Bob Shapiro, author of two important books on public opinion (The Rational Public, 1992, with Benjamin Page, and Politicians Don't Pander, 2000, with Lawrence Jacobs) sent me this report he just wrote with Sara Arrow, comparing public opinion for Obama's health care initiative with opinion in 1993-94, when Bill Clinton's health plan crashed and burned. They write:
The increasingly favorable climate of public opinion for health care reform that Clinton had in 1993 eroded enough by 1994 to dissipate any strong push on the public’s part for reform . . . All signs on the surface were that Obama took office in January 2009 with the same--or an even greater--impetus for health care reform. . . . It would therefore not be surprising to find--and there was every reason to expect--that Obama would have behind him even a more favorably disposed public than Clinton had to help move reform legislation forward. But has this been the case? Our best estimate is, overall, probably not, and this explains the battle that Obama has faced in getting public support to help the reform effort along through Congress or to offer approval later of any landmark legislation that is passed and implemented.
Shapiro and Arrow look at 18 survey questions on health policy, comparing average responses in 2009 to those in 1994. They define change in opinion as a shift of six
percentage points in the balance of opinion in one direction or another. This is what they found:
* 5 questions where opinion was more favorable to health care reform in 2009 than in 1994: Does the health care system need to be rebuilt? Do you think the president's reforms will decrease the amount you'll pay for medical care? Do you think the Democratic party is more likely than the Republicans to improve the health care system? Do you approve of the way the president is handling health care policy? Do you favor the president's plan?
* 4 questions where opinion was less favorable in 2009 than in 1994: do you favor national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money? Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that everyone can have health insurance? Would you be willing to pay more--either in higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes--in order to guarantee health insurance coverage for all Americans? Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans?
* 1 question with a change whose direction is ambiguous: more people think that the country spends too much on health care, which is either in favor of Obama's plan (national health care as a cost-saving move) or against it (if national health care is viewed as an extra public expenditure).
* 8 questions where public opinion is essentially unchanged.
In balance, then, Obama has faced a public opinion climate similar to Clinton's in 1994.
As we're all aware, opinion is volatile on these issues: support of health care reform does not necessarily translate to support for any particular policy. And a lot depends on Congress, where the Democratic majorities have a strong interest in seeing their party succeed. When translating opinion to policy, though, Shapiro and Arrow seem to have a good point when they write:
While the reports in the press of public support for major changes have been accurate (though varying from opinion poll to opinion poll, depending on how the survey questions were asked), they did not examine fully how current public opinion compares to what Bill Clinton faced in 1993-1994.

37 comments
There is no way the public support can hold throughout August, because of the billions of dollars the health insurance industry will be squandering to "Harry and Louise" the people.
The guy to watch is Obama. He has to adopt the same strategy, which is hammering on a few cogent themes and not allowing himself to get drawn off message.
My money's on Obama.
Obama must stay on message. But I would have first preferred going after insurance reform first, avoidng new taxes, going for a smaller more incremental approach.
Win something first, and then maybe come back for further reform as needed.
A smallball strategy is best. Take care of the public's anxieties first--portability, preexisting conditions, keeping coverage while unemployed (making permanent the COBRA subsidy), and some real regulation of the insirance industry. What we've got now are competing plans with very uncertain outcomes, especially for middle-class voters.
And hopefully Baucuscare is dead--it was a pile of nothing that would nothing to reduce costs--the plan costs almost as much as the Hose bills without containing the middle class health care bills.
4 questions where opinion was less favorable in 2009 than in 1994: do you favor national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money? Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that everyone can have health insurance? Would you be willing to pay more--either in higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes--in order to guarantee health insurance coverage for all Americans? Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans?
And I was just starting to have faith in the American people again.
An important part of the policy debate is how different reform proposals might affect how quickly new technology is developed in various medical fields. I would like to see people's opinions about that.
The problem is that the public is easily swayed by sound bites and outright lies of the Health insurance companies and those they fund (Republicans and the Blue dog Democrats).
Look at the most recent poll and the difference in answer when details are explained.
Look at the kinds of stupid questions Obama gets in "town hall" meetings. People will believe any negative and that is what the Republicans are counting on.
