For profit polling organization (purpose is to make money by making clients
happy) with a core competency in "Web Based" polling? Yes, that's "iffy"
from a standpoint of trying to get at any kindf of objective approach.

Big-Time "Iffy."

I use the quotes to offset words for which common usage is unrealiable and
subject to misinterpretation. Commonly used in the United States. When
speaking, the use of "Air Quaotes" implies that the common usage of the word
strays quite far from generally accepted interpretation; as when a
politician tries to spin a word.

Like when you reported that half of the Iraquis preferred Saddam, since by
"half" you meant 9%, your use of the word "half" should have been in quotes.

Steve



"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:52:24 -0400, Leslie Swartz
wrote:
Hmmm . . .

The website of the for-profit "YouGov" site is a little "iffy" about
how/what they do.

In what sense? They are an opinion polling organisation, mainly know
for conducting Internet-based polls in the UK. What's iffy about
that?

The impression one is left with is that they "commissioned" a news
organization to do "man on the street" interviews back in 8-10 July.

"Why" "are" "you" "quoting" "every" "other" "word"?

And your "interpretations" are somewhat a stretch in many of the cases
you
cite, even if the results were reliable for the limited sub-sub-sample. .
..

That's right, ignore any evidence that contradicts your preconceived
notions.

(how on earth do you convert a 9% "rather live under Saddam" result into
a
"1/2 think the Americans are as bad as Saddam?")

I don't, it's not the 9% figure that counts, it's the 47%: the relevant
part of the poll was:

If you had to choose would you rather live under Saddam or the
Americans:

Saddam 9
No preference 47
Americans 29
Not stated 15


If 47% have no preference between the two, then the two choices must
be as good (or bad) as each other.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?