Prev: seat belt warranty
Next: {BS} Hachi, see the fox on Fox
From: matrixxxx09 on 12 Sep 2009 19:26
On Sep 12, 7:18 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-12 16:16:42 -0700, matrixxx09 <matrixx...(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 7:11 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-12 16:06:06 -0700, matrixxx09 <matrixx...(a)gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> On Sep 12, 6:53 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2009-09-12 15:08:27 -0700, Hachiroku ムムÃ
> > £Æ’­ã‚
> >>> ¯ <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> said:
>
> >>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-party
>
> >>>> As opposed to the first, which had nothing close to 200,000?
>
> >>> You sure about that? Or do you just want that to be true and so,
> > to
> >>> you, it is?
>
> >> Initial reports had that number. A Google check puts it at a
> >> computer-scanned 650,000.
>
> >> Take your pick. Either way it wasn't a million-man march.
>
> > 650,000.
>
> > Well, you're right, that is "nothing close to 200,000".
>
> As I said, and you ignored, initial reports were 200K.

What the hell do I care about 'initial reports'? You insinuated that
the million man march had "nothing close to 200,000" and it had well
OVER that.

>
> Want to beat it to death? Have at it.

All I did was point out that your number was wrong. It could have
ended right there. *You're* the one keeping this going with with your
initial reports, google scanning, and musing about how the marchers
were able to get off work.





From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Sep 2009 19:28
"matrixxxx09" <matrixxxx09(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcbc6669-8feb-40fb-abc4-08adc1841111(a)l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 7:18 pm, Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-12 16:16:42 -0700, matrixxx09 <matrixx...(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 7:11 pm, Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-12 16:06:06 -0700, matrixxx09 <matrixx...(a)gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> On Sep 12, 6:53 pm, Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2009-09-12 15:08:27 -0700, Hachiroku ã�' ã�' �
> > ��'­ã�?s
> >>> � <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> said:
>
> >>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-party
>
> >>>> As opposed to the first, which had nothing close to 200,000?
>
> >>> You sure about that? Or do you just want that to be true and so,
> > to
> >>> you, it is?
>
> >> Initial reports had that number. A Google check puts it at a
> >> computer-scanned 650,000.
>
> >> Take your pick. Either way it wasn't a million-man march.
>
> > 650,000.
>
> > Well, you're right, that is "nothing close to 200,000".
>
> As I said, and you ignored, initial reports were 200K.

What the hell do I care about 'initial reports'? You insinuated that
the million man march had "nothing close to 200,000" and it had well
OVER that.

>
> Want to beat it to death? Have at it.

All I did was point out that your number was wrong. It could have
ended right there. *You're* the one keeping this going with with your
initial reports, google scanning, and musing about how the marchers
were able to get off work.

===================


I wonder if it matters that the term "Million Man March" was chosen before
the thing actually happened, and by the time it happened, it would've seemed
silly to change it to "578,000 Man March".

Nah. Never mind. Better to bicker about it.


From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Sep 2009 19:37
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:06:06 -0700, matrixxx09 wrote:

> On Sep 12, 6:53 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-12 15:08:27 -0700, Hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...(a)e86.GTS>
>> said:
>>
>> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-party
>>
>> As opposed to the first, which had nothing close to 200,000?
>
> You sure about that? Or do you just want that to be true and so, to you,
> it is?


The original "Million Man March" manged to squeak out about 250,000.


From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Sep 2009 19:38
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:18:31 -0700, matrixxx09 wrote:

> On Sep 12, 6:08 pm, Hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-party
>
> The other one wasn't real? In what sense? They weren't 'men'? There
> weren't a million of them? It wasn't a march?
>
> There are many interpretations of your title, and I'm just curious.


I can't remember the numbver, but it wasn't amillion.


From: matrixxxx09 on 12 Sep 2009 19:47
On Sep 12, 7:38 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:18:31 -0700, matrixxx09 wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 6:08 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-party
>
> > The other one wasn't real? In what sense? They weren't 'men'? There
> > weren't a million of them? It wasn't a march?
>
> > There are many interpretations of your title, and I'm just curious.
>
> I can't remember the numbver, but it wasn't amillion.

They range from 400K, too low, to over a million, too high.

Conscience says the "computer-scanned" number is 650,000.

Anyway, this one WAS a million, hence a REAL million man march?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: seat belt warranty
Next: {BS} Hachi, see the fox on Fox