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: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:08:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 07:44:07 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>On 1/5/2025 6:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:07:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually I did. I said exactly what she should have done before
>>>> publishing the polls
>>>
>>> Right, examine them to see why they are outliers. So, assuming she did
>>> not examine them in 2016, 2020 and 2024, you believe she should not have
>>> published.
>>
>> HUh? I didn't say it.
>
>You just did: "I said exactly what she should have done before
>publishing the polls."
OMG. Are you drinking with Siri?
Are you claiming that an "expert" pollster can't check her work before
publishing a poll?
>
>That "exactly what she should have done" was examine them to see why
>they are outliers.
>
>A = examine
>B = publish
>
>"She should have examined them before publishing" is "Do A before B"
>"Do A before B" is the logical equivalent of "IF not A then not B"
Hey if she chose to publsih without looking for the obvious problem
that was her call. I never said she shouldn't have go that route nor
did I say she shouldn't have published.
<eyeroll>
>
>Hence, you said if she didn't examine (not A) then she should not have
>published (not B).
Your mental math is absolutely ridiculous (and imaginary since I've
been very clear).
Even after I took the time to spell it all out for you, you STILL got
it wrong.
She published the poll without looking for the problem and lost her
job as a consequence. Consequences still exist fortunately.