From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 09:22:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/25/2024 7:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/24/2024 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/23/2024 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/22/2024 6:43 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/21/2024 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
>>>>>>>>> Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
>>>>>>>> methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
>>>>>>>> it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
>>>>>>> believe her methodology was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
>>>>>> her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
>>>>>> publishing the poll without understanding the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
>>>>> Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
>>>>> publishing without understanding the problem?
>>>
>>> Well?
>>
>> Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
>> closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
>> publication.
>>
>> Clear enough?
>
>So, she was wrong to publish in 2016 and 2020 without first closely
>examining to verify her methodology even though it turned out she was
>right and all the other polls were wrong?
You have a major bad habit of repeating yourself after a question has
been answered.
>
>What examination would you have her do?
Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.
<eyeroll>