Read this article coming out in Maisonneuve and decide for yourself. (free registration required)
138 Replies to “Are Canadian bloggers pussies?”
Politicians and mainstream media are pussies!
puss�y
n. pl. puss�ies
1. Informal. A cat.
2. Botany. A fuzzy catkin, especially of the pussy willow.
3. Vulgar Slang.
1. The vulva.
2. Sexual intercourse with a woman.
4. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a woman.
5. Slang. A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.
Dictionary.com
Yes, maz2, apparently the list of “allowable” words is somewhat longer for a Montreal-based magazine than one in Toronto the Good.
I didn’t read the article, but I say “Yes”.
For example: The Liberals just announced a plan to increase immigration by 40%, despite a) many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration, and b) plenty of data that shows immigrants since 1990 have had a net negative effect on the Canadian economy.
This is a really important issue, I would argue a bigger issue than health care, gas prices, or education. People before policies. Yet nobody is touching this story, and we all know why.
My best guess is that Canadian bloggers – people in general, really – are too ego driven; everyone wants to be popular, and even the dimmest blogger understands they will be shunned for making politically incorrect posts. So everyone plays it safe, and The Left gets another free pass. Popularity wins out over truth, justice, and virtue. So it goes.
On a slighty separate note: the Canadian blogsphere is a total sausage party; where are the chicks? Right now, Canadian males are the weaker, more effeminate, and more submissive gender. Read Fire and Ice to see precisely how quantifiably pussified Canadian men are compared to American men.
As some guy once said:
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
Don’t be like a puppy chasing the tennis balls the MSM throws to distract you from what is important. Set your own agenda, man.
The guy has a point. Although the government steals from us the Belinda types cross the floor on a bribe
and they don’t seem to take any kind of hit is remarkable.
Having said that and being a Futures trader I do know that those kinds of incidents usually mean a top. Or in this case as good as it gets. typically in the market when you see this kind of thing which is after all just millions of people making decisions on the information, what happens afterward is their fortunes take a nose dive.
After that much negative news you got to figure they have used up all the goodwill they have been so fortunate to survive on this long.
So blog folks do not get faint of heart or discouraged your efforts are not for not. Soon you will see rewards for your efforts.
After all sooner or later people will discouver that they are better off making their own choices about their money and how best to run their own lives. Even a government check becomes pale if you figure out you have more if you just got to keep the money in the first place, and not had to pay for Dingwalls gum or Quebecs narcissism.
5000 visitors @ day here and it’s the same 3 guys commenting…maz2, tony and doug.
The comments at the bottom of the article have a history lesson about delusion.
“The comments at the bottom of the article have a history lesson about delusion.”
You also look askance at men in toga and sandles, yes?
Gee, that’s strange, Steve, maybe there’s something wrong with your browser. Over the last four threads, for example, I’ve seen comments by Angry, Anonalogue, capt_bob, Cheri, Christian Conservative, colin, Dan, David E, David MacLean , Don, DrWright, eastern capitlaist, Eskimo, ET, gimbol, Great Walls of Fire, Jeff Cosford, Jema54, John, kakola, kelly, Liam O’Brien, LJ, Mad Mike, mark, Mark Collins, maz2 , Meurasult, Nancy, Occam’s Carbuncle, old squid, Peter Loewen, Rob R, Sean, Steve in Ontario, TB, The Tiger, TonyGuitar, ward, and, of course, yourself and myself.
Analogue:
No free pass for you. Please cite two polls which show opposition to immigration at 80%. I bet you can’t find any that have it at even 70%.
Peter
Penis Lowun;
I reject the New Truth which states that “no truth exists unless a googled link is provided.” The onus is on you to get your head out of the sand and know these things. If you want to make it interesting I’l bet you $200 right now that I can find 2 articles…oh wait, I see what the problem is: you are stupid, and cannot read. This is you:
” opposition to immigration at 80%”
This is me:
“many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration”
Notice the subtle, yet critically important, distinction. Not my fault you can’t read.
If you want to put a couple hundred dollars ($200 CAD) on whether I can produce two (2) mainstream media quoted polls showing that sixteen (16) or fewer percent (%) of Canadians oppose an increase in immigration, well, golly, call me a sucker and let’s make arrangements. If you want to make this bet, email me or respond here. No free pass for you.
Actually, to be technical, Maz doesn’t really comment. He just pads into a room on with his webbed toes and blurts some way off thread piece of “news” that offended him, types LIBERANO$$$$$$$, and leaves. Someone, (I’m sorry, I forget who) commented that Maz’s behavior was the blogosphere equivqlent of walking into a room and farting.
Note: should read “16% or less in favour of an increase in immigration”…I almost I just suckered myself…;-)
Actually, to be technical, Maz doesn’t really comment. He just pads into a room on with his webbed toes and blurts some way off thread piece of “news” that offended him, types LIBERANO$$$$$$$, and leaves. Someone, (I’m sorry, I forget who) commented that Maz’s behavior was the blogosphere equivqlent of walking into a room and farting.
Posted by Don at October 6, 2005 05:45 PM
Anonalogue:
Here’s the bet.
1.) $200 CAD.
