> David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Kevin Tarr wrote: > > > [I wrote]
> > >(Actually, I agree with whoever said that the > wording > > >was far too strong to answer a flat 'yes' to many > > >questions, but a graded response would have placed > > >me on a somewhat more libertarian side. But only > > >somewhat!) > > Every question seemed easy to me; they were > straight forward. Paraphrasing: > > Do you think medical marijuana should be legal Y/N? <sniplet> > > Isn't that how a person forms their thoughts? No > qualifications, no if/but; > > just this is the issue in black and white, this is > a dividing line, which side do you choose? > I took it, and got a 10 or something. I don't think > it was well-designed, because it insisted on viewing > complex issues in terms that were too simple. Ditto that last phrase. > <sniplet> How should > I answer? "Sometimes" is not an option. > Kevin, your drug example is a special case. Most > issues are not so straight forward. <grin> The drug questions were the only reason I scored as 'high' as I did! If an adult wants to kill off their own brain cells, reduce their fertility (and sometimes libido) or turn their liver into dogmeat, why should I care -- as long as it doesn't affect anybody else? [Of course, there's the rub... >:/ ] Debbi who voted for medical marijuana usage when the referendum was on the ballot [there is legit need, IMO] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
