Local politics timeFollow

No. See, you're still stuck on this idea that I made some numbers up and then looked stuff up after being called on it. I went to the wiki page on charter schools to see if there was any data about relative outcomes compared to regular public schools. I found the section which mentioned the 2009 Stanford study. It was one of the more critical sections about this btw. In other words, I was not picking the best numbers to support my position, but handing you the worst case (IIRC, I said something like "one of the most critical studies still shows they're better than public schools 19% of the time"). I was giving your position a massive benefit of the doubt here.

When you demanded that I provide the source for the numbers I posted, I linked to what I assumed was the study referenced in the wiki article. A reasonable assumption given where it was placed. When that turned out to be the wrong one, I read through it and found a reference to the earlier 2009 study, which did include the exact numbers I'd posted earlier. I also quoted the section which showed that between 2009 and 2013 the numbers had improved (charter schools were doing better relatively speaking).


So not only was I right, but I was far more right than I originally thought. Again, what exactly is your problem with all of this?



Is this another case where you describe something exactly the opposite as it is?



I didn't guess. The first numbers I posted were the correct numbers from the 2009 Standford study referenced in Wiki.



Huh? Wiki's numbers (and mine) were correct for the 2009 study. The only thing "wrong" was that Wiki linked to the 2013 study, and I simply cut and pasted their link.



I never claimed to have read the study prior to linking it. I was very clear the entire time that I read an article that referenced the study. So you're just making stuff up again.



WTF? I just provided you with the precise steps I took. I did not google for the study. I read the wiki and followed their link. It's right there Smash. You can't possibly be this stupid.




And yet, not one thing you've posted refutes the fact that the study (both the 2009 and 2013 numbers) I linked disproves the claim you made. So you were wrong, but instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you've decided to go off on this ridiculous tangent about me linking the wrong study (which still proved you wrong btw). Wow. Just... wow. You are a real piece of work. Is this actually how you engage in decision making in your day to day life? Because that must be complete and utter chaos.

In that case, a reasonable assumption to anything you post is to just dismiss it instead of reading it. Fair's fair.

It's unreasonable for you to expect anyone to read your posts.

Free market!

Sounds like some of us need better jobs if they're so exhausted that they can't be bothered to even confirm their claims. At the risk of repeating myself, you wouldn't have to if you were a reliable source of information. If even you're not willing to take your own arguments serious enough to verify the contents, why should anyone just take your word for it?

To save money. No middle man out there that will have to make a buck off each sale. Every hand you put between the consumer and the product is one that needs to walk away with something from the transaction.

Um... Except I did. Had I stopped after the initial response to the study I linked, you'd have a point. But what I did was read through the study, realize it was from 2013 rather than 2009 as I had thought, but then noticed that even in the 2013 study it mentioned the exact numbers I had quoted originally. I then quoted that portion of the study I linked to which had the numbers I'd referenced. I then went further to point out that this was a newer study than I'd been referencing originally, and that the newer numbers even more strongly refuted Smash's claim than the first set.

So... What's the problem? I was right. I linked the wrong study, but it still confirmed that I was right. So you're getting your panties in a bunch because of why, exactly?



I'm honestly not sure what you expect here.



Except, again, the contents did include the numbers I used. So what exactly is your problem here? It's like I'm telling you that brand X product is a good buy because it got a 90% rating from some product rating organization, you demand that I provide the rating report, and it turns out that there's a newer report where the product got a 95% rating instead. Um... Ok. So I was even more right than I thought I was.

Kinda missing the whole point there IMO. There's a big picture here, but you're just not seeing it.

Did too!

Did not!

Besides the part where you admitted you didn't, I guess.

MONKEY SEASON

Do you want Ebola. This is how you get Ebola?