Your editing of my thread is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. How dare you attempt to lessen the impact of my point by stating that these are internet polls. That is up to the posters to figure out. It is not your job. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that these are not "scientific" polls. I would venture that they are at least on par with many "offical" or "random" polls. There were, in some cases, upwards of 100,000 respondees.
In any case, DO NOT, under any circumstances edit my posts in this manner again. I DEMAND you remove the edit. Now. You are using your position as a moderator to strengthen your argument.
Unacceptable.
EDIT: Acutally, I did it myself. I have never, ever, seen a moderator abuse his position to this degree. I am so unbelievably disappointed with you right now, Fran.
SDW 2001: You're just angry because people will question your credibility. Internet polls are still polls, but that doesn't mean they are scientific. For all I know, you voted for a war twenty times in a row.
Don't get mad at Fran for pointing out a fact. If he had falsely accused you of something, or added an untruthful statement to your post, then you would be justified. But now you've gone from an overly angry person who is trying to argue his point to an overly angry person who is trying to convince people of something even if it requires you to hide the truth.
Shut the f up, idiot. You should be confident enough in yourself to stand behind your arguments even when the full truth is revealed. If you can't back up your points in the face of the truth, then you have zero credibility in my book.
Personally, I am very against the war. But that's just my opinion.
Looks like Bush's approval rating is under 60% as of mid-January... his handling of national defense is still above 60%, but it's certainly not "overwhelming."
Your editing of my thread is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. How dare you attempt to lessen the impact of my point by stating that these are internet polls. That is up to the posters to figure out. It is not your job. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that these are not "scientific" polls. I would venture that they are at least on par with many "offical" or "random" polls. There were, in some cases, upwards of 100,000 respondees.
In any case, DO NOT, under any circumstances edit my posts in this manner again. I DEMAND you remove the edit. Now. You are using your position as a moderator to strengthen your argument.
Unacceptable.
EDIT: Acutally, I did it myself. I have never, ever, seen a moderator abuse his position to this degree. I am so unbelievably disappointed with you right now, Fran.
<hr></blockquote>
You attempted to mislead the members of this forum and lied about sources just to make a point to various members of AI.
Read my 'argument'. I don't have one. My position is that war is inevitable and that no amount of discussion is going to change that.
Now read your 'argument'. When you post these results as 'actual poll results', it's a very good case to back up statements such as "The American Public Overwhelmingly Supports War". But you don't have actual poll results- you have internet poll results.
Then you say that members with at least 'half a brain' could have figured out that these results aren't real. If you wanted people to know these were internet polls, why didn't you come out and say it? Instead, you let people think that these are real poll results in order to make them come in here and try and change their position on something.
Originally, I locked the thread as I would if someone posted a link to the Onion or some other non reputable site and tried to pass it off as a real article. But after I thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that just closing the thread really wasn't the right thing to do.
Instead, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I added the line in at the top of the thread which pointed out that the results were taken from 'internet polls' so people wouldn't be confused as to whether or not these were scientific results or not.
I then reopened the thread so that discussion could continue as people obviously had some more opinions that they wanted to be made known.
I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I tried to clear up your topic a little better and I'm also sorry that you didn't PM me about this so we could have straightened this up privately.
I find it ironic that you're disappointed in me since I'm very disappointed in you that you would try to trick the members of AI to get your point across. I realize that you might think these results are going to be on par with actual poll results but you should have waited for those numbers before posting a sensationalist thread such as:
"The American Public Now Overwhelmingly Supports War".
Next time you have a problem with one of my moderating decisions, PM me.
Fran, you are full of shit. The polls are NOT worthless as you claim. Comparing them to Onion is absolutely ridiculous.
It wasn't your job to change OR lock the thread. I did not intentionally decieve anyone. I also said nothing about "actual poll data".
You are VERY wrong here, Fran. It is YOU who should have PM'd me. I'm so pissed at your attitude right now...and your actions, that I cannot even express it.
