Several weeks ago, I ignited a controversy by pointing toward statistical evidence that Strategic Vision, LLC, a Blairsville, Georgia based public relations firm that until recently had issued political polls, may have been faking its results. Strategic Vision vehemently denied my interpretation of the evidence and made public threats to sue me. But no lawyer has contacted me, and in fact, Strategic Vision has not conducted any further public polling since that time.
The firm's last poll was issued on September 24th -- one day before the controversy arose. It was a poll of the governor's race and other contests in New Jersey, a state which Strategic Vision has polled frequently for many years, including on 4/22, 6/24, 7/22 and 9/24 of this year. And yet, even as the race drew closer and began to receive widespread national attention, Strategic Vision did not issue any fresh polling. This contrasts with previous patterns in which they had accelerated their polling schedule prior to elections, including the previous gubernatorial election in New Jersey in 2005 when Strategic Vision issued its final poll of the contest on November 2nd of that year.
Strategic Vision's CEO, David E. Johnson, was interviewed by the Washington Times about the Virginia gubernatorial race in late October. And Strategic Vision has issued a couple of press releases on matters unrelated to politics; on October 16th, for instance, they issued a press release to announce that they would be "offering people within the toy industry free thirty-minute consultations to jumpstart their marketing and publicity efforts for the holidays and Toy Fair 2010." But in general, they've had very little public presence over the past several weeks.
One of the facts that may be significant here is that it appears that polling has never been Strategic Vision's main source of income. A search of Congressional Quarterly's Moneyline database sent to me by DavidNYC of Swing State Project turned up just $5,795 in disbursements to Strategic Vision from committees and candidates for federal office since 2004. All came in 2004 from Mike Crotts, a former candidate in Georgia's 8th Congressional District, and none were for polling -- instead, the expenditures were marked as being for website design and advertising. By contrast, the prolific and well-regarded Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies had more than $20 million in disbursements over the same period, covering more than 220 clients.
Now, Strategic Vision has clearly gotten some business from polling clients -- the aforementioned series of surveys they did for the Friedman Foundation, for instance. And the CQ Moneyline database will not cover gubernatorial candidates or candidates for other state and local offices. Strategic Vision claims on its website to have conducted polling on behalf of candidates for the U.S. Senate in Kansas and Florida, and candidates for the U.S. House in FL-13 and GA-8, but the identities of the candidates are not specified. An e-mail sent to David E. Johnson inquiring whether the CQ Moneyline database accurately reflected the limited scope of their polling for federal candidates was not returned. In any event, their client list appears to be rather limited, especially when compared with the volume of public polling that Strategic Vision has released, which by its own estimation would have cost it a couple million dollars had it actually been conducted.
The reason this might be relevant is that it may give Strategic Vision more incentive to essentially adopt a "duck-and-cover" strategy and make a quiet exit from the polling business. If Strategic Vision were more dependent on polling clients for its revenues, then it would probably have wanted to make a more vigorous effort to defend its reputation. But in light of their unwillingness or inability to do so, it appears they may have concluded that releasing additional public polling would only invite renewed scrutiny and further damage their reputation. In other words, they may have decided to cut their losses and focus on their original line of business in public relations, presumably hoping that prospective clients in the toy manufacturing or literary services businesses are far enough removed from the political world that they won't care about the possibility that Strategic Vision has faked some or all of their polls.
11.06.2009
Skipping Elections, Strategic Vision Has Not Polled Since Controversy Arose
@ 6:55 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments
4th para - I think you mean "has not ever been SV's main source of income."
WV: hashrol - how smugglers posing as hikers conceal drugs in their sleeping bags.
Hm. What happens if you take all the SV polls out of the 2008 election data, does it end up generally closer to the mark?
WV:rediz. I gotta tekka de rediz flite, got get mi Clevelandz
"Strategic Vision's CEO, David E. Johnson, was interviewed by the Washington Times..."
Wow, a bit like taking coal to Newcastle. A now-tainted Republican CEO interviewed by the tainted Republican/Moonie newspaper!
I would not be surprised if SV does the typical Republican thing: Lie low for a few months and then come back and pretend that absolutely nothing happened, with no accountability. "Accountability" does not exist in the Republican vocabulary.
Blackwater changed its name to Xe, SV could change its name to Oops!
It appears they merged with Rasmussen.
A search of Congressional Quarterly's Moneyline database sent to me by DavidNYC of Swing State Project turned up just $5,795 in disbursements to Strategic Vision from committees and candidates for federal office since 2004.
This doesn't necessarily contradict the FL and KS claims. If they were known by their political clients to be a total hack job they might have had the money sent to them via some plausible deniability route.
In any event, good ridance. But as shiloh hints at, it'd be a good idea to watch new polling companies for Mr. Johnson and/or his wife being owners/executives.
Thanks Nate. Been asking about an update for a couple of weeks. I suspected the absence of information meant a lay low technique was in play. Rebranding sure to follow. And I'm sure Johnson will always have you to blame for unfairly causing the demise of his polling business. You big meany!
If Johnson has any smarts, he'll retire in Blairsville and he and wifey can open a bakery. Not really a bad idea. Blairsville close to Smoky Mts.
Funny to hear Strategic Vision mentioned on a Dodge Truck commercial the other night. Different company, I'm sure.
Sooooo, Nate. Book? When?
Book? I suspect that the less you see Nate here on 538, the sooner the book will be done.
The paranoia on the left about a potentially fraudulent pollster is hilarious. I'll admit that their continued display of incompetence is pretty damning, though. But my advice? Ignore them and don't use their material for any of your analysis. If people ask why, then by all means tell them it's because you think they cook the books.
But these sleuthy, cat-and-mouse nerd games are really petty and juvenile. And it makes those of you so aggressively engaged in the debate look every bit like a 5-star douche.
You know what I really appreciated about the whole SV LLC thing? Statistics is a discipline that is remarkably accurate; particularly when properly stratified, randomized, and and weighted.
But anyone can hang a shingle and claim to know how to read the tea leaves. There isn't a governing body that forces you to prove that you actually can collect and decipher data properly.
Growing up I always wondered just who were those four out of five dentists that recommended that particular brand of toothpaste? Why should I believe they actually conducted a random sample of dentists to determine toothpaste preference? It was on TV, ergo, it must be true.
