Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Nalle
    ... It s an internet poll. It s inherently meaningless. Dave -- Scriptorium Fonts: http://www.fontcraft.com Ragnarok Press: http://www.ragnarokpress.com
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: [RLC-Action] (unknown)
      That's because it's fraudulent.

      It's an internet poll.  It's inherently meaningless.

      Dave
      -- 
      

      Scriptorium Fonts: http://www.fontcraft.com
      Ragnarok Press: http://www.ragnarokpress.com
      Customer Support: 1-800-797-8973
    • DGHarrison
      It s an internet poll. It s inherently meaningless. -- Dave When Paul wins those things in a landslide, his supporters are accused of spamming (a term
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        It's an internet poll.  It's inherently meaningless. -- Dave
        When Paul wins those things in a landslide, his supporters are accused of "spamming" (a term inappropriately applied but meant to denote multiple entries by single voters), and those polls are farted off as meaningless (otherwise how do you explain when MSNBC and others put up a poll and then fail to report its results when Paul has a good showing?). Nonetheless, I expect that just as soon as a poll shows someone else leading, the poll will suddenly have meaning and none of that candidate's supporters will be accused of "spamming."

        Unfortunately, those who know the polls are unscientific and easily manipulated are not the target of the pollsters, who are relying upon "symbolism over substance" (familiar phrase?) to affect those dimwits who haven't a clue how they're being led. Polls will lead most folks to form opinions in the absence of facts. Those possessing the facts are not easily persuaded, but you know darned well that the vast majority of Americans are clueless. They won't pay attention to the candidates until there are only two left standing, then they will vote for the one they remember from the polls. Do not dismiss polls as meaningless, when they do have a cumulative effect on ignorant voters.

        Polls showing Paul leading are suppressed not because of suspected "spamming"; they are suppressed because of the long-term cumulative effect on the ignorant.

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota


        --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

      • Marianne Stebbins
        Yes, but this particular poll has been shown to be fraudulent. It comes up about once a month, and RP supporters vote en masse, only to see the numbers remain
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, but this particular poll has been shown to be fraudulent.  It comes up about once a month, and RP supporters vote en masse, only to see the numbers remain the same.  We fall for it every time, giving the perpetrators traffic.  Forget the online polls.  For every one you hear of, go hit ten doors in your neighborhood with a slim jim.
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:16 PM
          Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] (unknown)

          It's an internet poll.  It's inherently meaningless. -- Dave
          When Paul wins those things in a landslide, his supporters are accused of "spamming" (a term inappropriately applied but meant to denote multiple entries by single voters), and those polls are farted off as meaningless (otherwise how do you explain when MSNBC and others put up a poll and then fail to report its results when Paul has a good showing?). Nonetheless, I expect that just as soon as a poll shows someone else leading, the poll will suddenly have meaning and none of that candidate's supporters will be accused of "spamming."

          Unfortunately, those who know the polls are unscientific and easily manipulated are not the target of the pollsters, who are relying upon "symbolism over substance" (familiar phrase?) to affect those dimwits who haven't a clue how they're being led. Polls will lead most folks to form opinions in the absence of facts. Those possessing the facts are not easily persuaded, but you know darned well that the vast majority of Americans are clueless. They won't pay attention to the candidates until there are only two left standing, then they will vote for the one they remember from the polls. Do not dismiss polls as meaningless, when they do have a cumulative effect on ignorant voters.

          Polls showing Paul leading are suppressed not because of suspected "spamming"; they are suppressed because of the long-term cumulative effect on the ignorant.

          Doug Harrison
          Minnesota


          --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.