<strong>The polls are NOT worthless as you claim. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually SDW, the polls are worthless. You claim that they represent the American People but internet polls do not. The cross section of Americans that are sampled in these worthless polls is in no way indicitave of the general populace.
More to the point, the thread is worthless. It wouldn't matter to me if 100% of the rest of the population truly was in favor of war. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
Your thread has no point other than to call me, SJO and others out and taunt (?) us because a majority conservative audience is in favor of war. Is that a surprise?
Actually SDW, the polls are worthless. You claim that they represent the American People but internet polls do not. The cross section of Americans that are sampled in these worthless polls is in no way indicitave of the general populace.
More to the point, the thread is worthless. It wouldn't matter to me if 100% of the rest of the population truly was in favor of war. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
Your thread has no point other than to call me, SJO and others out and taunt (?) us because a majority conservative audience is in favor of war. Is that a surprise?
Your editing of my thread is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. How dare you attempt to lessen the impact of my point by stating that these are internet polls. That is up to the posters to figure out. It is not your job. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that these are not "scientific" polls. I would venture that they are at least on par with many "offical" or "random" polls. There were, in some cases, upwards of 100,000 respondees.
In any case, DO NOT, under any circumstances edit my posts in this manner again. I DEMAND you remove the edit. Now. You are using your position as a moderator to strengthen your argument.
Unacceptable.
EDIT: Acutally, I did it myself. I have never, ever, seen a moderator abuse his position to this degree. I am so unbelievably disappointed with you right now, Fran.
Comments
<strong>I locked the thread initially but reopened it with the tag at the top of SDW's original post. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran,
Thanks for unlocking the thread. I would have missed it otherwise and I haven't laughed this hard this early in the day in a loooog time.
<strong>"In this land, right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine." - The Gang of Four
Kind of says it all for me.
t.fall</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice...I'll keep mine short and sweet...
History Lesson - Minutemen
a hundred thousand years ago before legends were ever told
homo sapiens stood erect, mind empty and mind fresh.
created love and hate. created god and anti-god.
human slaughtered
human slaughtered
human slaughtered
human.
first with stone, then with metal, now with heat.
it was all for power.
<strong>
Nice...I'll keep mine short and sweet...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess this is from the no-war-no-matter-why-or-what-happens-ever department. Can't agree with that.
Your editing of my thread is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. How dare you attempt to lessen the impact of my point by stating that these are internet polls. That is up to the posters to figure out. It is not your job. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that these are not "scientific" polls. I would venture that they are at least on par with many "offical" or "random" polls. There were, in some cases, upwards of 100,000 respondees.
In any case, DO NOT, under any circumstances edit my posts in this manner again. I DEMAND you remove the edit. Now. You are using your position as a moderator to strengthen your argument.
Unacceptable.
EDIT: Acutally, I did it myself. I have never, ever, seen a moderator abuse his position to this degree. I am so unbelievably disappointed with you right now, Fran.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Thanks in advance.
Don't get mad at Fran for pointing out a fact. If he had falsely accused you of something, or added an untruthful statement to your post, then you would be justified. But now you've gone from an overly angry person who is trying to argue his point to an overly angry person who is trying to convince people of something even if it requires you to hide the truth.
Shut the f up, idiot. You should be confident enough in yourself to stand behind your arguments even when the full truth is revealed. If you can't back up your points in the face of the truth, then you have zero credibility in my book.
Personally, I am very against the war. But that's just my opinion.
EDIT: Here's a link:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.poll/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.poll/index.html</a>;
Looks like Bush's approval rating is under 60% as of mid-January... his handling of national defense is still above 60%, but it's certainly not "overwhelming."
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
Your editing of my thread is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. How dare you attempt to lessen the impact of my point by stating that these are internet polls. That is up to the posters to figure out. It is not your job. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that these are not "scientific" polls. I would venture that they are at least on par with many "offical" or "random" polls. There were, in some cases, upwards of 100,000 respondees.
In any case, DO NOT, under any circumstances edit my posts in this manner again. I DEMAND you remove the edit. Now. You are using your position as a moderator to strengthen your argument.
