Iran Says 9-11 Did Not Happen

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why are you still posting to me on this? The error was close to 20% not because the polling was nearly 20% off, but because the estimate of who would vote was far off.

Now you are just asking me to repeat myself, saying AGAIN that the poll can be perfectly accurate, and is still vulnerable to other factors from changing opinions to who will vote.

The point you made that was wrong is that the other poll's sample size was too small.

Zogby would have been off nearly 20% if he had sampled 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000.

& what about all the other polls?
You think this is the first time they have been wrong?

No, and I never said that.

Let's be clear: the topic of the discussion is your wrong claim that a sample size of 4,000 is too small to be accurate about the region of 6 nations and 80M people.

You refuse to deal with the error, and are now trying to pretend that the topic of the discussion is something I never said, that 'all polls, including election predictions, are right'.

What I have defended is the accuracy of the statistical formula involved in calculating the estimated error. I have described the caveats, such as how the statistical formula is based on an idea that real polling cannot meet, for completely random sampling, when in fact there are slight errors. I discussed how a larger error, such as the one you raised for an election, has issues that the original poll you attacked doesn't have, such as predicting who will vote - the source of the large error.

If you lack the intellectual integrity to say anything other than a dishonest attempt to pretend we were discussing another topic, you won't get away with it here in this thread.

Perhaps you *meant* to say that you think polls can be inaccurate, based on Zogby's error, leading you to conclude the ME poll is wrong, too.

If that's the case, you can have an adult, rational discussion where you are informed why those are two very different polls. You need to show an interest in the truth, not defending.

Recognize that your belief about the sampling size is wrong, and that if you can't be bothered to learn the facts, you shouldn't say what they are. I'm not attacking you for being wrong; we're all lacking knowledge about many things, and the sampling size suspicions are very common, as not many people have studied the statistical theory behind them. But the issue is when you obstinately, even obnoxiously, could care less to get the actual facts and keep bleating the same falsehoods when given the facts.

Now are you done wasting my time (and yours and the readers') by repeating the same errors, as if you think saying them enough will let you get them to become true?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Aimster
4,000 people?
80M people live in Egypt alone.

Use common sense.

Yeah and over 300million live in the United States.

Its called statistics. Most polls done in the US have sample sizes from 600-1100 respondents. The MAJORITY of polls this election cycle have been right. There is really only two places where polling was skewed, and that was CA and NH.

Also, in previous years presidential polling was far more accurate. Polls tend to get fubared when there is a horse race. Everyday public opinion polling is for the most part accurate and representative if done properly.

A survey with 600 respondents that is done properly will be more accurate than a survey with 4,000 respondents that isnt done properly(poor questions, leading questions, less random, etc etc). Surveying public opinion is all about methodology, not sample size. So you are barking up the wrong tree. Come up with knocks against their methodology and get back to me.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Aimster
4,000 people?
80M people live in Egypt alone.

Use common sense.

Yeah and over 300million live in the United States.

Its called statistics. Most polls done in the US have sample sizes from 600-1100 respondents. The MAJORITY of polls this election cycle have been right.

In previous years, presidential polling was far more accurate.

I've read that Gallup has predicted every presidential election since 1952 within 3 points.

And that's a tougher predictive election poll, not a simple opinion poll.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy is clearly sane. I think he needs nuclear weapons in his arsenal to play around with.

You owe me 1 sarcasm meter! :laugh:

Obama wants to have brunch with this guy too... great legitimize this American KILLING thug. He is clearly in the picture as they to over our embassy in the 70's.

 

[spittledip]

Iran Says 9-11 Did Not Happen

I says I says "who cares what they say?"

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
oK smart guy.

You are President of the U.S

How would you get rid of this cancer?

So, you're finally admitting that there is, in fact, an extremist cancer within Islam?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Aimster
oK smart guy.

You are President of the U.S

How would you get rid of this cancer?

There are two options. Neither of which the current administration has done.

1) Leave the cancer alone and let it eat up the respective countries with the cancer.

The middle east has been fighting amonst each other since the dawn of time.


2) Turn the cancerous countries into glass such as North Korea, Iran, Venezula etc.


Sending troops is not a viable option as evident by Iraq/Afganistan, even Russia learned from that mistake 2 decades ago.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Aimster
4,000 people?
80M people live in Egypt alone.

Use common sense.