Thanks, Nate, for keeping honest those who purport to use stats to draw their conclusions. And calling out those who use it to establish credibility where none is deserved. Otherwise, how would we know what reality really is?
I wonder if SV has looked into filing any kind of libel suit against 538 for defaming its polling product. If they haven't, it is almost a sure sign that Nate is right and the polling data was faked, at least in some cases. Truth is the ultimate defense in libel suits.
you know what's really petty and juvenile MR? Trolling....that real does make you look like an arse.
you know what's really petty and juvenile MR? Trolling....that real does make you look like an arse.
Explain to me how anything I said above fits this criteria:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
I was on-topic and hardly being controversial or inflammatory. And I'm certainly not trying to get an emotional response or disrupt the normal flow of conversation. If anything, your attempt to "call me out" fits that definition more closely. I was just stating an opinion that I think the Nate/538 v. SV LLC thing is a bit overblown...and people look paranoid and shallow when they dwell on something that really is irrelevant.
Nicely done, Mr. Silver. You appear to have successfully ridded the industry of a malfeasant. I think further verbiage on this matter may begin to look like gloating, however.
A good researcher does his study, publishes his result, and moves on.
@Mule Rider
Contrary to your post, there is nothing in here to make Nate look like a bad guy.
The good / bad thing about Nate's system of using polls, is that he uses ALL of them, unless they are paid for BY one of the candidates (as far as my memory serves...there may be a stricter rule list).
So, what would happen if he just took off this poll from his list because he swears they cook the books. Could he take others off just because he does 'like' the results?
No, finding the truth about what is going on is much more important, because than we can trust the data he brings purely on the data alone, and not worry about his personal bias getting to far into the outcome of his statistical analysis.
I applaud you Nate for being very transparent about your methods and why you chose to include some and not other polls.
I'm hoping professor Weissman will write a long epistle on "Interrupted Time Series" analyzing the absence of new "polling" results from SV-LLC in light of various models of how their releases had previously been timed. It'd be more interesting if SV-LLC puts out a couple of press releases now and then - the complete cessation is too simple to analyze.
As to MuleRider: DFTT.
As to MidPointMan: We're still waiting for the promised data.
As to Nate: You have every right to gloat, but you must continue being subtle about it.
@Chris:
I wonder if SV has looked into filing any kind of libel suit against 538 for defaming its polling product. If they haven't, it is almost a sure sign that Nate is right and the polling data was faked, at least in some cases. Truth is the ultimate defense in libel suits.
While I certainly agree that truth is a great libel defense, I disagree that the lack of a libel suit proves anything. Remember that Nate was very careful in qualifying his statements; he never actually accused SV of faking the polls. He just gave us the data and explained why it looked suspicious. In fact, he repeatedly and specifically said that what he had did not constitute "proof" of anything.
So, point is, even if Nate were wrong these guys wouldn't have a workable libel suit. Of course the fact that they have completely stopped polling does make it look a lot less likely that Nate's wrong...not that it looked very likely in the first place.
Great update, Nate. I have been wondering about SV.
@Edmund
Hm. What happens if you take all the SV polls out of the 2008 election data, does it end up generally closer to the mark?
I would like to see this! Good idea, Edmund.
As to MuleRider: DFTT.
Do Feed The Troll? Either you've got a typo or are trying to send a mixed message to somebody.
Again, I ask, how does my not humming along with the 538 theme song - even when I'm on-topic and relatively polite - make me a troll? Seriously. It's like you some of you guys really want an echo-chamber.
It's reactions like this (me being called "troll" when I'm on-topic and polite but disagree or refute the point) that make me want to be even more disagreeable, off-topic, and impolite.
Get used to the fact that not everybody agrees with your narrow world view. Even I've come to grips with it. Sheesh!
MR Said: "But these sleuthy, cat-and-mouse nerd games are really petty and juvenile. And it makes those of you so aggressively engaged in the debate look every bit like a 5-star douche."
This is polite how?
This is polite how?
Compared to the angry, vitriolic prattling by some of the commenters on here, using the words like
nerd,
petty,
juvenile, and
douche
ain't nothin'...
Peter Wolf said...
you know what's really petty and juvenile MR? Trolling....that real does make you look like an arse.
Mule Rider responded,
Explain to me how anything I said above fits this criteria:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
I was on-topic and hardly being controversial or inflammatory. And I'm certainly not trying to get an emotional response or disrupt the normal flow of conversation. If anything, your attempt to "call me out" fits that definition more closely. I was just stating an opinion that I think the Nate/538 v. SV LLC thing is a bit overblown...and people look paranoid and shallow when they dwell on something that really is irrelevant.
-------------------------------
You know Mule, I've gotten accustomed to ignoring you. But what the hey, It's morning here on the west coast, I'm into my first cup of joe. Let me break down your questions and statements one by one.
Explain to me how anything I said above fits this criteria:
This is your standard distraction technique or the the equivalent of playground moron saying "Oh yeah? Prove it!". I could dig up a multitude of examples this defense from this website that you use but, suffice to say, I'm not going to bother. Those of us who post here regularly will most certainly back me up on this. I suspect you were that kid who got picked on in the playground as a child. Seems only natural that you cultivate such a defense mechanism.
For all those who were saying in another thread how Mule's really a nice guy when you get to know him... I didn't get it then and I don't get it now. He routinely makes posts like this. I remember one thread where the first post he made called TonyC's mom a "pathetic horse-banging skank".
He makes deliberately inflammatory comments for the specific purpose of receiving attention. Don't give it to him. Similarly, don't give him attention when he piteously wails that he just doesn't understand why people call him a troll. This is the flip side of the same coin - he wants attention any way he can get it. You wouldn't be fooled by an 8-year-old doing it so don't let Mule fool you.
Let's examine the language you consistently use. For simplicity's sake, I'll just focus on the two posts you've already made here and leave it to the interested reader to juxtapose them to the multitude of other offensive posts you have dumped on this site for the past couple of years.
The paranoia [indicating that all of us who are interested in this topic are paranoid] on the left [indicating that you are not] about a potentially fraudulent pollster is hilarious. I'll admit that their continued display of incompetence is pretty damning, though. But my advice? [an indication of your false belief in superior reasoning skills] Ignore them and don't use their material for any of your analysis. If people ask why, then by all means tell them it's because you think they cook the books [reasonable assessment].
