Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + +
Talk:Mystery:Why is Phonics Taught in the UK but not the US? (view source)
Revision as of 01:03, May 14, 2008
, 01:03, May 14, 2008→Illiterate democrat votes: reply
Hi Andy. Why is my cite meaningless? It shows that cities with higher literacy ratings were more likely to vote Democratic in 2004. I've never heard of the "you haven't proven it yet game" but yes, I do dislike when people claim a fact for ideological reasons and fail to support it, particularly when they do it publicly. In other words, if the original claim had been backed up by anything at all, then no problem. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:46, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Hi Andy. Why is my cite meaningless? It shows that cities with higher literacy ratings were more likely to vote Democratic in 2004. I've never heard of the "you haven't proven it yet game" but yes, I do dislike when people claim a fact for ideological reasons and fail to support it, particularly when they do it publicly. In other words, if the original claim had been backed up by anything at all, then no problem. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:46, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
: Your cite refers to entire cities, having many confounding variables. Look, it's well known that party affiliation is roughly correlated to income levels, particularly at the lower levels. Literacy presumably has the same correlation. Let's look at some demographic info about literacy and draw the obvious conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::So you're (again) suggesting that '''"a scan of the internet reveals independent observations that....no one seems to seriously doubt it"'''. You're really, seriously, considering that this statement reflects adequate research for your theory? You're a lawyer, I believe? I'm just asking, because, you know, you can find web pages on "the internet" that claim that George Bush and Dick Cheney planned the attack on the WTC on 9/11. It's not a reliable source, "the internet". What would a judge think if you showed up in court and presented your case that "the defendant is guilty because a bunch of people on the internet said so"? Is that acceptable evidence? What are your sources for your theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 14:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::So you're (again) suggesting that '''"a scan of the internet reveals independent observations that....no one seems to seriously doubt it"'''. You're really, seriously, considering that this statement reflects adequate research for your theory? You're a lawyer, I believe? I'm just asking, because, you know, you can find web pages on "the internet" that claim that George Bush and Dick Cheney planned the attack on the WTC on 9/11. It's not a reliable source, "the internet". What would a judge think if you showed up in court and presented your case that "the defendant is guilty because a bunch of people on the internet said so"? Is that acceptable evidence? What are your sources for your theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 14:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT)