But the thrust of my message was about the misunderstanding of statistics, so the actual numbers (correct or otherwise) are irrelevant to the point I was making. Replace the numbers in my comment with the correct ones and the meaning remains the same.
Sigh. I know the thrust of your statement; that's why I said "duh". But I made a different point. See, you're not the only person on the planet with points to make. And again: your assumption was unwarranted. That's a mistake on your part, but it seems that you have no interest in whether you make mistakes.
Given that you've started casting aspersions on my character, at this point it's hard to imagine that you're not acting in bad faith. But who knows, maybe it is possible to salvage this.
I don't understand what was so objectionable about my assumption. Sure, I could have fact-checked the numbers on the comment I was replying to, but they were irrelevant to my point, and it's not exactly a news article where such rigour would matter. I don't really feel a stronger defence is necessary. I also acknowledged your correction of the statistic.
You say you're making a point, but what actually is it? The most meaningful moments of my life have been when i've realised i've been wrong about something, so seriously, if I've made a big mistake I genuinely want to know what it is. But ultimately, for me to recognise when I'm wrong, the mistake needs to be highlighted.
reply