Define "grognard"

[Diamond Cross]

Mountain Dew and Pepsi are nectar of the gods, man. Don't diss the gods.

 

[Umbran]

Hey, how does that work? There's 34 votes for "accepting" but only two names. Looks like someone's got some sour grapes.

Or, they feel the whole thing was set up to grind an axe, and wanted to display some displeasure with that.

Or, it is a ruse, designed to make us think someone's got sour grapes to discredit one side of the argument.

Or, someone thought it was funny.

Or... you know, people do things for a lot of reasons. Remember that thing about not attributing motives? I think it applies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, I would like to know exactly how that worked. I can't vote twice. Is it that someone can, or that some folks can vote without their names showing up? "Accepting" isn't the only case where the names don't match the count.


RC

 

[Mournblade94]

ROTFLMAO

Because, you know, all words in a given language have static meanings that never change.

So, according to you, grognard can only apply to French Napoleonic soldiers?

I don't like slang. Nor do I like truncated words like "combo" or "app".

Sometimes I am cursed to use it out of habit. I avoid when concious of it.

"I went to the farmers market and asked for a bushel of apps."

 

[Umbran]

Actually, I would like to know exactly how that worked. I can't vote twice. Is it that someone can, or that some folks can vote without their names showing up? "Accepting" isn't the only case where the names don't match the count.

You don't have to be logged in to vote. Log out, come to the site, vote, clear your cache and cookies. Lather, rinse, repeat. Simple, yet effective.

It is one of the many reasons we say these polls aren't scientific, and we suggest you not try to prove anything with them. I know several folks who would pull such shenanigans not because they give a fetid dingo's kidney about the topic, but because they felt someone tried to use a lousy poll to prove a point, and found that in and of itself offensive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You don't have to be logged in to vote. Log out, come to the site, vote, clear your cache and cookies. Lather, rinse, repeat. Simple, yet effective.

It is one of the many reasons we say these polls aren't scientific, and we suggest you not try to prove anything with them. I know several folks who would pull such shenanigans not because they give a fetid dingo's kidney about the topic, but because they felt someone tried to use a lousy poll to prove a point, and found that in and of itself offensive.

Completely unaware of that!

And the survey says....."Don't trust the survey"!

 

[Bullgrit]

they feel the whole thing was set up to grind an axe, and wanted to display some displeasure with that

because they felt someone tried to use a lousy poll to prove a point, and found that in and of itself offensive

Is this what you think this poll is? You brought up this idea twice.

Other people have suggested my polls have ulterior motives to make a point. I've even been accused of ordering the choices in a poll to get specific results.

I just find data from polls more informative, (though not necessarily definitive or absolute), than a couple of people arguing that their point of view is the most common and accepted. Throw up a poll and see real results.

Bullgrit

 

[Mournblade94]

Is this what you think this poll is? You brought up this idea twice.

Other people have suggested my polls have ulterior motives to make a point. I've even been accused of ordering the choices in a poll to get specific results.

I just find data from polls more informative, (though not necessarily definitive or absolute), than a couple of people arguing that their point of view is the most common and accepted. Throw up a poll and see real results.

Bullgrit

Actually as far as validity goes, you would be better off tallying individuals points from actual posts, or tallying the posts for a point. Absolutely timeconsuming and not worth it, but it would hold more validity. Polls are notoriously unscientific. Even the university polls, though they do have a validity standard.

 

[Squizzle]

You don't have to be logged in to vote. Log out, come to the site, vote, clear your cache and cookies. Lather, rinse, repeat. Simple, yet effective.

I'm pretty sure that if you just tell the browser not to accept cookies in the first place, you can streamline the entire process.

 

[Maggan]

I am amazed that there are still people who don't know how easily a person can vote multiple times at EN World polls. I know the issue has been brought up several times, often in connection with high profile polls. I think I've described the process twice, if not on three occasions over the last couple of years.

Still, that only goes to show that people don't really read my posts, I guess.

/M