Dissension in Freeperville: a hilarious exchange

[mwb970]

I know this is a bit long, but it's really a hoot! These two just couldn't let it go. The original issue was about some right-wing columnist named Williams who conducted a "poll" of his readers and generalized from the results that "92.8% of active Republican voters" would support a Thompson candidacy. r9etb objects on the basis that this is not a scientific poll. But PlainOleAmerica is having none of it. Let's listen in....

To: PlainOleAmerican
Not only do many here agree with Williams and his readers, I suspect few here agree with you.

Whether or not folks here agree with Williams is irrelevant. The fact remains that his "statistic" is complete crap. It's based on a sample of a sample of a sample of a self-selecting population of readers. It's a completely invalid statistic in other words -- and any conclusions drawn from it are likewise invalid.

My primary complaint is that this is an example of very bad punditry, of which JB Williams has been guilty more than once in the past.

If he is gonna put crap out like that, you can call it chocolate cake if you want to -- but it's still crap.

163 posted on 01/08/2008 9:17:15 AM PST by r9etb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: r9etb
A poll result of his readers is the ONLY valid indication of where his readers stand.

I stand with them!

You’re input is pure crap!

Who are you pimping for?

167 posted on 01/08/2008 9:21:16 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: PlainOleAmerican
A poll result of his readers is the ONLY valid indication of where his readers stand.

But he didn't say "his readers." He said "Republicans," which is rather a broader group of folks, and he went on to talk about "conservatives," of whom his readers are only a small sub-group.

Looking at reality, and given the disparity between his numbers, and those of other polls (plus the Iowa results), Mr. Williams might have been careful about how he interpreted his reader results. Instead, he committed the cardinal sin of bad punditry, which is to draw sweeping conclusions from incomplete and/or invalid data.

BTW, I'm not "pimping" for anyone -- I happen to support Mr. Thompson, though.

You’re input is pure crap!

Ah, yes. You know, if you're going to insult me, at least be careful enough to ensure that you've spelled it properly. It would make your input so much more effective.

173 posted on 01/08/2008 9:34:37 AM PST by r9etb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: r9etb
Clearly, you DIDN’T read... Read the column first, then criticize, if you want to be taken seriously...

184 posted on 01/08/2008 10:15:36 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: PlainOleAmerican
Clearly, you DIDN’T read... Read the column first, then criticize, if you want to be taken seriously...

Gosh.... You just really want to make a fool out of yourself, don't you?

Turns out that I DID read the column, which is why I made my criticism in the first place.

Here are the relevant direct quotes:

* Although the official race is far from settled, conservatives seem more certain than ever…

* Here are the results of my regular reader poll ...

* At least 92.6% of active Republican voters would unite behind Thompson.

And thus my criticism: Mr. Williams makes a very sweeping conclusion about what "conservatives" and "active Republican voters" will do, based on the results of an on-line poll, conducted among a self-selecting sample the rather small number of people who comprise his readers. It's poppycock.

Really, son, you should be a hell of a lot more careful about telling ME to read the article, when it's abundantly clear that you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

And once you do that, maybe we can spend a little time talking about what's necessary for a person to be "taken seriously."

188 posted on 01/08/2008 11:06:09 AM PST by r9etb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: r9etb
100% of which was stated on the basis of Mr. Williams INTERNAL regular reader poll results, which Mr. Williams then went on to explain in detail, how they were different than all other poll results at large.
You have just made a complete ass of yourself, in front of every FR member who actually read the column with at least third grade comprehension skills.

No wonder you’re a satellite jockey. You can’t get along here on earth... LOL What a mental midget you are! LMAO I'm sure Williams is thrilled to have you representing his opposition!

190 posted on 01/08/2008 11:13:26 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: PlainOleAmerican
No -- Mr. Williams is simply making a very lame defense of his polls, in an attempt to persuade us that his reader poll is not crap.
But it is crap: his own column essentially grants the fact by expending several hundred unconvincing words defending his "poll."

Don't talk to me about "foolishness," son.

No wonder you’re a satellite jockey. You can’t get along here on earth... LOL What a mental midget you are!

Uh huh. LOL!

LMAO I'm sure Williams is thrilled to have you representing his opposition!

Are you Mr. Williams, perchance? If so: you should really be ashamed of yourself.

196 posted on 01/08/2008 12:15:56 PM PST by r9etb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: r9etb
I’m not your son. I could in fact be older than you and frankly, I doubt you have a son. One that will talk to you anyway.
Are you suggesting that there is a more conservative candidate in the race than Thompson who can win, or that it was someone besides conservatives who drafted Thompson, or that conservative readers anywhere support one of the other top five candidates more than Thompson?

Or do you just have a hard-on for Williams and enjoy showing your ass?

The column could not be more clear. He stated that the numbers came from an internal reader poll. He defined who those readers are and why they see the race differently than other polls might indicate, in detail.

You are attacking Williams on a false basis. And now you are twisting in the wind in a poor attempt to cover your ignorant ass.

So, what’s you real point genius?

Williams has spit on you or something? Or you think Thompson is not the preferred candidate of conservatives?

You shouldn’t even need Williams to tell you that. FR is one of the BIGGEST conservative hang outs on the web and FR is firmly for Thompson...

So, what’s you hard-on about loser?

206 posted on 01/08/2008 2:57:47 PM PST by PlainOleAmerican

This kind of argument always reminds me of this Woody Allen piece.

[ccpup]

1. oh wow

hilarious and sounds a bit like DU sometimes!

[dmallind]

2. Sadly, this particular argument reflects better on FR than many here do on DU

At least one side of it is rational, well informed and well written. The accusations from the irrational side are also less venomous and baseless than we see directed against Hillary and her supporters, or the DLC, or even occasionally Obama and Edwards. on any given day here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. The rational side mostly gave up here long, long ago. (nt)

[Gato Moteado]

3. plainoleamerican sure likes to use the word hard-on a lot

did he not realize that write-in candidates got twice as many votes as dead fred yesterday?

freepers are human garbage. anyone still doubt that?

[bahrbearian]

4. Reminds me of some the posters here

they quickly resort to name calling and dismissing others views as Crap.

[onethatcares]

7. do not,

take that idiot, i dismiss your views as crap.

[bahrbearian]

9. Why you,, I attta....

[distantearlywarning]

6. Sounds just like a DU flame war.

And that should make us all uncomfortable.

[radfringe]

8. my thoughts exactly

just change the names and you have the DU primary wars, to be followed by the dem v green wars once a nominee has been picked