Create your own scary definition ... to support our prejudice. (Reply #6)

In the discussion thread: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 04:08 PM

DonP (6,185 posts)

6. Create your own scary definition ... to support our prejudice.

Funny how they never ask for anyone to define the terms for something with so much room for misinterpretation..

In any survey I've done over the years, we always went to great pains to pre-test any term we thought might be even the least bit confusing. Then we'd use the most accurate and correct definitions and phrasing, even if we had to restructure the entire questionnaire.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

41 replies	Author	Time	Post
This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]	Mosby	Sep 2016	OP
The Devil's in the details.	JonathanRackham	Sep 2016	#1
Apparently all you have to do to is be a anti-gun preacher.	oneshooter	Sep 2016	#10
Yes, it's one of the exemptions.	Straw Man	Sep 2016	#11
Which version of "Universal Background Checks"?	DonP	Sep 2016	#2
OT: side question	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Sep 2016	#3
Some of them already know the results they want before they draft the questions n/t	DonP	Sep 2016	#4
And, in addition...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Sep 2016	#5
Create your own scary definition ... to support our prejudice.	DonP	Sep 2016	#6
The survey places I've worked for and been involved with...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Sep 2016	#8
Add that registration will be a part of it (so called UBC) and see how it polls.	beevul	Sep 2016	#7
Correction.	Straw Man	Sep 2016	#9
how is it a myth?	Mosby	Sep 2016	#12
rhetorical shorthands are buzzwords are propaganda	gejohnston	Sep 2016	#13
"Weapons of war", "weapons meant for war", "weapons meant for the battlefield".	beevul	Sep 2016	#14
whats "assault-style weapons"	Duckhunter935	Sep 2016	#16
They have no clue what a "weapon of war" is..	virginia mountainman	Sep 2016	#17
not really	Duckhunter935	Sep 2016	#15
Here's how.	Straw Man	Sep 2016	#18
so what? I couldn't care less about the way gun shows are percieved	Mosby	Sep 2016	#21
What evidence is there, that private sales are a problem in need of a solution?	beevul	Sep 2016	#24
you don't support background checks on principle?	Mosby	Sep 2016	#25
I support private property rights on principle, so I'll ask you again...	beevul	Sep 2016	#27
can't answer the question?	Mosby	Sep 2016	#28
I asked you first.	beevul	Sep 2016	#29
"who do you support?"	beergood	Sep 2016	#34
Would that support change if they tell you registration is included? N/T	beevul	Sep 2016	#35
i live in CA	beergood	Sep 2016	#36
Obviously.	Straw Man	Sep 2016	#30
"the "gun show loophole" language is rhetorical shorthand or private party to party gun sales."	pablo_marmol	Sep 2016	#19
I think gun shows should be banned in the US	Mosby	Sep 2016	#22
Actually, they aren't brave	gejohnston	Sep 2016	#23
Great suggestion	mainstreetonce	Sep 2016	#26
If only social policy was based on 'feelings' rather than facts?!	pablo_marmol	Sep 2016	#39
Why?	Straw Man	Sep 2016	#31
"I 'think' gun shows should be banned in the US."	pablo_marmol	Sep 2016	#32
less guns, less death.	Mosby	Sep 2016	#37
"less guns, less death." Unproven according to at least 3 liberal criminologists.	pablo_marmol	Sep 2016	#38
".......which is why I avoid it."	pablo_marmol	Sep 2016	#40
get a grip.	Mosby	Sep 2016	#41
I have a slightly different take on the issus you raise...	Eleanors38	Sep 2016	#20
My nomination for Thread Winner.	pablo_marmol	Sep 2016	#33

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.