I disagree that the conclusions drawn are reasonable, based on the numerous objections I’ve outlined. I think it’s fair to criticize an article about a poll based on what’s in the article, especially when it doesn’t link to the poll; it shouldn’t be my job as the reader to do extra research to see if the article could be accurate if I take other things into account. I’ve been clear from the beginning that I didn’t have a problem with the questions reported in the article, but only with the spin the article gave them; but that I did have a problem with the other question in the full poll. I’m sorry if these kinds of distinctions are lost on you, but I can’t really do anything about that.
When I quoted the poll question that showed you hadn't read the poll and hence the questions, then, then the poll, the questions, the terms used, you got a “beef” with.
Those “other things” you “take into account” was what? That the Discovery Institute commissioned the poll? The results just don't fit your expectations? Your hopes?
Pleeeeeze! You shot from the lip early on, got called on it, and you've been trying all afternoon to do your own spin cycle citing distinctions without a difference.
That's something you could do something about and passed up the chance.