info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Today's political climate" rationale for lying to Gallup and NORC about gun ownership
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jul 24, 2015, 3:20:08 PM7/24/15
to
What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless
bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
private polling organizations.
I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless
bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
private polling organizations.
I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
max headroom
Jul 25, 2015, 12:48:14 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou32a$onj$1...@dont-email.me:
> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
> that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
> organization....
How's their security? As good as Sony's?
> ... Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
"... if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together
would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death!
Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we
would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.
What is happening in this country? What is happening?"
-- Alec Baldwin, 1998
"Not me. I think [Jesse Helms] ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind,
because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his
grandchildren will get it."
-- Nina Totenberg, July 8, 1995
"You know, I hope [Clarence Thomas'] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like
many black men do, of heart disease."
-- Julianne Malveaux, November 4, 1994
"He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take
him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don't even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get
him the hell out of here."
-- Ed Schultz
"I'm waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he's
[Rush Limbaugh] choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something,
whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick."
-- Mike Malloy
"Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."
-- George Clooney
> ... the name-calling,...
"[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly
rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps....This is an evil bitch from
Hell."
-- Mike Malloy
"And what do the Republicans thinking about? They're not thinking about their next-door neighbor.
They're just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting
Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they're talking about, like this right-wing slut, what's
her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising
President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama's doing it, they're
working him over."
-- Ed Schultz
> ... the obsession with meaningless
> .. most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
needs to know if I own guns.
> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
> of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
> admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
> that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
> interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
Rudy, you ignorant slut. Dubya was still drinking in the Texas Air National Guard when NSA began
eavesdropping.
> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
> that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
How's their security? As good as Sony's?
> ... Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
> climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
> figure. The nastiness,...
"... if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together
would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death!
Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we
would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.
What is happening in this country? What is happening?"
-- Alec Baldwin, 1998
"Not me. I think [Jesse Helms] ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind,
because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his
grandchildren will get it."
-- Nina Totenberg, July 8, 1995
"You know, I hope [Clarence Thomas'] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like
many black men do, of heart disease."
-- Julianne Malveaux, November 4, 1994
"He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take
him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don't even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get
him the hell out of here."
-- Ed Schultz
"I'm waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he's
[Rush Limbaugh] choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something,
whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick."
-- Mike Malloy
"Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."
-- George Clooney
> ... the name-calling,...
"[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly
rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps....This is an evil bitch from
Hell."
-- Mike Malloy
"And what do the Republicans thinking about? They're not thinking about their next-door neighbor.
They're just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting
Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they're talking about, like this right-wing slut, what's
her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising
President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama's doing it, they're
working him over."
-- Ed Schultz
> ... the obsession with meaningless
> bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
Or the Benghazi massacre, the IRS scandals, the Fast & Furious scandal, the New Black Panthers, &c.
> .. most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
> them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
> private polling organizations.
I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I wasn't
> private polling organizations.
embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
needs to know if I own guns.
> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
> of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
> admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
> that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
> interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
eavesdropping.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 1:09:29 AM7/25/15
to
On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I wasn't
> embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
> needs to know if I own guns.
Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I wasn't
> embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
> needs to know if I own guns.
asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
max headroom
Jul 25, 2015, 2:31:12 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
No, it's not. Besides, I might find the other questions interesting.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 2:43:21 AM7/25/15
to
On 7/24/2015 10:43 PM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>
>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I wasn't
>>> embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
>>> needs to know if I own guns.
>
>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>
> No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>
>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I wasn't
>>> embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
>>> needs to know if I own guns.
>
>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>
> No, it's not.
max headroom
Jul 25, 2015, 3:07:18 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:movb3b$a47$1...@dont-email.me:
Unless I get paid to participate, I'll give any answer I feel like.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 7:36:15 AM7/25/15
to
One Party System
Jul 25, 2015, 9:17:46 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou32a$onj$1@dont-
email.me:
Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.
Booker T. Washington
email.me:
--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.
Booker T. Washington
One Party System
Jul 25, 2015, 9:21:50 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
actually think before your lips or fingers move?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 9:47:15 AM7/25/15
to
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:16:12 +0000 (UTC), One Party System
<eat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou32a$onj$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
>> that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
>> organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
>> climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
>> figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless
>> bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
>> most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
>> them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
>> private polling organizations.
>>
>> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
>> of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
>> admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
>> that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
>> interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
>> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
>>
>
>Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
LOL
<eat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou32a$onj$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
>> that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
>> organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
>> climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
>> figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless
>> bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
>> most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
>> them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
>> private polling organizations.
>>
>> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
>> of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
>> admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
>> that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
>> interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
>> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
>>
>
>Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
And he doesn't appear to be making any headway either.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 10:34:45 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 10:38:13 AM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 6:16 AM, One Braincell System wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou32a$onj$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
>> that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
>> organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
>> climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
>> figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless
>> bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
>> most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
>> them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
>> private polling organizations.
>>
>> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
>> of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
>> admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
>> that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
>> interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
>> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
>>
>
> Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
That wasn't a serious comment.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou32a$onj$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political climate
>> that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a *private* polling
>> organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in the political
>> climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom the gun owners
>> figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless
>> bullshit like birth certificates and past association with Bill Ayers -
>> most of that comes from the right wing. It's a little rich, then, for
>> them to be using that excuse to justify lying about gun ownership to
>> private polling organizations.
>>
>> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an element
>> of the political environment that might make them more reluctant to
>> admit gun ownership to private polling organizations: they might fear
>> that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from the Gallup
>> interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
>> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
>>
>
> Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 10:38:47 AM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>
>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than
>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if I
>>> own guns.
>>
>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>
>>
>
> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>
>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than
>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if I
>>> own guns.
>>
>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>
>>
>
> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 10:42:12 AM7/25/15
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 10:42:59 AM7/25/15
to
Are you really THAT stupid?
