• There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.

ar-15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob Denman said:
You HAVE to be careful with polls... nojoke
I can make ANY poll come out exactly as I wish... you just need to know how to get the proper folks to talk to.
Click to expand...

Another "fake news" proponent bleats his disagreement. Conspiracies are everywhere!!! Grab yer tin hat!!!

In the media business credibility is everything. Once lost it is rarely achieved again. To what purpose would a national publication purposefully distort the finding of another pollster (who could immediately challenge the publication to support its own credibility)? The answer is, they don't or they would not be around long.

It has become commonplace for some people who disagree with polls to call "fake news" but we all know who the originator of that phrase is and he has a total lack of credibility.
 
Bob Denman said:
Snopes is has shown to not play fairly. They have liberal agenda, and they don't mind promoting it.

Give us a different source.
Click to expand...

This is also a well worn tactic of the "backed into a corner" groups. If "fake news" doesn't work for you then try to discredit the organization. Won't work Dude. No evidence that Snopes has an agenda or is not accurate.

As for providing a different source.....how about you spending your time researching this? I've already given you a credible source.
 
RinconRyder said:
It has become commonplace for some people who disagree with polls to call "fake news" but we all know who the originator of that phrase is and he has a total lack of credibility.
Click to expand...
Without knowing the methodology that they used: I'm always skeptical of polls...
...even the ones that I agree with. :D
I KNOW how to trick them... and I've actually done it. nojoke
 
RinconRyder said:
Another "fake news" proponent bleats his disagreement. Conspiracies are everywhere!!! Grab yer tin hat!!!

In the media business credibility is everything. Once lost it is rarely achieved again. To what purpose would a national publication purposefully distort the finding of another pollster (who could immediately challenge the publication to support its own credibility)? The answer is, they don't or they would not be around long.

It has become commonplace for some people who disagree with polls to call "fake news" but we all know who the originator of that phrase is and he has a total lack of credibility.
Click to expand...


Trust the polls, my friend

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-leading-polls_us_58112308e4b064e1b4b05ce5

or how bout media credibility

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...r-tells-viewers-it-smeared-zimmerman-doctored
 
cyclelover63 said:
I bet if the coach who stepped in front of the students was armed,the shooter would have been stopped right then. He could have shot quicker than moving in front of the kids...And had a better chance of seeing his family at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

If's and but's were candy and nuts.......
 
Bob Denman said:
Without knowing the methodology that they used: I'm always skeptical of polls...
...even the ones that I agree with. :D
I KNOW how to trick them... and I've actually done it. nojoke
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you haven't tricked a professional pollster.

Skeptical is always good. Fake news is a cop-out.
 
vided said:
Trust the polls, my friend

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-leading-polls_us_58112308e4b064e1b4b05ce5
Click to expand...


You always have to consider the timing of any individual poll. This one was taken several weeks before the election and at a time when various organizations, including the FBI, were doing the "did Hillary do it?" dance which most everyone says did affect the voting to some degree. If you look at all the polls taken during the election cycle you will find they are all over the place depending upon the hot story at that time. That does not mean the poll is inaccurate. It does mean that there is a vast difference between a poll and a news story which got it all wrong (ref: Harry Truman's 1948 election results).

vided said:
or how bout media credibility

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...r-tells-viewers-it-smeared-zimmerman-doctored
Click to expand...

You do understand the difference between a poll and a news story, right? And yet you pick a story from a right wing publication which has no public credibility to blast NBC's story from 2013? The problem here is that no one inside or outside of NBC was ever found to have altered the discourse between the news story and the source 911 dispatcher. It is possible for an individual to make such a change in the makeup of a story without it representing the corporate opinion of an entire news organization. People have been fired for much less and this, by itself, does not discredit the news industry in general or NBC specifically.
 
RinconRyder said:
[/URL]You always have to consider the timing of any individual poll. This one was taken several weeks before the election and at a time when various organizations, including the FBI, were doing the "did Hillary do it?" dance which most everyone says did affect the voting to some degree. If you look at all the polls taken during the election cycle you will find they are all over the place depending upon the hot story at that time. That does not mean the poll is inaccurate. It does mean that there is a vast difference between a poll and a news story which got it all wrong (ref: Harry Truman's 1948 election results).



You do understand the difference between a poll and a news story, right? And yet you pick a story from a right wing publication which has no public credibility to blast NBC's story from 2013? The problem here is that no one inside or outside of NBC was ever found to have altered the discourse between the news story and the source 911 dispatcher. It is possible for an individual to make such a change in the makeup of a story without it representing the corporate opinion of an entire news organization. People have been fired for much less and this, by itself, does not discredit the news industry in general or NBC specifically.
Click to expand...

is this poll closer to the election?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...entary_by_larry_j_sabato/our_final_2016_picks

the facts remain: Killary lost, and the polls said otherwise.

as far as nbc editing the 911 Zimmerman call, it most certainly occurred.
nothing in the today show broadcast goes on the air with out many approvals.

stick to what you know about, which seems to be not much


 
Last edited:
vided said:
the facts remain: Killary lost, and the polls said otherwise.

as far as nbc editing the 911 Zimmerman call, it most certainly occurred.
nothing in the today show broadcast goes on the air with out many approvals.

stick to what you know about, which seems to be not much
Click to expand...

You don't understand what you read. I used to live in Putnam County and thought the educational system was more efficient there. Apparently not.
 
Bob Denman said:
Snopes is known to not play fairly. They have liberal agenda, and they don't mind promoting it.

Give us a different source.
Click to expand...

No, you give US an actual source. If you'd bothered to read the link provided, Snopes provides actual facts, figures, and sources. Instead of responding to those facts, you just made a kneejerk reaction that Snopes must be wrong because Snopes (supposedly) has a "liberal agenda." Sorry, Bob, but facts don't have a "liberal agenda." That's lazy thinking, but you're not alone -- I constantly see self-proclaimed "conservatives" spouting the same BS on just about anything they don't like or any conclusion they don't agree. "I don't like your facts or conclusions so you must be a liberal."

So, I want to know what exactly, is the definition of a "liberal agenda"? And in this case, who told you that Snopes has a "liberal agenda" and based on what facts and analysis?

And BTW, Snopes' main conclusion is that the original claim that crime went up in Australia was outdated, having been made in 2001, and that the situation has changed in the 17 years since then. I fail to see the "liberal agenda" in that. I'd welcome facts and figures to contradict what Snopes says. But I guess wanting actual facts and information makes me a "liberal." Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Cptnrydr - Road Trip 2009 - part 4
Replies
1
Views
1K
captainryder
C
Back
Top