by bigmac 203 Replies latest watchtower scandals
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?
That's an interesting attempt at reversal because it's actually exactly what you are doing.
I responded to what you wrote but you didn't respond to what I wrote, instead you started questions about character which I don't believe are relevant to the discussion.
-
“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.”
Simon,
You made no “point”. What you made was no more than a silly unfounded assertion that I’ve made a claim that’s nowhere to be found in anything I’ve said on the subject! Your supposedly “point” is nothing but a red herring because it suggests something I’ve neither said nor suggested!
“Instead you have tried to switch the debate to 'me' and my character.”
You took time to suggest my character as one of a rah-rah cheerleader. Right?
Yet when I ask you to characterize a person who asserts something that not to be found, you then accuse me of switching a debate?
“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?”
Answer:
1. By applying the same method and means in each instance of collecting the survey information.
2. And by doing this at consistent intervals.
That answers the HOW.
Not let me ask you a question, Simon:
Do you know for WHAT and HOW such a survey collection is useful, or not?
I'll get back to this discussion when I have time.
Marvin Shilmer
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. James my point is that all of the websights mentioned will be viewed as "biased" anti watchtower propaganda by some viewers. However they all have value to the casual internet researcher or JW that is looking for information. Most researchers know that these websites are going to be motivated by an agenda to expose the Watchtower and therefore likely to be "biased" Reading through the questions posed on JWSurvey alone is enough to start someone on the path of learning the TTATT whether they participate and hit the send button or not, many of whom are no doubt Rank and File. Reveiwing material from any of the other sites can have the same affect. We are also talking about faders or fringe JWs seeking out these websights. Many of them stuck in the cult for decades? How honest was their approach while they were practicing cognitive dissonance? The fact they even look at these sites shows they are now trying to take an honest approach to their belief system.
Do you know for WHAT and HOW such a survey collection is useful, or not?
Why debate the value in having a gold coin when there is doubt over whether it's gold or not?
Of course scientifically and carefully conducted surveys are useful but they are extremely difficult to manage in practice even for companies that specialise in the field. Of course I know what the value in good information is but again, this is not relevant to the discussion.
The debate is not about whether a good survey is useful or not, but whether the actual survey that we're talking about constitutes a good survey or not and is thus of any value beyond mere entertainment and opinion reinforcement purposes (or 'propaganda').
Most 'good' surveys can say what their margin of error is and why and also what the demographic of their sample was and why. Without such things how are we to know whether it is good or not? Are we to just assume?
Couldn't anyone claim anything they wanted in a survey unless there were clear and sound methods behind it?
maybe "survey" should be changed to "questionaire"
That would be a more accurate description.
Marvin - take a read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_poll and then Google 'tilting at windmills' for further info.
blimy---as the OP of this thread i'd no idea it would run this far.
let me clarify---i posted the pic on the new improved AAWA page. someone objected to it--and next thing it was taken down.
seems--maybe--i should have read the rules.
i hadnt
i never do
anyway--i was a bit pissed off--so i left the group.
so--thats it.
now--can a mod lock this thread--its all far too long and boring.
beer time.
Sigh enough with john ceders . Please let this die
Sigh enough with john ceders . Please let this die
But we are learning so much: For example, "Bad Data can provide a Good Survey" (if you take the bad data at regular intervals).
