Posted on 07/12/2012 5:05:00 AM PDT by xzins
Well, I sometimes forward such material to other for reliable information, and if I had done so with the extensive information taken from this particular post of yours, my stamp on it would have proven me unreliable when I was depending on you. So, regretfully, it did matter.
However, having myself been mistaken a time or two, I double-checked its fidelity to the source, and found there that the list was stale. So I put the final note on it to warn others of the FR-timeline inaccuracy.
When I have been caught up in a key bit of mistaken detail, I have learned to be grateful for the correction, admit to all, and not push the wise counsel aside by making excuses. Boot camp stuff.
Not intending to harm or offend, just laying the inconsistencies away for good. This post still comes up in web searches. Perhaps it should be taken off.
Respectfully ---
I repeat.
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark. That’s not shoving anything aside. It’s telling you that the info is still dependable. Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
Buuuuump!
You don't have to repeat. All you have to say is "You were right and I was wrong. I posted stale inaccurate data, through inadvertently submitting it with the wrong publishing date-stamp."
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. Even the responses to this thread showed that significant changes had taken place over the elapsed three years. "Roughly" is not taking responsibility for giving the right data in the wrong time frame.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark.
If you were only interested in FR positioning in the pack, yeah, ballpark. But not the precise relationships of every other site.
That’s not shoving anything aside.
It is.
It’s telling you that the info is still dependable.
Not for each and every site in the slate. The information was valid only for the date it was first published. The ranking is clearly time-dependent, with significant changes.
Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
If you want to be faithful to the image and credibility of FR, just admit to having made a mistake in dating the stale information. That's not hard, is it? I am assuming that for sure the mis-dating of the publication of the article was merely an oversight, am I not?
It's something like saying,"Yesterday this was oats. Today it is still oats. The horse only used it once overnight."
Nothing you can say will change that.
Why else do you think that virtually every MSN org and every talk show host, radio and TV, either search FR daily or hire lackeys to do it?
They are not smart enough to find the truth on their own, and of course have no desire to do so except to falsely refute it with their nefarious actions.
So where else would they go except to THE premiere conservative website on the internets?
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
Perhaps he read your proclamation posted earlier where YOU were "introducing that dimension":
I sometimes forward such material to other [without an “s” at the end of that word this sentence is deemed unreliable] for reliable information, and if I had done so with the extensive information taken from this particular post of yours, my stamp on it would have proven me unreliableOh that oats thingie was clever, be careful when throwing the next day ones in a glass house.
It seems you are trying to cause others to conclude this discourse was meant to impugn FRs standing. It was not.
Your interest in gratuitously taking up someone else's offenses are -- what?
Meddling to start a flame war?
I'm not buying. The issue is over. So long ---
Thanks, Synchro. FWIW, you are correct about why I brought up friends. At least I assumed that “others” meant friends.
You called for the thread to be pulled.
Not necessary, it’s all been hashed out quite well.
My reasoning in taking up your offences was to show you what you seemed to not be seeing, and clafify the situation.
Meddling? You have been here long enough that you should
have a better idea of how FR works.
Anyone can post to any other reply.
If you don’t want anyone to reply, have a private conversation.
No matter how it fluctuates from way high on the list, to a little lower, FR is still the best and most effective conservative website on the internets.
You called for the thread to be pulled.
Not necessary, it’s all been hashed out quite well.
My reasoning in taking up your offences was to show you what you seemed to not be seeing, and clafify the situation.
Meddling? You have been here long enough that you should
have a better idea of how FR works.
Anyone can post to any other reply.
If you don’t want anyone to reply, have a private conversation.
No matter how it fluctuates from way high on the list, to a little lower, FR is still the best and most effective conservative website on the internets.
Must be just others who are not friends, but those that imardmd1 imparts information to on an impersonal level.
"The date given as the publication date of the list was way, way wrong. You entered the date of its appearance (July 12, 2012) as the same day that you posted it, when in fact this article was over three years old!
Please note well this has absolutely nothing to do with the ranking or reputation of Free Republic. It has everything to do with giving a wrong publication date for the site ranking posted. The data was stale.
No response to the observation was necessary. However, xxins did respond; and, rather that stepping up to the plate and saying, "You are right, and I was wrong," instead posted a litany of excuses to gloss over and minimize the error, thus attempting to duck taking responsibility. Then you stepped in, taking up his offenses, attempting to justify his position. And both of you trying to drag in some kind of inference that I was somehow attacking the reputation of Free Republic, which is a damnable lie.
Now, you have both stepped into poop. I know how FR operates, that if an error is publicly made and publicly shown, if needed a public retraction should be made, not merely a private one. When you inserted yourself, it would have been better if you had not called a right wrong, and a wrong right. But your participation was neither invited, desirable, or helpful. You didn't clarify anything.
You called for the thread to be pulled
This is a deliberate overstatement. I said, "Perhaps it should be taken off." That was clearly a suggestion, not a challenge. I do not call for or make such decisions.
I'm done with this.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.