The only way this can turn out differently is if enough of the public bothers to educate themselves enough to at least ignore the outright lies.
@Brian
I don't think that the type of health provision that exists will have a major impact on the development of new technology. It might well have an impact on the uptake of new technology - i.e. how long between a technology being invented and it being adopted by the mainstream of the medical community.
However, I'm not convinced that socialised medicine slows down the rate of adoption - it seems that insurance companies and governments both have a built in incentive to only pay for established procedures/drugs. You could argue that insurance companies would be worse, since they have a much more direct profit motive, and since they are less susceptible to public opinion.
Frankly the drugs companies won't care how their medecines are paid for - as long as they are paid for. Putting more people into the medical net might actually be seen as a positive thing for them.
It's not surprising that Americans are less willing to have their insurance premiums increased now. Insurance premiums have increased way beyond the inflation rate since 1994. And considering how much worse the economy is now than it was in 1994, it's not surprising that people are less willing to have their own taxes increased. Some of the other questions seem more troubling, but context is important.
I am not convinced that the polling on healthcare should matter at all in forming a policy.
Take for instance the stat that the right like to trot out about 70% (or whatever) of Americans being happy with their healthcare. Well most people would be bearing in mind its something they are rarely ever going to use, and if they did it might be for relatively minor procedures or treatments. I wonder if people who have had major treatments would respond in quite the same way? But even then, the 30% (or whatever) is a far more important stat to me. Why are they unhappy? Are 30% really not getting enough coverage? Is it not worrying to the insurance companies that 30% of there consumers are unhappy with the service they provide? Because it doesn't seem as if they are unhappy.
Or take 50% of Americans not being happy with President Obama's handling of the issue. It seems to me that as much of that is people being concerned about Obama's lack of courage on the issue, rather than worrying about him being too radical, which tends to be how the media represents that figure.
I think the figures are very difficult to interpret, even above and beyond the idea that actually many Americans have no real idea about what the full implications of a public healthcare system are.
That being said, I think that Americans by and large do what something different out of there healthcare system. Its a huge worry I think, anecdotally from friends it seems to be at least, about what would happen should an American get seriously ill? Would the insurance companies be there for them still? I think as a consumer of a public health option (in the UK) I don't have the same level of anxiety.
Pragmatus said...
My money's on Obama.
July 29, 2009 11:37 PM
@Prag,
let me add my two cents on your bet.
:)
ciao.
@PaulK:
You guys have everything. You have the most liberal president in history, overwhelming majorities in the Senate and House, and an extremely left biased media. Yet you blame the Republicans and you blame the people for being dumb. C'mon. Take some responsibility.
The fact is, people don't want their healthcare run by another colossal, inefficient government bureaucracy.
a message for @Shiloh.
Sir,
your nickname remembered me something.
I checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh
good choice.
;)
@Shiloh,
particulary,I loved this:
""When you are in command, command!"
ciao,from Italy.
:)
A nitpick...
The cited article includes this question: "CBS/NYT: Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can't lose, no matter what?"
"Willing" increases from 55% to 57% and "Unwilling" decreases from 42% to 37%.
Shapiro & Arrow say this is "no significant difference", and that is repeated in the article here.
I presume that's due to the increase in noncommittal responses, but I'd think that a margin of 20 points rather than 13 would nonetheless qualify as "a shift of six percentage points in the balance of opinion." No?
Grog said
'You guys have everything. You have the most liberal president in history, overwhelming majorities in the Senate and House, and an extremely left biased media. Yet you blame the Republicans and you blame the people for being dumb. C'mon. Take some responsibility.
The fact is, people don't want their healthcare run by another colossal, inefficient government bureaucracy.'
-----------------------
First off I am not sure that it is fair to describe Obama as the most liberal President in history. I think its pretty ahrd to make that case when you put Obama next to FDR (who isn't thought of too badly by historians as a sidenote!).
Secondly as I said, I am not at all convinced that you are right in your second paragraph either. Or at least I think a lot of people see the hypocrisy of that line, when there current healthcare is run by a massive, inefficient, privately owned, bureaucracy. Is Medicare or the VA any more inneficient that what currently exists? Bill Kristol didn't seem to think so on the Daily Show the other night!
