Franz Heymann wrote:
"bigboard" wrote in message
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/nhunt28.xml
That is not a reference to hunting. You seem to be a little confused.
If you had a point you would not have given a useless reference, but
you would have made your point directly.
So the headline of the article is "Britain evenly split on foxhunting" and
you say it is not a reference to hunting? Sorry, but you appear to have
lost the plot.
says more like a fifty fifty split.
How much more like a fifty-fifty split, and what is their source?
RTFA.
Anyone who just uses opinion polls to make their point is
immediately on
shaky ground.
Businesses pay pollsters vast sums of money and base their business
decisions on the results.
Secondly, my point was that the 3 major pollsters all said (to put it
briefly) that there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of a ban on
hunting. That was an entirely correct point which I made. That was
indeed the outcome of the polls I mentioned.
Like I said, I couldn't care one way or the other, so I'm not
going to get in to a protracted argument on this.
You have tried very hard, but you have been unable to make any
progress in your argument.
Because you are either thick or being deliberately obtuse, as ever. I'll
waste no more time on you.
If polls disagree so fundamentally, I think the only conclusion you
can draw
is that they are flawed. He who pays the piper...
The three polls whose results I quoted all agree with each other to
within the statistical uncertainties involved in the sampling process.
All three are compatible with the statement that in the regions where
the polls were conducted, there are approximately twice as many people
opposed to hunting as those in favour of hunting.
Franz, Franz, Franz. Those three polls were selected by *you* to support
*your* argument. Of course they back up your argument! Jesus H. Christ,
mumble, mutter, care-in-the-community, etc, etc.
Franz
--
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
die in."
-- George McGovern