Re: NY Times on "statisticians' view" of election

[Ronald Bloom]

In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Paul Thompson  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>At this point, I have been shocked at the unprofessional, bias, and cluelessly
>>partisan comments that have been made on this thread.  Comments like "Bush vote
> rs
>>being more educated" do not reflect the educated mind, but rather the lawyerly
>>temperament that Any argument is equally valid.
> 
> I suggest you look at the breakdowns made by the various 
> opinion polls.  They all agreed on this.

  Your original comment was that "Bush voters are more likely 
to be literate".   Now you may have *meant* "more likely 
to be MORE literate"  You may have *meant* "...more educated".

I am not accustomed to using "literate" and (by extension)
"illiterate" as synonyms for "more educated" and "less educated".

Are you?


=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
                  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================