I am actually encouraged by these results and think the authors' conclusion is incorrect. The points where public opinion have improved all have to do with the current situation and reform proponents. The points where support has eroded are on proposals that aren't even being considered; it is no wonder the naysayers are trying to use those arguments now even though they don't apply.
GROG…
As long as you keep trying to reclassify the debate as being about “healthcare run by another colossal, inefficient government bureaucracy” you are going to be chasing your own tail. You know what happens to puppies that spend all their time chasing their tails? They get dizzy and throw up.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
Sorry to be so repetitive, but your attempt, like those of all your GOP colleagues, is solely focused on steering the process off the tracks. All we have to do is stick to the topic at hand. Let me make that clear again—
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
The debate is about reforming insurance coverage for healthcare.
Now, anyone want to take bets as to how long we have to wait until another representative of the party of Cheney, Limbaugh and Rove plants another complaint about “government-run healthcare”?
The absolute best discussion on what’s going on was aired last night on Charlie Rose. He had both Howard Dean and Bill Frist (former GOP leader in the Senate) giving their views as to how the process currently brewing in both the Senate and House will play out. Frist was refreshingly honest, even admitting that the GOP’s talking points about “government takeover of healthcare” is nonsense.
The segment has not yet been updated to the web—as soon as it is I will post a link to it. Best analysis I have seen yet of what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.
These issue polls are revealing. They prove, yet again, that 2008 was a Dem wave, not a liberal wave. The GOP is unpopular, but not conservative principles, which are still very effective in public debate (they certainly seem to best Obama again and again). The right, even under a very unpopular political party, has won the big debates on Gitmo, cap and trade, the stimulus, and health reform.
Everytime I read this site I'm barraged with the idea that the country slid leftward (on issues) in 2008. There is very little evidence for this. Obama ran as a moderate because he knew this. The Blue Dogs have enormous power not because of their numbers, but because their political stance is broadly popular to the middle of American politics.
The Dems thus have two options. To govern as moderates (Clinton-Gingrich style), and succeed. Or to push left and surrender the winning side of many different issues to the GOP. (For instance, the Dems - with remarkable speed, and despite the spending of Bush - have already given the GOP back the fiscal responsibility issue.) On the whole, the Dems seems to be riven by a civil war on this question. The liberals do not have a workable majority, and - since their control won't get much better than this - it's hard to see how they will build one.
Jeff…
You have given us yet another laundry list of your hopes for the future of the Democratic Party.
Conservatism may be alive and well, but at present it has no place to roost. (I am more conservative than liberal.) The Republican party has no principles anymore, other than to wage religious war against abortion, gays, government programs that are already working just fine and are popular, and fashioning their whole future on being obstructionist. (The AP reported yesterday that Chuck Grassley’s main concern in the Senate negotiations over healthcare reform is that Obama “can’t be seen to have scored a political victory”. So politics are much more important to the Republicans than the fact that people are dying in the US because they don’t have access to medical care. Smart move, Chuck. Kinda tipped your side’s hand, doncha think? Kind of a mercenary, venal attitude, doncha think?) No conservative with any sense of honor would follow these clowns. This is not conservatism but selfishness, money-grubbing and ole boy politics at its worst.
Instead of spending your time here praying for disaster for the Democrats, maybe you could work for some constructive changes in the GOP’s philosophy?
Nah—too easy.
@Grog: "You guys have everything..."
Exactly, this is why the Republicans have gone all out on trying to trash the president and health care reform, no matter how many people they hurt. They want this to be his "Waterloo", remember?
"The fact is, people don't want their healthcare run by another colossal, inefficient government bureaucracy."
Yes, they want it to continue to be run by a colossal and inefficient health insurance industry that deprives people of the care they need at every turn, raises the premiums and lowers coverage year after year, but increases their own profits year after year as well. The canard about the gov is nonsense - add a public option and let the people choose. You are afraid of that because it will wipe out the health insurers. But, how could that be if the public option is so inefficient???? Something does not add up.
"mikelow1885 said...
Obama must stay on message. But I would have first preferred going after insurance reform first, avoidng new taxes, going for a smaller more incremental approach.
