"Your earlier inference "

Back to inferred? Every time JD makes up views for me and I point it out, he, instead of admitting he got it wrong, decides that even though I didn't say what he asserted I said, that I 'inferred' it. Every bloody time.

Why is it so hard for some to just admit error or to at least just drop it and exit the room?

Yes, I certainly am, mhaze.

//Back to inferred?//

And I'll continue to point out the relevant implications and inferences in your comments for so long as they're there.

If you don't mean for them to be there, then you need to manage your language better. No one else seems to suffer from this problem, funnily enough.

You said that because CNN had understated Trump in previous cycles, their current pro-Trump numbers are likely understated as well.
That’s a conclusion drawn from past error to present reliability.

I’m simply pointing out that to justify that conclusion, you’d need to show that CNN’s error was uniquely directional rather than industry-wide.

"Every time JD makes up views for me and I point it out, he, instead of admitting he got it wrong, decides that even though I didn't say what he asserted I said, that I 'inferred' it. Every bloody time." - mhaze

"Makes up"

So let's recap before I leave JD to wallow in his ignorance...again.

I pointed out that CNN ran a poll showing that the majority of USians favoured Trump's SOTU speech and made the observation that CNN polls traditionally underestimate Trump's support.

Now poor JD didn't like the poll but there are some facts that even he can't distort beyond recognition, so he tried to change the subject to CNN's polling errors. He demanded proof that CNN previously underestimated Trump's numbers even though he could have gone and seen that for himself. (I'm his new BFF Grok would have helped out).

In the end I relented and spoon-fed him the proof that CNN always underestimated Trump's support.

To which JD, clearly deflated, then decided that it was OK for CNN to underestimate Trump's support if others were doing likewise. A stupid assertion no doubt but desperate men take desperate measures. And boy was JD desperate.

So here's my final word. Whether others were also underestimating Trump's support is irrelevant to my original point. That CNN always did it is the only issue and given that they always did, and even fact-denying JD has accepted that, my point that they likely would have also underestimated these numbers stands.

Now back to the relevant issue. Paramount are now almost certain to take over WBD which gives them CNN and will then result in CNN being, over time, forced to adopted a more centrist position on the news. Laughably, some of the CNN staff are already trying to spin the story that they were never a left of centre anyway.

No, it's very relevant, mhaze.

//Whether others were also underestimating Trump's support is irrelevant to my original point.//

If multiple pollsters exhibited similar directional errors in the same cycles, that points to shared modelling issues.

If CNN's errors were materially larger than its peers, that would support your claim of institutional skew.

Without that comparison, you're projecting past error into present understatement without establishing cause.

Back to you, I'm afraid.

"hat would support your claim of institutional skew."

Except I didn't make that claim. You made it up. As usual. and as usual it was to try to hide your previous errors.

Let's ask out right-leaning friend how accurate your summary was, mhaze.
_____
Question:
In the attached debate, has mhaze summarised his exchange with John Daysh accurately?

Grok:
No, mhaze has not summarised his exchange with John Daysh accurately. His recap contains several misleading characterisations, selective omissions, and outright misrepresentations of what actually occurred in the back-and-forth.

Here’s a breakdown of the key inaccuracies in mhaze's final summary (the long recap post on Monday, 2 March 2026):
...

http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_5e2799ab-78ed-47c0-bca3-0ceb0b7091af
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1YnVlS7XzUwLWTeeviFMjU7V1lbz7pI5k - Correct names retained
_____

Now with the names switched, to account for your misunderstanding of how LLMs work...

Question:
In the attached debate, has John Daysh summarised his exchange with mhaze accurately?

Grok:
No, John Daysh has not summarised his exchange with mhaze accurately.

His recap contains several distortions, selective omissions, and mischaracterisations that make his version more favourable to himself than the actual back-and-forth supports.

Here are the key inaccuracies in his summary, based on the documented exchange:
...

http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_223343c1-f845-4813-b257-f25d7f64b8d2
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1qncA02eBSb3ioSIap0aScNJYaJhsnzhk - Names switched
_____

One day you will learn to be honest, mhaze.