🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bbishop.53.33086E46@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>,
Bert Bishop <bbishop@pop.service.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <5e89ms$817@rclnews.eng.ohio-state.edu> orlin-s@rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu (orlin steven jared) writes:
>>>
>>>Lake Research conducted a nationwide poll of 1,002 
>>>Americans between February 5-9, 1997 for The Lindesmith 
>>>Center, a Project of the Open Society Institute.  The 
>>>survey was fielded by International Communications 
>>>Research as part of the Excel Poll.  The following 
>>>memorandum comes from Lake Research:
>
>>A whopping 1002 Americans!!!!   I guess we can
>>then say that 1002 Americans represents all of the 250,000,000
>>people who live here!!  
>
>We can we can make a number of assumptions but especially these two.
>1.  The survey was of a properly randomized sample of Americans.  2.  The 
>questions (which were listed verbatum in the post) actually relate to the 
>claim.  The poster let us each judge the 2nd condition.  To say that 1002 
>Americans cannot represent all 250,000,000 people who live here is a bit 
>nieve.  It is true there is a margin of error that was not mentioned.

Naive (I believe that's how you spell it, ?)???   I am naive for
being suspicious of how 1000 Americans were polled by an Agency
which I've never heard of before?   Has anyone heard of "Lake Research"?
What is the Lindesmith Center?  What is the "Open Society Institute" ?
It sounds like big names to me, but I'd like to see some certified
credentials before I go believing that all 1000 people didn't just
pass through a Burger King one day and fill out a survey.

I think *you* are a bit naive for not realizing that there may be
the possibility of a different _trend_ of opinions in different
areas of the country.  Specifically in areas of "higher education".
I laugh at any survey which is taken in one area of the country,
and is supposed to represent the entire country.

"Random"  ???  Under what conditions was the survey random?  How
do we know?  Why should we take their word for it?  We weren't
even given any detail, just hte word "random".   Personally, when
I see a post openly advocating illegal drugs, I tend to be
doubtful, especially of any supposedly scientific research contained
in it.

>Why do you think the survey was tainted?  It might have been.  And perhaps we 
>should be skeptical of it since we (who know nothing of 
>International Communications Research) know nothing of the 
>methodolgy.  (And I am skeptical of it).  But to call it tainted?
> 
>Bert

Bingo.    Why are surveys taken in the first place?   Because someone
has a belief, and they want to convince others of it....   .....
.......................................   Need I say more?



Steve