Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:53:32 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ldrpv6INNhvn@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct15.031126.17194@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>>Absolutely not. First, the net is not a good sample. Your
    >>>friends are not a good sample. Neither are mine. ...
    >>>
    >>It's not a good sample with respect to actual or perceived
    >>antihomosexual sentiment? Why not?
    >>
    >Because you choose your friends, and I choose mine. (Why are
    >you asking this question? Is this a debating trick, or do you
    >really not know?) For instance, the percentage of PhD's in my
    >circle of friends is way out of whack, as is the
    >average/median income and level of education of my friends
    >and acquaintances.

People on the net are not typically one's friends.

However, homosexuality of net posters and experience with anti-homosexual
sentiment -- are homosexual net posters a reliable cross section of
all homosexuals, with respect to said sentiment, or not?

    >The net is a bad sample, because (generally speaking) people
    >posting to the net have some education, and a job where they
    >have both access to the net and the freedom to post here.
    >Auto mechanics, janitors, and plumbers are probably
    >under-represented. So are doctors and dentists.

Again, we are talking about an attribute that has little to do with being
on the net. For example, are net posters a reasonable cros section of
people that have had bad experiences with a bank?


    >"Better than the net" can still be very very bad.

And it can also be better. Quit whistling in the dark.


    >However, I think you can generally find better information in
    >The Economist (they take special pride in being reliable, I
    >think), and I am told that the fact-checkers for The New
    >Yorker are second-to-none (how this may change under Tina
    >Brown remains to be seen) (Note that checking facts is not
    >the same as presenting all the facts.) The Wall Street
    >Journal is not a bad source of information, provided that you
    >steer clear of the editorial page, and especially if it
    >concerns financial matters. The New York Times is a better
    >newspaper than the local ones, though I suspect it may have
    >some bias (though I think the WSJ gives the left somewhat
    >better representation on its editorial pages).

The Economist is about my favorite. They do of course, have their
wonderful and obvious biases -- they are whacked out on gun control,
and until recently, were quite blatant about sneering and belittling
libertarians and the United States Constitution Bill Of Rights.

It seems they can't quite shake that "The State Is Good" mentality
in certain areas.


    >My point, again: Neither you nor Clayton has presented good
    >statistical information. Your samples are bad, and your use
    >of labelling is also bad. There's no special need to present
    >good numbers refuting your claims, because you've presented
    >no compelling evidence. Your question about samples is
    >particularly telling -- if you aren't familiar with the
    >sources of bias in samples, you've got little business making
    >statistically based claims.

Oh, this is wonderful. Simply superb. Let me translate:

"The figures you have presented and sources (all carefully cited) by
 people who work in the field in question, are no good. I, a figure
 that is neither professional nor working the field, say this is true.
 Since I have said YOUR figures are no good, I do not need to give
 any figures to refute this, because, as I have said, your data doesn't
 count."


Blow it out your Politically Correct fascist intellectually dishonest
orifice-of-choice.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ca.politics