<p>Nothing.</p>
<p>If the democrats make the arguments that you made in this thread, I hope you go after them.</p>
<p>What is is.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom, these days it’s pretty standard for the responses to surveys to be entered into a database from which the correlations between different answers can be determined, that is, if there are 30 questions, most surveys are designed so that you can tell how many people answered yes to questions 6 and 23, not just the total number who answered yes to question 6 and how many answered yes to question 23. Is that the part you’re having trouble with?”</p>
<p>Where can I find that information?</p>
<p>"“The U.N. Weapons Inspectors didn’t find them.”</p>
<p>The UN didn’t find them. For years and years. They were never going to find them. Yet, they were going to look to the end of time?"</p>
<p>They knew who paid the bills. </p>
<p>“So the UN did not know whether the weapons existed or not? But Bill Clinton did know the weapons did not exist? Or is it possible he really believed the weapons existed?”</p>
<p>He had no information that would lead him to that belief from U.N. Weapons Inspectors, if that’s what you mean. What he did have was leaders of several European nations beginning to make genocide charges, CIA operatives outed from inside the inspections teams, failed secret negotiations with Chemical Ali, and a failed policy of genocide in which Iraq’s military didn’t rebel. (oh, and he had Monica, and I sincerely wish that he’d spent more time with her.)</p>
<p>“The Hillary mention says more about you than her. We have no idea what kind of involvement she had in 1998. She was a little mad at Bill at that time.”</p>
<p>It’s true. She may have been totally without any “experience” upon which she could draw, and the claim of experience is a sham. What we do know is that she voted for the war and occupation without reading the intelligence report that she had in her possession. The only two hypotheses I can find are 1) she was in on the Big Lie, and hence didn’t need the “intelligence”; or 2) considers issues of war and peace so cavalierly that she doesn’t feel she even has to do due diligence before suppporting military adventurism.</p>
<p>You take your pick.</p>
<p>Clearly neither dstark or kluge have any experience in writing polling questions. While I am not surprised dstark has no such experience, I am a bit surprised that a lawyer would let such imprecise wording get by. Hopefully you are better at writing contracts and other legal documents. The question can be easily made into one that provides meaningful results by adding something like I suggested to filter out those “false positive” answers which are taking a precise view of WMD being found.</p>
<p>FF: You and your blog buddies are the only people in the world who think the answer to “the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?” is “Has too!”. You can redefine “weapons of mass destruction”. You can redefine “found”. You can redefine “the US.” But all reasonable people understand what the question means, and all reasonable people know that the answer is no. </p>
<p>As for being a lawyer, yeah, every year or so I run into a newly-minted lawyer who thinks the kind of ratiocination you’ve wasted on this actual works in the real world. Eventually they either learn the lesson or get another job. The law isn’t actually that stupid. There you go - I just saved you $75,000 worth of law school tuition! :)</p>
<p>Zoosermom, this is getting waay too reminiscent of talking to a young child who keeps asking “But why?” every time you answer their last question. Survey techniques aren’t a secret; if you’re sincerely interested google it, take a community college course, whatever. This isn’t the slightest bit tricky or unusual.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–I really don’t get your methodology questions, since either the answer is straightforward and obvious, or something nefarious must’ve happened. But, nevertheless, since you didn’t read the report which was prominantly linked on the page I referenced, here it is, with all the numbers:
<a href=“http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf[/url]”>http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf</a>
I’m not going to find the citations for you, but it’s all there.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom, this is getting waay too reminiscent of talking to a young child who keeps asking “But why?” every time you answer their last question. Survey techniques aren’t a secret; if you’re sincerely interested google it, take a community college course, whatever. This isn’t the slightest bit tricky or unusual.”
