your actual conclusion should have been that your post was silly on a fundamental level, not merely that it needed some tinkering in the figures? You mention "tongue in cheek" in your reply to Ghav, but then you seem to be defending your post quite seriously here - and in any case I'm not sure how the original post would work as "tongue in cheek". I'll readily believe you don't actually hold to the simplistic worldview implied by your post, but then what's the point of acting as if you do?
You can't lie about the facts.
24/01/2013 04:37:17 AM
- 739 Views
You can, of course, misuse them to draw erroneous conclusions.
24/01/2013 07:49:13 AM
- 470 Views
This is pretty much the tongue in cheek point I was going for. *NM*
24/01/2013 12:51:47 PM
- 175 Views
But you can misunderstand them...
24/01/2013 12:39:08 PM
- 501 Views
All I got from this was...
24/01/2013 03:35:57 PM
- 463 Views
Methodology is different, I'll go over it, but I'm referencing the BLS U6 data
24/01/2013 06:32:49 PM
- 620 Views
Straight from the horse's mouth.
24/01/2013 06:47:00 PM
- 459 Views
Excellent, now look up Dec 2008
24/01/2013 07:06:13 PM
- 465 Views
Links are useful.
24/01/2013 08:10:25 PM
- 347 Views
Don't you think maybe...
24/01/2013 08:33:29 PM
- 377 Views
What exactly am I defending? *NM*
24/01/2013 10:16:36 PM
- 180 Views
You just repeated your original post, merely with the numbers corrected.
24/01/2013 10:31:54 PM
- 337 Views
Thanks to the internet, now everyone IS entitled to their own "facts."
26/01/2013 08:20:11 PM
- 343 Views