2.) Find me two mainstream polls (let’s put a time limit of two years on the polls) which indicate that a minimum of 90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration. Note, this means that they have to be asked about increasing immigration, not their opinions on it generally. And the ambivalent position can’t be taken as opposition.
3.) We have to be able to source the polls. I don’t want you directing me to a quote of the polls.
If you want it, you got it.
Librano$>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don.
Stranger yet, Steve, I modified my comment authors indexing program to include a reverse index lookup check, and it turns out that in the last four threads there was no “doug” posting. Perhaps you’ve been infected with some adware that’s mixing in comments from My Blahg and rabble.ca, and that’s why you’re annoyed by what you think are comments from SDA.
Oh never mind, Steve, now it turns out that Anonalogue is still in grade three; what’s the point?
And, pace the Don quote, Maz2 does occasionally interject personally, and I tend to find those posts interesting. He also does sometimes add valuable link data to a thread. I’m the author of the flatulence reference, but, still, he’s just our resident Maz. Keep your stick on the ice, buddy, and get that auto-repeat keyboard malfunction fixed, please 😉
By the way, Anonalogue, before the bet is activated, you have to post your real name on this thread. It’s only fair. People have to know who the incorrect one – me or you – really is.
Thanks, Tony. It’s kinda lonely here in this cell.
Libel chill, right? Those Librano$ operatives, aka —, are tracking these strokes as
Someone’s gonna’ jump on me for “stifiling debate”, and someone’s gonna’ wanna’ take away my range safety officer T-shirt, but it does occur to me that arranging formal gambling on somebody else’s web site might be less than optimal. Perhaps you guys could take the bet to email, and just inform us of the winner 😉
“you have to post your real name on this thread”
Sure, did you want my social insurance number and DOB too?
Here’s poll #1, I’ve got several candidates for poll #2 but they’re over two years old. I’ll keep digging. Doesn’t sound like you want to pay anyway, so I’ll just go ahead and post it here. Please read the wording very sloooooowly and carefully: http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/0805%20GMCTV%20August%20Poll.pdf
“Does Canada accept the right number of immigrants per year?”
%
Too many 32
About the right number 46 Too few 10
DK/NA/Ref 12
(In a hushed voice: Hmm, well, that’s knight to king’s bishop four, ladies and gentlemen, and now we await Peter’s move…)
Penis: Here’s one from 1994; while the data is a little dated, it suggests a trend:
“About 67 percent of the respondents in Canada’s largest city said there were too many immigrants, compared with 46 percent just two years ago. In the poll, conducted [in February] by Ottawa-based Ekos Research Associates Inc., 53 per cent of Canadians questioned immigration levels, compared with 44 per cent two years ago. … [Only] 7 percent said there were two few immigrants in Canada. (Globe and Mail, March 10, 1994)
So there’s your two polls showing 10% or fewer Canadians favour an increase in immigration. Try googling “canada immigration poll” and you will find more polls which say much the same thing.
No, that is faulty inference, and you are using the data improperly. The question asked “Does Canada accept the right number of immigrants per year?” While 10% of people think it is too few, about a third think there are too many. But, the data tell us little or nothing about how the middle category would respond if presented with a proposal to increase the number.
An analagous example. Suppose we ask what individuals think of current tax levels, and 10% say they are too low, 32% say they are too high, and 40% say they are just about right. Does this mean that the 40% would not support lowering those tax rates if the option was offered? You can’t know.
In other words, how you feel about current provisions does not predict perfectly how you feel about potential changes.
Find a more recent question akin to the Ekos one and I will concede. (You`’ll note in that survey that 67% and not 90% said there were too many, and it’s from a sample of Toronto, not Canada).
(Hushed voice: Excellent block with the rook, ladies and gentlemen. Oh all right, I’ll cut it out now 😉
Penis: Gee, why am I not surprised you don’t understand logic and inference? You should’ve thrown in an a priori or two for a full and authentic condescending – yet exactly wrong and stupid – Canadian blogsphere commentor experience. You sound like a bloody subjectivist-statist *cough* Liberal *cough*.
You have your marching orders Penis, no more spoonfeeding for you! Go google “canada immigration poll” – or get someone to do it for you – and see what you can learn. Then, go bug a Liberal!
Your maturity is astounding.
I assume I’ve won, since you’ve no other evidence, and that which you presented was faulty. You can keep your money, since it’s likely impossible for me to collect.
Please, go ahead and show me where I’ve made logical or inferential errors.
(Hushed I can’t help myself voice: Oh my, ladies and gentlemen, unless we’re missing something obvious, it does indeed look like Peter wins by default!)
Penis Lowun
heh
funny
The Liberals will continue bringing their disgusting excuse for voters from any sewer on this planet that has humaoid carbon units with a pulse.
They will continue to come as long as they are in power.
Whatever party takes power will continue to bring in the pond scum too.
Why? because Canada which appears to be inhabited largely by gays and lesbians (that is … judging by the importance Ottawa places on legislatin gor them) DON’T have children. Most regular Canadians don’t want more than one or two because with the taxation we have in this country no one can afford to raise a kid other than on some sort to welfare plan …. whick coincidentally our new comers are more than happy to comply with in spades.