I’m not asking any such thing, Kluge, but you knew that. You just don’t have an answer and can’t admit it.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom–I really don’t get your methodology questions, since either the answer is straightforward and obvious, or something nefarious must’ve happened. But, nevertheless, since you didn’t read the report which was prominantly linked on the page I referenced, here it is, with all the numbers:”</p>
<p>Actually, the answer to my specific question is not there. I’m going to drop it now because I think you both know what I’m asking. Neither of you should be too proud of your conduct in this thread.</p>
<p>Reading through the text of the findings, CBS doesn’t come out looking too good by the methodology, either, but that’s not a very good headline.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I’ve noted your penchant for wrapping yourself in the mantle of “victim” in the past, but both Garland and I have tried very patiently to answer what appeared to be your question, despite the fact that the answer is both basic and obvious. If we have failed I have no idea what your “specific question” is at this point. If you read the report of the results of the survey the information is spelled out in clear language, with simple graphs. There are no mysteries there.</p>
<p>“Clearly neither dstark or kluge have any experience in writing polling questions.”</p>
<p>Actually, I do. </p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>personal attacks now…</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>ff, I know when I read bs.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom, I’ve noted your penchant for wrapping yourself in the mantle of “victim” in the past, but both Garland and I have tried very patiently to answer what appeared to be your question, despite the fact that the answer is both basic and obvious”</p>
<p>I’ve noted your penchants, too, but you always ignore those posts, don’t you? As I said, I’m done. The raw data isn’t there. I have a printout sitting in front of me. There is no way, short of taking the word of the person writing the discussion of the results to know who answered what. I’m not willing to do that. I can read the graphs, Kluge and the data. Short of a leap of faith, there’s really no way to know who answered what. Fine. It makes your point and that’s what you wanted. But shame on you here. I have absolutely lost all respect for you as a poster and I’m glad that others have called you out as well.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–I promise you, I have absolutely no idea what you are asking, if it’s not what I have been answering. Really. Really. Really. </p>
<p>What, what, have I said that I shouldn’t be so proud of? I am at a loss. I don’t know what you’re asking that hasn’t been answered. I really don’t.</p>
<p>I am sincerely (and you should know that I don’t use that word sarcastically) puzzled by this discussion and your posts.</p>
<p>“The only two hypotheses I can find are 1) she was in on the Big Lie, and hence didn’t need the “intelligence”; or 2) considers issues of war and peace so cavalierly that she doesn’t feel she even has to do due diligence before suppporting military adventurism.”</p>
<p>You can find more hypotheses if you want.</p>
<p>She could be well informed and not know about the “big lie”. Nobody knows everything. Being well informed doesn’t mean all knowing. :)</p>
<p>Garland I took the “since you didn’t read” as snarky since I had posted that I did read it. If you weren’t being snarky, then I apologize because it seemed as if you and Kluge were tag-teaming. What I was really looking for is the raw data, to see which resonders said what for myself. I read the survey and the summary and the summary is a lot more interesting and nuanced than the headlines. The presentation of some of the questions IS tilted and ambiguous. It may or may not be true, but I did read the survey and the summary (again, I have it in my hand right now) and the sources of funding. I’m sorry to say that I STILL think it doesn’t quite say what some people say it does. Or at least not prove it.</p>
<p>Zoos–the report lists each of those three main questions, and breaks down by network prefered. It’s on pages 13, 14, and 15. Isn’t that what you are looking for???</p>
<p>I posted the press release and the questionnaire; the report was linked on the press release, but I didn’t post it. My assumption was that you read the questionnaire and press release, but not the report, since though it was there if you wanted to read it, I hadn’t directly pointed you to it,and you hadn’t seemed to be referencing it.</p>
<p>No Garland, it doesn’t but it may be that what I’m asking simply doesn’t exist, in which case, the answer may be that that information isn’t public. I’m completely open to the idea that surveys like this don’t make public the raw data and would have accepted that as the answer. The confusion on your part as to the question I was asking is that I didn’t use the words raw data (would that have helped?) because this is a new area to me. Being a child and all, don’t you know.</p>
<p>By raw data, do you want to see the individual answer forms? I imagine that’s never available for any study, but I’m no expert.</p>
<p>Didn’t appreciate your last line–I’ve been trying to keep my end of the discussion civil.</p>
<p>The problem with the survey is the way the question was asked</p>
<p>Simple .if you dont like the answer blame the question. </p>
<p>No, I just showed you that they were right based on the way the question was asked </p>
<p>And exactly what is your expertise in the area of drafting public survey questions?</p>
<p>“Didn’t appreciate your last line–I’ve been trying to keep my end of the discussion civil.”</p>
<p>It wasn’t meant to snipe at you. It was a head-shaking, eye-rolling reference to how offensive I found Kluge’s post saying that. I thought we were discussing various posts in this thread.</p>