Jophiel wrote:
I don't recall anyone here having anything to say at all about the crowd estimates. Had I heard someone say five million people were there, I would have laughed at them.
That's kinda the point Joph. Did any conservatives post big numbers about Beck's event? No. They didn't. But that didn't stop Locke from bringing it up and then making a point that the numbers estimated by those who ran the event were grossly larger than the CBS numbers.
My point is that the same sort of exaggeration occurred during the Obama inauguration. No one posted about it because it wasn't "interesting", was it? So why did Locke make a point about it here? How about actually waiting to see if anyone makes a big deal about the "official" numbers before jumping on it?
Quote:
Was that really your best response? "You didn't say anything about Obama!!!" You think that makes Beck's numbers more true or something?
I'm not defending Beck's numbers, just as you aren't defending Obama's numbers. The difference is that I'm not making a big deal about it either way. See how that works?
Quote:
As I said, one group is actually using some accepted method of estimating and the other group... well, the other group is Beck, Palin & Bachmann.
And who was the "other group" during the Obama inauguration Joph? Let me point out again that no one posted about how big the numbers were and how that meant anything significant at all. Locke brought it up purely so he could bash the numbers. Which is kinda silly, don't you agree?
Did Locke find it "interesting" that the claims of attendance during Obama's inauguration were similarly exaggerated? Why not? It's the same thing, right?
Quote:
Sometimes when two people have massively differing accounts, the answer isn't "in the middle", the answer is just that one side is making shit up.
Yes. And everyone does this. Some of us are aware of this and don't make a big deal out of it either way. And some of us seem to make a big deal out of it, but only when they don't like or agree with the people doing it. Thus, we can safely conclude that the issue it not about the exaggeration, but about the people. Locke doesn't care about a group exaggerating their attendance. He cares about attacking groups he doesn't like, and will use anything that crops up to do it.
If it was actually about the principle of honestly reporting attendance, he'd care about it in every case. But he clearly doesn't. You get this, right? You get that it undermines a claim to care about something when you clearly only care about it some of the time? As I said before, it's not like it's hard to noodle out why he said that. And it has nothing at all to do with the exaggerated estimates.