Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#752 Nov 05 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Any sort of "Man on the street interview" reporting is useless except for laughs. Talk to X many people, pick the answers that best fit your narrative and make a "story" out of them.


What? You're saying that the 5 people who couldn't locate the US on a globe aren't indicative of college age citizens? I'm shocked!


Just like polls that show most of the US is in favor of SSM, even though the states aren't implementing SSM when there is nothing preventing the states from implementing it...Smiley: rolleyes


I think we'll see tomorrow, won't we? We'll also likely see the first time a popular vote has stopped one of these silly constitutional amendments from passing the electorate. Happy days are ahead, oh my! How many years until it's legal everywhere here? Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...OH LAWDY, MY PEARLS! IMMA CLUTCHIN' EM SO TIGHT!
#753 Nov 05 2012 at 8:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Paskil wrote:
I think we'll see tomorrow, won't we? We'll also likely see the first time a popular vote has stopped one of these silly constitutional amendments from passing the electorate.


You're talking about Minnesota? Probably wont pass. As pointed out, polling on SSM very very consistently leads actual support for SSM legislation by about 7 points. Lots of reasons why, but that's the gist of it. Never know though. But that would be one case of support in one state compared to somewhere around 30 cases of the opposite in other states. I suppose you take any indicator you can get though.


Quote:
Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...


Well gee. When you put it in such unbiased terms, it's "obvious" how people should go. And folks wonder why the polls are so skewed on this issue.

Edited, Nov 5th 2012 6:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#754 Nov 05 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
gbaji wrote:
Paskil wrote:
I think we'll see tomorrow, won't we? We'll also likely see the first time a popular vote has stopped one of these silly constitutional amendments from passing the electorate.


You're talking about Minnesota? Probably wont pass. As pointed out, polling on SSM very very consistently leads actual support for SSM legislation by about 7 points. Lots of reasons why, but that's the gist of it. Never know though. But that would be one case of support in one state compared to somewhere around 30 cases of the opposite in other states. I suppose you take any indicator you can get though.


Quote:
Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...


Well gee. When you put it in such unbiased terms, it's "obvious" how people should go. And folks wonder why the polls are so skewed on this issue.

Edited, Nov 5th 2012 6:46pm by gbaji


But you see, the polls aren't skewed on this. They've been making a very strong push towards acceptance, or at the very least ambivalence. This issue really is on its way to sorting itself out.
#755 Nov 05 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Paskil wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...


Well gee. When you put it in such unbiased terms, it's "obvious" how people should go. And folks wonder why the polls are so skewed on this issue.


But you see, the polls aren't skewed on this.


Yes, they are. They're skewed precisely because of the language used to describe the issue in principle versus how any given piece of legislation is viewed in actual fact. There's a huge difference between "do you support the rights of same sex people to marry?" and "do you support this particular legislation in front of you?". On contentious social issues, especially ones where those on one side are portrayed as somehow violating some groups rights, you will get a higher percentage of people who will poll on the side labeled as being in favor of some groups "rights" than you will get to vote the same way. There's a whole host of studies about this explaining why this happens if you really want to understand it, but it's silly to deny that it happens.


Ask people if they think we should allow anyone to starve to death on the streets, and you'll get about 100% agreement that we shouldn't. Try to pass a specific piece of legislation claiming to help prevent people from starving on the streets though.


Quote:
They've been making a very strong push towards acceptance, or at the very least ambivalence. This issue really is on its way to sorting itself out.



Sure. I'm just saying that it's not as cut and dried as some make it out to be. It's like asking someone "do you agree with civil rights?". Of course they do! Go into details of all the proposals made in the name of civil rights legislation though, and you'll get a different answer. The real world doesn't always fit into a simple "for/against" poll regarding very broad aspects of an issue. In fact, I'd argue that it very rarely does.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#756Almalieque, Posted: Nov 06 2012 at 6:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The polls are skewed, because if they were accurate, it would be done already, not "on it's way to sorting itself out".
#757 Nov 06 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,095 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ask people if they think we should allow anyone to starve to death on the streets, and you'll get about 100% agreement that we shouldn't.
No you won't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#758 Nov 06 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ask people if they think we should allow anyone to starve to death on the streets, and you'll get about 100% agreement that we shouldn't.
No you won't.


