Author Topic: Interesting numbers... (Read 5929 times)

wooderson · « **on:** April 27, 2008, 03:43:51 PM »

A quick search indicates there have been 15 topics involving 'Obama' and 'Wright.'

Zero that refer to both 'McCain' and 'Hagee.'

Manedwolf · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2008, 03:50:53 PM »

Nice red herring try.

(no, not really. That was kinda sad.)

wooderson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2008, 03:52:08 PM »

Which 'red herring' would you be referring to?

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:08:39 PM »

Why should we care what McCain or Hagee have to say?

wooderson · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:09:59 PM »

I dunno, I didn't start any threads on either one.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:10:20 PM »

That's an interesting question. If we don't have any reason to care about Obama and Wright, why should we care about McCain?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:11:20 PM »

Quote from: wooderson on April 27, 2008, 04:09:59 PM

I dunno, I didn't start any threads on either one.

It kinda looks like you started this thread on a lack of talk about McCain.

Really, what's your point in this thread? Why'd you bother, Chief?

wooderson · « **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:14:29 PM »

Quote

If we don't have any reason to care about Obama and Wright

Big 'if.'

If it were a tie game, then the numbers wouldn't be interesting.

Quote

t kinda looks like you started this thread on a lack of talk about McCain.

No, I started this thread about a ratio.

Quote

Really, what's your point in this thread?

That the ratio is interesting.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #8 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:43:39 PM »

Quote from: wooderson on April 27, 2008, 04:14:29 PM

Quote

If we don't have any reason to care about Obama and Wright

Big 'if.'

If it were a tie game, then the numbers wouldn't be interesting.

Quote

t kinda looks like you started this thread on a lack of talk about McCain.

No, I started this thread about a ratio.

Quote

Really, what's your point in this thread?

That the ratio is interesting.

Why is that ratio interesting? Isn't it because there's a lack of McCain talk relative to Obama talk?

If you have a point for this thread, now might be a good time to reveal it.

wooderson · « **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:44:33 PM »

Quote

relative to

That would be the definition of a ratio, yes.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #10 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:52:35 PM »

So essentially you've started a thread because of the lack of talk about McCain and Hagee. I'm glad we've established that much.

We're still waiting that point, Chief. Why is it interesting to you that there are no McCain/Hagee threads and several Obama/Wright threads? This magical interesting ratio of yours is interesting why, exactly?

wooderson · « **Reply #11 on:** April 27, 2008, 05:55:45 PM »

Quote

So essentially you've started a thread because of the lack of talk about McCain and Hagee

No I started a thread about the ratio of discussion about the two topics. You defined ratio, remember?

Quote

Why is it interesting to you that there are no McCain/Hagee threads and several Obama/Wright threads?

Are they similar topics in your mind?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2008, 06:13:50 PM »

Quote from: wooderson on April 27, 2008, 04:55:45 PM

Quote

So essentially you've started a thread because of the lack of talk about McCain and Hagee

No I started a thread about the ratio of discussion about the two topics. You defined ratio, remember?

Yeah, yeah. A ratio. A highly imbalanced ratio, to be specific. A highly imbalanced ratio arising from the dearth of McCain/Hagee threads, to be even more specific.

So, you started a thread essentially because there haven't been enough McCain/Hagee threads. The question remains: why?

Quote from: wooderson on April 27, 2008, 04:55:45 PM

Quote

Why is it interesting to you that there are no McCain/Hagee threads and several Obama/Wright threads?

Are they similar topics in your mind?

Of course not. They differ dramatically in both substance and relevance.

Regardless, we're still waiting for a reason why you care about this ratio. Did you even have a point in the first place?

wooderson · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2008, 06:33:34 PM »

Quote

Of course not. They differ dramatically in both substance and relevance.

Well there you go, that's why I find it interesting.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #14 on:** April 27, 2008, 06:38:46 PM »

Quote from: wooderson on April 27, 2008, 05:33:34 PM

Quote

Of course not. They differ dramatically in both substance and relevance.

Well there you go, that's why I find it interesting.

You find it interesting that two topics with dramatically different relevance receive dramatically different amounts of discussion here?

Why on earth is that interesting?

wooderson · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2008, 07:26:04 PM »

Why do you think I find it interesting?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2008, 07:32:47 PM »

That's my question to you, Chief.

Why do you find it interesting?

Ezekiel · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2008, 07:36:16 PM »

Is the ongoing "Chief" thing supposed to imply a negative connotation?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2008, 08:05:35 PM »

Not at all. I wanted something to call him that was shorter than "wooderson". Just calling him "wood" didn't sound quite right, and "Chief" seems to fit.

johnster999 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 27, 2008, 08:10:24 PM »

I'd also like to hear the OP's theory, if he'll kindly just come on out with it.

seeker_two · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2008, 01:17:51 AM »

I guess because we're just talking about the candidates who have a chance of winning the Presidency......

...McCain's done everything but deliver his concession speech, IMHO....

El Tejon · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2008, 01:22:13 AM »

Ohnoz, he said the "McCain" word. Now I have to roll on the floor and froth at the mouth. grin

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2008, 03:25:20 AM »

Okay, so rectify the situation, and post about the relationship between McCain and Hagee. I've not heard anything in the MSM about it, so I'm completely open to argument.

Ezekiel · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2008, 04:04:35 AM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 27, 2008, 07:05:35 PM

Not at all. I wanted something to call him that was shorter than "wooderson". Just calling him "wood" didn't sound quite right, and "Chief" seems to fit.

Just curious, although "wood" does have a certain comic appeal.

As JJ stipulated, I am open to a reveal of Wood's argument.

K Frame · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2008, 05:25:03 AM »

Point?

Nope.

Pointless, and a waste of bandwidth.

News:

Author Topic: Interesting numbers... (Read 5929 times)