Quote:
Originally Posted by blake5676
Apologies...I didn't think my post was political or partisan in nature. I was simply trying to explain to the two in the back and forth circle jerk about the fact that depending on how you look at it, they were BOTH likely right and just arguing semantics. Will tread more lightly I suppose.
That being said, I do think its an important and salient point that the model they are using that everyone is seeing headlines about has a lot of depth and isn't just a dead on result. The numbers could get worse, but they could also be a lot better considering most of the data the model is using is skewed by projections from the hard hit areas.
|
uuuuuuhhhhh no we both cant be right.
either it was said or it wasnt (it was). and pete has done that multiple times in this thread. i guess next time instead of pointing it out and correcting him i'll just make it so he doesnt post in here anymore...
and yes i think the bolded is a good point. it could be better which is why i said that by the models they are using the 100 to 240k is the best case scenario