Yes you will. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#759Almalieque, Posted: Nov 06 2012 at 4:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's exactly what happened with DADT. No where in the survey did they ask if you wanted DADT appealed. All of their questions were biased in both directions on your feeling of homosexuality in general, but not if you approved or disapproved homosexuals serving openly in the military.
#761 Nov 07 2012 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Quote:
They're skewed precisely because of the language used to describe the issue in principle versus how any given piece of legislation is viewed in actual fact.


Yes. It's the language which is doing it. Not a shift in social mores.

Those lawyer folk and their twisty devil language be ruining america for all them honest Christians.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#762 Nov 07 2012 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,095 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ask people if they think we should allow anyone to starve to death on the streets, and you'll get about 100% agreement that we shouldn't.
No you won't.
Yes you will. Smiley: tongue
Well, you'd probably just say the percentage that didn't agree was just oversampling and disregard them, but in the real world you wouldn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#763 Nov 08 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
They're skewed precisely because of the language used to describe the issue in principle versus how any given piece of legislation is viewed in actual fact.


Yes. It's the language which is doing it. Not a shift in social mores.

Those lawyer folk and their twisty devil language be ruining america for all them honest Christians.


Why can't it be both?

Obviously there's a change in demographics, as I believe is a good thing. But, to act like there isn't any form of deception in questioning is delusional. That's not to say that it's a set up from the Man, but you should be more realistic with yourself. We just ended months of fallacious political ads, attacks, statements, etc., so to believe that people always take the "high road" when attempting to get what they want is self-denial.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#764 Nov 08 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
That's not to say that it's a set up from the Man, but you should be more realistic with yourself. We just ended months of fallacious political ads, attacks, statements, etc...

...with some very accurate polling including predicted results for SSM resolutions in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#765Almalieque, Posted: Nov 08 2012 at 3:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not according to Fox.
#766 Nov 08 2012 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,374 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Not according to Fox.

Besides, as I was watched on Tuesday, listening to their explanations, I stand by my point even more.


Um...


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#767 Nov 08 2012 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Hey everybody, Alma is Orson Scott Card.

Who'da thunk it?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#768 Nov 08 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Not according to Fox.

Besides, as I was watched on Tuesday, listening to their explanations, I stand by my point even more.


Um...




?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#769 Nov 08 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,374 posts
Oh, nothing. A little lightbulb just went off for me, and I think it blew a fuse in the process.

It's all cool now. Smiley: cool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#770 Nov 08 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
I find it interesting that the conclusion you draw from the stataticians being almost completely accurate three elections in a row is that polling doesn't work at all.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#771 Nov 08 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,054 posts
The argument is that neither polling or elections accurately reflect the views of the people being polled or doing the voting.

Edited, Nov 8th 2012 8:32pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#772 Nov 08 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I find it interesting that the conclusion you draw from the stataticians being almost completely accurate three elections in a row is that polling doesn't work at all.
They're just lucky
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#773 Nov 08 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
catwho wrote:
The argument is that neither polling or elections accurately reflect the views of the people being polled or doing the voting.

Edited, Nov 8th 2012 8:32pm by catwho


The argument is in three points.

The first point is that polling isn't a mathematical proof for a conclusion, because there is a difference between statistics and mathematics. Statistics use mathematics, but it doesn't make it a mathematical proof.

The second point is that what you're polling and how you're polling makes a difference. The reason why people can be accurate in political polls years in a row is because of trends. The bible belt will always vote Republican. That's not math, that's statistics. I could of guessed the same states that won Red and Blue from the last election and would have gotten over half of them right without doing any extra work. Polls on trends can get by with a smaller sample size because there's no need to poll Red or Blue states, just the swing states. Even at that point, they break it further down into counties. However, polling the nation on their opinion on something that is heavily divided will never mathematically guarantee results with the same sample size.

The third point is that political polls are snapshots at that day and time that could change immediately upon their release. Unless people will change their behavior based on the political polls, they serve no purpose to people outside of the campaign other than to fulfill their curiosity. Other forms of statistics actually have an effect on society. Given the fact that people will still hold onto "hope" or their belief until election night, there is no value in it for non campaigners.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#774 Nov 08 2012 at 10:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,054 posts
But.... all the polls were right. Nate Silver called every state just about dead on.