THE PROBLEMS:
– Canadians are generally gullible and somewhat stupid (government schools see to that).
– We have become a mindless socialist dependant society. (Pierre Trudeau saw to that)
– We prefer to let others think for us.
– We are spineless. (Don’t even want an army or police … we prefer a bunch of sensitivety trained arbitrators)
We have no really good leadership since the trash at the Toronto Star and the CBC will make anyone’s life a living hell if they aren’t socialist.
SUMMARY:
We are fucked! (not too pussy to say it either) for the forseeable future.
ONLY HOPE:
Someday the US marines come and liberate us from our despots.
Meanwhile, we are getting what we deserve … so like what’s on TV … Yawn …. good night.
Darcey Lowen: “Your maturity is astounding.”
No, my data mining skills are astounding. Stop blabbering like a schoolgirl about how you “won”; you didn’t “win” fuck all, you didn’t post fuck all data, and you didn’t learn fuck all from my data. All you did was make a really shitty counter argument.
Look up “Bayesian Inference”; it’s kinda how I make my living, kid.
Here is precisely where your logic breaks down:
“But, the data tell us little or nothing about how the middle category would respond if presented with a proposal to increase the number.”
Actually, we know quite a lot how the middle would respond. Given the data, you’d have to be quite stupid to propose that given a slightly different question – and that part is more than disputable – would yield significantly different results. This is precisely where your weak abilities to infer lead you to such a shitty conclusion, and why you must learn Bayesian inference.
Now that you are quantifiably wrong and demonstrably stupid, please go bug a Liberal.
“Penis Lowun
heh
funny”
Even funnier, the guy has no problem spelling “analogous”, but starts the convo off on a bad note with the ever-witty “Anal-ogue”. T3h funn13, indeed!
Anonalogue:
Quick – please explain precisely what Bayesian Inference tells us about the data you posted on Canadians’ (rather Torontonians’) attitudes toward increased immigration. Provide equations if you’re able (and I’m assuming you are, since it is your livelihood). I, for one, am really interested in becoming more enlightened.
Anonalogue:
I am familiar with Bayesian inference. I use it sometimes when I get paid to work for a polling firm.
Anyway, the obligation was on you to provide data. You’ve provided none that is convincing. Moreover, you’re yet to show my my inferential errors. Please feel free to use formal logical operators, right after your respond to Elizabeth GG with equations.
Time to pack it up, son.
Political web logs are like prospecting. Wandering, seemingly aimlessly, through fields of mud and stone, the prospector seeks the elusive nugget (gem on a good day, possibly Bayesian) of the sort of dialectics one would expect from thoughtful, concerned citizens.
The signal to noise ratio is horrific; if only we had the simple problems of short-wave radio. Yet, at the end of the day, back at camp, we cherish our small geophysical advances, yea though our boots are caked with mud. Little by little our thoughts evolve, as we plan our assault on the next range.
Clearing out a skunk is an ugly job, Tailgunner Joe once said, after you’re done you smell bad and no-one wants to talk to you. But somebody’s got to do it.
EGG: Sure, did you want me to explain gravity too? I have better things to do.
Getting back to the point of this thread and the article in question, Canadians seem to have more problem with those of us who hold the Liberals accountable – rather than marvelling at their nefarious tactics – than they do with the Liberals. EGG, you seem to have more problem with my inference stuff, where the bigger and more pertinent issue is immigration. Strange, no?
Until attacking the Liberals or any of their core beliefs and policies – like an immigration rate way, way out of line with public opinion – ceases to be seen as inherently evil by the vast majority of pussified Canadians – even small and big c conservatives, it will be difficult to get a Conservative majority government in this country.
Anonalogue:
Just about the response I expected.
Hmmm… I think you are the one who raised the issue of correct inferential methods. You went from Bayesian methods to “pussified” in one fell swoop. Good show.
Peter North – Bi – Northwest: “You’ve provided none that is convincing.”
OK, now you’re just flat out lying. You even admitted the CTV poll, which was done in July 2005 and widely reported, was legit.
Besides, you wussied out long ago when you added the “reveal name” rider and made up your own brand new terms for your brand new imaginary bet. As if a whistleblower like me is gonna reveal his name for two bills, and you know that, which makes you a sleazy pussy.
Head out of the sand….
Anonalogue:
I guess that means we won’t be seeing any equations. Perhaps you should put your head back into your posterior and see what you find (a blatantly bad Bayesian joke which probably went over your head)?
Like I said, time for bed, son. Let me know when you want my mailing address to send on that money. If you’re tight, I can wait until you get your home heating rebate.
Or, to put it another way, since penises are on the table: Stop being such a dink, Anonalogue.
I don’t want you to explain gravity to me, I pretty much grok that. I want you to explain your evidence to the effect that to the effect that “many polls show about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration.”
I would not be upset if you were correct, but so far all you’ve done is made a fool of yourself.
Even if the CTV poll was as your intepreted it (and it is not) that is still one poll. You owe me one more.
Nice equations.
toni: ” but so far all you’ve done is made a fool of yourself.”
