posted April 13, 2006 01:27 PM            

I've made this offer over and over. Lay it out chapter and verse. So far, no takers.

posted April 13, 2006 01:59 PM            

You were presented with Pew's own assessment of their chart and the reasoning for why the numbers are the way they are, and you completely discounted it - not even mentioning the fact that you misinterpreted the chart in question.

You disagreed with the professional assessments regarding the availability of clean, treated water in Iraq.

You disagreed with the assessment that America withheld materials vital to the health of Iraqis despite numerous documents proving it was indeed so.

You recently disagreed with the majority opinion of climate change despite not only the science involved, but also business, farming & government endorsement of climate change findings.

Now, I understand that you hold yourself to be a maverick, and perhaps the only person in the world with a handle on the truth, but between the expert community and you I'll stick with the experts.

posted April 13, 2006 02:00 PM              

It is the fact that a president lied to both Congress and the American people and used false facts to promote his pre-emptive attack on Iraq that is going to get him impeached.

The proof that he has repeatedly lied is that he is constantly contradicting himself as are those in his administration. Talk about flip-flopping!! As I said in the other post, contadictions are proof of lies.

List the lies, indeed!!! If you haven't noticed the lies, read about the lies, or heard the lies on the news Jwhop and called a spade a spade in your mind then any list of the lies would be filtered out as well.

posted April 13, 2006 02:13 PM            

Instead of taking me up on my offer, you continue to make allegations for which you can furnish no proof. Speculation, rumor and innuendo by so called reporters/journalists with an ax to grind are not proof.

In contrast, I've offered the clear logic of the law as proof the allegations of wrongdoing by Bush are false.

posted April 13, 2006 02:27 PM            

As I recall, you emailed the Pew organization and laid out your premise for them, asking for an answer. If you posted their response to you here, I missed it so, perhaps you could post it again.

My interpretation of their report...based on the clear meaning of the word MOST seems to be the correct one. Given the falling circulation numbers, given the decline of advertising revenues, given the falling profits and given the layoffs of staff at various news organizations, it would seem logical that about 80% of the respondents do not trust the news organizations..to varying degrees, as credible sources of information.

posted April 13, 2006 04:09 PM            

And if you'll recall, I didn't lay out MY premise at all. I laid out yours. Perhaps they didn't respond because of that. Maybe they didn't think it was worth it to get into it with someone who's so far off base as to suggest that 80% of people don't believe the NYT.

Furthermore, your meaning of MOST included meaning 'half.' That's a discussion we've already had.

There were four columns. On one side there was 'Believe Most or All,' and on the other was 'Believe Almost Nothing.' In between there were two columns they didn't title. Unfortunately your mind can't seem to hypothesize what those columns represent, and as a result you make assessments that are entirely unreasonable and without logic.

I even drew you a picture to try to help you get it, and you still couldn't do it.

Then there's the commentary by Pew, which states explicitly that the numbers are driven by Republican skepticism making it NOT an issue of credibility, but rather one of politics.

quote:

---

The falloff in credibility for these news sources is linked to a growing partisan tilt in the ratings. Republicans have traditionally viewed the overall media more skeptically than Democrats and this has long translated into lower credibility ratings from Republicans for most news sources.

But Republicans have become even more negative about the media's believability, widening the partisan gaps and driving down the overall ratings of several major news organizations.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=838

---

posted April 13, 2006 05:09 PM            

I never said MOST means half, 1/2, equally divided. Sorry you weren't capable of understanding what I did say. Which is that MOST is any number/amount EXCEEDING half, exceeding 1/2, the greater part of, the majority of, etc. Simple for MOST people acoustic. Why is that so difficult for you?

Thanks for the chart but it's meaningless since it's based on your misunderstanding of what MOST actually means. You chart is also utterly wrong acoustic. Category 1 believed little or nothing the NY Times prints of which there were 14% of respondents who placed themselves at that level. This Pew survey did not ask what percentage of what the NY Times prints do you believe?

21% of respondents believed all or MOST of what the NY Times prints. 79% do not believe all or even MOST of what the NY Times prints.

Hahaha, only 34% of democrats think the times is highly credible acoustic. So don't attempt to palm the NY Times lack of credibility from this Pew survey off on Republicans.

posted April 13, 2006 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

79% do not believe all or even MOST of what the NY Times prints.

---

This is not an accurate statement.