But these sleuthy [incorrect, we've been totally open and even loud about this], cat-and-mouse nerd games [we consider that a compliment] are really petty and juvenile [an obvious example of inflammatory words which you purport not use]. And it makes those of you so aggressively engaged [me vs. all of you] in the debate look every bit like a 5-star douche [blatantly provocative language that unfortunately many of my friends here often fall for].
Oh, I have more.
I was on-topic and hardly being controversial or inflammatory. And I'm certainly not trying to get an emotional response or disrupt the normal flow of conversation. [Okay, even you have to admit that's absolute bullshit given your history]. If anything, your attempt to "call me out" [precisely what you want] fits that definition more closely. I was just stating an opinion that I think the Nate/538 v. SV LLC thing is a bit overblown...and people look paranoid and shallow when they dwell on something that really is irrelevant [you obviously know we already think you are irrelevant].
It's no secret, Mule, that you hate Nate. He's successful; he's on TV, he's published, he's a nerd that made it good and he has a following of like-minded individuals that agree with him. You don't have that. You're insanely jealous and resentful. WE GET THAT. Face it, you are a troll. An insecure keyboard critic who got beat up on the playground. There is no need to continually drag the rest of us down to your level of discourse because everybody eventually figures you out.
Now in case you think I enjoy this smackdown of you, think again. I actually hope it makes you think about the way you communicate here and somehow you'll read your previous posts and draw some useful conclusions from it. For example: why do you NEED to try to belittle us? If you think that being an internet site bully makes you a bigger man, hell, I'll take you on any day.
I mean what final result do you get out of posting your rants here and enabling your 'No Fair! Nate's Cheating! schoolyard rhetoric? Do you envision Nate finally sayin, 'Wow, Mule was right. I'm a complete douche.' and then the rest of us will fall into place and bow down to you like lemmings?
We don't want to "call you out". We want you to go away. That kind of discourse is petty and distracting. I'll be the first to say that rarely, (and I mean rarely) I have agreed with something you say (I think your response was to blow coffee onto your computer screen).
I think you would do better here to formulate your arguments in less combative language and more cogent points. I think you'll find that more useful and productive.
Maybe see you in Memphis. First beer's still on you.
My work is done for today. Now for that second cup of coffee.
Isn't Mule Rider the classy bloke who has in the past threatened Nate Silver? Used profane and incendiary vitriol when addressing people?
Sorry, Mr. Rider, but I'm having a hard time actually feeling bad for you now that your actions have driven others to classify you as a troll.
@Nate
Universe is right. You're a f&@#ing stats hero.
I remember one thread where the first post he made called TonyC's mom a "pathetic horse-banging skank"
This is to say nothing of the combative and inflammatory rhetoric that Tony was using that elicited such a response...
But, hey, only give one side of the story. That's what you and several other commenteres here on 538 are damn good at.
We don't want to "call you out". We want you to go away. That kind of discourse is petty and distracting.
translation:
We want our echo chamber to ourselves, and WE WANT IT THAT WAY NOW!!!!
@Mark Grebner-
Hey Mark, it turns out that MPM did post a link to those results- but on another site (Blumenthal) and under another name. I found it via the Google.
Anyway, he was looking at Presidential approval ratings (too homogeneous a question) from a variety of different pollsters (very weak statistics due to small N each), and only considering the 0 thru 4 vs. 5 thru 9 relative digit frequencies (almost entirely orthogonal to the Fourier components we looked at). And he said he found 4 pollsters (ARG, NBC/WSJ,Gallup/cnn/usa,CBS/NYT) who seemed more anomalous than SV!
So I scrounged the data and ran it through the Fourier program. The p-values for those 4 were 0.40, 0.76, 0.52, and 0.93, respectively. Remember SV had p=0.00019.
To pick up a little more statistical power, I summed his 4 sets: p=0.43. The filtered variance was 0.99 times the expectation under the null.
For those of you not familiar with the terms, what this means is that for all his bluster, MPM had found exactly nothing.
@Michael (MBW) - Thanks!
Your post contains two very interesting tidbits. First, another wonderful application of Fourier analysis. (I had my heart set on Markov, but I can accept the gift that's given.)
Second, the strong hint that MPM is not a troll, but merely completely incompetent at communication, and largely incompetent at data analysis. It's like discovering that the deadbeat who vaguely claims "the check is in the mail" really did mail a check - but for the wrong amount and to the wrong address. Instead of ignoring him, the correct response is to work on basic skills, patiently and forgivingly.
Many thanks.
I guess they never got around to that lawsuit of theirs.
Nate's analysis strikes me as being on the mark here. SV is laying low, and they're surely done with the polling business. Nicely done.
Public Relations?!?
If that is their business, no wonder they were faking their numbers, and no wonder they were outraged: PR people don't know the difference between truth and fiction or right and wrong, all they know is whether something will spin good or spin bad.
"... and in fact, Strategic Vision has not conducted any further public polling since that time."
As if they ever were?
@Mule:
As always, you are wrong. We don't want an echo chamber to ourselves, we just don't want fools wasting our time with bad logic driven by a selfish and hateful ideology.
That's you. From our point of view, you are just another distraction from what could be a serious discussion; like a fourteen year old trying to be part of an adult debate on economic policy. All you really have to contribute is non-sequiters akin to I like pie!
The only reason it looks like an echo-chamber to you is that all reason sounds the same to you, like Charlie Brown's teacher: Bwa mmm wa wah. You just don't understand anything, so to you it all sounds the same.
It is no surprise the adults get fed up with your inanity and tell you to go away.
Now go away.
Tony C.,
I'll be honest. I'd really love to just shove shit down your throat until you choke to death.
You are undeniably one of the worst human beings I've ever encountered, and it's a shame I haven't had the chance to give you a bare-fisted beatdown.
@Michael (MBW) & Mark Grebner
MidPointMan posted that data on 538 as well. I asked him to post the entire bit of data (distributions for all of the numbers, rather than the [potentially false] dichotomous strategy), but that is the same time he disappeared.
I think this is the post: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/monday-mish-mash-strategic-vision-las.html
I bet that the dichotomous strategy is actually a poor strategy, because it falsely represents the data. Perhaps he did some of the more basic models run on 538 (chi-square etc) and didn't find hypothesis-confirming results. Perhaps MidPointMan is just the file-drawer problem in science.
