Posted on 05/27/2006 5:12:45 AM PDT by RobFromGa
FAIRTAX BOOK PLUNGES 200% IN THIRD WEEK ON CHART
In an unprecedented plunge, the second edition of "The FairTax Book", co-authored by Atlanta radio motor-mouth Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder, plunged 200% (inclusive) in its third week on the NYT Non-fiction paperback bestseller list from #7 to #14, following a precipitous 233% drop last week from #3 to #7.
The Boortz book was beaten handily by a book about the fascinating and always popular topic of punctuation. EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES, by Lynne Truss. (Gotham, $11.), which moved ahead of "The FairTax Book", recounts the gripping story of an Englishwoman as she expounds on the use and misuse of punctuation marks.
The FairTax Boook, which is controversially listed on the Non-Fiction list, in spite of the many fictional elements of the story, debuted at a respectable #3 after a huge marketing campaign. This campaign included incessant flogging of the book on Boortz's popular radio talk show, as well as exortations to buy multiple copies and use them as gifts or firestarters.
Boortz, in a fit of stupidity rarely seen in this present age where facts can be easily checked on the Internet, continues to claim that the book had "the highest paperback debut in over forty years", even though this is demonstrably false from even a cursory study at the NYT archives.
For example, "Night" debuted at #1 just this year, on Feb 5, 2006.
"Million Little Pieces" debuted at #1 on NYT Non-Fiction Paperback list on October 9, 2005, just last year.
Another obvious example is The 9/11 Commission Report, which came out less than two years ago in 2004, and debuted at #1. There are many other such examples and these are all #1 debuts. The Boortz book only opened at #3. Claims of the highest debut in over forty years are laughable, and point to a possible Algore-like pyschological condition on the part of the belligerent talk-show host.
Even though an alert listener named Rob tried to tell Boortz on-the-air that his claim of the "highest paperback debut in over forty years" was an obvious error, the juvenile talk-show host berated the caller, and wouldn't let him get a word in edge-wise, and then pulled the plug on the call declaring victory in an on-air display of pigheadedness.
Notably, Boortz never had anyone recheck his claims which are still on his website to this day.
It is expected that "The FairTax Book" will continue to plummet on the charts in the weeks ahead, and Boortz listeners will be able to go back to their regular routine of being told that they shouldn't be proud of their children if they are being educated in government schools, and that they graduation of their little Johnny or Suzie from such a school is really not an achievement at all, but should be viewed as an embarrassment.
And the Oppression of our Supreme Overlords shall continue
Memorial Day weekend ping...
I'm in! In before the zot.
Welcome. This is a no zot zone.
It fell 200%? You mean it sold negative copies?
I'm using FairTax math, it dropped 200% from #7 to #14-- and 14/7 = 200%
And good riddance.
Since Nov 24, 2000
Don't think he's zot material on something like this.
He he pretty good! Boortz the dufus doesn't need to be out front in tax reform IMO.
But your numbers are wacky. A drop from 7 to 14 is
-a drop of 7
-a 50% drop inclusive
-a 100% drop exclusive
note that all three methods of expressing the drop describe an equivalent drop....
So did he tick you off when you called him? Or were you already upset?
As a mathematician, your use of percentages with ordinal numbers offends me. If I am ranked #2, and you are ranked #1, it does not imply that I am two times worse than you are, or that you are 50% better.
A move from 7 to 14 is a 100% move, not a 200% move (14 - 7)/7 = 1 or 100%. But of course, you can't do that with ordinal numbers because the fact that Boortz is now at 14 does not mean his sales or his books popularity have fallen 100%.
I'm using the rarely seen but equivalent "reciprocal inclusive" calculation.
I support the fair tax...what's all the outrage about in this thread?
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'm no fan of boortz as you know. But "reciprocal inclusive" calculation? No such animal. Maybe variation or correlation...
How about just correcting your numbers?
I remember when lewislynn was saying this in 1998.
Still not correct. If he had a 100% drop in sales that would be zero book sales.
When your sales are rising you can have greater than 100% sales, but on the way down you can't go above 100% and the only way to hit 100% drop in sales would be to hit zero sales.
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.
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.