http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

On Feb 8, 11:17 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

Naw, the editorial's just pointing out that reporters are either
liars, or, more likely, just clueless. And that The People then believe
The Nonsense--since it came from a supposed authority figure-- and treat
it as Fact.

On Feb 8, 11:17 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

Naw, the editorial's just pointing out that reporters are either
liars, or, more likely, just clueless. And that The People then
believe The Nonsense--since it came from a supposed authority figure--
and treat it as Fact.

On Feb 9, 9:15 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Feb 8, 11:17 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

Naw, the editorial's just pointing out that reporters are either
liars, or, more likely, just clueless. And that The People then
believe The Nonsense--since it came from a supposed authority figure--
and treat it as Fact.

The reporters aren't clueless. The survey just repeats what a number
of people have been saying for a few years now - Dubbya and his
clueless crew of neocons don't know what they are talking about, and
don't believe anybody else does either, so they feel free to gnore
authorative advice and go shopping for advice that they like.

Don't you remember the famous (if non-existent) weapons of mass
destructon that justified the idiotic invasion of Irak?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

So, what's so bad about global warming? San Francisco bay property
will be cheap as the sea level rises, and I can afford to buy some

On Feb 9, 9:15 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Feb 8, 11:17 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

Naw, the editorial's just pointing out that reporters are either
liars, or, more likely, just clueless. And that The People then
believe The Nonsense--since it came from a supposed authority figure--
and treat it as Fact.

The reporters aren't clueless. The survey just repeats what a number
of people have been saying for a few years now

- Dubbya and his
clueless crew of neocons don't know what they are talking about, and
don't believe anybody else does either, so they feel free to gnore
authorative advice and go shopping for advice that they like.

Don't you remember the famous (if non-existent) weapons of mass
destructon that justified the idiotic invasion of Irak?

On Feb 9, 3:44 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:



On Feb 9, 9:15 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:17 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

Naw, the editorial's just pointing out that reporters are either
liars, or, more likely, just clueless. And that The People then
believe The Nonsense--since it came from a supposed authority figure--
and treat it as Fact.

The reporters aren't clueless. The survey just repeats what a number
of people have been saying for a few years now - Dubbya and his
clueless crew of neocons don't know what they are talking about, and
don't believe anybody else does either, so they feel free to gnore
authorative advice and go shopping for advice that they like.

Don't you remember the famous (if non-existent) weapons of mass
destructon that justified the idiotic invasion of Irak?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

So, what's so bad about global warming? San Francisco bay property
will be cheap as the sea level rises, and I can afford to buy some,
and argiculture will prosper under warmer conditions. Some parts of
China will do real well as they did in the past under warmer
conditions.

http://www.rff.org/rff/Publications/weathervane/Features/1997/The-Ben...

"Warm periods are the economically and culturally prosperous periods
of mankind," said Ren. "Desertification is caused by global cold, a
severe environment, along with man-created sabotage. The natural
factor is essential."

-Bill

The damned thing is an *opinion* piece written for uneducated and
uneducable riffraff and rabble, and the entire premise is completely
WRONG. Perception cab be EXTREMELY important among this particular
sample population because it is indicative of the INTIMIDATION campaign
and its influence. David Byrne is well-known to be a local Limbaugh
wannabe feeding the local retards:

"Dennis Byrne is a syndicated Wise Man, otherwise known as pundit or
columnist. This man really blows me away. He speaks with the usual
arrogance of the species variant known as Older White Male with a
Soapbox, but he is more remarkable than many in his ability to assert as
fact his opinions, with nothing to back them up."

Scum like Byrne have been around forever, if he didn't have newspaper he
would be selling elixirs from the back of truck in the rest stop parking
lot....

On Feb 10, 9:24 am, Fred Bloggs <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

The damned thing is an *opinion* piece written for uneducated and
uneducable riffraff and rabble, and the entire premise is completely
WRONG. Perception cab be EXTREMELY important among this particular
sample population because it is indicative of the INTIMIDATION campaign
and its influence. David Byrne is well-known to be a local Limbaugh
wannabe feeding the local retards:

"Dennis Byrne is a syndicated Wise Man, otherwise known as pundit or
columnist. This man really blows me away. He speaks with the usual
arrogance of the species variant known as Older White Male with a
Soapbox, but he is more remarkable than many in his ability to assert as
fact his opinions, with nothing to back them up."

Scum like Byrne have been around forever, if he didn't have newspaper he
would be selling elixirs from the back of truck in the rest stop parking
lot....



None of those things are relevant. Either disaffected people are
more likely to respond to a voluntary survey, or not.

Well, the latter proves to be the case.

"Every one who hates the government, raise your hand."
"Okay, all of you guys come over here and take a survey."

This isn't a representative sample, and you can't extrapolate
meaningful conclusions about the remaining, general population.
That's the complaint.

It's right up there with the old gag of handing out cigarettes to a
crowd, then surveying them to see what brand everyone's smoking.

James Arthur wrote:

"Every one who hates the government, raise your hand."
"Okay, all of you guys come over here and take a survey."

This isn't a representative sample, and you can't extrapolate
meaningful conclusions about the remaining, general population.
That's the complaint.

The complaint was over including "perceived" political pressure in the
statistic.

It is not a gag, word gets around, if you produce a report
that is contradictory of the "official" line, your funding gets pulled,
it's that simple, things like this are not isolated.

You might notice
that every single one of these people work for organizations that are
headed by *political* appointees or people who are very much eager to
please a *political* appointee.


It's right up there with the old gag of handing out cigarettes to a
crowd, then surveying them to see what brand everyone's smoking.

I really don't know care if the survey was scientific or not, it is
well-known

the administration has been pulling this crap since they
usurped control of the US government. They have quite literally broken
millions of laws, ransacked the US treasury for personal gain, murdered
millions of innocent people, and turned this country into a shambles.
The only redeeming aspect of all this is the American people are getting
just what they deserve since they're so damned dumb to elect scum like this.

On Feb 10, 2:17 pm, Fred Bloggs <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
"Every one who hates the government, raise your hand."
"Okay, all of you guys come over here and take a survey."

This isn't a representative sample, and you can't extrapolate
meaningful conclusions about the remaining, general population.
That's the complaint.

The complaint was over including "perceived" political pressure in the
statistic.

You've recited the complaint the survey was designed (and claimed)
to vindicate. The editorial-writer's complaint was that, despite the
claims, it didn't.

It is not a gag, word gets around, if you produce a report
that is contradictory of the "official" line, your funding gets pulled,
it's that simple, things like this are not isolated.

That's an allegation. The survey didn't support that conclusion.
If anything, since so few of this disaffected group reported actually
experiencing anything, it suggests the opposite.

You might notice
that every single one of these people work for organizations that are
headed by *political* appointees or people who are very much eager to
please a *political* appointee.

It's right up there with the old gag of handing out cigarettes to a
crowd, then surveying them to see what brand everyone's smoking.

I really don't know care if the survey was scientific or not, it is
well-known

It's widely alleged, not "known." That's why they did the survey.
To find out.

But it didn't say what they wanted it to say. So they said it
anyhow.

On Feb 11, 7:22 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But it didn't say what they wanted it to say. So they said it
anyhow.

The survey said what everybody expected.