New CTD poll

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Insuber

I'm still on my old math, where 52% is a majority (absolute, to be precise), if it was 48% I had rather defined it a relative majority, but still a majority. Math was not your strong point, was it?

I guess you missed my post where I pointed out the poll has been around 50 50 since the start.. There were times where the other half (never, sometimes) had a bigger percentage than the allways crowd..

But did anyone from the never and sometime crowd jump in and claim victory?

Nope!

But the allways crowd gets 51% and they line up to claim victory!

Too funny, but it does show how far the negatives are willing to go (sink to?) to win.. As if the voter fraud wasnt enough.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

I guess you missed my post where I pointed out the poll has been around 50 50 since the start.. There were times where the other half (never, sometimes) had a bigger percentage than the allways crowd..

But did anyone from the never and sometime crowd jump in and claim victory?

Nope!

But the allways crowd gets 51% and they line up to claim victory!

Too funny, but it does show how far the negatives are willing to go (sink to?) to win.. As if the voter fraud wasnt enough.

You call me negative, when I try and be objective. This is quite annoying. And there is nothing to win or to loose, neither a victory to claim. I'm sorry that you take sides instead of analyzing the results.

Cheers,
Ins

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Insuber

when I try and be objective.

Key word try.

Fact is when the never and sometimes poll had a bigger vote percentage no one from that group jumped in and claimed victory with a 51%

Only those who voted allways did that.

Speaks volumes

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Key word try.

Nobody is perfect, apart AoA. Put this in your signature, if you wish. But without your usual cuts.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Insuber

But without your usual cuts.

I noticed that you failed to quote anything I said that had a 'cut' in it..

Speaks volumns

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

I noticed that you failed to quote anything I said that had a 'cut' in it..

Speaks volumns

Respectfully, your multiquotes are a series of cuts. That's what I meant, mate, no need to have a dispute on minimal things.

Cheers,
Ins

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Respectfully, your multiquotes are a series of cuts. That's what I meant, mate, no need to have a dispute on minimal things.

Ah so when I quote someone.. And break it into individual statments.. You call that a 'cut'? Interesting.. Because to me the word 'cut' implies that I left something out of the quote.. As if to change the meaning or take it out of context.. Which is not the case at all. Thanks for clearing that up!