Yeah and over 300million live in the United States.

Its called statistics. Most polls done in the US have sample sizes from 600-1100 respondents. The MAJORITY of polls this election cycle have been right. There is really only two places where polling was skewed, and that was CA and NH.

Also, in previous years presidential polling was far more accurate. Polls tend to get fubared when there is a horse race. Everyday public opinion polling is for the most part accurate and representative if done properly.

A survey with 600 respondents that is done properly will be more accurate than a survey with 4,000 respondents that isnt done properly(poor questions, leading questions, less random, etc etc). Surveying public opinion is all about methodology, not sample size. So you are barking up the wrong tree. Come up with knocks against their methodology and get back to me.

Zogby polls says 42% of the U.S thinks the U.S govt. is covering up something for 9/11

so 42% of the U.S is basically stupid

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why are you still posting to me on this? The error was close to 20% not because the polling was nearly 20% off, but because the estimate of who would vote was far off.

Now you are just asking me to repeat myself, saying AGAIN that the poll can be perfectly accurate, and is still vulnerable to other factors from changing opinions to who will vote.

The point you made that was wrong is that the other poll's sample size was too small.

Zogby would have been off nearly 20% if he had sampled 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000.

& what about all the other polls?
You think this is the first time they have been wrong?

No, and I never said that.

Let's be clear: the topic of the discussion is your wrong claim that a sample size of 4,000 is too small to be accurate about the region of 6 nations and 80M people.

You refuse to deal with the error, and are now trying to pretend that the topic of the discussion is something I never said, that 'all polls, including election predictions, are right'.

What I have defended is the accuracy of the statistical formula involved in calculating the estimated error. I have described the caveats, such as how the statistical formula is based on an idea that real polling cannot meet, for completely random sampling, when in fact there are slight errors. I discussed how a larger error, such as the one you raised for an election, has issues that the original poll you attacked doesn't have, such as predicting who will vote - the source of the large error.

If you lack the intellectual integrity to say anything other than a dishonest attempt to pretend we were discussing another topic, you won't get away with it here in this thread.

Perhaps you *meant* to say that you think polls can be inaccurate, based on Zogby's error, leading you to conclude the ME poll is wrong, too.

If that's the case, you can have an adult, rational discussion where you are informed why those are two very different polls. You need to show an interest in the truth, not defending.

Recognize that your belief about the sampling size is wrong, and that if you can't be bothered to learn the facts, you shouldn't say what they are. I'm not attacking you for being wrong; we're all lacking knowledge about many things, and the sampling size suspicions are very common, as not many people have studied the statistical theory behind them. But the issue is when you obstinately, even obnoxiously, could care less to get the actual facts and keep bleating the same falsehoods when given the facts.

Now are you done wasting my time (and yours and the readers') by repeating the same errors, as if you think saying them enough will let you get them to become true?

Have you ever read the other polls that come out of Zogby?

Zogby is famous for their election polls. Therefore, you think the same statistics can be applied to other polls.

Like I said above 42% of the U.S thinks the U.S govt. is covering up 9/11.

You can't actually believe those numbers

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
oK smart guy.

You are President of the U.S

How would you get rid of this cancer?

So, you're finally admitting that there is, in fact, an extremist cancer within Islam?

Islam is a cancer that was caused by Christianity.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why are you still posting to me on this? The error was close to 20% not because the polling was nearly 20% off, but because the estimate of who would vote was far off.

Now you are just asking me to repeat myself, saying AGAIN that the poll can be perfectly accurate, and is still vulnerable to other factors from changing opinions to who will vote.

The point you made that was wrong is that the other poll's sample size was too small.

Zogby would have been off nearly 20% if he had sampled 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000.

& what about all the other polls?
You think this is the first time they have been wrong?

No, and I never said that.

Let's be clear: the topic of the discussion is your wrong claim that a sample size of 4,000 is too small to be accurate about the region of 6 nations and 80M people.

You refuse to deal with the error, and are now trying to pretend that the topic of the discussion is something I never said, that 'all polls, including election predictions, are right'.

What I have defended is the accuracy of the statistical formula involved in calculating the estimated error. I have described the caveats, such as how the statistical formula is based on an idea that real polling cannot meet, for completely random sampling, when in fact there are slight errors. I discussed how a larger error, such as the one you raised for an election, has issues that the original poll you attacked doesn't have, such as predicting who will vote - the source of the large error.

