Polls are meaningless, but spinning them when they are likely to go the "wrong" way is just sad.
So questioning whether or not a poll's results are on the up and up when a previous poll on the same subject taken by the same site was exposed as completely corrupted is 'spinning'? And why do you care if you think 'Polls are meaningless'? It sounds like you're the one trying to spin, spin, spin.
Well you say the previous poll was completely corrupted by people who circumvented the system, but then you say somehow we could identify who circumvented the system, "adjust" for their malfeasance, and suddenly get the answer you wanted from the poll.
So yes, that sounds like pre-spinning to me. Whether or not it really happened, it just sounds like spinning to me.
Polls are meaningless, and arguing with a person who said polls are meaningless and then tried to spin the polls by remarking on how sad it was to try to spin a meaningless poll is sad.
Ok, if the irony is lost, saying the poll can be rigged and explaining that this is why your site is losing presupposes that winning or losing has any meaning in a poll that can be rigged. Saying that there are ways to "ascertain" the rigging in such a way as to acheive the "correct" outcome suggests that every other poll ever done on FR was meaningless, since so far as I can remember no other poll has been "de-freeped".
But for some reason, the pro-evolution people were so concerned about this ONE poll over the hundred of other polls done on FR that for this ONE poll they went through some rigorous process of "de-freeping" to ensure that the results were "correct", using I am certain some well-known scientific method to acheive the desired outcome, not just waving their hands to get to where they want like the anti-evolutionists claim evolutionist do all the time when they find things that don't fit their preconceived notions.
I'm sorry, it was just really funny. Even if it really happened, it was just funny that in a thread about a poll about creation/evolution, where the creationists are people who believe the evolutionist ignore evidence that doesn't agree with their expectations, and twist the data around to "prove" they are right, you were saying that the poll data which showed one thing was clearly wrong, and twisted the data around so that it would come out right.
It was simply very ironic and funny, and those who don't take FR polls all that seriously have got to laugh whether they are on the one side, the other side, or somewhere in between.