No, I’ve posted data, responded to questions, and proven Peter wrong at least 3 times. How much data have you posted? How much googling have you done? What have you added substantive besides calling me a dink?
Peter started off by being a dink and – here is the important part – it really does matter who started it, though that old fashioned sorta thinking probably isn’t convenient for you right now.
I really don’t care if you or anyone else thinks I’m a dink, “tony”, I have less than zero tolerance for stupidity and dishonesty. We don’t need more pussified Mr. Congeniality types here in Canada; we need pissed off men to stand the fuck up for what they believe in, and that often means giving chronically wrong guys like Peter a good counterthrashing now and again. If this offends your sensibilities, you’re probably not the type of guy who has what it takes to stand up for Canada, so get bent.
“You owe me one more.”
Notice the sense of entitlement so typical of The Left. I don’t “owe” you anything, Pierre, other than an attitude adjustment.
Anonalogue:
Again, nice equations. You’re a Bayesian master. I like that second poll you found, too. Also, good to see that you’ve come around on google since your earlier post.
I think it’s clear to everyone here that you’ve failed to prove your point. You’ve presented one, unconvincing statistic. To refresh, 32% of respondents said we had too many immigrants, and 46% said it was the right amount. 10% said we had too few. If asked about increasing immigration, everyone of those people who think immigration is just right would have to switch to opposition, and even then you would only have opposition of 78%. You’re not even close to 90%, and that is under extremely unlikely conditions.
If you have some Bayesian argument which suggest something else – I assume you’ve had your head in your posteriors for a little while now – feel free to post it. Otherwise, just admit you’ve lost. Or, just stop misrepresenting statistics.
In the meantime, hold on to my money and get yourself a subscription to the POQ. It would help you.
“A June, 1994 poll, commissioned by the Immigration Association of Canada and conducted by Forum Canada Research confirmed a host of other polls that continue to show ongoing opposition by the Canadian Majority to the current immigration policy. Respondents were asked:
-The Federal government plans to accept 250,000 immigrants to Canada in 1994. In your opinion, it this too many, too few or about right?
A total of 60.3 per cent said too many; a mere 1.6 per cent said too few.
(Calgary Herald, August 4, 1994)
Nice equation, Rev. Bayes.
If I ask you if it is too hot in a room, too cold, or fine, and you answer fine, what would your response be if I asked if I could turn up the heat?
Peter
“Ellen Gee, a sociologist at Simon Fraser University …, said the changes in immigration patterns have taken place so rapidly that the result is a recipe for social unease. “Survey after survey shows that people are negative about immigrants. I’m very pessimistic. … Prof. Gee said opinion surveys consistently show the public disapproves of immigrants, particularly in the large urban areas that receive most of them.” (Globe and Mail, December 9, 1992)”
“Confidential government documents suggest Canadians are becoming increasingly hostile — if not racist — towards immigration. The document prepared by senior immigration officials say internal government polling shows “attitudes to immigration levels appear to be hardening, with significantly more Canadians feeling there are too many immigrants coming to Canada.” The confidential government survey found fully half of those Canadians polled in the past year were either intolerant or outright ‘xenophones’. … Only 14 per cent were listed as compassionate.” Moreover, senior government officials warn: “Canadians seriously underestimate the number of immigrants arriving annually.” (Ottawa Citizen, December 9, 1993)
“Almost six Canadians in 10 express at least some reservations about the number of immigrants to Canada, a poll for the federal immigration department indicates. (Toronto Star, August 19, 1996) Interestingly, the Star had to winkle this taxpayer-funded poll out of the government through an Access to Information Act request.
-Forty-six per cent of respondents said there are too many immigrants coming to Canada. … Forty-two per cent said immigration levels are about right (Now, do the math on those who think we need more immigrants; you made need Bayesian Inference here! – Anon.), … but some respondents who initially said the number of immigrants is about right subsequently said there may be “a little too many.” (Uh-oh, looks like Peter was right, yet wrong! – Anon.)This suggests that … concerns about the level of immigration may be (and have been, in earlier surveys) more widespread than one would think in light of responses to the initial question, said a memo to the minister.”
OK, that’s 3 polls I’ve posted showing
And speaking of North By Northwest, that great violin work in the chase scene reminds me of the equations in chapter 12, “Design of Feedforward and Feedback Control Schemes,” in “Time Series Analysis, Forecasting & Control” by Box & Jenkins, Holden Day, 1976.
You stats (and data mining) folks should check it out. After all, it’s one thing to take a poll, and something else entirely to design control systems, which at the end of the day is what government is about. Process is where it’s at, man 😉
Yours,
The Man From P.U.S.S.I.E.
Process Undergirding Systems Support Infrastructure Engineering.
Bring us your kitty, and we’ll build a bridge out of ‘er.
Nice! Three news stories, all at least ten years old, and not a single good description of the question or the distributions among them.
I guess you’d use results from the 1993 election to ascertain the support of the Conservative party today, too?
Keep stabbing in the dark, just don’t hurt yourself.
Look at Tony referencing the classic stats texts. Nice!
Hey Anonalogue:
By the way, that poll is not about *increased* immigration, which was the point of your original post. In fact, immigration to Canada declined in 1994. Course, if I were a Bayesian, the picture would *obviously* be quite different.