If you lack the intellectual integrity to say anything other than a dishonest attempt to pretend we were discussing another topic, you won't get away with it here in this thread.

Perhaps you *meant* to say that you think polls can be inaccurate, based on Zogby's error, leading you to conclude the ME poll is wrong, too.

If that's the case, you can have an adult, rational discussion where you are informed why those are two very different polls. You need to show an interest in the truth, not defending.

Recognize that your belief about the sampling size is wrong, and that if you can't be bothered to learn the facts, you shouldn't say what they are. I'm not attacking you for being wrong; we're all lacking knowledge about many things, and the sampling size suspicions are very common, as not many people have studied the statistical theory behind them. But the issue is when you obstinately, even obnoxiously, could care less to get the actual facts and keep bleating the same falsehoods when given the facts.

Now are you done wasting my time (and yours and the readers') by repeating the same errors, as if you think saying them enough will let you get them to become true?

Have you ever read the other polls that come out of Zogby?

Zogby is famous for their election polls. Therefore, you think the same statistics can be applied to other polls.

Like I said above 42% of the U.S thinks the U.S govt. is covering up 9/11.

You can't actually believe those numbers

Have you ever taken college-level courses in logic, reason, debate, decision-theory, OR statistics?

You lack some very basic skills and knowledge in each of those areas -- which I can't really fault you for if you've never taken such courses -- so I'm just curious...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
oK smart guy.

You are President of the U.S

How would you get rid of this cancer?

So, you're finally admitting that there is, in fact, an extremist cancer within Islam?

Islam is a cancer that was caused by Christianity.

Say what?!

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
oK smart guy.

You are President of the U.S

How would you get rid of this cancer?

So, you're finally admitting that there is, in fact, an extremist cancer within Islam?

Islam is a cancer that was caused by Christianity.

Say what?!

You claim to have read the Quran

So surely you would know that most of the stories in the Quran come from the Bible.

In other words, Quran is the Bible part 2.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why are you still posting to me on this? The error was close to 20% not because the polling was nearly 20% off, but because the estimate of who would vote was far off.

Now you are just asking me to repeat myself, saying AGAIN that the poll can be perfectly accurate, and is still vulnerable to other factors from changing opinions to who will vote.

The point you made that was wrong is that the other poll's sample size was too small.

Zogby would have been off nearly 20% if he had sampled 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000.

& what about all the other polls?
You think this is the first time they have been wrong?

No, and I never said that.

Let's be clear: the topic of the discussion is your wrong claim that a sample size of 4,000 is too small to be accurate about the region of 6 nations and 80M people.

You refuse to deal with the error, and are now trying to pretend that the topic of the discussion is something I never said, that 'all polls, including election predictions, are right'.

What I have defended is the accuracy of the statistical formula involved in calculating the estimated error. I have described the caveats, such as how the statistical formula is based on an idea that real polling cannot meet, for completely random sampling, when in fact there are slight errors. I discussed how a larger error, such as the one you raised for an election, has issues that the original poll you attacked doesn't have, such as predicting who will vote - the source of the large error.

If you lack the intellectual integrity to say anything other than a dishonest attempt to pretend we were discussing another topic, you won't get away with it here in this thread.

Perhaps you *meant* to say that you think polls can be inaccurate, based on Zogby's error, leading you to conclude the ME poll is wrong, too.

If that's the case, you can have an adult, rational discussion where you are informed why those are two very different polls. You need to show an interest in the truth, not defending.

Recognize that your belief about the sampling size is wrong, and that if you can't be bothered to learn the facts, you shouldn't say what they are. I'm not attacking you for being wrong; we're all lacking knowledge about many things, and the sampling size suspicions are very common, as not many people have studied the statistical theory behind them. But the issue is when you obstinately, even obnoxiously, could care less to get the actual facts and keep bleating the same falsehoods when given the facts.

Now are you done wasting my time (and yours and the readers') by repeating the same errors, as if you think saying them enough will let you get them to become true?

Have you ever read the other polls that come out of Zogby?

Zogby is famous for their election polls. Therefore, you think the same statistics can be applied to other polls.

Like I said above 42% of the U.S thinks the U.S govt. is covering up 9/11.

