TroutMan’s right, but this post is beyond goofy.
The whole thing’s silly anyway. It’s a non-scientific poll, and its results mean nothing.
Let’s make this simple. Here’s a hypothetical poll, let’s say that you have a poll on ice cream. There are 3 answers:
I like chocolate
I like vanilla
I don’t like ice cream
10 people take the poll. You can choose as many responses as you like.
3 people like chocolate. 2 people like vanilla. 2 people don’t like ice cream. 2 people like both chocolate and vanilla. One person likes chocolate and doesn’t like ice cream. So you get the following stats:
10 voters
13 votes
If you listed what percentage of the voters picked each choice it would look like this:
Chocolate 60%
Vanilla 40%
Don’t like ice cream 30%
Obviously that is more than 100%. If you listed what percentage of the votes were a particular choice, it would look like this:
Chocolate 46%
Vanilla 30%
Don’t like ice cream 23%
That adds up to 99% (a percentage was lost due to rounding to the nearest integer in each choice) but it’s effectively 100%. So yes, you can say that 53% of the voters said that changing the Pit is unnecessary (though they might have also picked another choice in addition to that, the way this poll was constructed). So DrDeth’s argument is correct in this case.
I think your assessment is correct, but DrDeth is a fool if he thinks that a clear majority of voters assenting to “no changes necessary” is a ringing endorsement of his position. And you can count me among the people who voted “no changes necessary, but… (I’d like to see racial/ethnic commentary made impermissible).” It’s really hard to get an idea for who would support his more radical position that the pit should either be eliminated, or at least no personal attacks allowed. Certainly not anything close to a majority, even discounting the possibility of overlap (counting votes twice).
If it’s any consolation, he’s arguing against some assumptions, not against the way the percentages are calculated. So he doesn’t even understand what he’s arguing, he just wants to argue.
It figures that even when he’s right he’s wrong. 
Truer words have never been spoken.
I’m pretty sure he’ll drop it now, since using his rules I have conclusively shown that 94% of posters want no change to the Pit.
Right? 
Not all genocides involve gas chambers and ovens; a genocide occurs when groups of people are deliberately pushed out of their territory, either by direct violence or the threat of it.
I dunno, I’ll bet he has his shoes and socks off now.
He’s not going to stop until they close that thread. After that he’ll open another one and keep going. I firmly believe that the Board should have ongoing discussions about the culture here and the rules. Somewhere there must be a line between reasonable discussion and arguing the same point, in the same way, for years. Right? It’s a nice thought anyway. 
Ya know, some poster is a cocksucking cunt bitch.
Someone won’t be happy until he gets a topic ban and then he’ll be really unhappy.
The problem with this ultra-loose definition of genocide is highlited by the link above. No one would argue that the Germans committed a real genocide against the European Jews, their goal was to kill every single one of them.
Now this happened with German populations outside of Germanys borders. Can you argue that this was a genocide? If you say yes then you are minimizing the real genocide.
I understand that in 2021 words can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. But any use of the word that isnt connected to a stated desire of a government to eliminate all members of an out-group is ridiculous.
Everyone just got a topic ban.
There was only one real genocide ever ?? (my bolding)
ECG missed a golden opportunity to say “this is more of a rant against the Pit. I’m going to move it.” Of course, he’s too nice for that.
I mentioned two unique events. What does that have to do with any other event? Especially since I defined what a real genocide is.
DD is showing the same … well, let’s call it “tenacity”, about this banning-the-Pit subject that he shows in all other threads where he can’t stop arguing even when it’s shown that he’s completely, stupidly, and incontrovertibly wrong. And I notice that he’s back to “a issue” and “a argument” constructs. That bit of promised orthographic reform didn’t last long. I think he used “an” maybe once.
And he’s back to whining about people attacking his father even though that did not happen. What did happen was he was called out for lying.
Trouble is . . . to the extent anyone was attacking his father it was because he chose to use his dad as a cite.
This wasn’t an attack on the truthiness of a quaint story about his dad. It was, the entirely reasonable, questioning of the veracity of a story used to argue a position.
That DrDeth insists on it being the former, and not the latter, is a problem that can only be solved by closing the Pit!
I get the reference to the phrase being used by DD in the ATMB thread, but…let’s not.