If you said that 79% of people don't categorize themselves as believing All or Most of what the NYT prints, then you'd have an accurate statement. However, as you've written it it's incorrect. Blatently.

Column 4 and Column 1 are the extremes. Column 4 people believe everything, Column 1 people believe nothing. The people in between either lean towards believing, or lean toward not believing. As you can see, the vast majority put themselves in Column 3, which means that they lean toward believing the NYT.

quote:

---

So don't attempt to palm the NY Times lack of credibility from this Pew survey off on Republicans

---

I didn't. Pew did. Seeing as they conducted the survey I believe they have every right to make such an assessment.

You keep trying to contort the facts.

posted April 13, 2006 06:47 PM            

quote:

---

Column 4 and Column 1 are the extremes. Column 4 people believe everything, Column 1 people believe nothing. The people in between either lean towards believing, or lean toward not believing.

---

Only in the little leftist fantasy world you inhabit acoustic but not this world.

First, Category 4 people did not believe everything. That was not the question. The category 4 people believed all....or MOST of what the NY Times printed.

Notice the quantifiers acoustic, ALL or MOST. So of those 21% who placed themselves in category 4 not all of them had to believe ALL.

At the other end of the range, category 1, were those people who believed LITTLE or NOTHING the NY Times prints.

Notice the quantifiers acoustic, LITTLE or NOTHING so they didn't necessarily believe NOTHING

All this is immaterial to the argument anyway acoustic because to interpret this poll correctly, one must know the definition of MOST and you obviously don't or you wouldn't continue to argue against that which is manifestly true.

posted April 13, 2006 07:25 PM            

How about we define "or" for you, since you just can't seem to get it.

Or

"Used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression: acrophobia, or fear of great heights."

"All or Most," a synonymous or equivalent expression. Not 51%.

posted April 13, 2006 10:29 PM            

Pew didn't do that acoustic, so we're ALL left with the dictionary definition of MOST which is not in any way what you are attempting to twist the definition to mean.

MOST, as it's used in the Pew Poll...as a quantifier, simply means more than half...not half as you keep insisting but more than half...an indefinite number or amount which could be anything over half to almost ALL, but not ALL or the word MOST would not be necessary as a quantifier and would be superfluous.

The flip side of that acoustic is that anything less than MOST must be, by definition, 50% or less.

ALL and MOST are not synonymous acoustic but MOST is an alternative quantifier to and less than ALL.

quote:

---

" "or" Used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression: acrophobia, or fear of great heights."...acoustic

---

To use your reasoning acoustic, if one said BLACK or WHITE, one would be talking about two words with the same substance and meaning. Wrong.

GOOD "or" EVIL, DAY "or" NIGHT

posted April 13, 2006 11:55 PM            

As I've said it's clearly on a scale 1 - 4 with 1 being Believe ALmost Nothing and 4 being Believe All or Most with columns 2 & 3 being shades of either of the polls. You are perhaps the only person who could possible misunderstand the simplicity of it. It's perfectly clear that 'or' in this case is used to make MOST and ALL equal.

Think of it this way:

'All' and 'Most' do not mean the same thing by definition, right? Therefore if someone is categorizing themselves as believing, "All or most," then they are contradicting themselves, because someone who believes, "Most," can't possibly believe, "All!" A pollster would never give a person a category in which they'd contradict themselves. Therefore, it only logical that, "All," and "Most," are meant to be equal in this case. "Most," is used simply to make the extreme option more palatable.

This is further evidenced when you look at their questionaire where they regularly put the possible answers on a scale. Look here:
http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=841

You see where Q.6 starts? There are 5 columns. They are titled Very Closely, Fairly Closely, Not Too Closely, Not at All Closely, and DK/Ref. There's a clear structure to the columns, which is exactly how the chart in question is done.

Questionaire Part 2 is the same: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=842

Q.34 has columns titled: A Lot, Some, Not Much, Not at All, and Don't Know/Refused.

Q.23, which is after Q.79 somehow, states explicitly:

quote:

---

Now, I'm going to read a list. Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say. How would you rate the believability of (READ ITEM. RANDOMIZE LIST) on this scale of 4 to 1? (INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "NEVER HEARD OF" AND "CAN'T RATE")

---

posted April 14, 2006 12:08 AM              

quote:

---

meaning that most people won't give a full endorsement---AG

---

AG, youve clearly used the word 'most' incorrectly again, since there are only 41% in column 3....and we all know that most means more than 50%.....