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 10:56:21 AM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 10:56:52 AM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 7:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
participant, you missed it and/or didn't understand it.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 10:58:51 AM7/25/15
to
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:56:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> I believe he was dead serious
>
>We could only wish.
"We?" You and the voices, you mean?
>
>We could only wish.
"We?" You and the voices, you mean?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 10:59:35 AM7/25/15
to
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:56:49 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> Because you're not a serious
>participant, you missed it and/or didn't understand it.
It's always entertaining when you claim to be "serious."
[chuckle]
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>On 7/25/2015 7:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:38:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than
>>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if I
>>>>>> own guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>>
>>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>>
>> Why would you tell a stranger on the phone that you had guns?
>
><yawn> We've been through this before.
And you failed to understand it then, too.
>On 7/25/2015 7:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:38:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than
>>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if I
>>>>>> own guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>>
>>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>>
>> Why would you tell a stranger on the phone that you had guns?
>
><yawn> We've been through this before.
> Because you're not a serious
>participant, you missed it and/or didn't understand it.
[chuckle]
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 25, 2015, 11:06:14 AM7/25/15
to
Because you're not a troll- you're "serious!"
"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
Greg Smith
Jul 25, 2015, 11:51:08 AM7/25/15
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:0287rap7oj7iltb9d...@4ax.com...
Yes, he is.
Rudy will pick up the phone and answer anything a stranger will ask when it
rings.
He's so lonely.
Greg Smith
Jul 25, 2015, 12:02:03 PM7/25/15
to
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:mp080l$4th$3...@dont-email.me...
Strange Caller: "Hey Rudy. How much stuff you got?"
Rudy: "I have lots of stuff you might like to have."
Strange caller: " Can I come by and verify?"
Rudy: "Well of course. I'm a retard after all."
Greg Smith
Jul 25, 2015, 12:06:19 PM7/25/15
to
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me...
Is Rudy now saying that if YOU don't participate, that you have something to
hide?
One Party System
Jul 25, 2015, 12:42:04 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp06tj$bv$6...@dont-email.me:
One Party System
Jul 25, 2015, 12:43:15 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06uo$bv$7@dont-
email.me:
Do you actually think before you type?
email.me:
One Party System
Jul 25, 2015, 12:46:14 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me:
Did the Allies tell the Nazis what they had? Do you advertise to criminals
what you have?
Ed Huntress
Jul 25, 2015, 12:52:57 PM7/25/15
to
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:41:41 +0000 (UTC), One Party System
<eat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06uo$bv$7@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more
>than
>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if
>I
>>>>> own guns.
>>>>
>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>
>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>
>Do you actually think before you type?
Oh, Jesus. Ok, dimwit. Let's hear your explanation of that one.
<eat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06uo$bv$7@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more
>than
>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if
>I
>>>>> own guns.
>>>>
>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>
>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>
>Do you actually think before you type?
If you lie and say you have no gun, you're counted as "no gun." If you
don't answer, you're not counted.
If there are five people who say they have a gun, and five who
(honestly) say they don't, and then five who have a gun but don't
answer, the conclusion is five yes, five no.
If there are five people who say they have a gun, and five who
(honestly) say they don't, and then five who have a gun but lie and
say they don't, the conclusion is five yes, and ten no.
Do you actually think before you type?
--
Just Wondering
Jul 25, 2015, 3:07:49 PM7/25/15
to
the survey, thereby skewing the result to appear there are fewer gun
households than there actually are.
max headroom
Jul 25, 2015, 3:55:21 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me:
Is it ethical for the surveyor to ask for my participation without compensation? Unless I am offered
compensation for my time and information, I do it for my amusement. The surveyor gets what he pays
for.
No one expects a mine owner to give away his ore. The surveyor will take my information, process it,
and sell it.
compensation for my time and information, I do it for my amusement. The surveyor gets what he pays
for.
No one expects a mine owner to give away his ore. The surveyor will take my information, process it,
and sell it.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:26:28 PM7/25/15
to
>> We could only wish.
>
> "We?" You and
All the right thinking people and I. Yes.
>
> "We?" You and
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:27:11 PM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 7:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:56:49 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 7:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:38:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than
>>>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if I
>>>>>>> own guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>>>
>>>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>>>
>>> Why would you tell a stranger on the phone that you had guns?
>>
>> <yawn> We've been through this before.
>
> And
And we realized that you're not a serious participant.
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:56:49 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 7:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:38:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than
>>>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if I
>>>>>>> own guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>>>
>>>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>>>
>>> Why would you tell a stranger on the phone that you had guns?
>>
>> <yawn> We've been through this before.
>
> And
>> Because you're not a serious
>> participant, you missed it and/or didn't understand it.
>
> It's always entertaining when you claim to be "serious."
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:27:31 PM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 9:40 AM, One Party System wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mp06tj$bv$6...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:16 AM, One Braincell System wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mou32a$onj$1@dont- email.me:
>>>
>>>> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political
>>>> climate that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a
>>>> *private* polling organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in
>>>> the political climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom
>>>> the gun owners figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession
>>>> with meaningless bullshit like birth certificates and past association
>>>> with Bill Ayers - most of that comes from the right wing. It's a
>>>> little rich, then, for them to be using that excuse to justify lying
>>>> about gun ownership to private polling organizations.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an
>>>> element of the political environment that might make them more
>>>> reluctant to admit gun ownership to private polling organizations:
>>>> they might fear that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from
>>>> the Gallup interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
>>>> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
>>
>> That wasn't a serious comment.