Look everyone! Mule Rider just exposed his true violent, psychotic colors . . . again. Am I surprised? No.
Damn well somebody's off his meds again!
eewwww !
Mule Head exposed his whats ???
@MarkinIL
Yeah, as you said MPM posted some processed results, but not the sort of data suitable for any serious analysis. His link (to Roper) appeared over on Blumenthal's site.
Since it was easy to port those data into the Fourier program, I suspect what happened was that he tried it, realized that he had nothing, then hoped we wouldn't track down the data.
Mule Rider said...
Tony C.,
I'll be honest. I'd really love to just shove shit down your throat until you choke to death.
You are undeniably one of the worst human beings I've ever encountered, and it's a shame I haven't had the chance to give you a bare-fisted beatdown.
Yeah, I really have no idea why they call you a troll. Not controversial or inflammatory at all.
Wow. It's like the same back and forth with DonkeyGaper (my affectionate bestial porn nickname for Muley- I mean, really, can you imagine... ride a mule...where are you going on that mule, sweetie?).
The same back-and-forth with the same goddamn twerps for... since I started following this site before the run-up to last year's election. Same goddamn conservative talking points applied to...whatever the fuck you want to apply it to... One Size Fits All, baby, Sofa#9 Ich bin Maroon Sofa and damask piping Newt Turdball Gingrich whining about Obama not being in Berlin (and if he was, then he'd be whined about for ignoring the US economy at 10% unemployment- right on script you manipulating pigfuckers) blah blah fucking blah I'll stick my head my ass until the sky shits brown enema water. Nate, ban me for this, I could care less. I love the work you do, but a spade is a spade and dogshit is dogshit and as long as you have this open forum with Asshat's Welcome Mat, guess what?
(wait a minute... 10.2% unemployment?! Did I vote for the wrong guy? Where's Pete Kent?)
@ Tony C:
If that is their business, no wonder they were faking their numbers, and no wonder they were outraged: PR people don't know the difference between truth and fiction or right and wrong, all they know is whether something will spin good or spin bad.
Both my parents are in public relations, and I myself have spent many hours working with them and their colleagues, so you'll pardon me if I take this to be:
a) stereotyping, as you're painting all public relations people with the same brush;
b) unjustified, as trust me, the people I've worked with know the differences between truth and fiction or right and wrong well, and have lost clients because of it;
c) simplistic, because there is a lot more to the business of public relations than how things spin;
and d) really not the level of discourse I'm used to seeing on 538.
I have nothing personal against you, man, but I can't brook a potshot like that when I know the situation is different. I've criticised the business myself, but I wouldn't reduce it to such black-and-white terms.
WV: sters (n.) The other thing that comes from Texas; alternatively, device used to travel between storeys in the same state.
@Mule:
See, that is kind of my point, Mule. Notice how fast you want to resort to violent imagery? That adolescent rage is because you have no fuckin' thinking skills, no ideas, and anytime somebody attacks your beliefs you mistake that for an attack on your person. Thus you feel justified in making a physical attack in return.
This rage is a red flag for deep-seated personal insecurity, Mule. You have my sincere pity.
@Menzies:
I've been in business thirty years as a consultant. One of the funniest posters I've seen is the
Despair, Inc. picture of a handshake with the caption "Consultants: If you're not a part of the solution, there is good money to made in prolonging the problem."
It denigrates my profession, but captures an element of truth in some of my colleagues that makes it funny. So lighten up. Here is one for Public Relations: Propaganda.
Tony -
Yes, I do enjoy the Despair, Inc. posters now and then, especially as I fit the one category for which all of them are listed as being suitable.
That point aside, that poster and what you said are two completely different things. If you meant it with humourous intent, then I apologise for misunderstanding it, but it didn't exactly carry through; if you didn't, then you meant to denigrate a profession I've come to respect over the years, and thus really have no business using this as a cover; and if you did mean it, but still find it funny, then it's too bad my sense of humour is tetchier than yours about such things.
@Menzies:
Okay, YOU characterize public relations in black and white terms, with special emphasis on the negative, and remember we are on a thread talking about a public relations firm that allegedly just made up polling numbers to support its talking points, so I'd like you to reflect the flavor of that in your summation. You have 60 seconds. Exaggerate for effect, and ... Go.
I will own up to the fact that after dealing with dozens of PR people as a consultant, not to mention their cousins in the advertising business, I have formed a rather negative stereotype of the typical denizens of that forest.
The truth sometimes needs help being told; in my thirty years as a consultant, PR people are generally deployed to help hide ugly truths or to help disseminate untruths or distractions. Their job is to tell the corporation's side of the story, and more often than not what the corporation wants them to do is keep them from being embarrassed for being caught with their pants down.
PR people are there to increase the level of ignorance in the world; they are enablers of dirty tricks and underhanded tactics.
Admiring somebody's skill in accomplishing these goals is looking at the great wrapping job and fine paper and silk ribbon, instead of what it delivers, the crap in the box. PR people dress up and perfume the stinky turds of the world; that is their job.
If you have counter-examples, feel free to post them.
@Tony:
Characterising public relations "in black and white terms, with special emphasis on the negative" is more balanced characterisation than you gave - you painted all people who work in the industry with the same brush, which I repeat, is what I was objecting to in the first place. Strategic Vision's polling numbers are bullshit, no ifs, ands, or buts about it; what I'm saying is that this doesn't enable us to just dismiss the entire industry as a pack of bottom-feeding liars.
I agree that the role of PR and advertising is generally to obfuscate or counter the leaks and embarrassments of corporations; that's not in dispute, and as I said before, I've criticised the industry myself for such things, but again, I'm objecting to the conclusion that a prerequisite for working in public relations is a lack of conscience.
As for counter-examples, my father works at a firm where they do pro bono work for a charity organisation, setting up their outreach efforts, surveys, art auctions, advertising - he was eventually named to the charity's board of directors so he could better coordinate between the two. My mother's most recent work was with a series of presentations back home to raise awareness about insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes including nutritional information, exercise, and medical care.
Still, this isn't just me being offended on behalf of my family. The employees at my father's agency don't guard their tongues when they think an ad campaign or a press release is questionable or dishonest, and as I said, they've had at least one client bail on them because of this.
