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: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 10:41:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/26/2024 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I did it just to confirm you are standing by your absurd answer (and you
>are!).
Nothing "absurd" about consistancy. Sorry you have difficulty with
it.
>
>>> 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.
>
>There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
>your answer was absurd.
And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.
Just because something hasn't broken doesn't mean isn't cracking.