Politicians and mainstream media are pussies!
puss�y
n. pl. puss�ies
1. Informal. A cat.
2. Botany. A fuzzy catkin, especially of the pussy willow.
3. Vulgar Slang.
1. The vulva.
2. Sexual intercourse with a woman.
4. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a woman.
5. Slang. A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.
Dictionary.com
Yes, maz2, apparently the list of “allowable” words is somewhat longer for a Montreal-based magazine than one in Toronto the Good.
I didn’t read the article, but I say “Yes”.
For example: The Liberals just announced a plan to increase immigration by 40%, despite a) many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration, and b) plenty of data that shows immigrants since 1990 have had a net negative effect on the Canadian economy.
This is a really important issue, I would argue a bigger issue than health care, gas prices, or education. People before policies. Yet nobody is touching this story, and we all know why.
My best guess is that Canadian bloggers – people in general, really – are too ego driven; everyone wants to be popular, and even the dimmest blogger understands they will be shunned for making politically incorrect posts. So everyone plays it safe, and The Left gets another free pass. Popularity wins out over truth, justice, and virtue. So it goes.
On a slighty separate note: the Canadian blogsphere is a total sausage party; where are the chicks? Right now, Canadian males are the weaker, more effeminate, and more submissive gender. Read Fire and Ice to see precisely how quantifiably pussified Canadian men are compared to American men.
As some guy once said:
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
Don’t be like a puppy chasing the tennis balls the MSM throws to distract you from what is important. Set your own agenda, man.
The guy has a point. Although the government steals from us the Belinda types cross the floor on a bribe
and they don’t seem to take any kind of hit is remarkable.
Having said that and being a Futures trader I do know that those kinds of incidents usually mean a top. Or in this case as good as it gets. typically in the market when you see this kind of thing which is after all just millions of people making decisions on the information, what happens afterward is their fortunes take a nose dive.
After that much negative news you got to figure they have used up all the goodwill they have been so fortunate to survive on this long.
So blog folks do not get faint of heart or discouraged your efforts are not for not. Soon you will see rewards for your efforts.
After all sooner or later people will discouver that they are better off making their own choices about their money and how best to run their own lives. Even a government check becomes pale if you figure out you have more if you just got to keep the money in the first place, and not had to pay for Dingwalls gum or Quebecs narcissism.
5000 visitors @ day here and it’s the same 3 guys commenting…maz2, tony and doug.
The comments at the bottom of the article have a history lesson about delusion.
“The comments at the bottom of the article have a history lesson about delusion.”
You also look askance at men in toga and sandles, yes?
Gee, that’s strange, Steve, maybe there’s something wrong with your browser. Over the last four threads, for example, I’ve seen comments by Angry, Anonalogue, capt_bob, Cheri, Christian Conservative, colin, Dan, David E, David MacLean , Don, DrWright, eastern capitlaist, Eskimo, ET, gimbol, Great Walls of Fire, Jeff Cosford, Jema54, John, kakola, kelly, Liam O’Brien, LJ, Mad Mike, mark, Mark Collins, maz2 , Meurasult, Nancy, Occam’s Carbuncle, old squid, Peter Loewen, Rob R, Sean, Steve in Ontario, TB, The Tiger, TonyGuitar, ward, and, of course, yourself and myself.
Analogue:
No free pass for you. Please cite two polls which show opposition to immigration at 80%. I bet you can’t find any that have it at even 70%.
Peter
Penis Lowun;
I reject the New Truth which states that “no truth exists unless a googled link is provided.” The onus is on you to get your head out of the sand and know these things. If you want to make it interesting I’l bet you $200 right now that I can find 2 articles…oh wait, I see what the problem is: you are stupid, and cannot read. This is you:
” opposition to immigration at 80%”
This is me:
“many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration”
Notice the subtle, yet critically important, distinction. Not my fault you can’t read.
If you want to put a couple hundred dollars ($200 CAD) on whether I can produce two (2) mainstream media quoted polls showing that sixteen (16) or fewer percent (%) of Canadians oppose an increase in immigration, well, golly, call me a sucker and let’s make arrangements. If you want to make this bet, email me or respond here. No free pass for you.
Actually, to be technical, Maz doesn’t really comment. He just pads into a room on with his webbed toes and blurts some way off thread piece of “news” that offended him, types LIBERANO$$$$$$$, and leaves. Someone, (I’m sorry, I forget who) commented that Maz’s behavior was the blogosphere equivqlent of walking into a room and farting.
Note: should read “16% or less in favour of an increase in immigration”…I almost I just suckered myself…;-)
Actually, to be technical, Maz doesn’t really comment. He just pads into a room on with his webbed toes and blurts some way off thread piece of “news” that offended him, types LIBERANO$$$$$$$, and leaves. Someone, (I’m sorry, I forget who) commented that Maz’s behavior was the blogosphere equivqlent of walking into a room and farting.
Posted by Don at October 6, 2005 05:45 PM
Anonalogue:
Here’s the bet.
1.) $200 CAD.