We have plenty of underhanded PR firms back home, but we also have quite a few who seek out and do good work. So - a third time - I am not objecting to your characterisation of the public relations business: I am objecting to your characterisation of the people who work in that business.
Menzies is doing what any good PR person does: OBFUSCATE, OBFUSCATE, and then OBFUSCATE some more.
A good PR person attempts to sway public opinion away from any bad perception about a company, product or service.
Examples:
Attempts by GM to hide the dangers in the Corvair;
Attempts by Ford to hide the dangers in the Pinto if involved in a rear-end collision;
Attempts by Ford to hide the dangers in vehicles with fuel tanks outside the vehicle frame;
Attempts by Source Perrier to posit that benzene found in bottled water was a local (US) problem, not a worldwide problem;
The 'attempt' by General Public Utilities Corporation to first hide, then to control the coverage of the Three Mile Island accident, causing massive doubt in the 'truthiness' of any GPU press and/or PR releases about the nuclear accident. Many people STILL believe that several people died as a direct result of the near meltdown.
An EXCELLENT PR person will push a company to admit an error or problem, and to take responsibility for, and lead in correcting and/or rectifying the situation.
One of the best examples of the excellent response was the reaction by Johnson & Johnson after the Tylenol poisonings in the Chicago area in 1982. Almost immediately, J&J recalled ALL Tylenol products AND told the public to stop using ALL Tylenol products. The cost? An estimated $100 million retail value was placed on the recalled Tylenol products, plus the cost of actually physically recalling the product, plus the cost of eventually replacing the product.
Because J&J was perceived, short- and long-term, to have been honest and truthful, the Tylenol brand recovered, and in a very short time recovered it's previous share of the market.
(http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/TylenolMurders/crisis.html)
In other words, honesty and taking extra precautions were rewarded.
Perrier? Some recovery, but it never got back to the level of sales it had before the 'Benzene incident' (let alone the market share), even though the bottled water market has exploded in the past two decades.
Mike in Maryland
@Mike in Maryland:
Heh, of course - since I don't agree with Tony C. on this issue, no matter what else I say, I must of course work in public relations myself. Aristotle would be proud.
Did you read anything I said at all? The part where I pretty much said I'm a disaffected college student? Where I said that the Strategic Vision polls are clearly bullshit and that that isn't the issue I'm debating? Where I said I've criticised the more questionable work done by public relations firms?
I'm signed on here with a GoogleID: look through my other work and it should be fairly obvious that I'm not a public relations consultant nor am I particularly skilled at or interested in obfuscating things.
I value the customer advocacy work done by Nader's Raiders and other groups as much as you do. What I took offense with was not the characterisation of public relations as an industry of questionable honesty (which it is) but with the characterisation of the people who work in it as conscienceless liars (which, in my experience, they are not).
I've been reading this blog for a while, certainly since this time last year. I'm not trolling here; if I were, I'd think I'd do better by modelling myself after PeteKent, or GROG, or Mule Rider, in his less controllable moments. I am taking issue at something that was said unnecessarily, or at least could be phrased better. If you have a problem with that, then it's not so much that I'm obfuscating anything as that you weren't paying enough attention to what I actually wrote.
Menzies said...
What I took offense with was not the characterisation of public relations as an industry of questionable honesty (which it is) but with the characterisation of the people who work in it as conscienceless liars (which, in my experience, they are not).
I presume that you know that an industry does not exist in a vacuum, but it is the people who work in that industry who actually make or break, typify or not, in whole or part, that industry? The industry (or company, organization, government agency, etc.) does not, in fact, exist except for the people who ARE in that industry, etc.
If no person in the PR industry is a "conscienceless liar", then how can the industry as a whole be characterized as having "questionable honesty"?
No, it is SOME people in the PR industry who are "conscienceless liars" (as appears to be the case with Mr. Johnson of SV LLC, and various PR flaks who worked for various other organizations) who give the entire field of public relations a bad image. A bit more honesty about the situation instead of the constant 'spin, spin, spin, spin, spin' (like the hacks for most political parties do) would go a long way to helping the PR industry to be held in higher respect by the 'common man'.
It is confirmation of the old saw, "One bad apple spoiled the whole barrel." Except for the PR industry, it is many, many bad apples who've soiled the reputation of the whole industry.
Are all used-car salesmen snake-oil salesmen? No. But enough are that when someone is described in comparison to a used-car salesman, no further explanation is normally needed. And enough PR hacks have sullied the PR industry reputation with their obfuscation, spin, obfuscation, spin . . . that the entire industry suffers, even those who are not at fault.
Mike in Maryland
@Mike:
I suppose I'm as guilty of generalisation as Tony is - or I would be if I had not added that in my experience people in public relations are not conscienceless liars. I am not here to defend the whole industry; it is in fact one of questionable honesty, and that's why I've criticised it before. I am here to present a counterexample to what Tony said, and as Tony and I have both had (differing) experiences with public relations consultants, of course we went with our respective guts on the matter. That's why I started by saying that I have nothing personal against him and why I admitted that I think the public relations industry has its deficiencies, as does anything else.
The old argument that "ninety percent of [insert profession here] give the rest a bad name" may be good for a joke, but it's the kind of joke that's only funny until someone says it about us or someone close to us. Clearly there are bad apples in the public relations barrel, but that's no reason to write off everyone who works in the industry as "conscienceless liars" - to provide a comparison of what it's like, think of when one of the trolls you guys have around here shows up to talk about how all Democrats are hidden Communists.
All used-car salesmen aren't snake-oil salesmen, obviously, and therefore anyone wishing to make a proper argument about the kind of person a used-car salesman or what a used-car salesman would do in any given situation should avoid saying as much, because it's an ad hominem generalisation and (since no one knows every used-car salesman in the world) won't be born of evidence but of sentiment.
Anyway, Tony since clarified that he meant to be funny or at least sarcastic when he said it, and as I replied, if that was his intent, I was sorry that I hadn't understood it, but it also hadn't carried through to me, and that isn't entirely my fault.
Menzies,
Any day now you can quit the spinning, obfuscation, spinning obfuscation . . . . about the entire PR industry. Please go back and re-read what I wrote.
Yes, I made some comments about the PR industry and the inability for many to be honest about transmitting the facts. I also showed examples of good and excellent PR, especially in the case of the PR people at J&J, who basically saved the Tylenol brand and J&J with the honesty in which they presented the brand and company in 1982.
