[dirtboy]

If you're going to make that accusation, you should find a way to back it up somehow.

Gee this is gonna be a toughie.

First you said this:

The last couple of polls on FR have been questions regarding issues which, I'd wager, most Freepers had little knowledge of at the time the question was asked.

So you are making the assertion that many freepers were ignorant of these facts. And then you said this:

I have a very strong feeling that if these facts had been known beforehand, the numbers would look starkly different from the way they currently do.

To anyone schooled in logic, that proves my point quite nicely. You are basically claiming that the reason so many freepers disagreed with you was because they were ignorant of the facts at hand.

[inquest]

You could use a little "schooling" in logic yourself. You started with the accusation that I was claiming that they were ignorant of the facts because they disagreed with me, and then you concluded by saying that I was saying that they disagreed with me because they were ignorant of the facts.

The first rule of logic is that "if p then q" is not the same as "if q then p".