From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:58:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>Andy and I had an argument about this a couple months ago, and I
>>posted the full text of my sources on the subject.  The study you
>>quote did not use verifiable statistical methods and cannot be trusted.
>
>Ezekiel "misremembers" crucial details about that disussion.

Andy, you are welcome to call me Alan.  Or "Mr. Ezekiel", if you
truly must.  But I would appreciate not being called "Ezekiel" --
it's rude.

>His "sources" were about an entirely different survey; they're not
>relevant.

We exchanged several rounds of t.p.g. postings on this subject.  In
response to a direct question from you, I transcribed and posted the
entire source on which I based my comments, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC
REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS if any of the information was incorrect or
out of date.

The response from you?  Dead silence.

That was the last posting of the discussion.

If you want to continue the debate on this topic, fine.  I will be
delighted to learn from (and teach) you.  But if your debate tactic
is to shut up after I post solid information, wait two months, and
then come back with flame mail and claims of victory, then perhaps
we have nothing to discuss.

In short: I *DID* my research and posted my sources.  Your turn.

>The survey under discussion, as opposed to the study that Ezekiel has
>a source for, wasn't sponsored by SAF.  I have a copy of the results
>in my hands; Ezekiel could too, if he'd bothered to ask for them.
>(I've posted instructions before.)

Perhaps you could refresh my memory.  You were discussing the study
done by the NACP in 1989, right?  That is the same study I am talking
about.

>Actually, they did, but you'd have to have the results to know
>that....

Which is why I specifically asked for corrections with correct
information.  You never replied.  I am still interested in seeing
good information on the subject, if you will stop flaming long
enough to post a couple of facts.

>Statistical sampling is "good science" and 10% from the surveyed
>population is more than adequate, assuming that the sample isn't
>biased.

If 90% of the respondents refused to answer the questions posed in
a telephone poll, you would throw the results in the garbage can.
Why?  Because you cannot know how the person's potential answer
affected their willingness to respond.  (Example: do a telephone
poll to find out how many racists there are in this country.  The
poll will underrepresent the number, since most people will lie or
refuse to answer the question.)

Of course, mail-in surveys are not the same as telephone polls.  It
is possible to get good information from a 10% response rate if the
poll is designed correctly.  I do not know whether this one was.

>There is an interesting issue that Eziekel could raise about the
>survey, but he can't as long as he doesn't know anything about it.
>His continued reliance on information about a DIFFERENT survey is
>amusing, but ....

Your information does not come from the NACP 1989 survey?  That's
great; I didn't know there was another one.  Please post details.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\