>>
>>
>
> It was as serious as
It wasn't a serious comment at all.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mp06tj$bv$6...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:16 AM, One Braincell System wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mou32a$onj$1@dont- email.me:
>>>
>>>> What bullshit. First, there is nothing about today's political
>>>> climate that makes it any riskier to report gun ownership to a
>>>> *private* polling organization. Secondly, most of the degradation in
>>>> the political climate has been caused by the right-wingers among whom
>>>> the gun owners figure. The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession
>>>> with meaningless bullshit like birth certificates and past association
>>>> with Bill Ayers - most of that comes from the right wing. It's a
>>>> little rich, then, for them to be using that excuse to justify lying
>>>> about gun ownership to private polling organizations.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose there might be one thing that can loosely be called an
>>>> element of the political environment that might make them more
>>>> reluctant to admit gun ownership to private polling organizations:
>>>> they might fear that the NSA is listening in on the phone call from
>>>> the Gallup interviewer. Who started that NSA eavesdropping? Why, the
>>>> right-wingers' favorite big-government Republican, George W. Bush!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.
>>
>> That wasn't a serious comment.
>>
>>
>
> It was as serious as
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:27:59 PM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 9:41 AM, One Party System wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06uo$bv$7@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more
> than
>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if
> I
>>>>> own guns.
>>>>
>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>
>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>
> Do you actually think before you type?
I always think. You clearly don't because you're incapable of it.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06uo$bv$7@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:20 AM, One Party System wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might
>>>>> tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more
> than
>>>>> I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else needs to know if
> I
>>>>> own guns.
>>>>
>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, would that not also weight the results toward non gun owners?
>>
>> Not as much as lying and saying you have no gun.
>
> Do you actually think before you type?
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:28:33 PM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 9:44 AM, One Party System wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:movb3b$a47$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 10:43 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>
>>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I
>>>>>>> might tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own
>>>>>>> more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
>>>>>>> needs to know if I own guns.
>>>
>>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>
>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>> Unless I get paid to participate, I'll give any answer I feel like.
>>
>> It would be more ethical simply not to participate.
>>
>>
>
> Are you suggesting that the modern America media has ethics?
I'm stating - not suggesting, but stating the fact - that Gallup and
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:movb3b$a47$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 10:43 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>>> news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>>>
>>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I
>>>>>>> might tell my friends if I wasn't embarrassed that most of them own
>>>>>>> more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns. No one else
>>>>>>> needs to know if I own guns.
>>>
>>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>>>
>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>> Unless I get paid to participate, I'll give any answer I feel like.
>>
>> It would be more ethical simply not to participate.
>>
>>
>
> Are you suggesting that the modern America media has ethics?
NORC are not part of the media.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:29:30 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:48:22 PM7/25/15
to
make it look like there are fewer gun households than there really are.
Suppose 100 people are surveyed. 50 have guns, 50 don't. All 50 people
who have no guns answer "no gun." Now suppose two scenarios for the
answers from gun owners:
1. 25 with guns say they have guns; 25 refuse to answer the question.
The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is then 2:1.
2. 25 with guns say they have guns; the other 25 lie and say "no gun."
The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is now 3:1.
By lying, rather than refusing to answer, the people with guns who lied
made the ratio appear *worse* than it really is - and it is clear that
this ratio is *VERY* - absurdly - important to them.
If seeing a higher percentage of gun owning households is important to
gun owners, and it obviously is, then truthfully reporting to polling
organizations that they own guns is in the gun owners' interest. But if
they're not going to do that, then lying is a *worse* strategy than
simply not answering.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 25, 2015, 5:52:57 PM7/25/15
to
On 7/25/2015 12:28 PM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:movb3b$a47$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 10:43 PM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>
>>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I
>>>>>>> wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns.
>>>>>>> No one else needs to know if I own guns.
>
>>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>
>>>>> No, it's not.
>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>
>>> Unless I get paid to participate, I'll give any answer I feel like.
>
>> It would be more ethical simply not to participate.
>
> Is it ethical for the surveyor to ask for my participation without compensation?
Yes.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06n7$bv$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:movb3b$a47$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 10:43 PM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mov5jb$t3d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 9:47 PM, maxipad blabbered:
>
>>>>>>> I'd probably tell my mama if she asked me if I own any guns. I might tell my friends if I
>>>>>>> wasn't embarrassed that most of them own more than I would, if I was of a mind to own guns.
>>>>>>> No one else needs to know if I own guns.
>
>>>>>> Just don't participate in the survey at all if you don't like to be
>>>>>> asked questions. Better to do that than to lie.
>
>>>>> No, it's not.
>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>
>>> Unless I get paid to participate, I'll give any answer I feel like.
>
>> It would be more ethical simply not to participate.
>
> Is it ethical for the surveyor to ask for my participation without compensation?
Jim Wilkins
Jul 25, 2015, 7:51:34 PM7/25/15
to
"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:55b3de82$0$28505$882e...@usenet-news.net...
It's an old political truism that people may say they support gun
control but they don't vote for it.
news:55b3de82$0$28505$882e...@usenet-news.net...
control but they don't vote for it.
max headroom
Jul 25, 2015, 10:17:33 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp0ur6$p2c$2...@dont-email.me:
Oh my! We can add megalomania to the list of your aberrations.
max headroom
Jul 25, 2015, 10:17:33 PM7/25/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp10cr$t9o$7...@dont-email.me:
Obviously your time and knowledge are worthless. Mine aren't.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 26, 2015, 1:17:20 AM7/26/15
to
about guns, or anything else. Obviously, maxipad, you're a dumb fat
fuck with nothing worthwhile to say. Obviously, maxipad, you are a fuckwit.
Just Wondering
Jul 26, 2015, 2:42:32 AM7/26/15
to
The scenario is the gun owner hanging up the phone, or shutting the door
on the surveyor's face, without answering at all. No lies, no "no
response" answer, Just completely opting out of the survey all together.
Suppose half the households in the U.S. have guns and half don't. The
surveyor's goal is to survey 100 people. Let's say 20% of gun owners
altogether refuse to participate in the survey, but all who do
participate answer fully and truthfully. Those 20 don't show up as "no
answer" in the result, they don't show up anywhere in the survey because
they weren't part of the survey at all.
