 | | Survey methodology —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) (URL) section) is all the info I have. Seems like your fairly standard telephone survey, and they are not claiming huge accuracy, just the fairly typical (for this sample size) 95 confidence +/- 3% (for the entire group) results. Since this is (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Survey methodology relating to latest LP SPAM —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) Sorry, I did not see it when I read over the webpage the other day. None the less, I think that telephone surveys are not as good as the real thing. However, this is a moot point. (...) Hardly typical. Even if it was, it appears that I am not (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Survey methodology relating to latest LP SPAM —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Why is it a moot point? (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | The Height of Mootness —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Something in the water where I work makes about 9 out of 10 people refer to something that is no longer relevant as a "mute point," but I'm usually silent on such matters. Dave! (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) (0) (...) Correcting their error would, I suspect, be moot. Or at least futile. (1) In this case, though, the only reason I can think that this particular point would be moot is that Scott wanted to be mute about his not having any other (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I was trying to incite a mootiny. Dave! (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Any particular small cow, or are you not picky about which one you incite? <GD&R> James (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Presumably one that is easily tipped over? (1) I can't believe the way you milked that punchline. (2) Make hay while the sun shines, eh? 1 - I never did understand the allure of cow tipping. Struck me as smelly, dangerous, cruel, and not (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, when you leave something like that out, sooner or later someone's going to step in it. I tend to bull my way around here, so it's not surprising it was me. (...) Hmm. Sounds like a frat party. <duck> (Although I admit, my frat knowledge (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | Hey, isnt it time you guys moooved this over to that udder pun group? (...) Did (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) - Because there's an atmosphere. - Why's there an atmosphere? - Well, because we need oxygen. - Why do we need oxygen? - So we can breathe. - Why do we breathe? - Who the h### are you, Carl Sagan?! Six months ago you were sitting in your own (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Height of Mootness —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) AAARGH! Yet another coworker has just hit the moot button. Dave! (21 years ago, 3-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Survey methodology relating to latest LP SPAM —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) OK. I'm not being clear again. I meant the relevance of the arugment was moot - not its content. Scott A (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Survey methodology relating to latest LP SPAM —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, I did not see it when I read over the webpage the other day. None the less, I think that telephone surveys are not as good as the real thing. However, this is a moot point. (...) Hardly typical. Even if it was, it appears that I am not (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Survey methodology relating to latest LP SPAM —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | Would you two just take it offline and shut the hell up? How many times are people going to have to tell you that your endless sniping at each other is the most annoying thing in this group before you shut up, play nice, and ignore each other? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
