[SpamCop-List] Re: Survey: People More Accepting Of Spam

[Berny]

Whoa!!! cool down!!


"D.F. Manno" <dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com> wrote in message
news:dfm2a3l0t2-9A7843.09091711042005 at news.cesmail.net...
> In article <pan.2005.04.11.01.21.47.671000 at eddie.web>,
>  eddie <eddie at eddie.web> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:00:28 -0500, Ron B. scratched out the following:
> >
> > > http://www.theiowachannel.com/technology/4365058/detail.html
> > >
> > > Reactions?
> >
> > Without seeing the questions it is impossible for the results to mean
> > anything of value.
>
> That's an overstatement. Do you have any reason to question the
> methodology? If so, present it. If not, you're just throwing shit
> against the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

 Read what the OP says, it's true, without knowing what was asked and how,
how can one asses?

> > A more detailed set of results is available at
> > http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/103/press_release.asp
> > and the quoted "results" are simply some Deborah Fallows interpretation
of
> > the poll.
>
> Since she's a senior research fellow at the organization that took the
> poll, her interpretation of the results would have more weight then,
> say, yours.

Probably true, but so what, the OP is not actually commenting on the
validity of the results. Just on what _could_ be problems with the results.

> > Note the phrase, "We see ... a little less distress ..." She is
> > weaselly enough to say "we see" rather than "there is." So the results
are
> > subjective, not objective, by the interpreter herself.
>
> It's neither weaselly nor subjective. She _did_ see those things, right
> there in the results of the poll.

OK

> > Does Pew have a bias or agenda? I know they sponsor PBS and NPR.
>
> So? Their underwriting of public broadcasting is totally irrelevant to
> this poll.

But how do WE know that?

> > What about Deborah Fallows? Is she biased? Does it show?
>
> Throwing more shit.

Where? OP's asking, in a negative way perhaps, but valid questions.

> > In general I consider polls meaningless since they are totally dependent
> > on the question. And there are "push polls" in which the question is
> > preceded by a long statement designed to evoke the "proper" response.
> > Other polls keep asking slightly different questions until they get the
> > response they want.
>
> And you have no evidence that any of this was done with this poll.

Nor did the OP claim it was.

> > Remember, someone is usually paying for these polls.
> > Maybe, in this case a spam consortium sponsored the poll????
>
> You didn't read your own cite, which concluded with the following: "The
> Pew Internet & American Life Project is a non-profit initiative of the
> Pew Research Center and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to
> examine the social impact of the internet."
>
> If you don't agree with the findings of the poll, that's one thing. But
> you're letting your animosity towards spam lead to making outrageous and
> unsupportable claims.

The OP may be insinuating, by the tone of the question, but makes almost no
actual claims. The OP IS arguing a very generalized skepticism to the
polling business. WHich

> -- 
> D.F. Manno
> dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com
> "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
> will never die."