And yes, I've had lots of contact with good and bad PR people - you tend to get the full spectrum of them when you work in a federal government agency for several decades, where the head of PR and many of the staff are political appointees.
And yes, I've had lots of contact with good and bad used-car sales people, including some of both (but mostly good) in my own family.
All in all, the PR industry and the used-car industry, as a whole, have at least somewhat dirty hands, as both tend to cover up and try to explain away the bad apples in order to not hurt their immediate financial futures. In the process, they hurt themselves and their industry in the long run by not admitting there actually are some bad apples in their respective professions. If they actually admitted that fact, cleaned up the actions of certain people in the industry (or kicked them out entirely), the long-term image of their respective industries would almost certainly be quite a bit brighter.
The only problem with that scenario is who would we then be able to pick on?
- GOOPer PR hacks (as opposed to all other PR people)?
- The Yankees and Yankee fans?
- The Packers and the inflated ego "The Pack is back!" Packer fans? Or you can substitute Steelers and those damn towels for Packers if you wish. (Not that I don't already pick on and dislike all those idiot teams and their fans - VBG).
Mike in Maryland
Mike,
Say what you will about PR and other industries but leave Packer fans alone!
Go Pack!
@Mike:
I don't take kindly to being told I'm engaging in "spinning obfuscation" when I am doing nothing of the kind - if what I am saying is somehow unclear, then that's your problem, not mine. I've made my point, repeatedly; perhaps it is you who needs to go back and read what I wrote, here and elsewhere.
You may have encountered the full spectrum of public relations people, as have I; but somehow I manage to keep myself from making generalisations about the people who work in the industry as a whole while having much weaker counter-examples than yours.
One last time: I didn't come here to prove or disprove anything about the state of the public relations industry. I took issue at what Tony C. said because it hit close to home, and not because that's my line of work - I wish I had a job, even a public relations one, right now - but because people close to me do work in that industry and aren't what he said.
Or, of course, you can continue to assume I'm lying and snickering from my big-corporate-PR-firm office. It's all the same to me.
@Jacob:
Regret your team got hit in the crossfire - if it were up to me this would've been over a few posts ago and we could get on to bashing Strategic Vision.
Menzies,
YOUR words on this thread:
What I took offense with was not the characterisation of public relations as an industry of questionable honesty (which it is) but with the characterisation of the people who work in it as conscienceless liars (which, in my experience, they are not). (emphasis added)
If you meant some or most of the PR industry should not be characterized as an industry of questionable honesty, why did you state what I quoted above?
You yourself stated that "the characterisation of public relations as an industry of questionable honesty" is a correct characterization by adding on the words "(which it is)".
What I pointed out was that an industry is made up of individuals (aka humans), and an industry cannot exist without humans. So when you state that the industry is of questionable honesty, you are stating that the humans, or at least some of them, that actually ARE the industry, are of questionable honesty. Maybe you haven't met any who are of questionable honesty, but most people have directly or indirectly met them.
Then you completely reverse course by implying, then later explicitly, stating that no human can or should be characterized as a "conscienceless liar[]".
So which is it? The PR industry (which, like EVERY industry, is non-existent without including the humans who actually ARE the industry) is "an industry of questionable honesty", or (as I have been attempting to make clear to you) that there are some bad apples who give a bad name to the PR industry, but you deny that there are ANY bad apples.
In other words, SOME bad apples of the PR industry have given the entire PR industry a black eye. The only way the PR industry will be able to shed that image is to completely isolate and/or get rid of the bad apples. Characterizing ALL people in the PR industry as NOT bad apples (as you have repeatedly attempted to do WITHOUT CONSISTENT QUALIFICATION) shows that you have learned the PR tactic of spin, obfuscate, spin, obfuscate . . . very, very well.
BTW - two questions:
1. Do you consider Mr. Johnson of SV LLC to be a member of the PR industry? He says he runs a PR firm, and he attempts to influence public perceptions (clearly stated on his website), and gets paid for that attempt to influence perceptions. Therefore, by definition, he is a member of the PR industry.
2. Do you agree that evidence has been presented that Mr. Johnson of SV LLC can probably be considered to be a conscienceless liar?
You cannot logically answer 'Yes' to both questions and still state that the people who work in the PR industry (with the implication that you are including each and every member of that industry) cannot be characterized as conscienceless liars. That is, you cannot answer 'Yes' to both questions without doing a lot of spinning, obfuscating, more spinning, and more obfuscating . . . (i.e., the hallmark of a PR hack.)
Mike in Maryland
@Mike:
If my argument has not been obvious enough, I apologise - so I'll try to make my main points once more, as clearly as I can.
I am not the one making the assumption that I'm talking about every single member of the public relations industry. To wit, from the same part you quoted (emphasis mine):
What I took offence at was not the characterisation of public relations as an industry of questionable honesty (which it is) but with the characterisation of the people who work in it as conscienceless liars (which, in my experience, they are not).
In other words, what I am objecting to is that everyone who works in public relations must be a conscienceless liar, and saying that to make a (logical or serious) argument about public relations consultants, one shouldn't resort to generalisations about them. My "consistent qualification" this entire time has been "in my experience," the people I've met and worked with.
I do not deny that there are bad apples in the industry. Repeat: I do not deny that there are bad apples in the industry. What I deny is that they are all bad apples or that the existence of so many of them should be used as grounds for generalising about them all. To prove that said generalisation must be false, I provided counterexamples. In other words, up until you decided to allege, "without consistent qualification," that I am a public relations consultant, I was doing exactly what Tony asked me to do.
This is why I said that I wasn't talking about the state of the public relations industry, but rather taking issue with an unnecessary generalisation about the people who work in it. Let me put it this way - I could say "conservatives don't know their history," but I don't, because I know not every conservative is Kevin James or Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachmann. (Whether you agree or not with the premise I use here is irrelevant; I'm using it as an analogy.)
Furthermore, what you said was not that there are some bad apples that give the public relations industry a bad name; what you said that there are so many that generalising that all public relations consultants are conscienceless liars, or using them as a benchmark for lying, is simply a logical step, like assuming all used-car salesmen are snake-oil salesmen or using that as a point of comparison.