Unacceptable.
EDIT: Acutally, I did it myself. I have never, ever, seen a moderator abuse his position to this degree. I am so unbelievably disappointed with you right now, Fran.
<hr></blockquote>
You attempted to mislead the members of this forum and lied about sources just to make a point to various members of AI.
Read my 'argument'. I don't have one. My position is that war is inevitable and that no amount of discussion is going to change that.
Now read your 'argument'. When you post these results as 'actual poll results', it's a very good case to back up statements such as "The American Public Overwhelmingly Supports War". But you don't have actual poll results- you have internet poll results.
Then you say that members with at least 'half a brain' could have figured out that these results aren't real. If you wanted people to know these were internet polls, why didn't you come out and say it? Instead, you let people think that these are real poll results in order to make them come in here and try and change their position on something.
Originally, I locked the thread as I would if someone posted a link to the Onion or some other non reputable site and tried to pass it off as a real article. But after I thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that just closing the thread really wasn't the right thing to do.
Instead, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I added the line in at the top of the thread which pointed out that the results were taken from 'internet polls' so people wouldn't be confused as to whether or not these were scientific results or not.
I then reopened the thread so that discussion could continue as people obviously had some more opinions that they wanted to be made known.
I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I tried to clear up your topic a little better and I'm also sorry that you didn't PM me about this so we could have straightened this up privately.
I find it ironic that you're disappointed in me since I'm very disappointed in you that you would try to trick the members of AI to get your point across. I realize that you might think these results are going to be on par with actual poll results but you should have waited for those numbers before posting a sensationalist thread such as:
"The American Public Now Overwhelmingly Supports War".
Next time you have a problem with one of my moderating decisions, PM me.
It wasn't your job to change OR lock the thread. I did not intentionally decieve anyone. I also said nothing about "actual poll data".
You are VERY wrong here, Fran. It is YOU who should have PM'd me. I'm so pissed at your attitude right now...and your actions, that I cannot even express it.
<strong>The polls are NOT worthless as you claim. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually SDW, the polls are worthless. You claim that they represent the American People but internet polls do not. The cross section of Americans that are sampled in these worthless polls is in no way indicitave of the general populace.
More to the point, the thread is worthless. It wouldn't matter to me if 100% of the rest of the population truly was in favor of war. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
Your thread has no point other than to call me, SJO and others out and taunt (?) us because a majority conservative audience is in favor of war. Is that a surprise?
EDIT: IBL
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
Here's some real polls on Iraq dating back over Bush's term:
<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm</a>;
here's an article referencing a poll I mentioned earlier:
<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index_np.html"; target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index_np.html</a>;
<strong>
Actually SDW, the polls are worthless. You claim that they represent the American People but internet polls do not. The cross section of Americans that are sampled in these worthless polls is in no way indicitave of the general populace.
More to the point, the thread is worthless. It wouldn't matter to me if 100% of the rest of the population truly was in favor of war. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
Your thread has no point other than to call me, SJO and others out and taunt (?) us because a majority conservative audience is in favor of war. Is that a surprise?
EDIT: IBL
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's hitting the nail right on the head.
<strong>FRAN:
Your editing of my thread is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS. How dare you attempt to lessen the impact of my point by stating that these are internet polls. That is up to the posters to figure out. It is not your job. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that these are not "scientific" polls. I would venture that they are at least on par with many "offical" or "random" polls. There were, in some cases, upwards of 100,000 respondees.
In any case, DO NOT, under any circumstances edit my posts in this manner again. I DEMAND you remove the edit. Now. You are using your position as a moderator to strengthen your argument.
Unacceptable.
EDIT: Acutally, I did it myself. I have never, ever, seen a moderator abuse his position to this degree. I am so unbelievably disappointed with you right now, Fran.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Screed (no party affiliation since 1992)
(1) - Dana Scully
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
If you guys can't be civil, you need to just stop posting here altogether.
Someone wants to create a new thread about these internet polls, that's fine. Just keep it clean.
SDW2001: you will be receiving a private message from me shortly.