So, out of the first 100 people contacted, 20 "guns" households aren't
surveyed at all, only 80 of the 100 get surveyed, and the surveyor
records 30 "guns" answers and 50 "no gun" answers. But the surveyor
needs 100 participants, so he contacts 20 more people. 10 are "gun
households, and 4 of them won't participate, so the surveyor contacts 5
more people, of whom 1 won't participate. The final result will be
30+6+2=38 "guns" households and 62 "no guns" households even though the
actual population is 50-50.
Just Wondering
Jul 26, 2015, 2:47:22 AM7/26/15
to
Just Wondering
Jul 26, 2015, 2:47:41 AM7/26/15
to
Just Wondering
Jul 26, 2015, 2:47:53 AM7/26/15
to
Jim Wilkins
Jul 26, 2015, 6:58:43 AM7/26/15
to
"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:55b48155$0$28492$882e...@usenet-news.net...
companies.
Jim Wilkins
Jul 26, 2015, 7:42:49 AM7/26/15
to
"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:55b48155$0$28492$882e...@usenet-news.net...
news:55b48155$0$28492$882e...@usenet-news.net...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-response_bias
Whoever commissioned that survey should demand their money back.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 26, 2015, 7:46:49 AM7/26/15
to
Maybe Rudy was trying to be "serious" again.
Ed Huntress
Jul 26, 2015, 8:42:43 AM7/26/15
to
now, that lying gives you an even greater innaccuracy, in favor of "no
gun." Since it's been done twice here I won't repeat it, but you can
find it in these threads.
BTW, for the record, surveys do not keep adding interviewees to reach
a certain number. They start with a sample and stick to it, no matter
what the results are.
--
Ed Huntress
max headroom
Jul 26, 2015, 11:00:52 AM7/26/15
to
Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in news:55b48279$0$28530$882e...@usenet-news.net:
It's obviously pointless to attempt to dialog with him; he alters opponents' text and declares
victory. Back to the bozo bin for him.
victory. Back to the bozo bin for him.
deep
Jul 26, 2015, 11:48:35 AM7/26/15
to
Rudy Canoza
Jul 26, 2015, 11:52:30 AM7/26/15
to
complaining about is *worse* if gun owners say they have no gun. I'm right.
RD Sandman
Jul 26, 2015, 1:18:45 PM7/26/15
to
Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in news:55b3de82$0$28505
$882e...@usenet-news.net:
Or respond "no gun" which also skews the result. How much, I have no
idea. I don't believe that it was the singular reason for the skew.
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many sizes and colors.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
$882e...@usenet-news.net:
idea. I don't believe that it was the singular reason for the skew.
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many sizes and colors.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RD Sandman
Jul 26, 2015, 1:23:23 PM7/26/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp1047$t9o$1
@dont-email.me:
Correct and he said that. I doubt, however, that was the thought
foremost on their minds when they answered the question.
> Suppose 100 people are surveyed. 50 have guns, 50 don't. All 50
people
> who have no guns answer "no gun." Now suppose two scenarios for the
> answers from gun owners:
>
> 1. 25 with guns say they have guns; 25 refuse to answer the question.
> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is then 2:1.
>
> 2. 25 with guns say they have guns; the other 25 lie and say "no gun."
> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is now 3:1.
>
> By lying, rather than refusing to answer, the people with guns who lied
> made the ratio appear *worse* than it really is
That *is* his point, Rudy. They probably weren't thinking of the end
result of the survey, but simply "I'm am not going to tell the folks I
have guns. It isn't any of their business."
- and it is clear that
> this ratio is *VERY* - absurdly - important to them.
Not to the people answering the survey. For example, if someone cold
calls me and asks if I have any guns, I don't give a shit about any
survey results. I simple won't tell him or her "yes".
> If seeing a higher percentage of gun owning households is important to
> gun owners, and it obviously is, then truthfully reporting to polling
> organizations that they own guns is in the gun owners' interest. But
if
> they're not going to do that, then lying is a *worse* strategy than
> simply not answering.
OH, well.
@dont-email.me:
foremost on their minds when they answered the question.
> Suppose 100 people are surveyed. 50 have guns, 50 don't. All 50
people
> who have no guns answer "no gun." Now suppose two scenarios for the
> answers from gun owners:
>
> 1. 25 with guns say they have guns; 25 refuse to answer the question.
> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is then 2:1.
>
> 2. 25 with guns say they have guns; the other 25 lie and say "no gun."
> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is now 3:1.
>
> By lying, rather than refusing to answer, the people with guns who lied
> made the ratio appear *worse* than it really is
result of the survey, but simply "I'm am not going to tell the folks I
have guns. It isn't any of their business."
- and it is clear that
> this ratio is *VERY* - absurdly - important to them.
calls me and asks if I have any guns, I don't give a shit about any
survey results. I simple won't tell him or her "yes".
> If seeing a higher percentage of gun owning households is important to
> gun owners, and it obviously is, then truthfully reporting to polling
> organizations that they own guns is in the gun owners' interest. But
if
> they're not going to do that, then lying is a *worse* strategy than
> simply not answering.
RD Sandman
Jul 26, 2015, 1:25:19 PM7/26/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp2vkv$h2k$1...@dont-email.me:
Rudy Canoza
Jul 26, 2015, 2:04:06 PM7/26/15
to
about the ratio of "no gun":"gun" than does refusing to answer. And, it
is very obvious that most of the gun owners posting here care very
deeply - absurdly so - about that ratio.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 26, 2015, 2:11:12 PM7/26/15
to
- irrationally so.
>
>> Suppose 100 people are surveyed. 50 have guns, 50 don't. All 50 people
>> who have no guns answer "no gun." Now suppose two scenarios for the
>> answers from gun owners:
>>
>> 1. 25 with guns say they have guns; 25 refuse to answer the question.
>> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is then 2:1.
>>
>> 2. 25 with guns say they have guns; the other 25 lie and say "no gun."
>> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is now 3:1.
>>
>> By lying, rather than refusing to answer, the people with guns who lied
>> made the ratio appear *worse* than it really is
>
> That *is* his point, Rudy.
effect of lying vs not responding.
