I would’ve preferred if you had proposed another alternative wording, so that poll could be run as well, instead of just identifying the feature you think is disanalogous. (If you supply the wording, after all, Duncan can’t have twisted it, and your interpretation gets fairly tested.)
Unfortunately, I don’t have quite the reach that Duncan has, but I think the result is still suggestive. (Subtract one from each vote, since I left one of each to start, as is usual.)
To be honest, I think I have to take this exchange as further evidence that Duncan is operating in bad faith. (Within this particular conflict, not necessarily in general.)
Oliver proposed an alternative wording and I affirmed that I’d still bet on his wording. I was figuring I shouldn’t try to run a second poll myself because of priming/poisoning the well but I’m happy for someone else to go and get data.
I would’ve preferred if you had proposed another alternative wording, so that poll could be run as well, instead of just identifying the feature you think is disanalogous. (If you supply the wording, after all, Duncan can’t have twisted it, and your interpretation gets fairly tested.)
Why not just use the original sentence, with only the name changed? I don’t see what is supposed to be accomplished by the other substitutions.
Unfortunately, I don’t have quite the reach that Duncan has, but I think the result is still suggestive. (Subtract one from each vote, since I left one of each to start, as is usual.)
Ok, I edited the comment.
Does that influence
in any way?
Four days’ later edit: guess not. :/
Oliver proposed an alternative wording and I affirmed that I’d still bet on his wording. I was figuring I shouldn’t try to run a second poll myself because of priming/poisoning the well but I’m happy for someone else to go and get data.