Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: green bubble syndrome
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:34:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <veebvs$8lna$1@dont-email.me>
References: <xn0oruv2k1siabt002@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <ve6sv0$2q45v$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve7s0q$31vac$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve7uos$7t6o$2@solani.org>
 <vebtjl$3pa58$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmtv4oF2u71U2@mid.individual.net>
 <vee0md$6nme$1@dont-email.me>
 <UzwOO.61464$Enpe.23712@fx38.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:34:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="31b990ca9d42455f4ca0c58f89512cc1";
	logging-data="284394"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jhbW0U+uU6FFv2dN/EZF9sP5AgU9e0g4="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YFKH/dtnuY9wpxTIUwg6p8LJ68c=
	sha1:x9X2oHylYw1I3s08lODPbWUPTH0=
Bytes: 2657

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-10-12 10:22, Chris wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>> No. That's not how the burden of proof works. The person (or in this
>>> case, the website) making the claim is responsible for proving their
>>> methodology is sound. And absent of that proof, the rest of us are
>>> completely within our right to disregard it as baseless. This really
>>> shouldn't need to be explained to educated adults, but here we are.
>>> 
>> 
>> You've completely misapplied burden of proof.
>> 
>> This isn't an unsubstantiated claim where burden of proof would apply.
>> There is proof/evidence here: the result of the survey.
>> 
>> You are welcome to disagree with it, but if you want to make an
>> unsubstantiated claim that it is meaningless the onus is now on you.
> 
> The burden is with the survey "maker" to publish method, selection, etc. 
> for peer review.

This isn't a scientific study. It's a survey. The website used a
professional outfit called pollfish. 
https://www.pollfish.com/

I don't know them, but on balance I trust them more than JR's random
anecdotes or poor maths skills. 

> If such does not come forth, then the survey is useless as presented for 
> the purpose presented and the audience here.
>
> Can we abandon this subject please?

We can...