Compaq: OutstandingProducts, Great New Prices
| Navigational map -- for text only please go to the bottom of the page ||Forums|
Readers' Choice Awards (siteadm) Fri, 13 Jun
Wow!!! 300 hundred people!! (dhmjr) Sat, 14 Jun
Statistical Validity (sdugan) Sun, 15 Jun
Another Inconsistency (Ron Findling) Mon, 16 Jun
Not inconsistent (rparker) Mon, 16 Jun
You Can't Have It Both Ways (Ron Findling) Tue, 17 Jun
Print and Electric readers represented (Sandy Reed) Wed, 18 Jun
Word Games (w nau) Wed, 18 Jun

Give me a break

Posted by: Alan Laing
Date posted: Thu Jun 19 5:34:16 PDT 1997

It should be clear to even a seven year old (that is a humerous jab at your humerous thrust - no reflection on your actual age intended) that IWE readers could not have been specifically excluded if 60% of the respondents also have and use IWE log in capability.

So let us see. You say

"Nice phrasing. However, it was restricted to only print readers. "

How, if 60% of the print readers who responded were also IWE readers? You would have been accurate to say IWE readers who were not also IW subscribers were excluded but that is not what you said.

Then you say " They wern't excluded, but they wern't represented. A six year old can figure that out (and I'm seven). Just because Tabbys are cats doesn't mean that cats are Tabbys."

Again, how, if 60% of the print readers who responded were also IWE readers? Your analogy about tabby and cats is also wrong and not appropriate because all tabby's are cats whereas all IWE readers are not IW subscribers.

I think Rachel and/or Sandy were wrong when they stated that the poll accurately represented the opinion of IW and IWE subscribers. They should have more accurately said the poll accurately represented the opinion of IW subscribers and 60 % of those surveyed were also IWE readers.


Sorry for breaking in . . . (CRConrad) Today

Respond | Search | Help


For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor

kristin_kueter@infoworld.com