Yeah, Rob's math is pretty messed up...which destroys his whole article as he's claiming Boortz is wrong about the book's meteroric rise. So can I believe Rob if his math is so wrong?
I gave all the background numbers I used to come up with my calculations, and links to the supporting data.
Why shouldn't I be able to use percentages any way I want to make my case better and to try and make something appear worse or better than it is?
It's interesting that the emotional myopia sufferred by Rob directs him to behave in ways that promote the nrst.
Better yet, can you believe his oppositions to the Fiar Tax when basic math is so far beyond his grasp?