Truthers make up .001% of the USA

[Minadin]

Why are you making the ridiculous assumptions that:

a) all of the skeptics in the world are registered here
b) all (or even most) of the people registered here are skeptics

You seem to be making a caveat to b) in your post but since you don't make a similar one for a) it seems rather absurd.

 

[Thunder]

Im sure that most people around the world believe that 19 islamic extremists flew 2 planes into the wtc, 1 into the pentagon, and crashed one in PA.

most people dont give these kinda things a second thought. they have bills to pay and lives to live.

only people with WAAAAY to much time on their hand actually think to themselves "hmmm...were there really planes? hmmm..what if the Israelis really did it? hmmm....is Osama bin Laden real or a Hollywood CGI image??"

Osama bin Laden himself could come to Alex Jones, admit he did 9-11 and was not assisted by the US government, and truthers would still have stupid questions.

 

[Alex Libman]

Yes, we certainly woul.

Skepticism is a goo thing.

(There is a letter on my keyboar that is not working!)

 

[six7s]

First, I took the mistake for granted

Liar

and didn't realize I was required to publicly announce it, since, afterall, everyone was ridiculing it.

Liar

It wasn't until your fifth post that you acknowledged that you had made a mistake

Also, note that I wasn't required to announce it until I had pointed out Parky's mistake- nice way to 'save face' Jreflings.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to say my mistake was admited '48 hours [later], despite making four posts to this thread in the interim', since all four posts (as well as my admission) occured on the same day in a mere 3 hour span.

Wrong

It's not disingenuous

It's correct

You're deluded

Get over it

My point that JREF is quick to ridicule and "make the twoofers look bad" is beyond doubt at this point.

That isn't a 'point'

It's prevarication and obfuscation

Of course, as a liar, you may well need to pretend (to yourself) that employing such tactics is a valid approach to discussion

It's not

You're wrong, and dats teh troof

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

The fact remains that at best, truthers represent around .001% of the USA. That is around 3,000 Americans.

I answered this days ago.

No, Parky76 just pulled that number out of thin air. He said, and I quote, "the number of Americans who would attend a truther event, donate $$ to a truther cause, protest at a truther gathering, is maybe....maybe....3,000 people". No references are given, nor are there any valid reasons why Parky re-defines "truther" to mean those who regularly participate in "events". More /b/ nonsense from the JREFlings.

 

[six7s]

The fact remains that at best, truthers represent around .001% of the USA. That is around 3,000 Americans.
I answered this days ago.

I answered this days ago.

Maybe... but you have (conveniently ?) ignored a question from me:

This is the first time I have had any idea that you were asserting that there are 300,000 troofers in teh USA... and even now I'm not sure if that's what you are asserting... simply because the figure seems so astronomically high

Do you, seriously, assert that there are more than three (or maybe four) thousand troofers in teh USA?

If so, why?

If not, what the hell are you on about?

So? How many troofers are there in teh USA?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I took the mistake for granted

Liar

Call me a liar as long as you have evidence. Where is your evidence that I defended my mistake?

Liar

It wasn't until your fifth post that you acknowledged that you had made a mistake

How does that negate the fact that I didn't realize I was required to publicly announce a mistake?

Confused are you? Well, I'll just have to bold it this time.
I wasn't required to announce it until I had pointed out Parky's mistake- nice way to 'save face' Jreflings.

Wrong

It's not disingenuous

It's correct

You're deluded

Get over it

Just because you

write with stupid spacing

doesn't mean you're

correct.

If my second post was '45' hours after my first post then its disengenuous to claim I admitted my mistake 48 hours and 4 posts later since I would only have been on the thread a total of three hours. Do you think I constantly checked the thread for the 45 hours I didn't post? In the 45 hours I wasn't on, might I have figured it wasn't a big deal, since, as I already admitted, I took for granted the fact that I was wrong and didn't realize I was required to recant.

That isn't a 'point'

I agree- its a fact.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Maybe... but you have (conveniently ?) ignored a question from me:

This is the first time I have had any idea that you were asserting that there are 300,000 troofers in teh USA

It wasn't my assertion, it was from my erroneous calculation.
Thanks for again proving my point.
JREFers are quick to ridicule- so quick that they don't even read what their ridiculing!

