This is simply dishonest, anyway; you already know that.
Where? I took his words at face value. It's you who dismiss it when it puts your favored number in doubt.No....you were not. You were trying to diminish the credibility of the DC fire dept spokesman.
And you were busted.
Again, why do you have the psychological need to diminish this crowd?
Wherein, I said:
Where the "240,000" number comes from is probably the number of tickets given out for the Obama Inauguration.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - National Mall to be open for Obama inauguration - Blogs from CNN.com
You appear to consider "reading' a fishing expedition for only those things you want to find.
Piringer speaks for himself and I think it's pretty obvious what he's saying. People without blinders can pretty much determine that for themselves.The quote I was referring to was:
"But the day of the rally, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.
“It was in no way an official estimate,” he said.
We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.
“It was an impressive crowd,” he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, the crowd “only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street,” he said."
PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd ? at different event
Note that Piringer is speaking in the past tense. And yet he still stands by the DC fire estimate of 60-75k.
I told you, post #403, above:Nonsense...the "eyewitness description" points to a small crowd that barely extends to 3rd St.
No you didn't. This is what I said:
"The 240k area in the USA Today map shows densely packed ticketed seating all the way to 4th St."
Where have you ever addressed the fact that the estimate of 240k is specifically tied to densely packed seating that extends all the way to 4th St.? In fact...this is what you said:
"The Capitol Grounds up to Third Street represents the area in the USA Today article I linked to in the last post as the 240,000 area"
If you actually read the post (which you must have, considering you quoted from it), then you are an egregious liar yourself for not acknowledging this.though on that map, the 240,000 area contained the first segment of the Mall beyond Third St. HOWEVER, it also had the grounds around Grant's Tomb -- roughly the same size as that segment -- as empty, but the 912 crowd filled it. Area-wise, that's a wash; so the estimate for the area Piringer says the crowd filled is ~ 240K by the USA Today article methodology.
Which proves beyond a doubt that it's pointless to engage you; you have no intention to conduct an honest debate.
Anyone can see that, I'd think.
I gave my methodology, plain as day. I will take this as acknowledgment that you can't or won't refute it. QED. Seeing as you've got nothing, we're done here.Wow...aren't you guys uncomfortable with all those numbers stuck up your rectum?