So yes, I can logically answer that David Johnson is a liar (whether a conscienceless one is his own problem) and a member of the public relations industry, because at no point did I intend to apply my defence to each and every public relations consultant and manager in the industry. You made that assumption.
When I say that the people in the industry should not be characterised as conscienceless liars, I am saying that the burden of "consistent qualification" is on the accuser, and as neither Tony nor you know every single public relations consultant currently living, you can't logically argue that no public relations consultant knows right from wrong or truth from fiction, which is what Tony was literally saying, but satirically; again, this is why I apologised for not having gotten the joke, as it were.
In other words, you're defending the spirit of his argument, whereas I took umbrage at the letter of it.
Laconically: We have a full barrel of apples. Tony knows some of the apples are bad, so says that they're all bad. I say that I know some of the apples are just fine, so they can't all be bad. You say that so many of them are bad you might as well write the whole barrel off.
Menzies,
Deconstruct, obfuscate, spin and do every other PR trick you can.
I told you (at 9:34 PM, 11-8-2009) that "I've had lots of contact with good and bad PR people - you tend to get the full spectrum of them when you work in a federal government agency for several decades, where the head of PR and many of the staff are political appointees."
I did not, and I am not, stating that EVERY individual who works in the PR industry is a 'bad apple'. What I did state, and what I am continuing to state, is that the bad apples of the PR industry are tainting the public's perception of the PR industry as a whole.
Does that man that I think the PR industry has a larger than its share of bad apples? No, but the public as a whole either already has, or is getting, that perception.
You cannot tell anyone with a straight face that you have absolutely no knowledge of any PR people who are slime (your word), even if you have never met those who even you would label as slime. After all, you stated, at 11:02 PM 11-8-2009, "we [can] get on to bashing Strategic Vision." Since SV LLC is basically a one-person firm, 'bashing' the firm as bad is 'bashing' an individual in the PR industry (although deserving to be bashed in this case, as even you imply).
BTW - I never 'assume'. I DO make presumptions that I try to base on evidence. Therefore, I don't 'assume' that you are writing from a "big-corporate-PR-firm office" (evidence - not many would be writing to a political blog from their office on a very late Sunday night/early Monday morning). I do presume that since you've already stated that you have worked in, or been associated with, the PR business, you still have a PR mentality of obfuscating and spinning, such that you cannot even admit that:
1. maybe you made a statement in a clumsy manner, and/or
2. that you truly believe that (a) PR firms, as firms, can be dishonest, but (b) not a single individual of the PR industry can be a 'conscienceless liar'. If (a) is true, then (b) CANNOT be true. If (b) is true, then (a) CANNOT be true. But just like a PR hack would do, it appears that you have been trying to spin it as both conditions can be true simultaneously.
What I have observed is that (just like all human endeavors) (a-1) SOME PR firms are honest and (a-2) SOME PR firms are not honest (albeit in varying degrees); (b-1) SOME people in the PR industry are honest and (b-2) SOME people in the PR industry are dishonest (albeit in varying degrees).
Mike in Maryland
@Menzies:
but it's the kind of joke that's only funny until someone says it about us
Wrong. I was a consultant, the first poster I linked to was about consultants. I thought it was funny even though it was denigrating me.
This idea that we need to be careful to calibrate statements to ensure people understand we aren't talking about EVERY x or EVERY y is just plain information sapping bullshit and completely wasted time. Round up to the next 15% and it might as well be 100%.
In the case of PR people and the cases you cite: Hey, I know of one white-collar criminals that stole half a million dollars and he also volunteered at the local children's hospital, so don't go telling me all thieves are bad people. And just because a bank robber uses a gun and threatens to end a teller's life if they don't comply with his orders -- does that make him a bad person?
When you are talking about people or business situations or sales or calls or anything involving human decisions, everything has exceptions because everyone is frikkin' crazy on some point or another. Furthermore, everybody understands that already so qualifiers are an unecessary waste of time.
Personally, I find that maybe 2 out of 5 consultants earn their pay. That is no great hit rate, but I'd bet less than 1 in 7 PR people are honest straight-shooters. Tylenol not withstanding, that is simply not what they are hired to do. The reaction of J&J is noteworthy because it was so unexpected and so untypical.
I am not offended by consultant jokes because I understand that people say in jest what they mean in earnest. Jokes impart information about belief systems. When I am working I am careful to take note of jokes told by people because their jokes reveal their beliefs and attitudes faster than any litmus test, and to me, that is important business intel.
So let me go further: PR people are conscienceless bastards that lie for a living.
That is the perception of the masses, and if there exist any PR people with halos out there, that perception is good news, because it is an easy straw man to knock down. I liked consultant jokes, they denigrated my competition and I typically knew going in I would leave them with a solved problem.
If you're a college student, grow some armor. Emotional responses to perceived insult (or the opposite) is not just predictable but used by some people to manipulate you into making irrational decisions. That can cost you more than you can imagine.
@Mike:
I didn't say "You say that all the apples are bad." I said (and I quote):
"You say that so many of them are bad you might as well write the whole barrel off."
Hmm, what does this remind me of?
"It is confirmation of the old saw, "One bad apple spoiled the whole barrel." Except for the PR industry, it is many, many bad apples who've soiled the reputation of the whole industry."
I'm not the one obfuscating here, you are. You seem to be skimming through my arguments and missing the parts where I actually make my points.
To your third paragraph ("Does that man . . ."): I don't care what the public perception of something is. That's what this whole argument is about.
To your fourth ("You cannot tell anyone with a straight face . . ."): Indeed, I haven't. From a prior argument:
"We have plenty of underhanded PR firms back home, but we also have quite a few who seek out and do good work." (emphasis mine)
I don't know how many people work at Strategic Vision, so if bashing it is bashing an individual, at least we're bashing the right one. Stop it with the "even you": I'm no more dishonest than you, with the difference that I have assumed everything you have told me up until now to be true, whereas you have continued to assume everything I have told you to be false. (Don't tell me this is not an assumption - I told you to read what I have strung around the Internet before. You have no evidence to prove I am lying except my "mentality.")
To your fifth ("BTW - I never 'assume' . . .): I'll now list the facts about myself I have mentioned before in this thread, plus full disclosure. I solemnly swear that these are true, however much power such an oath may have over the Internet.
