Re: Online Survey
- From: ted rosenberg <tedrosenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:12:04 -0500
MÄck©® wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:05:56 -0500, ted rosenbergI don't think much of her methodology, for a number of reasons, but it STILL isn't spam
<tedrosenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob Blaylock wrote:
In article <504e421e-b73f-436b-859c-264e43c67739@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Looik you stupid twit
quegrawks <quegrawks@xxxxxxxxx> whined:
It's a scientific survey, not spam. Relax! Dang, try to get peopleSpammers don't get it.
involved in something and they get all bitchy about it!
If you don't want to take it, don't take it. there's no reason to
purposely try to ruin someone's work because you don't like what it's
about.
Thanks to any of you who HAVE taken the survey and done so seriously.
The information gathered will be very helpful.
They never have, never will.
Your survey is screwed.
it is NOT spam, is is a real live scientific survey
It isn't even an annoying marketing survey
If YOU are too stupid to tell the difference, then go away.
it does not matter whether it was spam or not Ted. Posting the link
to a valid survey in any newsgroup anywhere will attract the attention
and participation of those who will ruin with false data just to get
their kicks.
.
- References:
- Online Survey
- From: quegrawks
- Re: Online Survey
- From: Bob Blaylock
- Re: Online Survey
- From: quegrawks
- Re: Online Survey
- From: Bob Blaylock
- Re: Online Survey
- From: ted rosenberg
- Re: Online Survey
- From: MÄck©®
- Online Survey
- Prev by Date: Free Blog Site For DIabetics
- Next by Date: Sellling low carb
- Previous by thread: Re: Online Survey
- Next by thread: Re: Online Survey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|