> They probably weren't thinking of the end
> result of the survey, but simply "I'm am not going to tell the folks I
> have guns. It isn't any of their business."
how much alcohol you consume or how many sexual partners you have ever
had, either, but the implication of all the posters is that they would
answer those questions, just not the ones about guns.
As before: the polling organizations aren't making your gun ownership
"their business." They're trying to get an accurate statistical picture
of American society. The state rationales for lying about gun ownership
just don't hold water.
>
>> - and it is clear that
>> this ratio is *VERY* - absurdly - important to them.
>
> Not to the people answering the survey. For example, if someone cold
> calls me and asks if I have any guns, I don't give a shit about any
> survey results. I simple won't tell him or her "yes".
respond "no." And of course, you don't say if you would give an answer,
or a truthful answer, to questions about your red meat consumption or
any of myriad other questions they might as, the answers to which are
"none of their business." As a gun obsessor, you are a single-issue nut.
>
>> If seeing a higher percentage of gun owning households is important to
>> gun owners, and it obviously is, then truthfully reporting to polling
>> organizations that they own guns is in the gun owners' interest. Butif
>> they're not going to do that, then lying is a *worse* strategy than
>> simply not answering.
>
> OH, well.
nice try.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 26, 2015, 2:11:41 PM7/26/15
to
deep
Jul 26, 2015, 2:39:17 PM7/26/15
to
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:11:39 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> Yes, but those who refuse to answer aren't thinking of survey results.
>
>They're thinking irrationally no matter what they're thinking about.
and you are clearly the expert on irrational thinking.
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> Yes, but those who refuse to answer aren't thinking of survey results.
>
>They're thinking irrationally no matter what they're thinking about.
jim
Jul 26, 2015, 2:50:11 PM7/26/15
to
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless bullshit
What else would you like to confess?
> The nastiness, the name-calling, the obsession with meaningless bullshit
Just Wondering
Jul 26, 2015, 4:46:14 PM7/26/15
to
fairly substantial drop in gun homes over the last 20 years and another
which shows no drop or even a possible increase in gun homes over the
same period, and you say the "drop" survey is correct and the "no drop"
survey is incorrect, but you can't identify a rational reason for the
differing survey results.
Gunner Asch
Jul 26, 2015, 5:49:58 PM7/26/15
to
crackwhore into a DAR meeting.
Gunner
Scout
Jul 26, 2015, 6:18:51 PM7/26/15
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:04i9rahtb9rbi16q6...@4ax.com...
position in tpg.....
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 27, 2015, 8:15:45 AM7/27/15
to
Like this?
You wanted to know what the "zero apple is"? The zero apple is the
apple you have when you first pick up an empty bag but haven't yet
picked up the first apple. You can't start with one because you
don't know if the bag you are reaching into to remove apples is full
of half apples or not. It could be applesauce and actually be tiny,
tiny bits of apple. Counting doesn't start with one because until
you reach one you don't know if you need to use fractions. Your
child-like presumption is you only have to deal with whole numbers
when counting.
-Deep Dudu, Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:10:58 -0600
and....
SCOUT: Why would you count what isn't there?
You don't know otherwise."
-Deep-- and I mean deep-- Dudu
5/6/2015
RD Sandman
Jul 27, 2015, 3:03:00 PM7/27/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp37bo$e0f$1
@dont-email.me:
Yes. What's your point since th aim of the gun owner is not to fluctuate
the poll but simply to not answer the question correctly since they don't
feel that a "yes" answer is in their best interests.
And, it
> is very obvious that most of the gun owners posting here care very
> deeply - absurdly so - about that ratio.
I bet they didn't when giving an answer. You don't hear what is actually
being said.
@dont-email.me:
the poll but simply to not answer the question correctly since they don't
feel that a "yes" answer is in their best interests.
And, it
> is very obvious that most of the gun owners posting here care very
> deeply - absurdly so - about that ratio.
being said.
RD Sandman
Jul 27, 2015, 3:04:14 PM7/27/15
to
Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:55b54714$0$11059$882e...@usenet-news.net:
polled. I doubt that the two surveys called the same households. ;)
Rudy Canoza
Jul 27, 2015, 3:15:22 PM7/27/15
to
isn't your primary consideration, it is stupid - not in your interest -
to lie and say "no gun" rather than to refuse to answer.
>> And, it
>> is very obvious that most of the gun owners posting here care very
>> deeply - absurdly so - about that ratio.
>
> I bet they didn't when giving an answer.
would lie and say "no gun" rather than refuse to answer.
This bizarre obsession with gun ownership not being "any of their
business" with respect to the polling organizations, when many of the
other questions also are about things that are "none of the business" of
the polling organizations but which the gun owners happily answer, is
simply irrational.
Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than anything
else by your status as gun owners. That's the very definition of an
unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet. I don't have the time or
the tools to undertake the analysis, but I'd be willing to bet the vast
majority of your posts are related to guns, and they probably outnumber
your posts on the next three most active topics combined.
RD Sandman
Jul 27, 2015, 3:18:40 PM7/27/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp37p0$fvk$1...@dont-email.me:
mean that it was at the time of the survey. For example, if someone I
don't know calls my home and asks if I have guns in it, I don't care who
they are, the answer will be "no".....if I don't ge smart alecky and
simply hang up on them. If they id themselves as survey takers, I will
still answer "no" but will most likely hang on to see what else they are
collecting data. There are some items I have no problem answering
questions on. Something like "Do you have a dryer or do you hang your
clothes outside to dry?" "If you have a dryer, is it a Maytag or an LG?"
>>> Suppose 100 people are surveyed. 50 have guns, 50 don't. All 50
>>> people who have no guns answer "no gun." Now suppose two scenarios
>>> for the answers from gun owners:
>>>
>>> 1. 25 with guns say they have guns; 25 refuse to answer the
>>> question.
>>> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is then 2:1.
>>>
>>> 2. 25 with guns say they have guns; the other 25 lie and say "no
>>> gun."
