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: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:30:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 10:41:03 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>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.
Interesting what Josh snipped out and refused to address in his
reponse.