Win something first, and then maybe come back for further reform as needed."
I am NOT waiting another 50 years for single payer. You may be ok with a little reform now to shut everyone up for a few years, but I am not. I am tired of living in a capitalistic delusional shit trap. I want to live in a modern democratic socialist country.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/30/obama.doctor/index.html
The basic flaw with the political calculation in this post is that using the entire electorate is the wrong sample. The GOP is simply irrelevent in this debate, at least as far as the 2010 congressional races are concerned.
Let's posit a hypothetical Missouri 10th district. MO-10 runs from the prosperous suburban outskirts of a major mid-Western city into exurban and rural areas, and ends at a small blue collar city. The underlying numbers are similar to the nation at-large, though tilted a few points Democratic. (D:39, I:38, and R:22. Cook PVI is D+2.) Third parties are weak, with a few Libs and Greens at the local cow college.
Missouri-10 is currently represented by Harriet Jones, a white 3 term democrat, who's moderate on social issues (supports parental consent and late-term abortion laws, but opposes restrictions in the first trimester; and is politely against gay marriage, but quietly for ENDA) and moderate on economic issues (supports a balanced budget amendment publicly, but can still bring home the bacon, eg. National Museum of Women in the Pony Express). She does her best to stay out of contentious issues, and focuses on constituent services. She's not a publicity hound; she only appears in local media, cutting a ribbon at a school or judging pies at the State Fair. Her only scandal was wearing a white t-shirt into the dunking booth at a charity festival. The video is still on YouTube.
In short, she's a fairly typical Blue Dog in a fairly typical swing district.
Now, if Rep. Jones is analyzing healthcare polls to determine her vote should she use the sample presented by Nate's post? That would lead to an analysis of all the voters in her district. But given it's moderate cast, she faces a competitive race every cycle. She has no hope at all of getting a landslide mandate.
This time, she's expecting to once again face Harry Saxon, a local car dealer who's quite conservative on both social and economic issues. In 2008, she beat him 60-38, carrying almost all of the Democrats and about 2/3 of the Independents. For her, this was a major landslide. (The other two times she ran it was much closer. She was first elected in a 50-49 squeaker in 2004, then got a more respectable 53-45 in 2006.) But in 2010, Saxon'll have the GOP's 22% sewn up. They're feeling alienated in the Obama Nation and will have slightly higher than usual turnout for a midterm. Jones could become a Pentecostal and decry Barry Goldwater as a communist, and she would still not get more than a tiny percentage of the GOP vote.
OTOH, she usually does well with Independents, at least the more liberal among them. She can usually work a good ground game for turnout, given her constituent services focus.
Her biggest threat is not from the GOP, it's losing her base. If they feel dis-illusioned with Obama, they may take it out on Jones. If healthcare fails, or if it doesn't have a strong enough public option for them, at best they'll stay home, at worst there may be a primary challenge (remember those Greens at the Cow College? Who votes in an off-year primary? They want Canadian healthcare.) She needs all her Dems (38% of her electorate), plus only about a third of the Independents (13 of 39%) to reach 51% and win. So, she needs to quietly vote for a healthcare plan that makes the first 51-55% (50%+ a small cushion) of her constituents content, if not over the moon happy. The other 45% or so are simply irrelevent, as are their views on the subject.
I hate to admit it, but that's the genius of Karl Rove. (cue Imperial Battle Cruiser music) Fire up your base and gather just barely enough swing voters to win. Anything more than that is just feeding your ego. The 2000 race was soooo close, but who spent the next eight years tooling around in Air Force One? President Gore?
Blue Dogs, and by extension Nate's analysis, should focus more on what Dems and lean Dem Independents want. Not, what the total electorate want. GOP voters will never vote Democratic, and therefore are irrelevent.
Obama has pissed off millions of docs (and cops); he is exposing himself more and more as a doctrinaire liberal, with a decided affinity for socialist policy prescriptions; the unpopularity of his policies is now dragging down his personal popularity and that of his party.
In its coverage of the dismal (for BHO) WSJ/NBC poll, MSNBC points out that ObamaCare is now as unpopular as failed HillaryCare.
He never campaigned on this scandalously expensive takeover of healthcare in America. Governing is much more demanding than campaigning.