>>> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is now 3:1.
>>>
>>> By lying, rather than refusing to answer, the people with guns who
>>> lied made the ratio appear *worse* than it really is
>>
>> That *is* his point, Rudy.
>
> That wasn't his point. He didn't say anything about comparing the
> effect of lying vs not responding.
>
>
>> They probably weren't thinking of the end
>> result of the survey, but simply "I'm am not going to tell the folks
>> I have guns. It isn't any of their business."
>
> It isn't any of "their business" <chortle> how much red meat you eat
> or how much alcohol you consume or how many sexual partners you have
> ever had, either, but the implication of all the posters is that they
> would answer those questions, just not the ones about guns.
> As before: the polling organizations aren't making your gun ownership
> "their business." They're trying to get an accurate statistical
> picture of American society. The state rationales for lying about gun
> ownership just don't hold water.
I only have one rationale for not answering phone surveys on guns. That
is not their business whether or not I have guns or how many. One reason
I am against registration although universal background checks, which I
do favor, won't really work work without it.
>>> - and it is clear that
>>> this ratio is *VERY* - absurdly - important to them.
>>
>> Not to the people answering the survey. For example, if someone cold
>> calls me and asks if I have any guns, I don't give a shit about any
>> survey results. I simple won't tell him or her "yes".
>
> That's backing off from what you said earlier. You said you would
> respond "no."
"Yes" is pretty much the equivalent of answering "No". I didn't say I
refused to answer the question.
And of course, you don't say if you would give an
> answer, or a truthful answer,
answer. You should be able to figure out by now that if someone calls my
home and asks if I have any guns, that whatever answer they get from me
will not be truthful.
to questions about your red meat
> consumption or any of myriad other questions they might as, the
> answers to which are "none of their business." As a gun obsessor, you
> are a single-issue nut.
>>> If seeing a higher percentage of gun owning households is important
>>> to gun owners, and it obviously is, then truthfully reporting to
>>> polling organizations that they own guns is in the gun owners'
>>> interest. Butif they're not going to do that, then lying is a
>>> *worse* strategy than simply not answering.
>>
>> OH, well.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! You're not really so blithely cavalier about it, but
> nice try.
psychoanalysis, you suck at it.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 27, 2015, 3:19:22 PM7/27/15
to
experts themselves can't explain it. Lots of attention has focused on
question wording, but most of the people working directly with the polls
don't feel that can explain enough of the results difference.
One thing we do know is that those armchair statisticians here who don't
"like" the GSS result, which shows a steep decline in the percentage of
households reporting gun ownership over the years, have not identified
any methodological problems with the GSS. They've attempted to say that
an increased propensity by gun owners to lie explains all or most of it,
but they can't explain why such an increased propensity to lie doesn't
*also* affect the Gallup poll result.
RD Sandman
Jul 27, 2015, 3:19:24 PM7/27/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp37pv$fvk$2
@dont-email.me:
That's in your opinion, not in theirs.
@dont-email.me:
Rudy Canoza
Jul 27, 2015, 3:27:00 PM7/27/15
to
>
>>>> Suppose 100 people are surveyed. 50 have guns, 50 don't. All 50
>>>> people who have no guns answer "no gun." Now suppose two scenarios
>>>> for the answers from gun owners:
>>>>
>>>> 1. 25 with guns say they have guns; 25 refuse to answer the
>>>> question.
>>>> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is then 2:1.
>>>>
>>>> 2. 25 with guns say they have guns; the other 25 lie and say "no
>>>> gun."
>>>> The reported ratio of "no guns" to "guns" is now 3:1.
>>>>
>>>> By lying, rather than refusing to answer, the people with guns who
>>>> lied made the ratio appear *worse* than it really is
>>>
>>> That *is* his point, Rudy.
>>
>> That wasn't his point. He didn't say anything about comparing the
>> effect of lying vs not responding.
>>
>>
>>> They probably weren't thinking of the end
>>> result of the survey, but simply "I'm am not going to tell the folks
>>> I have guns. It isn't any of their business."
>>
>> It isn't any of "their business" <chortle> how much red meat you eat
>> or how much alcohol you consume or how many sexual partners you have
>> ever had, either, but the implication of all the posters is that they
>> would answer those questions, just not the ones about guns.
>
> You figured out, Rudy. You may be smarter than you look.
do to lie about red meat consumption.
>> As before: the polling organizations aren't making your gun ownership
>> "their business." They're trying to get an accurate statistical
>> picture of American society. The state rationales for lying about gun
>> ownership just don't hold water.
>
> I know what they are trying to do. They don't need my answer to do that.
percentages of gun-owning and non-gun-owning households. That's a
matter of public interest, including to gun owners.
>>>> - and it is clear that
>>>> this ratio is *VERY* - absurdly - important to them.
>>>
>>> Not to the people answering the survey. For example, if someone cold
>>> calls me and asks if I have any guns, I don't give a shit about any
>>> survey results. I simple won't tell him or her "yes".
>>
>> That's backing off from what you said earlier. You said you would
>> respond "no."
>
> Excuse me, but I would bet that in the eyes of most people, not answering
> "Yes" is pretty much the equivalent of answering "No".
be seen as suspicious, and they would think that you're hiding something
and the correct answer is "yes."
>
>> And of course, you don't say if you would give an
>> answer, or a truthful answer,
>
> If I have guns and answer "No" would you consider that to br a truthful
> answer. You should be able to figure out by now that if someone calls my
> home and asks if I have any guns, that whatever answer they get from me
> will not be truthful.
>> to questions about your red meat
>> consumption or any of myriad other questions they might as, the
>> answers to which are "none of their business." As a gun obsessor, you
>> are a single-issue nut.
>
> And you are a moron.
I'm accurately portraying you as a gun-obsessed nut.
>>>> If seeing a higher percentage of gun owning households is important
>>>> to gun owners, and it obviously is, then truthfully reporting to
>>>> polling organizations that they own guns is in the gun owners'
>>>> interest. Butif they're not going to do that, then lying is a
>>>> *worse* strategy than simply not answering.
