Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 hey jack, i just checked out the kqed thing...you have to go thru all these pages where if you say " Yes we should be vegetarians " it takes you thru 5 pages of ridiculous agruments against vegetarianism...worth checking out just to laugh at! but when i checked we vegies were at 51 %! Maria --- jacknorris wrote: > I'm not sure if anyone knows, but KQED has a > question " Should we all be > vegetarians? " > > Go there and vote! > > http://bbs.kqed.org/WebX?230 (AT) 238 (DOT) nmxfaKcsgWm.2@.ee7df1f# > > Jack > > > Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 One word of warning - this is an experimental poll. If you answer 'YES', they will try and convince you 'NO'. And if you answer 'NO', they will try and convince you 'YES'. BTW, they have no security on their poll so the more times you vote, the more times your vote is counted. --- jacknorris wrote: > I'm not sure if anyone knows, but KQED has a > question " Should we all be > vegetarians? " > > Go there and vote! > > http://bbs.kqed.org/WebX?230 (AT) 238 (DOT) nmxfaKcsgWm.2@.ee7df1f# > > Jack > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 The results are now 80% in favor of being vegetarian. <smirk> -Rob SFBAVeg , Randy Belknap <rbelknap> wrote: > > BTW, they have no security on their poll so the more > times you vote, the more times your vote is counted. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 The whole point is for people to vote both ways to see the arguments from both side. So if everyone followed their instructions the poll should come out to roughly 50/50 Randy Belknap [rbelknap] Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:28 AM Re: [sFBAVeg] KQED One word of warning - this is an experimental poll. If you answer 'YES', they will try and convince you 'NO'. And if you answer 'NO', they will try and convince you 'YES'. BTW, they have no security on their poll so the more times you vote, the more times your vote is counted. --- jacknorris wrote: > I'm not sure if anyone knows, but KQED has a > question " Should we all be > vegetarians? " > > Go there and vote! > > http://bbs.kqed.org/WebX?230 (AT) 238 (DOT) nmxfaKcsgWm.2@.ee7df1f# > > Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:28 AM, Randy Belknap wrote: > BTW, they have no security on their poll so the more > times you vote, the more times your vote is counted. Exactly. After voting YES, just hit Command-Left Arrow (Alt-Left Arrow on a PC) and you go back to the prior page to vote all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2003 Report Share Posted March 12, 2003 I went back to the KQED website to check and see how their " should we all be vegetarians poll? " was going and I was slightly shocked to see that the number is back down to 62% in favor of vegetarian. However, I was really shocked to see that the total numbers of pro-veg votes was a much smaller number than I remembered. Could it be that KQED deleted a bunch of pro-veg votes to make their poll look more balanced? So much for journalistic ethics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2003 Report Share Posted March 12, 2003 > I went back to the KQED website to check and see how their " should we > all be vegetarians poll? " was going and I was slightly shocked to see > that the number is back down to 62% in favor of vegetarian. However, I > was really shocked to see that the total numbers of pro-veg votes was > a much smaller number than I remembered. Could it be that KQED deleted > a bunch of pro-veg votes to make their poll look more balanced? So > much for journalistic ethics... I'm not Internet-savy enough to know if they can figure this out, but maybe they cut out all votes that came from the same person (after their first one). Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2003 Report Share Posted March 12, 2003 On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 jacknorris wrote: > > > I went back to the KQED website to check and see how their " should we > > all be vegetarians poll? " was going and I was slightly shocked to see > > that the number is back down to 62% in favor of vegetarian. However, I > > was really shocked to see that the total numbers of pro-veg votes was > > a much smaller number than I remembered. Could it be that KQED deleted > > a bunch of pro-veg votes to make their poll look more balanced? So > > much for journalistic ethics... > > I'm not Internet-savy enough to know if they can figure this out, but maybe > they cut out all votes that came from the same person (after their first > one). > > Jack For all we know, there are anti-vegetarian groups out there pushing their members to go vote the other way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2003 Report Share Posted March 12, 2003 I think people are taking this poll too seriously. It's not some huge Harris Survey on the state of vegetarianism in North America and I doubt very much it will be used or reported in any form. It's a simply a tool to educate people on the issues of eating meat or going vegetarian. For those of you who missed the original discussion on this, when you take the poll/survey KQED presents a series of statements for or against vegetarianism depending on what viewpoint you start out with. As the survey progresses (one question at a time), they try and argue the opposite to what your view is based on how you reply to the last question (Devils advocate style.) And at the end they encourage you to take the poll again and ask you to take the opposite view to see all the 'facts'. So no wonder the poll is close to 50-50. I also wouldn't be surprised if they've reset the poll more than once to keep things in balance to encourage people to take the poll again. So having said all that can we drop the topic Take care Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2003 Report Share Posted March 12, 2003 It doesn't look like KQED has reset the numbers since we ran the 'YES' side up. The number of votes 'YES' votes is about the same. However, I just watched the " NO " vote go up by 40 in the last 10 minutes. I guess we've got a cattleman on the other side running up the 'NO's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2003 Report Share Posted March 13, 2003 Well, it looks like some slimy carnivore has done what I thought of doing and written an automatic voting script. When I checked on the tally just a minute ago, the no votes were up to 11974, throwing the percentages to 90% in favor of no. And the yes numbers were reduced. They were up over 2000 at one point, but now they're down in the 1200 range. I think that KQED should take down this poll since it's so obviously flawed. SFBAVeg , " nun_such " <rbelknap> wrote: > It doesn't look like KQED has reset the numbers since we ran > the 'YES' side up. The number of votes 'YES' votes is about the > same. However, I just watched the " NO " vote go up by 40 in the last > 10 minutes. I guess we've got a cattleman on the other side running > up the 'NO's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Rob wrote: > > Well, it looks like some slimy carnivore has done what I thought of > doing and written an automatic voting script. When I checked on the > tally just a minute ago, the no votes were up to 11974, throwing the > percentages to 90% in favor of no. > Well, if someone could repost the URL, maybe some of us could do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 My thoughts on this -- if you *really* want to make a difference for the animals, write your legislators on some of the bills before our state legislators! They do not know we want them to vote FOR the animals unless we tell them. As a reminder, our Bay Area Letter Writing parties are happening 3/22 in SF, Pacifica & Oakland (see http://www.generationv.org/events.htm) State Legislation: - ACR 16 (veggie food in CA school lunch program) - Senate Bill 233 which would repeal the current penal code that prohibits the sale of kangaroo, crocodile & alligator skins/body parts in California (currently, the sale of these skins is a violation of California State Law) - many other bills! http://fund.org/uploads/california.htm To receive timely e-mail action alerts, send a message to: <vhandley with subject: alert. Include your full name, snail mail address, phone, and the animal organization you represent, if any. Alerts are usually e?mailed weekly while the Legislature is in session. Federal Legislation: U.S. Representatives John Sweeney and John Spratt, Jr. have introduced H.R. 857, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption and prohibit live horses from being exported for slaughter. Send an electronic letter here (sample text provided -- can it get any easier!?) courtesy of the Fund for Animals http://action.fund.org/action/index.asp?step=2 & item=1522 Cheers, Tammy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.