goodbye AAWA--good luck (page 8)

AnnOMaly

@ LMsA, yes, it is curious that his article hasn't been updated yet with everything that's happened.

james_woods

JWsurvey and the surveys must have value in the most general sense. Like JWN, watchtowerdocument, JWFacts, Silentlambs, JWStruggle, Freeminds...all of them expose WT. All of them could be pigeon holed as having "no value" to a certain genre of viewer and many will dismiss them all as biased.

The fact remains, still many more review these sites in their efforts to research. The information presented in any context may help them to awaken to the TTATT.

Are you saying that the fact (that the survey is biased) is over-weighted by the possibility that it will affect people who might come out of the WT organization? If so, that means that the survey is really propaganda - not accurate data. I do not understand this kind of logic, and I do not believe that such shenanigans actually help honest people to exit the Watchtower. We should always be honest in our approach - as honest as we can be. At the very least, the survey should carry a disclaimer which makes it clear that the main rank file of the JW population were not equally represented.

suavojr

All I can say is that during this year's DC convention the WT has a lot of material to pick from and make sure the R&F knows what APOSTATES ARE ALL ABOUT... Thanks to AWAA!! and it keeps getting better and better

Marvin Shilmer

-

“You are assuming and claiming that there is consistency when there is little proof (being kind, none if being honest) that it is in anyway consistent.”

Simon,

I assume? I assume?!

Your production on this issue is one assumption atop another!!!

Please read this slowly… Here’s what I’ve said specific to Cedar’s survey:

- Cedars’ survey is not delusional. It’s practical and it helps.

- Whether Cedar’s survey represents something useful depends on two things: Was the data collected consistently in each instance and was it collected at consistent intervals.

Where in that do you find an assumption or claim that “there is consistency when there is little proof… that it is in anyway consistent.”?

Can you ANSWER that question without assuming. Will you please?

“I don't think I could do consistent surveys that gave a truly representative sample of JWN members over time.”

And who precisely has said you—or Cedars—could? Who says this as though it’s been somehow implied?

“You seem to be confusing Cedars with Nielson and also seem to be the rah-rah Cedars cheerleading group.”

And you seem to read into a presentation what you want to read and to do so without regard for what’s actually written!

Given your apparent penchant for characterizing, HOW would you characterize a person who does THAT, Simon?

Marvin Shilmer

Simon

I note that you have totally not answered the point I made which was that you claim it's consistent but there is no evidence that it is and no indication that it could be.

Instead you have tried to switch the debate to 'me' and my character.

Again, how can an anonymous internet survey make claims about consistency over time and thus provide 'useful information' instead of just entertainment value to re-inforce the views of those who will likely be the ones taking it?

Simon

Survey results are in: Apostates who have left say the WTS is wrong !

No shit sherlock.

I doubt current JWs will be convinced by the result ...

wha happened?

All I can say is that during this year's DC convention the WT has a lot of material to pick from and make sure the R&F knows what APOSTATES ARE ALL ABOUT... Thanks to AWAA!! and it keeps getting better and better

Are you saying that the material presented at the DC's this year, are a result of efforts from the AAWA? If so, the AAWA must have a wayback machine, because the information presented at the DC's this year are really the brainchild from last year. If I remember correctly, AAWA is just a few months old.

james_woods

Please read this slowly… Here’s what I’ve said specific to Cedar’s survey:

- Cedars’ survey is not delusional. It’s practical and it helps.

- Whether Cedar’s survey represents something useful depends on two things: Was the data collected consistently in each instance and was it collected at consistent intervals.

I have read it slowly.

I submit that it does not "help" - just as panacea drugs do not help a cancer patient. Only real medicine (and HONEST surveys actually help the JW issue in the long run.

Secondly, (and obviously) - the point (if the data was collected "consistently" and at "consistent intervals" making it "useful" is LUDICROUS.

I can consistently poll Ferrari owners if they like Ferraris at consistent intervals and get consistent answers. Not useful anywhere except for fluff articles in the Prancing Horse magazine. Similar consistency (and uselessness) would be evident if I poll Lamborghini owners, Porsche owners, etc. I understand that Rolls-Royce and Aston Martin owners do not respond to such polls, so any "answers" in that case would (of course) be bogus.

Admit it, Marvin - the "surveys" were bogus as scientifically correct data collection devices.

Simon

I assume? I assume?!
Your production on this issue is one assumption atop another!!!
Please read this slowly… Here’s what I’ve said specific to Cedar’s survey:
- Cedars’ survey is not delusional. It’s practical and it helps.
- Whether Cedar’s survey represents something useful depends on two things: Was the data collected consistently in each instance and was it collected at consistent intervals.
Where in that do you find an assumption or claim that “there is consistency when there is little proof… that it is in anyway consistent.”?

You are correct, I cannot find the assumption in that but this is because you appear to have cut off the last part of what you originally said which was the basis for my question:

There is much value to be found in surveys even if there is a serious flaw related to participation bias. Information that may at face-value appear flawed is very useful so long as it’s consistently collected at intervals. In the end this is where usefulness of Cedar’s survey is to be found.

So it appears you are indeed claiming or assuming that it is actually consistent and useful.

I am just asking for evidence of this or why you assume that this is the case if you have nothing concrete to back up the claim.

If the claim is based on evidence then of course it isn't an assumption. Until there is evidence then it's just an opinion.

james_woods

Whether Cedar’s survey represents something useful depends on two things: Was the data collected consistently in each instance and was it collected at consistent intervals.

Even bad information can provide for a useful survey if that information is collected consistently and at consistent intervals.

That you don’t understand this is evident.

Thank you. I do not understand how "bad information can provide for a useful survey".

BTW - you cannot run a useful Grand Prix race on bad gas either, Marvin.

Ludicroso - Maximoso.

goodbye AAWA--good luck

Share this