>>>
>>> OH, well.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! You're not really so blithely cavalier about it, but
>> nice try.
>
> Oh, well.......don't give up your day job to go into long distance
> psychoanalysis
Rudy Canoza
Jul 27, 2015, 3:29:22 PM7/27/15
to
a) think polling interviewers have some direct interest in their gun
ownership
b) are angry and upset over poll results showing a declining share of
households that own guns
are thinking irrationally.
RD Sandman
Jul 27, 2015, 4:38:05 PM7/27/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
this newsgroup. If they hadn't been, I wouldn't be discussing them.
>>> And, it
>>> is very obvious that most of the gun owners posting here care very
>>> deeply - absurdly so - about that ratio.
>>
>> I bet they didn't when giving an answer.
>
> But they *do* care, and quite a lot of them have stupidly said they
> would lie and say "no gun" rather than refuse to answer.
wouldn't have been true (I would simply answer incorrectly) and I might
well be interested in some of the other aspects of the poll.
> This bizarre obsession with gun ownership not being "any of their
> business" with respect to the polling organizations,
couple of others referred to it as someone cold calling and asking about
guns in my home. They can make all the claims they want about being with
so and so organization. Hell I don't respond to those twits from Nigeria
who want place several million dollars in my checking account either.
Course, I simply hang up or delete the message from the Nigerian
interest.
when many of the
> other questions also are about things that are "none of the business"
> of the polling organizations but which the gun owners happily answer,
> is simply irrational.
vacuum cleaner or clothes dryer.
> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than anything
> else by your status as gun owners. That's the very definition of an
> unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
I don't have the time
> or the tools to undertake the analysis, but I'd be willing to bet the
> vast majority of your posts are related to guns,
fairly safe bet. I would also assume that if I was posting from
alt.engines.ford that I would have some interest in motor vehicles.
and they probably
> outnumber your posts on the next three most active topics combined.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 27, 2015, 6:30:53 PM7/27/15
to
On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>
>> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than anything
>> else by your status as gun owners. That's the very definition of an
>> unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
>
> So? Guns are a topic I am interested in. You are not.
>> I don't have the time
>> or the tools to undertake the analysis, but I'd be willing to bet the
>> vast majority of your posts are related to guns,
>
> Since the only place I read posts or post posts from, that would be a
> fairly safe bet. I would also assume that if I was posting from
> alt.engines.ford that I would have some interest in motor vehicles.
>
>> and they probably
>> outnumber your posts on the next three most active topics combined.
>
> See above.
Just Wondering
Jul 27, 2015, 7:04:25 PM7/27/15
to
talk.politics.guns is an irrational obsession. Similarly, I suppose
posting recipes to a recipe news group, or jokes to a joke newsgroup.
would also be an irrational obsession.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 27, 2015, 7:21:40 PM7/27/15
to
On 7/27/2015 4:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/27/2015 4:30 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than anything
>>>> else by your status as gun owners. That's the very definition of an
>>>> unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
>>>
>>> So? Guns are a topic I am interested in. You are not.
>>
>> I am somewhat interested in the topic, but not obsessed with it as you
>> are.
>>
>>>> I don't have the time
>>>> or the tools to undertake the analysis, but I'd be willing to bet the
>>>> vast majority of your posts are related to guns,
>>>
>>> Since the only place I read posts or post posts from, that would be a
>>> fairly safe bet. I would also assume that if I was posting from
>>> alt.engines.ford that I would have some interest in motor vehicles.
>>>
>>>> and they probably
>>>> outnumber your posts on the next three most active topics combined.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> Obsession - irrational and unhealthy obsession.
>>
> Imagine - Rooty Toot Rudy thinks that posting gun-related posts to
> talk.politics.guns is an irrational obsession.
Nope. What I said is that there are lot of people with an irrational
> On 7/27/2015 4:30 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than anything
>>>> else by your status as gun owners. That's the very definition of an
>>>> unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
>>>
>>> So? Guns are a topic I am interested in. You are not.
>>
>> I am somewhat interested in the topic, but not obsessed with it as you
>> are.
>>
>>>> I don't have the time
>>>> or the tools to undertake the analysis, but I'd be willing to bet the
>>>> vast majority of your posts are related to guns,
>>>
>>> Since the only place I read posts or post posts from, that would be a
>>> fairly safe bet. I would also assume that if I was posting from
>>> alt.engines.ford that I would have some interest in motor vehicles.
>>>
>>>> and they probably
>>>> outnumber your posts on the next three most active topics combined.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> Obsession - irrational and unhealthy obsession.
>>
> Imagine - Rooty Toot Rudy thinks that posting gun-related posts to
> talk.politics.guns is an irrational obsession.
obsession about guns - in large part defining themselves by it - and
that it leads them to have a completely paranoid delusion about what
might happen if they answer gun ownership questions in public opinion
polls honestly. I'm right, too.
Gunner Asch
Jul 27, 2015, 7:54:30 PM7/27/15
to
Greg Smith
Jul 28, 2015, 9:49:18 AM7/28/15
to
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:mp6bbv$e42$2...@dont-email.me...
On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than anything
>> else by your status as gun owners. That's the very definition of an
>> unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
>
> So? Guns are a topic I am interested in. You are not.
I am somewhat interested in the topic, but not obsessed with it as you are.
Being as "Talk.Politics.Guns" is about the talking about the politics of
guns, Who said that one had to be " obsessed" with any of those three
things, you cross-posting, mental midget?
YOU!
It seems is that you are obsessing with, and proving that you are a retard
in front of millions.
I loved it when you said "I am somewhat interested in the topic" .. but you
are very obsessed in putting in your worthless points at each and every
time.
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 12:57:18 PM7/28/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp604q$vsn$1
@dont-email.me:
I happen to think it was the set of households that they called....(not
intentionally so don't think of going there). I would think that if they
called the same set Gallup did, they would have gotten similar answers to
Gallup and, conversely, if Gallup had called the same set of folks that
NORC did, they would have gotten similar answers to those NORC received.