You can't actually believe those numbers

Have you ever taken college-level courses in logic, reason, debate, decision-theory, OR statistics?

You lack some very basic skills and knowledge in each of those areas -- which I can't really fault you for if you've never taken such courses -- so I'm just curious...

You want to see who has a higher education?

Go ahead post your degree from University of Phoenix.
I will do the same from my university.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
oK smart guy.

You are President of the U.S

How would you get rid of this cancer?

So, you're finally admitting that there is, in fact, an extremist cancer within Islam?

Islam is a cancer that was caused by Christianity.

Say what?!

You claim to have read the Quran

So surely you would know that most of the stories in the Quran come from the Bible.

In other words, Quran is the Bible part 2.

uhhh.. no. I wasn't referring to the Quran, or any religious text.

I was referring to your profound admission, after many years, that there is, in fact, an extremist cancer growing within Islam.

It's about damn time you admitted as much... so welcome to the side of those attempting to find a solution! CONGRATS!

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Have you ever taken college-level courses in logic, reason, debate, decision-theory, OR statistics?

You lack some very basic skills and knowledge in each of those areas -- which I can't really fault you for if you've never taken such courses -- so I'm just curious...

You want to see who has a higher education?

Go ahead post your degree from University of Phoenix.
I will do the same from my university.

I wasn't trying to compare educational epeens... I asked you a simple f'n question.

Have you ever taken a course in ANY of the specific subjects I listed?

 

[Aimster]

finding a solution?
All religion is poop.

I am not going to be like you. Thread after thread. Post after post of trying to bash Islam or trying to convince people of a "cancer" within Islam. Your own religion is flawed too.

If anyone is going to bash Islam they damn well better learn how to bash their own religion.

Last time I checked there was no peaceful religion that stemmed from the Middle East.
They are all a bunch of garbage
Islam is no worse than Christianity.
-
As far as the other question why you avoiding my post?
You defend the poll done on the M.E but when a poll is conducted in the U.S and 42% think the U.S govt is covering up something you twist it all around.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why are you still posting to me on this? The error was close to 20% not because the polling was nearly 20% off, but because the estimate of who would vote was far off.

Now you are just asking me to repeat myself, saying AGAIN that the poll can be perfectly accurate, and is still vulnerable to other factors from changing opinions to who will vote.

The point you made that was wrong is that the other poll's sample size was too small.

Zogby would have been off nearly 20% if he had sampled 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000.

& what about all the other polls?
You think this is the first time they have been wrong?

No, and I never said that.

Let's be clear: the topic of the discussion is your wrong claim that a sample size of 4,000 is too small to be accurate about the region of 6 nations and 80M people.

You refuse to deal with the error, and are now trying to pretend that the topic of the discussion is something I never said, that 'all polls, including election predictions, are right'.

What I have defended is the accuracy of the statistical formula involved in calculating the estimated error. I have described the caveats, such as how the statistical formula is based on an idea that real polling cannot meet, for completely random sampling, when in fact there are slight errors. I discussed how a larger error, such as the one you raised for an election, has issues that the original poll you attacked doesn't have, such as predicting who will vote - the source of the large error.

If you lack the intellectual integrity to say anything other than a dishonest attempt to pretend we were discussing another topic, you won't get away with it here in this thread.

Perhaps you *meant* to say that you think polls can be inaccurate, based on Zogby's error, leading you to conclude the ME poll is wrong, too.

If that's the case, you can have an adult, rational discussion where you are informed why those are two very different polls. You need to show an interest in the truth, not defending.

Recognize that your belief about the sampling size is wrong, and that if you can't be bothered to learn the facts, you shouldn't say what they are. I'm not attacking you for being wrong; we're all lacking knowledge about many things, and the sampling size suspicions are very common, as not many people have studied the statistical theory behind them. But the issue is when you obstinately, even obnoxiously, could care less to get the actual facts and keep bleating the same falsehoods when given the facts.

Now are you done wasting my time (and yours and the readers') by repeating the same errors, as if you think saying them enough will let you get them to become true?

Have you ever read the other polls that come out of Zogby?

Zogby is famous for their election polls. Therefore, you think the same statistics can be applied to other polls.

Like I said above 42% of the U.S thinks the U.S govt. is covering up 9/11.

You can't actually believe those numbers

I can't even make sense of your post at this point.

