- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 123,381
Then go dig up an unflawed study and we can discuss.Alaska contains 2 to 3% of the entire countries native population. Yeah excluding 100,000 Native Americans is no big deal. The survey is flawed.
Then go dig up an unflawed study and we can discuss.Alaska contains 2 to 3% of the entire countries native population. Yeah excluding 100,000 Native Americans is no big deal. The survey is flawed.
Considering that 1 out of 50 (which Alaska represents in terms of number of states) is 2%, I'm not concerned that ignoring that state had a disproportionate effect.Alaska contains 2 to 3% of the entire countries native population.
You have no evidence whatsoever that adding a couple respondents from a small population in one state would change things dramatically, given the overwhelmingly one-sided response of the rest of the nation.Yeah excluding 100,000 Native Americans is no big deal. The survey is flawed.
How the hell else does someone identify for a survey? Is there a native american card that you have to submit before you answer the survey?
Truth if you called a flawed poll truth ok.
One of the biggest flaws with the survey is that people had to self identify as a Native Americans but you conveniently overlooked that flaw and the reason it's flawed. I gave you other reasons but you didn't address them either.
Still waiting for you to explain how adding 2% more respondents would change the overwhelming nature of a 91-9 poll.
Truth if you called a flawed poll truth ok.
One of the biggest flaws with the survey is that people had to self identify as a Native Americans but you conveniently overlooked that flaw and the reason it's flawed. I gave you other reasons but you didn't address them either.
Exactly.How the hell else does someone identify for a survey? Is there a native american card that you have to submit before you answer the survey?
You're agreeing with yourself now? Crazy or just sad?Exactly.
I was directing that at 2233 who can't answer my original post.You're agreeing with yourself now? Crazy or just sad?
Still waiting for you to explain how adding 2% more respondents would change the overwhelming nature of a 91-9 poll.
They didn't leave out Alaska because they were trying to screw over anyone... they don't just don't conduct polls there.
Once you withdraw that moronic assertion I will address the rest of your points.
How the hell else does someone identify for a survey? Is there a native american card that you have to submit before you answer the survey?
I just saw your question. I already stated where the issue with that was, check it out and get back to me.I was directing that at 2233 who can't answer my original post.
Then every poll ever conducted has a flaw.
It shows there was a flaw is the sampling.
It's sad that you think 2% is statistically significant considering the lopsided results. And there are no alternatives to self-identification.
It shows there was a flaw is the sampling.
It is sad you can't have a conversation without resorting to childish insults.
The burden is on those saying Native Americans are ok with the Name and basing that opinion on a flawed survey. I just pointed out this particular survey was flawed. (IMO)Then go dig up an unflawed study and we can discuss.
Surveying tribal members, those who live on reservations, calling a blond hair blue eyed dude who's great, great, great, great grandfather was a Sioux isn't a good sampling.It's sad that you think 2% is statistically significant considering the lopsided results. And there are no alternatives to self-identification.
Cool, then tell me how they prove they are Native American. Your point was the survey is flawed that way. I'm sure you have a better survey model.I just saw your question. I already stated where the issue with that was, check it out and get back to me.
The only position I've posted in this thread is that the survey was flawed and not definitive proof.Then every poll ever conducted has a flaw.
I'm done arguing this, you have no objective here other than to shit all over the poll because it doesn't support your position.
So you would tell a black man with light skin that he's not competent to talk about racial prejudice? I wouldn't do that to his face.Surveying tribal members, those who live on reservations, calling a blond hair blue eyed dude who's great, great, great, great grandfather was a Sioux isn't a good sampling.
We all know what you think, pinko.The only position I've posted in this thread is that the survey was flawed and not definitive proof.
Answered that too.Cool, then tell me how they prove they are Native American. Your point was the survey is flawed that way. I'm sure you have a better survey model.