That is one of the reasons, IMHO, why DGU surveys range from 771K per
annum (Ohio 1989) to 3.6 million per annum LA Times 1994).
@dont-email.me:
intentionally so don't think of going there). I would think that if they
called the same set Gallup did, they would have gotten similar answers to
Gallup and, conversely, if Gallup had called the same set of folks that
NORC did, they would have gotten similar answers to those NORC received.
That is one of the reasons, IMHO, why DGU surveys range from 771K per
annum (Ohio 1989) to 3.6 million per annum LA Times 1994).
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 12:57:52 PM7/28/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp60j4$1qg$1...@dont-email.me:
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 12:59:09 PM7/28/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp60nk$1qg$2
@dont-email.me:
Who is saying that? Not I.
> b) are angry and upset over poll results showing a declining share of
> households that own guns
Who is saying that? Not I.
> are thinking irrationally.
Do you see a theme? Not I.
@dont-email.me:
> b) are angry and upset over poll results showing a declining share of
> households that own guns
> are thinking irrationally.
Do you see a theme? Not I.
Ed Huntress
Jul 28, 2015, 1:21:53 PM7/28/15
to
suspect, if not thoroughly debunked, Kleck and Gertz study.
And the low end estimate is 55,000, from the also highly controversial
and biased Hemenway study.
--
Ed Huntress
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 1:23:35 PM7/28/15
to
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp6bbv$e42$2...@dont-email.me:
> On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than
>>> anything else by your status as gun owners. That's the very
>>> definition of an unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
>>
>> So? Guns are a topic I am interested in. You are not.
>
> I am somewhat interested in the topic, but not obsessed with it as you
> are.
reading talk.politics.guns. Lack of interested is why I am not on
alt.california or alt.sheetmetal.
>>> I don't have the time
>>> or the tools to undertake the analysis, but I'd be willing to bet
>>> the vast majority of your posts are related to guns,
>>
>> Since the only place I read posts or post posts from, that would be a
>> fairly safe bet. I would also assume that if I was posting from
>> alt.engines.ford that I would have some interest in motor vehicles.
>>
>>> and they probably
>>> outnumber your posts on the next three most active topics combined.
>>
>> See above.
>
> Obsession - irrational and unhealthy obsession.
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 1:26:07 PM7/28/15
to
Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:55b6b8f7$0$27166$882e...@usenet-news.net:
root of all that's evil. Some folks seem to thing that homicides and
suicides would not occur if not for guns. To me, it seems that Rudy
woulld have little to whine about if not for guns. ;)
Greg Smith
Jul 28, 2015, 2:25:55 PM7/28/15
to
"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA4E569B8...@216.166.97.131...
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp6bbv$e42$2...@dont-email.me:
> On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:mp5vtb$utp$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>> Here's the problem: you people *define* yourselves more than
>>> anything else by your status as gun owners. That's the very
>>> definition of an unbalanced gun nut. You post a lot to Usenet.
>>
>> So? Guns are a topic I am interested in. You are not.
>
> I am somewhat interested in the topic, but not obsessed with it as you
> are.
I find discussions on the politics of guns interesting. That is why I am
reading talk.politics.guns. Lack of interested is why I am not on
alt.california or alt.sheetmetal.
Butt, Rudy says that you are "Obsessed" with "Talking", Politics", and
"Guns."
Does that mean that Rudy is obsessed with the other topics and newsgroups he
cross-posts to, that he knows NOTHING about?
Or is Rudy just "obsessed" with trying to be a well known, UseNet retard?
California sucks, as most of us already know.
However, I loved working with sheet metal, as I made a great living fixing
bent cars for 30 years.
"A little Bondo, a little Paint. We fix things from what they ain't!" <---
My first boss's slogan.... and that didn't go over well.
He later liked my take, and eventually changed it to: "You bend it, We'll
mend it!"
And this was in Carson City,Nevada in what used to be in " New Empire"
Nevada on the corner of nye lane and airport road.
Of course, it was always called "Empire Auto Body."
When it was taken over by new owners... BINGO! The adds were "THE EMPIRE
STRIKES BACK!"
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 2:38:20 PM7/28/15
to
Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:mkdfra989skgfcv68...@4ax.com:
Kleck came up with 2.3 or 2.5 million.
> And the low end estimate is 55,000, from the also highly controversial
> and biased Hemenway study.
I tend to believe that the closest one if the NCVS which never asks about
DGUYs. Its estimate ranges from 80K-108K per annum. The others are so
high as to be ridiculous. I think that they are inflated with
telescoping, made up stuff and a very, very loose definition of what
constitutes a DGU.
news:mkdfra989skgfcv68...@4ax.com:
> And the low end estimate is 55,000, from the also highly controversial
> and biased Hemenway study.
DGUYs. Its estimate ranges from 80K-108K per annum. The others are so
high as to be ridiculous. I think that they are inflated with
telescoping, made up stuff and a very, very loose definition of what
constitutes a DGU.
RD Sandman
Jul 28, 2015, 2:40:04 PM7/28/15
to
"Greg Smith" <Plasmat...@gov.com> wrote in
news:QOPtx.625$Rh7...@fx31.iad:
I have worked on older cars and truck for much of my adult life, but I
don't particularly enjoy reading about them unless I am looking for
particular parts or how to do something.
news:QOPtx.625$Rh7...@fx31.iad:
don't particularly enjoy reading about them unless I am looking for
particular parts or how to do something.
Greg Smith
Jul 29, 2015, 9:56:49 AM7/29/15
to
"RD Sandman" wrote in message
I've worked on a few hundred tons of shit in my life, but never was obsessed
with anything.
Well, except for finding a new OEM hood for my 1970 Olds 442, W-30 that was
bent really bad when I first bought it.
Being "not to be found". I was obsessed in fixing it, and I did it!
0 new messages