"Crowd-size" important enough for a press-conference

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

[OriZ 3,157]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

and now you're trying 'alternative facts' on for size. trump is a virus.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

In fact I do believe it. In regards to the latter part of your comment, the "fake" was referring to their estimation which is way off, not to the fact that it was not the biggest. I guess you didn't scroll all the way down in the link you posted?

Sorry OriZ but is your vision okay? The Politifact article did not give their own estimation of the numbers. The entire point of the article was to analyze the single statement that it was the "largest inauguration attendance ever. Period". That is ALL they were looking to rate.

 

They end with:

 

"Spicer suggested 720,000 attended Trump’s inauguration, while organizers said they expected 700,000 to 900,000, and Trump himself estimated 1.5 million. All of those figures are less than the 1.8 million people who attended Obama’s 2009 inaugural.

We rate Spicer’s claim Pants on Fire."

They don't provide their own number. What estimation are you saying is "way off"? the only estimations they talk about are Spicer's and Trump's. They quote spicer's estimation which is essentially the same number you provided through what I'm sure was a very complex mathematical analysis that likely goes far above all of our heads here. They merely state that even with his estimation of 720,000, it is still far from the top. Even Trump's crazy "1.5 million" is still not on top. So it is completely "Pants on Fire". 

There is absolutely nothing "fake" about that Politifact article. As usual it is quite well done.

EDIT: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/21/sean-spicer/trump-had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/

Link for reminder.

Edited January 23, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Your comment about "fake news" was quoting him. If you meant it to reference an earlier statement, quote that one. If it was a statement from another thread, leave it out. Heck if it was from an earlier thread you were clearly then making it "personal" by bringing it up here. 

 

Seriously this isn't working for you so we should all move on.

 

It was already made personal. I was just "responding in kind". And it was more a joke, I believe it's called sarcasm, but some here are just too uptight. Better luck next time.

Edited January 23, 2017 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

It was already made personal. I was just "responding in kind". Better luck next time.

In this thread it was not "already made personal". He made a comment about Trump, then you quoted and responded to him.

 

Are you considering us talking about Trump personal now? 

 

EDIT: Dakine posted once before his link that you quoted. The first post he made had nothing to do with you. So if you are saying "it was already personal" then it was personal from a previous thread. Who is really the hurt one here then? Someone who is moving on in a new thread and not directing anything at you, or you carrying past pain from another thread and making it personal here?

Edited January 23, 2017 by bcking

[Dakine10 5,452]

12 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

In fact I do believe it. In regards to the latter part of your comment, the "fake" was referring to their estimation which is way off, not to the fact that it was not the biggest. I guess you didn't scroll all the way down in the link you posted?

  What I posted was Spicer's false claim that this was the biggest crowd ever and Politifact's claim that it's a lie. The actual crowd numbers weren't in the post. If you are disagreeing with a detail in the link, you could be a little clearer on what it is you don't agree with. Perhaps we could have averted all this 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Dakine10

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Sorry OriZ but is your vision okay? The Politifact article did not give their own estimation of the numbers. The entire point of the article was to analyze the single statement that it was the "largest inauguration attendance ever. Period". That is ALL they were looking to rate.

 

They end with:

 

"Spicer suggested 720,000 attended Trump’s inauguration, while organizers said they expected 700,000 to 900,000, and Trump himself estimated 1.5 million. All of those figures are less than the 1.8 million people who attended Obama’s 2009 inaugural.

We rate Spicer’s claim Pants on Fire."

They don't provide their own number. What estimation are you saying is "way off"? the only estimations they talk about are Spicer's and Trump's. They quote spicer's estimation which is essentially the same number you provided through what I'm sure was a very complex mathematical analysis that likely goes far above all of our heads here. They merely state that even with his estimation of 720,000, it is still far from the top. Even Trump's crazy "1.5 million" is still not on top. So it is completely "Pants on Fire". 

There is absolutely nothing "fake" about that Politifact article. As usual it is quite well done.

 

Seeing absolutely fine, look a little lower. It was more than 600,000 I guarantee ya that.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Seeing absolutely fine, look a little lower. It was more than 600,000 I guarantee ya that.

Ah I see they put it in their table despite not mentioning it their text. That was crafty of them. I was looking at their "conclusions" where they don't directly reference their own estimation. Not even sure if they consider the 600,000 their own "estimation" considering they hyperlink it. It goes to some person's twitter though which is a little random.

 

So can we see your calculations to analyze how you came up with your number? I know I might struggle with understanding it all, but I'd like to try.

Edited January 23, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

  What I posted was Spicer's false claim that this was the biggest crowd ever and Politifact's claim that it's a lie. The actual crowd numbers weren't in the post. If you are agreeing to a detail in the link, you could be a little clearer on what it is you don't agree with. Perhaps we could have averted all this 

 

Well it could have easily been averted. I said what I said with a smile and a wink, as is usually the case with me. I apologize if it doesn't always come across that way but that's kind of the point with sarcasm isn't it?

[OriZ 3,157]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ah I see they put it in their table despite not mentioning it their text. That was crafty of them.

 

So can we see your calculations to analyze how you came up with your number? I know I might struggle with understanding it all, but I'd like to try.

 

I think I'll pass. My number is my number you don't have to agree. between 700k and 800k is my bet, which would put him only behind Obama and pretty much tied with Clinton. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

 

Well it could have easily been averted. I said what I said with a smile and a wink, as is usually the case with me. I apologize if it doesn't always come across that way but that's kind of the point with sarcasm isn't it?

Ah so now you are saying what you said wasn't personal? I thought a few posts earlier you said you were making it personal only because he made it personal "first"?

 

" It was already made personal. I was just "responding in kind". Better luck next time. " <- Your quote

 

Though I see now you have edited that post to add that it was "only a joke". Gotcha

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

I think I'll pass. My number is my number you don't have to agree. between 7k and 8k is my bet, which would put him only behind Obama and pretty much tied with Clinton. 

Jeez 7k? You're lowballing it quite a bit there i think

 

"My number is my number"

 

That right there is the epitome of "alternate facts". Sounds like something Kellyanne should have said. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by bcking

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

It was already made personal. I was just "responding in kind". And it was more a joke, I believe it's called sarcasm, but some here are just too uptight. Better luck next time.

  If we got too personal in another thread and it's carried over to this one, then that would be, by definition, taking things personally. Since we both said we are not, perhaps we should leave it at that. 

[OriZ 3,157]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ah so now you are saying what you said wasn't personal? I thought a few posts earlier you said you were making it personal only because he made it personal "first"?

 

" It was already made personal. I was just "responding in kind". Better luck next time. " <- Your quote

 

Though I see now you have edited that post to add that it was "only a joke". Gotcha

Oh my man if you keep taking everything on VJ so seriously you ain't gonna last very long.

 

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Jeez 7k? You're lowballing it quite a bit there i think

 

"My number is my number"

 

That right there is the epitome of "alternate facts". Sounds like something Kellyanne should have said. 

 

You can only edit things for so long on VJ. My edit on both was done pretty instantaneously. I'm like seriously multi tasking here cut me some slack will ya.

[OriZ 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

  If we got too personal in another thread and it's carried over to this one, then that would be, by definition, taking things personally. Since we both said we are not, perhaps we should leave it at that. 

 

No problemo. I'll even shake your hand. See, no mods needed here, we're big boys.