We're discussing your incorrect claim that 4,000 is too small a sample for an accurate poll of the opinion of 80M people in six nations.

You throw out the name Zogby like it's an argument proving something; it's not. If you want to make an argument, make an argument.

For now, you are frothing, not arguing, with the "!!11!!1!!!1111!" implied if not written.

As for a poll saying 42% believe the US is covering up 9/11 - first, I doubt the accuracy of your characterization, what *precisely* did it say - second, I'd need to review the poll.

It's one thing to think the US is covering up *something* about 9/11, from any mistakes it made to its intelligence activities - and another to say it's covering up a role in the violence.

You are not clear, by not being precise about the poll you cite, apropos of nothing regarding the topic we're discussing of your inaccurate comments on sample sizes, on 9/11.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Aimster
cause you are being annoying ...

I find it funny that you constantly like to bash Islam in every single thread.

I'm sorry but if your religion stemmed from the same area then your own religion is by far nowhere near as peaceful as you claim. In fact it is just as shitty as the religion you like the bash.

If you wish to constantly bash Islam in every thread you damn well better be from a religion that did not come out of the desert in the M.E

Nice way to derail the topic on personal attacks. Do the quotes of Iranian leaders frighten you so much that your defense of violent supremacism falls into attacking me?

1: I said ?his brand?. You might find it difficult to believe Aimster, but religion does drive these people. Islam is also not a homogeny. Khomeini and Ahmadinejad do not represent all Muslims as you like to believe. When I insult them I insult their violent supremacism. It?s your problem if you think their beliefs equal all of Islam. I don?t say that, but you do like to lie and draw up your straw man. Speaking of which.

2: My religion? You continue to lie and speak of that which you know nothing about. I don?t belong to a religion and I have said that on P&N repeatedly. Maybe you were too busy personally attacking others to actually listen to some of what has been said.

Now do try to stay on topic. This is about the Iranian leaders and their violent supremacist views. If you like to defend them, that's fine, but you could try to leave me out of it.

The abstraction that you and most others fail to grasp is that we are just about the same. Our religion is capitalism - money and consumerism. Everybody believes in it, children are raised to achieve the highest levels of it, and we have and will continue to kill in the name of it. We killed 2 million in Vietnam for it, and untold others in order to suppress democratic movements towards socialist governments. Even if you think that we were in Vietnam or Central America or Iraq for 'freedom' you have to understand that this is how most of the rest of the world perceives it. It's pretty well established the reasons we went to war in each of these conflicts, and that doesn't resonate so well with others, just as it wouldn't resonate well in the west if Iran invaded some SE Asia country and killed 2 million civilians because they wanted to form a secular government.

As long as you continue to ignore who the real violent supremists are, then you'll fail to understand why 9/11 happened and why Achmadinejad garners such support for these vitriolic statements. And you'll continue to label people like me as defenders of Iran / terrorism and haters of freedom and so on. I'm not defending terrorism, I'm telling you why it happens. I'm not saying they're justified in their actions, I'm saying that when provoked an animal will attack. If you still think that we haven't provoked all of this, then good luck in your flowery hippie land of rainbows and unicorns where politicians and corporations ride around on clouds and make money by handing out hugs.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why are you still posting to me on this? The error was close to 20% not because the polling was nearly 20% off, but because the estimate of who would vote was far off.

Now you are just asking me to repeat myself, saying AGAIN that the poll can be perfectly accurate, and is still vulnerable to other factors from changing opinions to who will vote.

The point you made that was wrong is that the other poll's sample size was too small.

Zogby would have been off nearly 20% if he had sampled 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000.

& what about all the other polls?
You think this is the first time they have been wrong?

No, and I never said that.

Let's be clear: the topic of the discussion is your wrong claim that a sample size of 4,000 is too small to be accurate about the region of 6 nations and 80M people.

You refuse to deal with the error, and are now trying to pretend that the topic of the discussion is something I never said, that 'all polls, including election predictions, are right'.

What I have defended is the accuracy of the statistical formula involved in calculating the estimated error. I have described the caveats, such as how the statistical formula is based on an idea that real polling cannot meet, for completely random sampling, when in fact there are slight errors. I discussed how a larger error, such as the one you raised for an election, has issues that the original poll you attacked doesn't have, such as predicting who will vote - the source of the large error.

If you lack the intellectual integrity to say anything other than a dishonest attempt to pretend we were discussing another topic, you won't get away with it here in this thread.