2.) Find me two mainstream polls (let’s put a time limit of two years on the polls) which indicate that a minimum of 90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration. Note, this means that they have to be asked about increasing immigration, not their opinions on it generally. And the ambivalent position can’t be taken as opposition.
3.) We have to be able to source the polls. I don’t want you directing me to a quote of the polls.
If you want it, you got it.
Librano$>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don.
Stranger yet, Steve, I modified my comment authors indexing program to include a reverse index lookup check, and it turns out that in the last four threads there was no “doug” posting. Perhaps you’ve been infected with some adware that’s mixing in comments from My Blahg and rabble.ca, and that’s why you’re annoyed by what you think are comments from SDA.
Oh never mind, Steve, now it turns out that Anonalogue is still in grade three; what’s the point?
And, pace the Don quote, Maz2 does occasionally interject personally, and I tend to find those posts interesting. He also does sometimes add valuable link data to a thread. I’m the author of the flatulence reference, but, still, he’s just our resident Maz. Keep your stick on the ice, buddy, and get that auto-repeat keyboard malfunction fixed, please 😉
By the way, Anonalogue, before the bet is activated, you have to post your real name on this thread. It’s only fair. People have to know who the incorrect one – me or you – really is.
Thanks, Tony. It’s kinda lonely here in this cell.
Libel chill, right? Those Librano$ operatives, aka —, are tracking these strokes as
Someone’s gonna’ jump on me for “stifiling debate”, and someone’s gonna’ wanna’ take away my range safety officer T-shirt, but it does occur to me that arranging formal gambling on somebody else’s web site might be less than optimal. Perhaps you guys could take the bet to email, and just inform us of the winner 😉
“you have to post your real name on this thread”
Sure, did you want my social insurance number and DOB too?
Here’s poll #1, I’ve got several candidates for poll #2 but they’re over two years old. I’ll keep digging. Doesn’t sound like you want to pay anyway, so I’ll just go ahead and post it here. Please read the wording very sloooooowly and carefully:
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/0805%20GMCTV%20August%20Poll.pdf
“Does Canada accept the right number of immigrants per year?”
%
Too many 32
About the right number 46
Too few 10
DK/NA/Ref 12
(In a hushed voice: Hmm, well, that’s knight to king’s bishop four, ladies and gentlemen, and now we await Peter’s move…)
Penis: Here’s one from 1994; while the data is a little dated, it suggests a trend:
“About 67 percent of the respondents in Canada’s largest city said there were too many immigrants, compared with 46 percent just two years ago. In the poll, conducted [in February] by Ottawa-based Ekos Research Associates Inc., 53 per cent of Canadians questioned immigration levels, compared with 44 per cent two years ago. … [Only] 7 percent said there were two few immigrants in Canada. (Globe and Mail, March 10, 1994)
So there’s your two polls showing 10% or fewer Canadians favour an increase in immigration. Try googling “canada immigration poll” and you will find more polls which say much the same thing.
No, that is faulty inference, and you are using the data improperly. The question asked “Does Canada accept the right number of immigrants per year?” While 10% of people think it is too few, about a third think there are too many. But, the data tell us little or nothing about how the middle category would respond if presented with a proposal to increase the number.
An analagous example. Suppose we ask what individuals think of current tax levels, and 10% say they are too low, 32% say they are too high, and 40% say they are just about right. Does this mean that the 40% would not support lowering those tax rates if the option was offered? You can’t know.
In other words, how you feel about current provisions does not predict perfectly how you feel about potential changes.
Find a more recent question akin to the Ekos one and I will concede. (You`’ll note in that survey that 67% and not 90% said there were too many, and it’s from a sample of Toronto, not Canada).
(Hushed voice: Excellent block with the rook, ladies and gentlemen. Oh all right, I’ll cut it out now 😉
Penis: Gee, why am I not surprised you don’t understand logic and inference? You should’ve thrown in an a priori or two for a full and authentic condescending – yet exactly wrong and stupid – Canadian blogsphere commentor experience. You sound like a bloody subjectivist-statist *cough* Liberal *cough*.
You have your marching orders Penis, no more spoonfeeding for you! Go google “canada immigration poll” – or get someone to do it for you – and see what you can learn. Then, go bug a Liberal!
Your maturity is astounding.
I assume I’ve won, since you’ve no other evidence, and that which you presented was faulty. You can keep your money, since it’s likely impossible for me to collect.
Please, go ahead and show me where I’ve made logical or inferential errors.
(Hushed I can’t help myself voice: Oh my, ladies and gentlemen, unless we’re missing something obvious, it does indeed look like Peter wins by default!)
Penis Lowun
heh
funny
The Liberals will continue bringing their disgusting excuse for voters from any sewer on this planet that has humaoid carbon units with a pulse.
They will continue to come as long as they are in power.
Whatever party takes power will continue to bring in the pond scum too.
Why? because Canada which appears to be inhabited largely by gays and lesbians (that is … judging by the importance Ottawa places on legislatin gor them) DON’T have children. Most regular Canadians don’t want more than one or two because with the taxation we have in this country no one can afford to raise a kid other than on some sort to welfare plan …. whick coincidentally our new comers are more than happy to comply with in spades.
