No, because posting misinformation once was bad enough. You should stop. Somebody already told you your table was fraudulent and explained how, most people would feel quite silly being in your shoes.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
r/The_Donald was banned well before the election, on June 29th, before any of this voter data became available (for obvious reasons) so no, it wasn't.
Are you sure you're not the one from the past, where r/The_Donald still exists?
Currently, the subreddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/thedonald/ is about people named "Donald". So, Glover, Duck, etc.
So you cannot prove your claims. Great.
I'd say your claims are disproven, but you'd say you have no claims, the ephemeral ghost of elections past you are. Instead you're a misinformation bot, designed to fool people into thinking untrue things are true.
Table (noun, basic fucking English): 2. a set of facts or figures systematically displayed, especially in columns.
"the population has grown, as shown in table 1"
I don't think someone who doesn't understand facts should be lecturing other people on the facts they don't understand. Just because you got your table from a disreputable source doesn't mean you should avoid a mea culpa. Though if you did start apologizing for the misinformation you've been spreading, it'd add another 10 pages solid of just you posting.
Oh man of the past, for whom opening an image and checking its source and ID hasn't been invented yet, fear not! We of the future have evolved something called 'Basic Tech literacy' that allows us to check things, like the name, title and address of pictures. Fear not for you may one day be able to check things too.
thedonald.win is an archive and current blog post of r/thedonald users who still think they're smart. So its a subreddit removed from Reddit, or subs as we call them.
You can tell Houseman knows he messed up because he's disassociating himself from reality now.
Weren't you the one who hallucinated the number "95000" from a "table"?
No more so than usual. The man of the past hasn't been on speaking terms with reality of a long time.
Yeah I was catching up on the posts about the table/graph and wow that's embarrassing. I think it was 3rd grade we learned graphs are a form of a table, especially if they have numbers and values associated with them. Oof.
You're the one with the hallucinatory table you got from the_donald.
You know if you were actually interested in showing people the flaws in their arguments, you'd actually engage in that instead of trying (and spectacularly failing) to make yourself look smart? Like empirically at this point, you have to look at how things are playing out and realize your approach is wrong, correct?
3rd grade material incoming:
If you were actually interesting in showing me the flaw in my argument, you'd point out where, in anything I have posted, I reference the number 95000.
But you're not doing that, you're just going LALALALAL DEBOOOOOONKED LALALALA
Why, because a bunch of people are being snarky with me?
OH SHIT, HE ADMITTED TO MAKING AN ARGUMENT! That's a first.
Anyway alright then, why haven't you engaged with anyone posting revised information at you showing why your assessment was incorrect? You've studiously avoided actually engaging with facts, figures, or data of any kind.
Honestly, I'm on Houseman's side. That's a graph, with some extra numbers on the side.
On the other hand, when you're arguing over something as petty as whether something is a table or a graph, and quibbling over the difference between 95,000 and 99,000 when it's obvious what is meant, it means you need to take a step back and cool down.
I did.
I'm not arguing with the AP "fact-checking" article. I'm saying that the AP article is not talking about the same thing that I am talking about, which makes it irrelevant.
People who only skimmed the article and immediately took its side merely assumed that what I'm talking about, and the tweet that AP is talking about is the same thing. I'm saying it's not.
You responded with fraudulent data though. It makes it look like what you're arguing is something fraudulent.
The table you provided here offers an aggregate down-ballot difference for Democrats in Georgia of 99,000.
If you're just disputing because crimson5pheonix quoted 95,000 rather than 99,000, then... uhrm, sure, okay, but that's an irrelevant difference and doesn't counter his point at all. The point-- which is that the data in that table is 1) unverifiable (and thus pretty worthless), and 2) doesn't match up with the best information we have-- that point still stands. 4,000 difference between the two figures quoted two pages ago doesn't impact that at all.
((NB. I don't care at all whether we call it a graph or a table or whatever; I'm choosing 'table' solely because Houseman seems to have a fixation on the usage of that term)).
- Status