JDG wrote:
>
> At 11:45 PM 6/12/2004 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >JDG wrote:
> >>
> >> At 11:02 AM 6/12/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >> >--===============1385683643==
> >> >
> >> >Another poll on Hannity's site was poked this week.
> >>
> >> I'm glad to see that the list conversation persisted at a high level while
> >> I was gone.
> >>
> >> <YAWN>
> >>
> >> JDG
> >
> >What, you don't have anything to add to the vampire thread?
>
> I actually didn't find many "vampire" thread posts in my download when I
> returned. Maybe I missed that one.... then again, I can't really imagine
> that I would have anything to add.
>
> I was just simply struck by the fact that anyone would be particularly
> interested in the results of a stupid Internet Poll.
>
> Let alone that anyone would be so particularly interested in the results of
> said poll that they would go through the effort of actually trying to
> affect the results of said poll.
>
> And I can't even begin describe how unlikely I thought it would be that
> anyone would be so interested in the irrelevant attempts to influence an
> irrelevant poll that they would think that their bipartisan group of
> friends would be interested in reading about said attempts.
>
> JDG - Who thanks God that his political opponents might really be silly
> enough to send out their, quote, "SWAT Teams" to try and influence an
> irrelevant poll.... ;-)
I think the perception is that the people sponsoring the poll will then
go and use it to back up claims that X% of Americans believe Y. And
those opposed to that position want to remove as much ammo as they can.
I think it's an interesting social phenomenon. You may disagree. :)
Julia
on another mailing list where the URLs to such polls are regularly
passed along, and percentages reported 2 or 3 times a day on the active
ones
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