 

[six7s]

Call me a liar as long as you have evidence. Where is your evidence that I defended my mistake?

I'll call you a liar whilst you persist in telling lies

How does that negate the fact that I didn't realize I was required to publicly announce a mistake?

Please note: stringing a bunch of words together does not necessarily constitute forming a coherent sentence

Tip: having a coherent thought is a good starting point

Confused are you? Well, I'll just have to bold it this time.
I wasn't required to announce it until I had pointed out Parky's mistake- nice way to 'save face' Jreflings.

Woo hoo! My first so-stoopid-it-burns [SIZE="7"] reply

It's all in the default colour though... does that mean you're not really troofully angry yet?

Just because you

write with stupid spacing

doesn't mean you're

correct.

The spacing was aimed at giving you an opportunity to actually comprehend the words. Nothing ventured, nothing gained

If my second post was '45' hours after my first post then its disengenuous to claim I admitted my mistake 48 hours and 4 posts later since I would only have been on the thread a total of three hours.

Teh troofer doth protest too much, methinks

Do you think I constantly checked the thread for the 45 hours I didn't post? In the 45 hours I wasn't on, might I have figured it wasn't a big deal, since, as I already admitted, I took for granted the fact that I was wrong and didn't realize I was required to recant.

I don't give a toss how you wasted your time

All I know is that your first post, dripping in sublime irony, accused JREFers (of which, curiously, you seem to vainly, stoopidily, ridiculously differentiate yourself from) of being maths retards whilst you proceeded to post stoopid troofer maths and then, as an encore, you ignored/were mind-numbingly ignorant of your ridiculous error and then you were too stoopid/vain to acknowledge your stoopid error

My point that JREF is quick to ridicule and "make the twoofers look bad" is beyond doubt at this point.

That isn't a 'point'

I agree- its a fact.

Wrong

It's nonsense... mind you, as a troofer, you probably can't tell teh difference

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I'll call you a liar whilst you persist in telling lies

So... you have no evidence and yet you persist? I believe your people like to call that woo. Or is it only woo when they do it?

Please note: stringing a bunch of words together does not necessarily constitute forming a coherent sentence.

As you consistently prove.

Woo hoo! My first so-stoopid-it-burns reply

Indeed, it was a vain attempt to get to your level understanding. Too bad they don't have any of the greater font sizes needed for the sigma 6 vegetable level stupidity I'm dealing with.

The spacing was aimed at giving you an opportunity to actually comprehend the words.

Ah, but I have easily comprehended your words. To be fair, the information content was signifigantly less than my posts.
We can go to a forum with unlimited font size if you wish. Baby steps.

Teh troofer doth protest too much, methinks

Methinks the use of Shakespearian phrases doth not make one correct.

All I know is that your first post, dripping in sublime irony, accused JREFers (of which, curiously, you seem to vainly, stoopidily, ridiculously differentiate yourself from)

Why is it ridiculous? Is there not a group who identifies as "the JREFers"? Don't they have a particular ideology and practices which I don't share and, in fact, disdain?

of being maths retards whilst you proceeded to post stoopid troofer maths and then, as an encore, you ignored/were mind-numbingly ignorant of your ridiculous error and then you were too stoopid/vain to acknowledge your stoopid error

I've highlighted the part which you have no evidence for. You should really get a t-shirt that says "Its not Woo when we do it".

Wrong

Oh no it is quite right. As I wrote in my other post:

It wasn't my assertion, it was from my erroneous calculation.
Thanks for again proving my point.
JREFers are quick to ridicule- so quick that they don't even read what their ridiculing!

 

[bje]

So... you have no evidence and yet you persist?

Aldo, we're waiting for your evidence that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.

Remember?

 

[Totovader]

So pointing out the irony of Parky's calculation is trying to "win debate points"? Odd, seeing as there's no debate in this thread whatsoever.

No, that's not at all what I said. Prior to... "pointing out the irony of Parky's calculation", you made your own error and tried to call "JREFers" "math-retarded".

Then you accuse me- in particular- of attempting to "score debate points" for pointing out the error and the irony of it (for some reason picking me out of a crowd of many who are clearly much better at math than you).

The irony of that irony is ironic.