Perhaps you *meant* to say that you think polls can be inaccurate, based on Zogby's error, leading you to conclude the ME poll is wrong, too.

If that's the case, you can have an adult, rational discussion where you are informed why those are two very different polls. You need to show an interest in the truth, not defending.

Recognize that your belief about the sampling size is wrong, and that if you can't be bothered to learn the facts, you shouldn't say what they are. I'm not attacking you for being wrong; we're all lacking knowledge about many things, and the sampling size suspicions are very common, as not many people have studied the statistical theory behind them. But the issue is when you obstinately, even obnoxiously, could care less to get the actual facts and keep bleating the same falsehoods when given the facts.

Now are you done wasting my time (and yours and the readers') by repeating the same errors, as if you think saying them enough will let you get them to become true?

Have you ever read the other polls that come out of Zogby?

Zogby is famous for their election polls. Therefore, you think the same statistics can be applied to other polls.

Like I said above 42% of the U.S thinks the U.S govt. is covering up 9/11.

You can't actually believe those numbers

I can't even make sense of your post at this point.

We're discussing your incorrect claim that 4,000 is too small a sample for an accurate poll of the opinion of 80M people in six nations.

You throw out the name Zogby like it's an argument proving something; it's not. If you want to make an argument, make an argument.

For now, you are frothing, not arguing, with the "!!11!!1!!!1111!" implied if not written.

As for a poll saying 42% believe the US is covering up 9/11 - first, I doubt the accuracy of your characterization, what *precisely* did it say - second, I'd need to review the poll.

You are the one who is lacking information, not I.

There is no official formula for polling
That is why each polling group comes out with different numbers and different results.

If you disagree with what I said regarding the numbers then you must definitely agree with the Zogby poll that shows 42% believe the U.S is covering up something.

Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?
US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up
48%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up
42
Not sure
10

Therefore, it sounds me like 42% of the U.S is just as stupid as the President of Iran.
Brillaint

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Craig234
I can't even make sense of your post at this point.

We're discussing your incorrect claim that 4,000 is too small a sample for an accurate poll of the opinion of 80M people in six nations.

You throw out the name Zogby like it's an argument proving something; it's not. If you want to make an argument, make an argument.

For now, you are frothing, not arguing, with the "!!11!!1!!!1111!" implied if not written.

As for a poll saying 42% believe the US is covering up 9/11 - first, I doubt the accuracy of your characterization, what *precisely* did it say - second, I'd need to review the poll.

You are the one who is lacking information, not I.

The best defense is a good offense, however absurd the attack, eh? No, you look foolish.

There is no official formula for polling
That is why each polling group comes out with different numbers and different results.

You're *still* wasting my time with these nonsensical posts, sadly, and I'll not let you get away with the nonsense.

*As I said*, there are many factors in polling and election predictive polling and such, making them inexact. But that's not the topic. For the umpteenth time, the topic is:

You said 4,000 is too small sample for any meaningful poll of 80 million people in 6 nations.

As I've shown, you are wrong.

All you're doing now is trying to pretend you never said that, not dealing with your error, and throwing out post after post after post after post after post with incoherency on polling.

In this one, you're trying to conflate the word 'formula'. There IS, as I said, a standard formula for calculating the theoretical margin of error (a precise term - since you have indicated you know nothing else of statistics, I won't assume you know the term either, it doesn't mean the amount the poll might be wrong, but rather the likely range of error, with a probability of the likelihood the poll is within that range, almost always a 95% confidence in popular reports on polling, meaning 1 in 20 are inaccurate outside that range).

When I say that there is a clear formula for the theoretical margin of error (assuming ideally randomized sampling, for example, not practically possible), which is the topic relevant to your wrong claim that 4,000 is too small a sample, you then try to conflate the word formula to include all the many things predictive polls have to account for, most having nothing to do with the sample size, the actual topic of discussion.

The fact that part of Zogby's 'formula' for a poll predicting who will win a primary includes such things as haivng to predict who will vote has *nothing* to do with the sample size.

You are clearly of the belief that if you respond to 2+2=4 with "I like cake" enough times, you will somehow prove 2+2=5. You won't.

If you disagree with what I said regarding the numbers then you must definitely agree with the Zogby poll that shows 42% believe the U.S is covering up something.

Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?
US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up
48%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up
42
Not sure
10

Therefore, it sounds me like 42% of the U.S is just as stupid as the President of Iran.
Brillaint

As I said, I'd need to review the poll to see if they followed good polling practices, e.g., a good random sampling, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, there's no reason then to think they're wrong in reporting 42% of Americans hold that view. You might think the 42% are idiots, but that's not a flaw in the poll, whose function is to tell you the number. At least you apparently provided the actual question, so that's cleared up.

I'm surprised the number is so high; and that has nothing to do with our topic, your error in saying 4,000 is too small a sample size for the poll of the Middle East region.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
finding a solution?
All religion is poop.

I am not going to be like you. Thread after thread. Post after post of trying to bash Islam or trying to convince people of a "cancer" within Islam. Your own religion is flawed too.

If anyone is going to bash Islam they damn well better learn how to bash their own religion.

Last time I checked there was no peaceful religion that stemmed from the Middle East.
They are all a bunch of garbage
Islam is no worse than Christianity.
-
As far as the other question why you avoiding my post?
You defend the poll done on the M.E but when a poll is conducted in the U.S and 42% think the U.S govt is covering up something you twist it all around.

OK, you either can't read very well, have memory issues, or consciously choose to ignore things that dont mesh with the pre-conceived junk already in your head...

1) I'm not very "religious," I've never belonged to a church of any sort, and I've said so hundreds of times in these forums -- I'm a Deist... look it up -- and, under religion, my military dogtags all read "BEGOODTOPEOPLE."

2) I never "bash Islam," and I've gone out of my way around here to make it clear that I'm very aware of the fact that violent extremists comprise a VERY small minority within Islam. However, it is still very accurate to describe them as a "cancer," because, even with so small a number, they are slowly eating away at the entire religion's body. (ie. they're destructive and growing)

3) Islamic terrorism is MUCH worse than Christian terrorism... today -- and today is all that I'm personally concerned with. Whether or not Christian terrorism was ever an issue during the last few hundred years is irrelevant to me here and now. The terrorists we're primarily interested in today, and those I personally face on the "battlefields" around the world, are not Christian -- each and every one of them is a Muslim.

4) I'll address every poll by itself, as each poll stands on its own, in terms of details, methodology, and accuracy. You simply refuse to listen to Craig and others who have repeatedly pointed out that this poll is NOT flawed because you said so, or because OTHER polls, using entirely different methods, done for entirely different purposes, may have been flawed themselves. As it stands, you have not provided a single technical or logical argument as to why the poll referenced in the OP is flawed.

And, like Craig, I'm beginning to think you are simply not educated enough to debate this, and you have no interest in being taught how these things work.

Repeat the following to yourself until it sinks in: Other polls conducted by Zogby have little or no baring, whatsoever, on the poll referred to in the OP. The details, methods, and accuracy of any poll must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

5) You still havent answered my question: Have you ever taken college-level courses in logic, reason, debate, decision-theory, OR statistics?

6) Is your degree in engineering? If so, that might explain a lot...

 

[SphinxnihpS]

THE HIJACKERS WERE SAUDIS

WHY DID WE ATTACK AFGHANISTAN?

WHY DID WE ATTACK IRAQ?

9/11 HAPPENED

THE US CONSPIRACY HAPPENED AFTER 9/11

 

[TallPilot]

It's not a good idea to rattle George Bush's cage!!!

 

[TallPilot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: magomago
Well considering how Iran's president has NOWHERE near the power of an American President...don't freak out too much

I don't think anyone is "freaking out" around here -- but I don't think that we should completely ignore his remarks either, as some here seem to be suggesting.

Well, what should we do about him utilizing his freedom of speech?

There is no freedom to make threats, if I threaten to kill someone, I go to jail, if a country threatens to kill our country, we kill their country, it's easy to understand.

 

[TallPilot]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
THE HIJACKERS WERE SAUDIS

WHY DID WE ATTACK AFGHANISTAN?

WHY DID WE ATTACK IRAQ?

9/11 HAPPENED

THE US CONSPIRACY HAPPENED AFTER 9/11

We attacked Afganistan, because it was Osama's headquarters, and training camp.

We attacked Iraq becasue Saddam had viloated 17 UN resolutions.

We should attack Saudi, maybe John McCain will do it after he's ellected!