Obama is falling hard and fast.
He is failing.
Rush is smiling!
petekent01 (on twitter)
All & Sundry…
Here is the discussion yesterday on Charlie Rose. Howard Dean enunciates the situation with startling clarity, and Bill Frist, although he disagrees with certain points, does not do the typical Republican no-no-no-no-no-no-no, Obama-fail Obama-fail Obama-fail, let’s-let-the-market-do-it let’s-let-the-market-do-it let’s-let-the-market-do-it. When Dean correctly nails the Republicans for trying to obscure the issue with their “government takeover of healthcare” claptrap Frist interrupts to say “you don’t hear that from me.”
So anyone interested in reasoned analysis from both the liberal and conservative points of view, check it out.
Anyone interested in the ninny-dipwad-crybaby-dinosaur point of view, just read Pete Kent’s posts. Any post by Pete Kent.
@Duncan
"I don't think that the type of health provision that exists will have a major impact on the development of new technology."
Many people I know think it will, and many think it won't. That's why I would like to see polling on it.
"It might well have an impact on the uptake of new technology..."
Thanks for parsing that out. I guess I'd like at least two questions added to new polls!
"However, I'm not convinced that socialised medicine slows down the rate of adoption...You could argue that insurance companies would be worse..."
You could argue that. I bet a lot of people believe it too, probably fewer than believe the opposite, but I wonder how many. That was the main point of my post.
I believe that the government has overwhelming incentives to avoid causing harm directly, such that it will not properly weigh risks and rewards of less proven and therefore inherently risky medicines and procedures. I believe that this already happens at the FDA and that the more the government is involved in the health sector the greater the distortions will be.
In the medium and long term, I think society is better off under a system that best advances medicine rather than best shares it. I would rather have mediocre 2009 medicine than the best medicine of the 1860's, or 1960's, or 1980's...depending on the specialty. How about those enlightened 1970's, when being gay was a disease? I know it isn't the most on point analogy because of social factors, but it's food for thought. If we develop more slowly than we could have, that's what we're consigning future generations to! This aspect of health policy that I think is so important seems to be ignored by everyone.
"Frankly the drugs companies won't care how their medecines are paid for - as long as they are paid for."
Isn't the government's behemoth negotiating power frequently raised as a feature of increased government involvement in proposed reforms? Doesn't this power spring from an ability to reject medicines seen as too expensive?
"Putting more people into the medical net might actually be seen as a positive thing for them."
I don't think putting a few million more people in the medical net will increase innovation more than other factors will decrease it, but I see how increasing the market could, by itself, increase the benefits of developing a product.
Furthermore there will be a lot of rent seeking in any federal bill, and in this one more than most, to ensure whatever passes will be not just less change than hoped for, but qualitatively worse change. I am afraid it will make things even worse than they are now, although I am by no means positive...especially since there isn't just one "it" to talk about.
matador said...
a message for @Shiloh.
Sir,
your nickname remembered me something.
I checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh
good choice.
;)
matador said...
@Shiloh,
particulary,I loved this:
""When you are in command, command!"
ciao,from Italy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi matador
Thanx, and yes, my dad was a Civil War buff/expert and one of my fav movies was/is 'How The West Was Won'. Just got done talkin' about this in a previous thread.
After Shiloh, the South never smiled!
btw, I'm half Italian :)
take care, ciao
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and PK, PK, PK ... didn't you get my previous message lol
You're still here! ?!? It's Over ~ Go Home! Go!
take care, blessings
Oh and re: the topic, as I keep saying, Underestimate Obama at one's own peril !!!
carry on ...
I believe everyone should be required to have medical insurance. We insureds pay for the uninsureds in our premiums. Just like auto insurance, if you drive you must have insurance to prevent burdening other drivers...if you breath, you must have insurance to prevent burdening your fellow citizens. http://www.besthealthcarerates.com
PaulK said...
Look at the kinds of stupid questions Obama gets in "town hall" meetings.
Something I wish President Obama would do is when he gets one of those stupid "the government is going to ask me how I want to die"-type questions, prior to answering it, he should point-blank ask the person where they heard that 'information'. And then answer the question - er, respond to the stupidity of the lie being pushed.
