Bagheera wrote:Cadence Theas wrote:...If she doesn't or can't, then the obvious conclusion is that it is an unsubstantiated and probably methodologically flawed survey, and should have no representation nor bearing on how people in CDS think or should think about the new sim. You say liar, I say really really bad science.
I disagree with your conclusions.
If a person "does not,", there are any number of reasons beyond the limitations inherent to a "cannot" that make saying "the obvious conclusion is unsubstantiated and probably methodologically flawed" an inaccurate one. Based on that logic, our elections which are built on the foundation of an anonymous voting system are "obviously unsubstantiated and probably methodologically flawed."
A more healthy response, in my opinion, might be to take the information Cleo has offered under advisement and not discard out of hand that Dougga might be a very good thing for CDS which might have a strong basis of support that you are not in a position to see.
Bromo is taking all the risk at this point, so why not watch and see how things unfold instead of - as some are doing - resorting to catcalls from the peanut gallery.
We do NOT know if the 30 people are CDS residents or not.
We do NOT know if the 30 people are friends of Cleos or not.
We do NOT know what the question she asked is, if it is a leading question or an unbiased one.
Given these three facts, the survey as a measure of CDS public opinion is completely bogus and hardly a reliable instrument on which to base any decision. Unless of course, Cleo gives us the details. Even as an advisement it is of questionable use since we do not know if the respondents were from CDS or not. And the issue, which I imagine Cleo did not ask, is not if a new sim is good for CDS which, I think, all of us agree that it is, but rather if an unconsulted sim that does not conform to the RA Commission survey results is good for CDS.
As I said, it is not good science. But let me check with 30 friends to be sure.