You've got your nouns and adjectives a little mixed up, Totovader. Actually, I was calling the JREF (n.) "math-retarded" (adj.).
Furthermore, does the fact that the JREF caught only 1 out of 3 elementary math errors mean that it isn't "math-retarded"?
If yes, then by extension neither would I since I corrected twice the number of elementary math errors Jref corrected. Therefore, it would be rather hypocritical to stundie me.
If no, then I was right and thus, shouldn't be stundied.

Wow. Is this you taking responsibility, again.

You're doing it wrong.

That is precisely what I did. I brought you up because apparently, you can't do that. As I wrote in this comment to Tanabear's blog:

You went to the extent of claiming that FOX news switched back to talking about flight 93 after they had just talked about the Pentagon, which would mean they accidently reported Flight 93 as having all the characteristics of flight 77! Poor Toto would lose debate points if he admitted an error after implying I had bad research skills and flat out calling me an idiot.

Also, there is a clear difference between calling an organization "math-retarded", which was obviously tounge-in-cheek, and calling a person an "idiot" for a mistake you made.
As you can see, I admited my mistake, whereas you went to absurd lengths to 'save face', but luckily for you 9/11 skeptics do not have an equivalent to the puerile 'stundies'.

If I made a mistake I would admit it- but you bringing up month old debates and trying- again- divert attention away from your own failures.

Now it just looks pathetic.

You're doing it wrong.

Please quote where I "whined and complained" about people ridiculing my mistake. I suspect what you interpret as "whining" is pointing out the irony of Parky's mistake and irrationality of self-proclaimed 'rational people' to selectively lampoon me despite making simple mistakes themselves.

It's the very post we're talking about where you start lashing out at me for pointing out your mistake and toss out all sorts of absurd accusations because you're pouting that you made such an elementary error in the name your little fantasy movement.

The only thing you can do at this point is own your error- and stop trying to drag everyone else down with you in the most pathetic and transparent ways.

Again, this is supposed to be you owning your mistakes? You're doing it wrong.

 

[zaphod2016]

Original assumption:

x = (.001/100)*p

where p = population of the USA, and x = the number of "troofers" in the population

x = ~3,000 (my math says x == 3,0114 as of July 2007)

So now that we all understand the original assumption, allow me to disagree with it.

A good "rule of thumb" in the world of social media says that for every 10 passive viewers (lurkers), only 1 will post a comment.

If we apply the same 10:1 ratio to the original estimate, we find an est. 30,000 passive troofers, represented by a vocal 3,000 activist troofers***.

30,000 "sounds right" to me, but let us try to compare it with other assumptions to see how it looks in context.

I would assume that the gross majority of troofers are males aged between 15 and 24; according to the 2006 American Community Survey:

- total male population = 147,434,940

- 7.2% aged 15-19 [est: 10,615,316]

- 7.0% aged 20-24 [est: 10,320,446]

By my math, this makes 20,935,763 males aged 15-24 in the USA.

Assuming ALL troofers are young males, my estimate of 30,000 troofers means that:

x = (30,000/20,935,736)*100

0.14% of young males, aged 15-24, are troofers; or 14 in 10,000.

Of these 14 troofers, only 1 in 10 (1.4) will be willing to attend a rally, or otherwise actively participate.

Of course, my assumptions are just as lousy as the original, but I like math.

Speaking of which- double check it. I'm curious to see if I got that 100% right.

*** I found an error; this should say: "we find an est. 27,000 passive troofers, represented by a vocal 3,000 activist troofers"; 30k total, not 33k.

 

[six7s]

you ignored/were mind-numbingly ignorant of your ridiculous error and then you were too stoopid/vain to acknowledge your stoopid error

I've highlighted the part which you have no evidence for.

Wrong

You have highlighted how your mind-numbingly stoopid confirmation bias deludes you

For the hard-of-thinking:

Ignore:

refuse to acknowledge, neglect, to deliberately pay no attention to
​

Ignorant:

fail to notice, lacking knowledge, unlearned, unaware, crude, rude
​

​

In the context of this thread (where you posted stoopid troofer maths, preceded by "Is the Jref Math-retarded?", and failed to acknowledge the ridiculously absurd irony (i.e your stoopid mistake) in three (or was it four?) subsequent posts), which definition does NOT apply to you?