Then after the town hall, try to track down the rumor, and in the daily press briefing, call out the originators and spreaders, whoever they might be (such as Reptilian Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of NC), of the patently falsehoods.
It might be a bit of 'advertising' for Lush Rimbaugh, bill O'Lielly, Manthrax, etc. for a few days, but eventually the meme will spread that they are spreading male bovine droppings, and eventually people might start to disbelieve anything the idiots state. And if the spreader of the male bovine droppings, it would be a bonus for the Democrat who challenges the Reptilian BSer (as in the case of Foxx).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Duncan said...
However, I'm not convinced that socialised medicine slows down the rate of adoption - it seems that insurance companies and governments both have a built in incentive to only pay for established procedures/drugs.
And the purpose of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to slow down the innovation of new drugs and new techniques in fighting health problems?
Do you know that the NIH is 100% government funded?
Do you REALLY think the government is interested in not investigating ways to get people back to good health quicker and/or cheaper?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Nate-
I think you should to a write up on Obama's beer selection based on
electoral demographics. Micro or National? Foreign or Domestic?
Northeast or Northwest Micros?
Fat Tire or Coors, etc.
Brian
Leawood, Ks
I left out a few words in my post at 7:19 PM.
The final sentence should read, with the part that should have been included indicated in bold:
"And if the spreader of the male bovine droppings is running for public office (always a Reptilian GOOPer), it would be a bonus for the Democrat who challenges the Reptilian BSer (as in the case of Foxx)."
Brian?
Trying to derail a discussion on Health Care Reform?
Trying to use a TROLL technique to get the topic off something you don't want discussed?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Mike
The beer thing was posted by another Brian previously uninvolved in the thread.
If you knew it wasn't me, I don't agree that a person whose first post in a thread is directed at the blog author is trying to derail an ongoing discussion.
If you thought it was me, I don't see what including the word "TROLL" adds to your post, other than an opportunity to call someone bad in all capital letters, the online version of shouting. A simple explanation that changing the topic is not equivalent to winning an argument would be entirely satisfying in its own right.
Do you REALLY think the government is interested in not investigating ways to get people back to good health quicker and/or cheaper?
Brian said...
The beer thing was posted by another Brian previously uninvolved in the thread.
True, but I didn't address it to you, but to the 'screen name' of 'Brian', so if you took offense it's your perception and your problem, not mine.
As to the use of the word 'TROLL', TROLLs are notorious in trying to divert discussion to something, anything, besides what is being discussed. In fact, part of the definition of a TROLL (in the Internet sense) is someone who does exactly that - a disruptor of the discussion. What does any discussion of the brands of beer served at a meeting have to do with the topic at hand, namely how public opinion in 1994 vs today is affecting the discussion of Health Care Reform?
Regulars here at 538.com, and almost ALL other discussion boards (including, surprisingly, the Freeptard site) know to preface an off-topic comment with a statement similar to, or identical to, "Off Topic", and normally with an apology for the interruption of the on-topic discussion. So when an off-topic post appears with no notice it is off-topic and no apology for it being such, are we to assume that it is an innocent post?
And when such a poster refuses to allow their Blogger ID profile to show anything but "Profile Not Available", it is a fairly good indication here at 538.com that they are trying very hard to hide information, and is a very good indication that the poster is a TROLL.
Besides, the three comments that you made earlier today were all on-topic, and you even participated in an on-topic back-and-forth with Duncan. If you think my remark was directed at you, what are you hiding to make you think it was?
Besides, there are others who use a screen name similar to mine, and one (who posted on this thread) whose screen name includes part of my screen name. And then there are the TROLLs who abscond other posters' screen names, and try to disrupt the discussion by posting under that absconded screen name - and that is exactly why I was forced to include my Blogger ID in my sig line - to make it much more difficult for TROLLs to abscond my identity in these messages.
Maybe you should consider getting a more unique 'screen name' other than the generic 'Brian' that is a common first name, or some other unique method of identifying your messages as your messages?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
酒店打工
酒店兼職
台北酒店
打工兼差
酒店工作
酒店經紀
禮服店
酒店兼差
酒店上班
酒店PT
酒店
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment