“The question that I actually asked: How the 'survey' is consistent or of any real value beyond entertainment or propaganda purposes.”
Whether Cedar’s survey is actually consistent in means, method and interval is not something I’ve asserted one way or another. If his survey is consistent in means, method and interval then in the end this is where usefulness of Cedar’s survey is to be found.
My point is that it’s not delusional for Cedar to attempt a survey as he does and think it useful.
Assuming consistency in means, method and interval, one usefulness of Cedar’s survey would look like this: X of Y moves like Z. It could also look like this: Y is moving to Z.
What this articulates in how a given population set moves on given issues.
In the case of Cedar’s survey, the given population set is whatever is the sort of people who respond to the sort of questions he asks answers for.
The values (sums, results et al) you get from this may or may not tell you anything at all about the general population of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it can tell you a lot about the population set targeted by the survey.
“No one does that....”
I do that.
“The bottom line is you made the assertion that the survey was consistent and of value so it's up to you to either stick to it and prove that it is, as best you think you can, or else accept that well, we aren't willing to make the same assumptions that you are.”
Wrong. I have not asserted Cedar’s survey was/is consistent in means, method and interval. You read that onto what I wrote.
“I actually think your debate technique is to continually exasperate the other party until they eventually voice their frustration and you can then use that as an excuse to claim you have been insulted. I don't think your arguments make the logical sense that you may imagine they do.”
I’m not debating, and I’m not employing a technique of exasperation. I’ve responded factually and to the point.
The insult of “So feel free to interpret this as "you win again" (yay)” requires no interpretation, and neither does the excusology you offer above.
I have no trepidation of a logical examination of a thing I’ve said. I know logic is like math. For those who know it refutation is not complicated. If I’ve made some fallacious argument that soft underbelly is exposed and I know it. If I feared such exposure I’d not express myself.