Leaving the community

"Jay Honeck" writes:

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

Nahh...all the Dems voted early, before they went to work, while the
Repubs were still asleep...

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:15:05 -0600, "Greg Butler"
wrote:


No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.

Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.

And whether those being polled told the truth. I wouldn't and many
told them their vote was private. I think it's becoming trendy to lie
to the pollsters.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.


Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Earl G

"Klein" wrote

Same thing with the phone polls,
9,150 people were too busy to talk to the pollster and there is a
bias that affects the results in that.

Klein

I must admit to being one of that count that have better things to do, than
talking to pollsters. Sometimes, there is lint to pick out of my
belly-button, or....whatever.

I don't understand why the "do not call list" does not apply to political
calls, and polls. They have no "right" to use my phone without my
permission, and I have no obligation to talk to them.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:27:25 -0600, Frank wrote:

Jay Beckman wrote:



Giuliani-Rice might work, but howzabout Colin Powell - Elizabeth Dole?

Either ticket would probably make the loyal oppositon's heads explode.

I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
Powell,
he is the best asset this administration has (had?). If Powell had led the
ticket in 2000 I doubt it would have been even remotely close.

I had (past tense) great respect for Colin Powell and was pleased when
he became secretary of state. My respect for him was lost when he
became the lapdog of the administration and was not allowed to
function as anything other than a conduit for policies that he did not
believe in. If he had resigned, and maintained his integrity I would
still respect him. I was often embarrassed for him and he should have
been embarrassed for himself.
Rich Russell

How do you know what Gen Powell personally believes?

It's quite possible, is it not, that his military training begat someone who
is a team player and follows orders?

Isn't the SecState supposed to be the spokesperson/conduit for his/her
administrations policies?

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

Greg Butler wrote:

No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.


Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.



Which is the entire purpose of a poll, so I think that is a given. And,
yes, I agree that herein lies the problem.


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

No, a fact is an invariant.


Really?

So, a statement regarding the position of the sun during the day isn't a
fact? After all, it varies continuously throughout the day.

Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you
take two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two
different answers.


You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Much better than yours though.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.



Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of
these
terms.

Earl G.



That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do
your own research, here's a little to get you started:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp

http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html


Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own?

Think of a grandfather clock; see the word "Regulated" on the face?, it
doesn't mean it was approved by the Ministry of Clocks.

No, I just don't see them the same way you do. You can SCREAM in capital
letters all you want and decide that I'm suffering from a terminal case of
cognitive dissonance, but that's not a very mature response, now is it?


Naw,,, did NOT scream in capital letters grin!

Perhaps Republicans in Utah are just as touchy as liberals in Cambridge
and
Berkeley. All that ideological conformity makes these places into
ideological veal pens. God forbid you ever have to venture outside that
bubble.

Please don't even get me started on Berkeley (sometimes I wish they would be
declared a separate state so that their questionable actions/ideas would be
associated with Californians as a whole.

I was born in Chicago, but from 1 y.o. and on lived in San Francisco. I'm
fully aware that venturing outside California is quite different, but that
doesn't make the observation that bigotry exists any less true. I know when
I've been in the South, I was surprised that many of the old attitudes have
never left, just that they've gone a little more underground (regarding
blacks). It IS like night and day between California and some other states
regarding attitudes towards same-sex unions - I was just trying to point out
that having a gay person or couple in your neighborhood isn't going to 'turn
you' or your children gay. Just isn't going to happen. Not necessarily
true in your case,,, but I have noticed that those who are most vehement
against gays often turn out to be people who are struggling with their
certainty about their own sexuality.

Unfortunately, the gay citizens that get the most tv coverage here in San
Francisco are those that are more flamboyant in costume and dress during Gay
Pride celebrations. You'd find that most of the gay couples in our
neighborhood (as well as yours,,,, they likely stay 'hidden') just dress
like you and me, kiss a loved one on the way to work and aren't wearing pink
feathered costumes and a headdress. :0) I guess all I was saying is that I
don't understand the intolerance; I don't worry that my wife, my marriage or
child are at risk because of Gay people. I WILL say that the only persons
that worry me most in regards to my 9 year old stepson are Catholic Priests.
I DO keep my eye on them (though I understand that most are just fine - but
I watch out as much as possible)... but that is another issue altogether.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
I'm the original poster and I approve this response.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...

freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,, they
don't see the connections between their own observations.

Just like David Brooks, who decided he can't even deal with being in
the presence of people who voted for Bush.

Best,
-cwk.