I am about to paraphrase a person, who will be anonymous here for
various reasons, who worked on the survey committee. After I heard this
I got some more information from others that make me believe it.

The statements:
1. The survey was poorly written. It was designed, consciously or
subconsciously (and I truly believe the latter), to elicit information
that would be skewed certain ways.

2. The presentation was extremely biased, and very much created with an
agenda in mind.

That is what I was told, and I recognize that providing anonymous
information is really pointless, but it is what it is. Looking at the
survey and presentation from position of not being educated in polling
but being very educated in trying to convince people of your views, I
tend to agree with my friend.

Gabriel

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
...

> According to the report found at:
> http://sca.org/scacensus2010/PeerageOptionsFindings.doc
> 
> "1.     The respondents in general strongly support the idea of a new 
> martial peerage option (70% of SCA Inc. respondents, 71% of Paid members 
> and current participants, and 73% of people who have participated in the 
> past but don’t participate now). The support varies significantly by 
> Kingdom (ranging from 63% to 79%), and by the specific peerage option in 
> question, with only three of the specific options having even a 
> majority-level of support."
> 
> There is no kind way to say it: that's a big fat lie.
> 
> 	Tibor
> 
> --
> Manage your subscription at  http://listserv.unl.edu.
> listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com,
> AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.


-- 
Patrick Anderson
[log in to unmask]
"No matter how much you feed the wolf,
he keeps looking at the forest." --Ilse Lehiste

--
Manage your subscription at  http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.