Math is math. Know enough about math and you can conjure money out of pieces of mortgage paper. Know enough about math and you can correctly predict the outcome of an election.

It's just math, not rocket science.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#775 Nov 08 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
catwho wrote:
But.... all the polls were right. Nate Silver called every state just about dead on.

Math is math. Know enough about math and you can conjure money out of pieces of mortgage paper. Know enough about math and you can correctly predict the outcome of an election.

It's just math, not rocket science.


First of all, all of the polls were not right on. I've been posting links to show the contrary and if you watched Fox News, they were obviously off.


HTF do you people not realize the difference between Statistics and a mathematical proof? I could have said "No change from 2008" and would have been 49/51 (if I'm not mistaken). That's not a mathematical PROOF, that's called statistics.

Using math IS NOT THE same as creating a mathematical proof. There is no mathematical proof to determine the results of a poll. He used statistics! I'm truly sorry if you fail to see the fundamental difference and how they are related.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#776 Nov 09 2012 at 12:21 AM Rating: Excellent
No one has been saying all the polls were 100% right...

Most people are pointing to Nate Silver as evidence that properly analyzed polls are a reliable source of data to predict elections, especially when taken as a group and analyzed over time.

They're also making a point about sample size and how it's used to reflect a larger population, which you seem to at times agree with and then reject.

Edited, Nov 9th 2012 12:26am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#777 Nov 09 2012 at 1:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,490 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, as I was watched on Tuesday


Ha ha, you're watched! Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#778 Nov 09 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
******
43,095 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I find it interesting
Do you? Do you really?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#779 Nov 09 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
No one has been saying all the polls were 100% right...

Except for that Scott Rasmussen fellow. He was the bestest pollster in the universe in 2008!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#780 Nov 09 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
stupid wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, as I was watched on Tuesday


Ha ha, you're watched! Smiley: lol


That is the number one sign of weakness on an online forum.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#781 Nov 09 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,557 posts
Does Alla even lift?
#782 Nov 09 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, as I was watched on Tuesday


Ha ha, you're watched! Smiley: lol


Forgot his NoHomoTM shorts?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#783 Nov 09 2012 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,374 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The first point is that polling isn't a mathematical proof for a conclusion, because there is a difference between statistics and mathematics. Statistics use mathematics, but it doesn't make it a mathematical proof.


The difference between a mathematical proof and a statistical correlation is lost on most scientists I work with, much less anyone else. You're probably not going to make any headway with this. Smiley: rolleyes

Almalieque wrote:
However, polling the nation on their opinion on something that is heavily divided will never mathematically guarantee results with the same sample size.


Well if you make the assumption your poll is an accurate reflection of reality you have a margin of error, you don't seem to be making that assumption though.

In my field at least, an algorithm is usually tested and trained on old data, then used to predict results. If the predicted and actual results vary too much going forward, the algorithm is refined and the process repeats. Likewise one poll matching election results more closely suggests that its algorithm is more likely working properly at this time, and doesn't need tweaking. Realistically any poll that has the results within its margin of error is doing a fine job. If this isn't the case, the poll is more likely to be making a fundamental error in its assumptions, and should be looked at more carefully.

Almalieque wrote:
The third point is that political polls are snapshots at that day and time that could change immediately upon their release.


This is where I'd point to gbaji's previous post about watching the trends over a period of time. Of course there's no guarantee things won't change drastically going forward, but there some solace to be found in the fact it usually doesn't.


Edited, Nov 9th 2012 8:55am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#784 Nov 09 2012 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,095 posts
Heh. "It isn't accurate! Except all the times where it was!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#785 Nov 09 2012 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,374 posts
They we're just lucky their faulty assumptions lined up with the unusual nature of this election. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#786Almalieque, Posted: Nov 09 2012 at 11:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, you're absolutely right. What I left off was due to a catalyst. People for Romney isn't likely to just change over night; but if he were caught in sex scandal, I'm sure that he would have lost the majority of the "swing votes". The fact that those snapshots typically wont change is how you are able to predict a state in the first place. There is no reason to believe that Washington DC would vote for Romney or Georgia vote for Obama. So, instead of using hours polling those places, you can focus on the swing states down to the city/county level. That's how you get your accuracy.
#787 Nov 09 2012 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,374 posts
Almalieque wrote:
However, if you were to ask "Do you support abortion" or any other hot topic that is so heavily divided, it becomes increasingly more difficult to be that accurate with the same amount of numbers due to the increased weight of other factors such as the demographics, how the question was worded, how the people were contacted cell vs email vs land line, time of day of the contact, etc. It's not impossible, but it becomes much more about being attentive to details at that point.


