Reply #79: Wild accusations?

[TAZller]

In your post on the 17th, you described "a poll which has been on-line for over 10 days" (i.e. from the 7th), and then followed up with a statement, which I provided evidence of my objection to. To be clear, I said:

Those entries also prove the falsehood of your statements: "his lead has been steady and growing for this period of time". Whatever.

I think perhaps you are confused as to the meaning of "falsehood of your statements". It is saying your STATEMENT is untrue or inaccurate, or false. It is not an attack of YOUR integrity, it says NOTHING about your integrity. It is a comment on the false nature of your stated facts. Besides a lead is either steady OR growing, not both. It could be steadily growing, but that is not a statement made nor objected to. The facts are, during the begining of the stated period (10 days); Obama had the lead, two days later Dennis took the lead, which grew partly due to people directing Kucinich supporters to this poll. These facts and links to such are right there for you to read and verify if you choose to do so.

"I would suggest you apologise for saying that I have stated a falsehood."
You stated a falsehood. No apology. Your statement, as it stood was false. I provided the links that demonstrated that. I provided a possible answer to your question of who is freeping, with links, dates and times that show from the period the poll began until shortly before 11/09/2007 22:17:57, his lead did not exist, it was not steady, nor was it growing. A lead can not grow until it exists and it did not exist until 2 days into the poll of the 10 day period you discussed. Hence the falsehood of your statement.

If you would like to now acknowledge the inaccuracy of your statement and change the period of discussion (beginning the 11th for example) in which Dennis had a lead that was either steady, OR growing, OR steadily growing, I have no reason to dispute that. I never did. My point was the inherent inaccuracy (And the stated "Statistically not Valid") nature of The Nation poll. I demonstrated a lead shift that occurred precisely at the time that Kucinich supporters were directing people to this poll and PROVIDED the links that shows that. You can ignore this links but it does not change the facts: "I am not aware of the Dennis web site or any call for votes to be cast..." Did you click on the links I provided? If you had, or do, you will be aware.

If you wish to discuss wild accusations:
'What you are implying is that the Mainstream Media is statistically honest because they do not state that their results are NOT statistically accurate - which I know for sure it is not!'
I said in my previous posts, and I will say it again don't put your words in my mouth... I make no such claims and do not believe in any such assertions, because I believe such would be idiotic. I never discussed MSM polls, their honesty, dishonesty nor otherwise, and I never mentioned a word about whether they include or do not include disclaimers. In fact I made no comparisons to alternate polls that you could even make this inference from. Talk about wild accusations. I discussed ONLY the poll of The Nation.

"kindly do not attack my integrity"
I did not state or imply anything about your integrity, I contradicted your "facts" with facts. Nothing about integrity. Where does this wild accusation come from? You can have integrity and make statements that are proven to be false... claiming you made a provably false statement is NOT an attack on your integrity.

"I also have screen shots of this {referring to the dehp poll} result as the forms are being filled, so please kindly refrain from making such wild accusations"
You totally lost me here.... What wild accusations am I supposed to be making in this regard on a poll I never commented on.... I cannot figure out what you are accusing me of here, but I am skeptical I could be making wild accusations about something I never mention.

'So only the polls you believe are the "good" polls. For you, others are bad polls, biased polls, unscientific polls?'
Please quote my having said this. Or even any statement I did make that states this by inference? My friend, I never stated BELIEF of a poll influences the level of bias, scientific nature, or goodness or badness of that poll. This would be idiotic. I do not believe this, and I said nothing of this nature. It is the structure of the poll that determines these qualities, not the belief of results. Claiming I believe or stated such without pointing to a fact is simply another wild accusation.

So I will be waiting for you to demonstrate your integrity and apologize for the above listed wild accusations/falsehoods. Or not.... At this point I don't care.