Davin News Server

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, 02 Jan 2025 06:59:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 10:11:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 1/1/2025 8:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:43:16 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>>> So, she should have not published in 2024 after examination and
>>> published in 2016 and 2020 after examination because of this clear party
>>> motivation thing? Laughter, indeed.
>> 
>> Good lord, you're dense.  You've had your question answered no fewer
>> than three times and you ask it again.  Oh and you snipped the
>> following:
>> 
>> "It was very clear to anyone paying attention that 2024 was very
>> different for party motivation.  Seltzer's failure to check her
>> methodology problem resulted in her career ending.  At this point, you
>> are asking hypotheticals of hypotheticals since you are presuming that
>> she checked her methodology when she saw the poll this year was out of
>> bed.  My position is she did not and the easiest explanation is
>> usually the correct one.  "
>> 
>> I never said jack about not publishing the polls yet you keep implying
>> that I'm saying that.
>
>That means you have not answered my questions on whether she should have 
>published in 2016, 2020 or 2024 after checking her methodology.

Laughter.
Already answered no fewer than three times.
Your inability to comprehend responses doesn't mean they don't exit.

<eyeroll>

>
>There are two possible assumptions: she did not check her methodology in 
>any of 2016, 2020 and 2024. In that case, you think she was wrong in all 
>those years not to check. OK, I understand that argument and it is 
>reasonable.
>

This has been addressed as well.

>But, it doesn't end the discussion. Let's assume she did the right thing 
>and checked. What then? Publish or not publish? You refuse to answer.

And this was addressed as wel.

There IS something wrong with you.