THE PROBLEMS:
– Canadians are generally gullible and somewhat stupid (government schools see to that).
– We have become a mindless socialist dependant society. (Pierre Trudeau saw to that)
– We prefer to let others think for us.
– We are spineless. (Don’t even want an army or police … we prefer a bunch of sensitivety trained arbitrators)
We have no really good leadership since the trash at the Toronto Star and the CBC will make anyone’s life a living hell if they aren’t socialist.
SUMMARY:
We are fucked! (not too pussy to say it either) for the forseeable future.
ONLY HOPE:
Someday the US marines come and liberate us from our despots.
Meanwhile, we are getting what we deserve … so like what’s on TV … Yawn …. good night.
Darcey Lowen: “Your maturity is astounding.”
No, my data mining skills are astounding. Stop blabbering like a schoolgirl about how you “won”; you didn’t “win” fuck all, you didn’t post fuck all data, and you didn’t learn fuck all from my data. All you did was make a really shitty counter argument.
Look up “Bayesian Inference”; it’s kinda how I make my living, kid.
Here is precisely where your logic breaks down:
“But, the data tell us little or nothing about how the middle category would respond if presented with a proposal to increase the number.”
Actually, we know quite a lot how the middle would respond. Given the data, you’d have to be quite stupid to propose that given a slightly different question – and that part is more than disputable – would yield significantly different results. This is precisely where your weak abilities to infer lead you to such a shitty conclusion, and why you must learn Bayesian inference.
Now that you are quantifiably wrong and demonstrably stupid, please go bug a Liberal.
“Penis Lowun
heh
funny”
Even funnier, the guy has no problem spelling “analogous”, but starts the convo off on a bad note with the ever-witty “Anal-ogue”. T3h funn13, indeed!
Anonalogue:
Quick – please explain precisely what Bayesian Inference tells us about the data you posted on Canadians’ (rather Torontonians’) attitudes toward increased immigration. Provide equations if you’re able (and I’m assuming you are, since it is your livelihood). I, for one, am really interested in becoming more enlightened.
Anonalogue:
I am familiar with Bayesian inference. I use it sometimes when I get paid to work for a polling firm.
Anyway, the obligation was on you to provide data. You’ve provided none that is convincing. Moreover, you’re yet to show my my inferential errors. Please feel free to use formal logical operators, right after your respond to Elizabeth GG with equations.
Time to pack it up, son.
Political web logs are like prospecting. Wandering, seemingly aimlessly, through fields of mud and stone, the prospector seeks the elusive nugget (gem on a good day, possibly Bayesian) of the sort of dialectics one would expect from thoughtful, concerned citizens.
The signal to noise ratio is horrific; if only we had the simple problems of short-wave radio. Yet, at the end of the day, back at camp, we cherish our small geophysical advances, yea though our boots are caked with mud. Little by little our thoughts evolve, as we plan our assault on the next range.
Clearing out a skunk is an ugly job, Tailgunner Joe once said, after you’re done you smell bad and no-one wants to talk to you. But somebody’s got to do it.
EGG: Sure, did you want me to explain gravity too? I have better things to do.
Getting back to the point of this thread and the article in question, Canadians seem to have more problem with those of us who hold the Liberals accountable – rather than marvelling at their nefarious tactics – than they do with the Liberals. EGG, you seem to have more problem with my inference stuff, where the bigger and more pertinent issue is immigration. Strange, no?
Until attacking the Liberals or any of their core beliefs and policies – like an immigration rate way, way out of line with public opinion – ceases to be seen as inherently evil by the vast majority of pussified Canadians – even small and big c conservatives, it will be difficult to get a Conservative majority government in this country.
Anonalogue:
Just about the response I expected.
Hmmm… I think you are the one who raised the issue of correct inferential methods. You went from Bayesian methods to “pussified” in one fell swoop. Good show.
Peter North – Bi – Northwest: “You’ve provided none that is convincing.”
OK, now you’re just flat out lying. You even admitted the CTV poll, which was done in July 2005 and widely reported, was legit.
Besides, you wussied out long ago when you added the “reveal name” rider and made up your own brand new terms for your brand new imaginary bet. As if a whistleblower like me is gonna reveal his name for two bills, and you know that, which makes you a sleazy pussy.
Head out of the sand….
Anonalogue:
I guess that means we won’t be seeing any equations. Perhaps you should put your head back into your posterior and see what you find (a blatantly bad Bayesian joke which probably went over your head)?
Like I said, time for bed, son. Let me know when you want my mailing address to send on that money. If you’re tight, I can wait until you get your home heating rebate.
Or, to put it another way, since penises are on the table: Stop being such a dink, Anonalogue.
I don’t want you to explain gravity to me, I pretty much grok that. I want you to explain your evidence to the effect that to the effect that “many polls show about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration.”
I would not be upset if you were correct, but so far all you’ve done is made a fool of yourself.
Even if the CTV poll was as your intepreted it (and it is not) that is still one poll. You owe me one more.
Nice equations.
toni: ” but so far all you’ve done is made a fool of yourself.”
No, I’ve posted data, responded to questions, and proven Peter wrong at least 3 times. How much data have you posted? How much googling have you done? What have you added substantive besides calling me a dink?