1. I am a college student (undergraduate, if you must know, and in the usual age range for one).
2. My parents currently work in the public relations industry. I do not.
FD1. I have never worked in a paid capacity within the public relations industry; my work has been limited to one write-up for an award race, with no guidance from anyone within the agency, and proofreading and translating work done by others.
FD2. As you might guess from the above, I wasn't ever in a position to acquire a "PR mentality of obfuscating and spinning."
To your bullet points:
1. I started my last argument by apologising if I had been unclear in the past. Let me do so again in hopes that you will read it this time. I apologise if my arguments up until this point have been unclear or clumsy.
2. No, I haven't actually been trying to spin it that way. The bad apples analogy I used contained this:
"I say that I know some of the apples are just fine, so they can't all be bad."
Yes, and I'm observed the same; but what you said is this:
Are all used-car salesmen snake-oil salesmen? No. But enough are that when someone is described in comparison to a used-car salesman, no further explanation is normally needed. And enough PR hacks have sullied the PR industry reputation with their obfuscation, spin, obfuscation, spin . . . that the entire industry suffers, even those who are not at fault.
@Tony C:
A long, long time ago, I said this:
"If you meant it with humourous intent, then I apologise for misunderstanding it . . ."
and this:
". . . it's too bad my sense of humour is tetchier than yours about such things."
See that? I admitted that it's a difference of opinion and apologised for not getting your joke. I've also refrained from making any jokes about consultants or federal government agency employees or accusing either of you of being anything you haven't said you are.
I also said that I thought the joke could have been phrased better or that it was "unnecessary." What I meant by that was that I thought, and think, there were better ways to make the same point.
The examples you cited are just plain bullshit, as phrased.
1. Did the white-collar thief use that money to help the hospital? If he didn't, there's no analogy, because I was pointing out that my father's agency does work for both corporate and charitable clients, and does upstanding work. Even if he had used his ill-gotten gains to help the children's hospital, that wouldn't matter, because he acquired funds through illegal means, whereas in the analogy I presented the money for the pro bono work was obtained through legal ones.
2. Of course it makes a bank robber a bad person, because he's robbing a goddamned bank.
Tell me whatever you want about your experiences with public relations people: it's interesting, and I read it, but you're doing nothing different than I am. You're arguing from experience, and since our experiences are different, so will our takes on the same situation.
You're not offended by consultant jokes, more power to you, and use whatever ways you want to acquire "important business intel." Jokes are quite useful in extracting info about people's belief systems, but I'm not a business major - ergo when I make use of this information I'm generally not looking to make money off it.
Thanks for whatever sentiment led you to provide your advice - but the reason I responded was precisely because it costs me absolutely nothing except a few minutes of my day. I type fast enough for that.
@Mike, one last note:
I forgot to mention this. You quoted slime as being "[my] word."
Hit Ctrl+F (or Cmnd+F on a Mac) and search "slime." The first result that comes up is not one of my posts; it is you accusing me of using the word "slime." Related words such as "slimy" and even the root "slim-" garner nothing else.
Quote-mine to your heart's content - it's certainly a venerated tactic going as far back as the ancient Greeks - but I'd appreciate it if you could at least keep yourself from outright lying.
So, put up or shut up - I've apologised for making unclear statements more than once. Would you be willing to apologise for having made an untrue one?
WV: amelder - One who melds.
@Menzie:
There is a BBQ restaurant near here, established in the 1940's, with a bunch of these old hand-lettered signs painted on tin. One of these signs says,
How do we keep prices so low?
We rip off every third customer
and pass the savings on to you!
It is nice to know that in your eyes, I could spend forty hours a week lying my ass off to to hundreds of thousands of consumers, and then, by donating my professional services to the local symphony or local abused women's shelter (both of which I have done) be completely absolved of any negative impact I may have had on the lives of others.
Let's call that the soul cleansing tax; let's set it at, say, 40 hours a year.
(Of course I am being facetious; I only say that because you seem to have some trouble processing subtlety, humor or sarcasm.)
@Tony C:
Well, I certainly had a problem processing your initial sarcasm, I'll gladly cop to that; I think by now I can tell when you're being facetious and when you're actually making a point. I only say that so you don't need to do the extra work.
Here's what I said again:
Did the white-collar thief use that money to help the hospital? If he didn't, there's no analogy, because I was pointing out that my father's agency does work for both corporate and charitable clients, and does upstanding work. Even if he had used his ill-gotten gains to help the children's hospital, that wouldn't matter, because he acquired funds through illegal means, whereas in the analogy I presented the money for the pro bono work was obtained through legal ones.
I don't really know what here gave you the idea that you could in fact spend forty hours a week lying your ass off to consumers and then expiate your wrongs by doing pro bono work with the orchestra or women's shelter (good for you for volunteering for both, BTW). I said that my father's agency does upstanding work for both its corporate and charitable clients.
Plus, as I've said before in this thread, they've lost at least one client because they're not willing to engage in underhanded drudgery. In other words, they don't spend forty hours a week lying their asses off to consumers. Since at no other point did I say anything that means this, or that this would absolve them of wrongdoing - in fact quite the opposite - I can only conclude that either you missed some crucial piece of information, or you didn't understand the argument I was making, which is why I have explained it here once again.
WV: hanist (n.) - One who believes that Greedo shot second.
Menzies,
For all I care, you can take your "tetchier" sense of humor and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Whether that be in Mammoth Cave, or a salt dome, or elsewhere, I don't care. Just stuff it.
You are not here to discuss anything. No, you are here to cause disruption.
Oh, and as to your father's "charity" work (to be charitable in describing it), many of the drug lords in Columbia gave away millions of dollars to the poor and underprivileged; funded health care for those people; provided supplies of food for entire neighborhoods; etc.
Did they do that as charity? No, they did it just as a bank robber uses hostages to protect themselves in getting away after a bank robbery. In other words, to form a ring of protection around themselves for the sole purpose of forming a ring of protection around themselves.
And if you state that you don't understand the principle of one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel (but I'm sure you do), it just demonstrates that the sole purpose of a PR person is not to educate people, but to obfuscate, spin, obfuscate, spin, obfuscate, spin, . . . .
I'm sure even the Conservatard TROLLs on this site understand the bad apple concept, even if they won't acknowledge their understanding of that fact. How does it feel to be even dumber than a Conservatard TROLL?
Mike in Maryland
Post a Comment