Quote:
hertz vanrental wrote
Bitter, twisted old hag.
You useless twat. You get worse. When I quoted the 10%, I stated that it was approximate. You queried this at the time, I remember, because you claimed that it wasn't very scientific. I'm putting this down to a lapse in memory caused by the fact that you're an old fart and likely going senile.
I didn't bother responding to your original comment about the 10% being approximate because you just aren't worth the effort involved because you are a thick brainwashed christard.
There was an issue with the stats caused by respondents giving contradictory answers to certain questions. Is was therefore unclear, at times, whether a respondent was a christard or not. This issue gave rise to the 'approximately 10%'. The report also stated that the 10% could, in fact, be higher. I quoted you the lower figure, to be on the safe side.
Personally, I think that the designers of the questionnaire were at fault, but there you go. Therefore, I didn't jump to 25% unlike you, old hag, that jumped to an invalid conclusion.
What's hilarious was that the original stats (10%) was actually published by a christard organisation.
Now fuck off.
|
What a long, fucked up post to simply say "I don't know."
That you THINK the designers were at fault...well no one gives a shit what you think, Hertzy, you mental case.
Play on the main forum and quit clogging up my thread with your bullshit.
JJ