Absolutely. You reach a point where there are too many factors to accurately model in a complex environment such as the real world. Nearly every algorithm from mass spectra alignment software, to climate prediction software, to market analysis, to election polling all suffer from this same flaw. In the end you're never going to be able to get a perfect approximation of reality.

So what do you do? Well, you make assumptions, you simplify, condense and ignore certain variables you think will have a minor affect, or that you don't have data on, etc.

In a laboratory setting this would be something like removing (or I suppose simply not adding?) part of an equation, varying a parameter, or changing its weighting through a range of reasonable values and observing how the accuracy of your algorithm changed. For polling I'd reiterate what I said above, the more closely the results match the predicted ones, the less likely it is the poll needs to be altered. Assuming you've been testing the methods on previous data as well of course. Also, throwing out that the more complex algorithm (the one with more values for more more possible factors) is not necessarily the more accurate one. People tend to screw up more complicated things, and some factors may be best ignored if they prove difficult to model accurately.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#788 Nov 09 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
SomeProteinGuy wrote:
In a laboratory setting this would be something like removing (or I suppose simply not adding?) part of an equation, varying a parameter, or changing its weighting through a range of reasonable values and observing how the accuracy of your algorithm changed. For polling I'd reiterate what I said above, the more closely the results match the predicted ones, the less likely it is the poll needs to be altered. Assuming you've been testing the methods on previous data as well of course. Also, throwing out that the more complex algorithm (the one with more values for more more possible factors) is not necessarily the more accurate one. People tend to screw up more complicated things, and some factors may be best ignored if they prove difficult to model accurately.


That was what I was referring to when people are given poll results that they don't agree with, they tend to find "errors" or "bias" in the polling, i.e. "democrat/republican heavy".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#789 Nov 09 2012 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,374 posts
Ahhh, gotya.

Anyway, I'd say lets get back on topic, but I have no idea what the heck we were talking about in the first place. Still trying to figure out how a thread on gay terrorists got derailed into one about polling statistics. Smiley: confused

Seriously people, you have done enough! Have you no sense of decency!!? Smiley: motz

Or something... Smiley: um
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#790 Nov 10 2012 at 2:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Just as I was going to complain about never being apart of these polls, I got two calls from the Gallop poll, but wasn't able to participate because of driving and being in a meeting. They said that they will call back. I can't wait to have my views represent millions of the nation! Smiley: yippee
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#791 Nov 11 2012 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#792 Nov 11 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was Gallup!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#793 Nov 11 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
******
43,095 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?
The kind of luxury one gets when they're not important.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#794 Nov 11 2012 at 12:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?


I almost always answer my phone while driving, unless I'm on post. And for the meeting, it was during a break.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#795 Nov 11 2012 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,156 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?


Never done that? It's like unzipping your fly and going around the table, smacking everyone in the face with your cock, only legal, faster and slightly less impolite.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#796 Nov 11 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?


Never done that? It's like unzipping your fly and going around the table, smacking everyone in the face with your cock, only legal, faster and slightly less impolite.
I've done both, but never used them as the excuse as to why I can't continue to talk. If I answered the phone, I had time to talk. If I didn't answer, it's because I didn't have time.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#797 Nov 11 2012 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?


Never done that? It's like unzipping your fly and going around the table, smacking everyone in the face with your cock, only legal, faster and slightly less impolite.
I've done both, but never used them as the excuse as to why I can't continue to talk. If I answered the phone, I had time to talk. If I didn't answer, it's because I didn't have time.


The Gallop said that they couldn't talk to me while I was driving. I was thinking your rational, "If I answered the phone then I am able to talk to you'. I assume that they don't want to be linked to a vehicular accident.

For the meeting, I had time to talk, just only about 2 minutes. I had time to answer or hear some statements, but not enough time to complete a survey.

Anyways, they just called back and everything is good.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (53)