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.
I did read the original article. I made the mistake of assuming the author was basing the conclusions drawn in the article on the evidence he offers in the article. That's the way it's usually done. Instead, I learned (with your help; thank you) that the conclusions were based on other evidence in some other document that wasn't even linked to. So when the beginning of the article says:
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.the two statements referred to don't actually have anything to do with the sentence preceding them. How silly of me to assume they did.According to the report, which was commissioned by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, respondents were given the two following statements:
Those “other things” you “take into account” was what?
The fact that the support for the author's assertion was in some other document he didn't even link to, rather than the document where the assertion was made.
citing distinctions without a difference.
I’m sorry if these kinds of distinctions are lost on you, but I can’t really do anything about that.