You should really get a t-shirt that says "Its not Woo when we do it".

Don't be an arse

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

No, that's not at all what I said. Prior to... "pointing out the irony of Parky's calculation", you made your own error and tried to call "JREFers" "math-retarded".

Then you accuse me- in particular- of attempting to "score debate points" for pointing out the error and the irony of it

No, this is what I wrote:

Ironically, having debated some of these trolls in the past, I know they refuse to admit their mistakes due to a need to win 'debate points'(ahem, Totovader).

I was refering to the 'debate' on Youtube. Can you admit that, 6 months later, you have yet to admit your simple mistake and have went to absurd lengths to skirt responsibility?

Wow. Is this you taking responsibility, again.

You're doing it wrong.

Incorrect. Unlike you, I admit my mistakes. That is taking responsibility. Nowhere in the above do I try to shift the blame from myself. You go to the absurdity of claiming your mistake is an extremely implausible reporting error. Don't pretend like you know what responsibility is.

If I made a mistake I would admit it- but you bringing up month old debates and trying- again- divert attention away from your own failures.

You clearly made a mistake. The mistake was made over half a year ago and you not only have yet to admit it, but you go to absurd lengths to skirt responsibility.
"Attention" has nothing to do with taking responsibility.

It's the very post we're talking about where you start lashing out at me for pointing out your mistake

No thats not why. Again, I was refering to the "previous debate".

out all sorts of absurd accusations

You mean like you refusing to admit your mistakes? Its a proven fact.

Again, this is supposed to be you owning your mistakes? You're doing it wrong.

I've already "owned my mistake". Nowhere do I shift the blame from myself.
Don't pretend like you know what "owning your mistakes" means.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Wrong

You have highlighted how your mind-numbingly stoopid [sic] confirmation bias deludes you

For the hard-of-thinking:

Ignore:

refuse to acknowledge, neglect, to deliberately pay no attention to


Ignorant:

fail to notice, lacking knowledge, unlearned, unaware, crude, rude

In the context of this thread (where you posted stoopid troofer maths, preceded by "Is the Jref Math-retarded?", and failed to acknowledge the ridiculously absurd irony (i.e your stoopid mistake) in three (or was it four?) subsequent posts), which definition does NOT apply to you?

Neither. Here's some maths for, oh wise six7s:

Not posting a public recantation != ignore
Repeatedly calling someone a liar with no evidence = A liar themselves

 

[Thunder]

Im still waiting for a truther to provide any evidence to suggest the 3,000 number is incorrect.

=)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

TLB, I sure hope you don't do your own taxes with those math skills.

 

[Totovader]

No, this is what I wrote:

I was refering to the 'debate' on Youtube. Can you admit that, 6 months later, you have yet to admit your simple mistake and have went to absurd lengths to skirt responsibility?

I've never debated you on YouTube. And your question is fallacious. I have nothing to admit to- I don't even know what you're talking about.

Incorrect. Unlike you, I admit my mistakes. That is taking responsibility. Nowhere in the above do I try to shift the blame from myself. You go to the absurdity of claiming your mistake is an extremely implausible reporting error. Don't pretend like you know what responsibility is.

Your entire line of questioning is an attempt to divert attention away from your own failures. You're bringing up a conversation that was several months ago.

You clearly made a mistake. The mistake was made over half a year ago and you not only have yet to admit it, but you go to absurd lengths to skirt responsibility.
"Attention" has nothing to do with taking responsibility.

No thats not why. Again, I was refering to the "previous debate".

You mean like you refusing to admit your mistakes? Its a proven fact.

I've already "owned my mistake". Nowhere do I shift the blame from myself.
Don't pretend like you know what "owning your mistakes" means.

Just calling it a "proven fact" doesn't make it as such.

For the last time- if you want to pretend that you're able to take responsibility for your mistakes: stop trying to bring other people down with you. This isn't about me. It's about you and the fantasy role-playing you have chosen to represent.

 

[Totovader]

Repeatedly calling someone a liar with no evidence = A liar themselves

You mean like you refusing to admit your mistakes? Its a proven fact.

My YouTube videos prove otherwise, making you a liar.

That was easy.