Peter started off by being a dink and – here is the important part – it really does matter who started it, though that old fashioned sorta thinking probably isn’t convenient for you right now.
I really don’t care if you or anyone else thinks I’m a dink, “tony”, I have less than zero tolerance for stupidity and dishonesty. We don’t need more pussified Mr. Congeniality types here in Canada; we need pissed off men to stand the fuck up for what they believe in, and that often means giving chronically wrong guys like Peter a good counterthrashing now and again. If this offends your sensibilities, you’re probably not the type of guy who has what it takes to stand up for Canada, so get bent.
“You owe me one more.”
Notice the sense of entitlement so typical of The Left. I don’t “owe” you anything, Pierre, other than an attitude adjustment.
Anonalogue:
Again, nice equations. You’re a Bayesian master. I like that second poll you found, too. Also, good to see that you’ve come around on google since your earlier post.
I think it’s clear to everyone here that you’ve failed to prove your point. You’ve presented one, unconvincing statistic. To refresh, 32% of respondents said we had too many immigrants, and 46% said it was the right amount. 10% said we had too few. If asked about increasing immigration, everyone of those people who think immigration is just right would have to switch to opposition, and even then you would only have opposition of 78%. You’re not even close to 90%, and that is under extremely unlikely conditions.
If you have some Bayesian argument which suggest something else – I assume you’ve had your head in your posteriors for a little while now – feel free to post it. Otherwise, just admit you’ve lost. Or, just stop misrepresenting statistics.
In the meantime, hold on to my money and get yourself a subscription to the POQ. It would help you.
“A June, 1994 poll, commissioned by the Immigration Association of Canada and conducted by Forum Canada Research confirmed a host of other polls that continue to show ongoing opposition by the Canadian Majority to the current immigration policy. Respondents were asked:
-The Federal government plans to accept 250,000 immigrants to Canada in 1994. In your opinion, it this too many, too few or about right?
A total of 60.3 per cent said too many; a mere 1.6 per cent said too few.
(Calgary Herald, August 4, 1994)
Nice equation, Rev. Bayes.
If I ask you if it is too hot in a room, too cold, or fine, and you answer fine, what would your response be if I asked if I could turn up the heat?
Peter
“Ellen Gee, a sociologist at Simon Fraser University …, said the changes in immigration patterns have taken place so rapidly that the result is a recipe for social unease. “Survey after survey shows that people are negative about immigrants. I’m very pessimistic. … Prof. Gee said opinion surveys consistently show the public disapproves of immigrants, particularly in the large urban areas that receive most of them.” (Globe and Mail, December 9, 1992)”
“Confidential government documents suggest Canadians are becoming increasingly hostile — if not racist — towards immigration. The document prepared by senior immigration officials say internal government polling shows “attitudes to immigration levels appear to be hardening, with significantly more Canadians feeling there are too many immigrants coming to Canada.” The confidential government survey found fully half of those Canadians polled in the past year were either intolerant or outright ‘xenophones’. … Only 14 per cent were listed as compassionate.” Moreover, senior government officials warn: “Canadians seriously underestimate the number of immigrants arriving annually.” (Ottawa Citizen, December 9, 1993)
“Almost six Canadians in 10 express at least some reservations about the number of immigrants to Canada, a poll for the federal immigration department indicates. (Toronto Star, August 19, 1996) Interestingly, the Star had to winkle this taxpayer-funded poll out of the government through an Access to Information Act request.
-Forty-six per cent of respondents said there are too many immigrants coming to Canada. … Forty-two per cent said immigration levels are about right (Now, do the math on those who think we need more immigrants; you made need Bayesian Inference here! – Anon.), … but some respondents who initially said the number of immigrants is about right subsequently said there may be “a little too many.” (Uh-oh, looks like Peter was right, yet wrong! – Anon.)This suggests that … concerns about the level of immigration may be (and have been, in earlier surveys) more widespread than one would think in light of responses to the initial question, said a memo to the minister.”
OK, that’s 3 polls I’ve posted showing
And speaking of North By Northwest, that great violin work in the chase scene reminds me of the equations in chapter 12, “Design of Feedforward and Feedback Control Schemes,” in “Time Series Analysis, Forecasting & Control” by Box & Jenkins, Holden Day, 1976.
You stats (and data mining) folks should check it out. After all, it’s one thing to take a poll, and something else entirely to design control systems, which at the end of the day is what government is about. Process is where it’s at, man 😉
Yours,
The Man From P.U.S.S.I.E.
Process Undergirding Systems Support Infrastructure Engineering.
Bring us your kitty, and we’ll build a bridge out of ‘er.
Nice! Three news stories, all at least ten years old, and not a single good description of the question or the distributions among them.
I guess you’d use results from the 1993 election to ascertain the support of the Conservative party today, too?
Keep stabbing in the dark, just don’t hurt yourself.
Look at Tony referencing the classic stats texts. Nice!
Hey Anonalogue:
By the way, that poll is not about *increased* immigration, which was the point of your original post. In fact, immigration to Canada declined in 1994. Course, if I were a Bayesian, the picture would *obviously* be quite different.