R
On Jan 14, 3:16 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:13 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:> >We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
> > >Bill C
>
> > I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
> > don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
> > without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
> > views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
> > cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
> > surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
> > not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
> > need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
> > them.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Exactly. There isn't a damned thing I'm told by a politician, read in
> a study, or read as the "latest advance" in medeicine and other things
> I don't either take with a grain of sand, or seriously question, even
> if it sounds good.
> Proove it, peer review it, duplicate it accurately, document all
> that, and THEN I'll think about taking it as solid, and we all know
> that even then we're wrong sometimes.
> I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
> was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
> and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.
> They'll all happily lie their asses off, cook whatever they need to,
> commission whatever fictional documentation they want to support their
> positions.
Of course, in this particular case, Soros didn't commission the
Burnham study.
> On Jan 13, 11:13 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:> >We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
> > >Bill C
>
> > I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
> > don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
> > without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
> > views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
> > cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
> > surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
> > not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
> > need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
> > them.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Exactly. There isn't a damned thing I'm told by a politician, read in
> a study, or read as the "latest advance" in medeicine and other things
> I don't either take with a grain of sand, or seriously question, even
> if it sounds good.
> Proove it, peer review it, duplicate it accurately, document all
> that, and THEN I'll think about taking it as solid, and we all know
> that even then we're wrong sometimes.
> I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
> was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
> and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.
> They'll all happily lie their asses off, cook whatever they need to,
> commission whatever fictional documentation they want to support their
> positions.
Of course, in this particular case, Soros didn't commission the
Burnham study.
