see no reason to waste time on. Frankly, I see no reason why
anyone should consider you any more credible then Michael Moore.
