Posted on 03/29/2009 5:51:07 PM PDT by OneVike
According to your source, the top 15 sites that are visited by people who also visit Free Republic (1,672,825 People per Month) are:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/ 13,180 People per Month
http://therightsideoflife.com/ 11,472 People per Month
http://conservativegrapevine.com/ 7,892 People per Month
http://dailypaul.com/ 147,239 People per Month
http://peeringintodarkness.com/ 22,062 People per Month
http://patriotroom.com/ 31,796 People per Month
http://roguegovernment.com 27,733 People per Month
http://spectator.org 151,094 People per Month
http://pajamasmedia.com 227,845 People per Month
http://worldtribune.com 15,352 People per Month
http://familysecuritymatters.org 39,768 People per Month
http://obamacrimes.com 30,560 People per Month
http://freedomarizona.org 58,011 People per Month
http://redstate.com 108,204 People per Month
http://cryptogon.com 104,440 People per Month
There are enough people who visit both http://freerepublic.com/ and http://defendourfreedoms.us/ to make http://defendourfreedoms.us/ the most frequently visited site by people who also visit http://freerepublic.com/ , but not enough to put http://freerepublic.com/ in the top 15 sites visited by people who also visit http://defendourfreedoms.us/ . Free Republic has about 127 times the number of visitors as http://defendourfreedoms.us/ , but the number of people who visit both sites is enough to put http://defendourfreedoms.us/ in the top position of sites on FR, but not enough to put FR in the top 15 at http://defendourfreedoms.us/ ?
Free Republic is not in the top 15 sites listed on any of the sites that are on FR’s top 15 list, yet FR is larger than any of those sites, by a large margin. FR has anywhere from about 7 to about 212 times the number of visitors as any of the other sites.
There were enough people who visited both http://conservativegrapevine.com/ and http://freerepublic.com/ to put that relationship in third place on FR. How many people would it take to put them in 3rd place at a site with 1,672,825 visitors? How many people could visit both sites without putting that relationship in the top 15 at a site with only 7,892 visitors?
The numbers simply do not add up.
So now you’re back to claiming you don’t have a source, after lying about the link that HollyB providing, and claiming that was your source.
Just an FYI, JimR questioned the accuracy of that site as well. But, that’s all he had to provide me with with I asked him what the ratio was of men/women on FR.
“So your point is?”
You’re highly emotional.
“You, sir, are an idiot.”
Well, I wasn’t serious but I’ll play the game.
And you’re the epitome of logic and reason, are you?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Naturally. After all, he’s no fool.
“And you’re the epitome of logic and reason, are you?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!”
I’m not hearing any “logic and reason” from your side.
“So now you’re back to claiming you don’t have a source, after lying about the link that HollyB providing, and claiming that was your source.”
Why are you getting angry and personal, I am not in an argument with you or making radical posts or claims, all I am doing is pointing out readership demographics which is just every day industry statistics, it shouldn’t be drawing out any personal attacks, or strong emotional responses from you.
Jim gave the only source any of us have for freerepublic and a freeper posted the link he gave her, for some reason instead of labeling it Jims source you want to label it as mine, I only pointed out that I haven’t used that source for any of my postings about other conservative media like I referenced in post 496. I did have Jim’s source ready for when the moment arose, but he and the other freeper posted it first.
For everything except freerepublic I am using sources like intermarkets,editorsweblog,stateofthenews,and others.
The main point is that you can lighten up some, this is just run of the mill demographics stuff that the industry uses to know who their readers and customers are.
The point is, you lied. I asked you a simple question. It shouldn’t have been a problem for you to name your source. Instead, you told me to read the whole thread again to find your source. When I pointed out that I had already read the thread, and you did not name your source anywhere on the thread, you got hormonal, and claimed that your source was the same as Jim Robinson’s, and was posted by HollyB. (You have since admitted that was a lie.) I’ve given you every opportunity to tell the truth, but you just keep digging deeper.
“Instead, you told me to read the whole thread again to find your source.”
Not quite
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:52:26 PM · 475 of 510
ansel12 to BykrBayb
Read the thread.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies
What are you talking about and why are you calling me a liar and why are you ignoring all the other outlets in post 496?
Quantcast is the only source for freerepublic’s numbers it was posted in 335, Jim had already brought it in before I wanted it to be posted.
We are all using Quantcast for the freerepublic numbers, I had that source long before Jim brought it in has “his” source.
You seemed to take Quantcast and started posting a lot of stuff from it.
Pesonally I used internetmarkets.net for my Drudge numbers and I have used other sources for everything else, except for freerepublic for which as I keep saying Quantcast is the only source.
“Jim gave the only source any of us have for freerepublic and a freeper posted the link he gave her, for some reason instead of labeling it Jim’s source you want to label it as mine, I only pointed out that I haven’t used that source for any of my postings about other conservative media like I referenced in post 496. I did have Jim’s source ready for when the moment arose, but he and the other freeper posted it first.
For everything except freerepublic I am using sources like intermarkets,editorsweblog,stateofthenews,and others.”
The bottom line is that you keep trying to find personal angles to everything rather than my original point, Fr is not a majority female site, that would fly in the face of common sense, that is what post 496 is about it helps to illustrate that point. My original point has been made and verified.
Any survivors on this thread?
No, it hasn’t. The only thing your posts have proven is that you lie. If there’s anything else you’d like to prove, try using facts, and don’t get caught lying about your source.
It is you that is lying and most importantly avoiding what the facts are, when you saw that FR is indeed a predominantly male site you went personal and stayed there.
I notice that you flat will not acknowledge the additional information about news/politics and demographics in post 496.
A reasonable person would have learned something and simply moved on rather than digging in and going on the attack in a personal manner.
In post 496 all you did was make more unsubstantiated claims, followed by your statement that you don’t need no steenkin’ source. And you’ve called that diarrhea a “source” several times since then. You were funny for a little while, but you’ve become boring. You’re a one trick pony.
What I said was that I already knew the truth, the Quantcast link was already in my favorites but Jim posted it first because I wanted for people to just think for a little bit about common sense before the argument was settled by statistics.
National Review Online, 84% male-http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:nF3O3flNxVIJ:www.nationalreview.com/mediakit/2006_Advertising_NRO.pdf+male+readership+demographics+%22national+review%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Weekly Standard, 79% male-http://www.weeklystandard.com/advertising/demographics.asp
The Drudge Report, 78% male- http://www.intermarkets.net/assets/PDF/drudgeReport.pdf
Time, 2 million more male readers-http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2004/narrative_magazines_audience.asp?cat=3&media=7
Newsweek, 2 million more male readers-http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2004/narrative_magazines_audience.asp?cat=3&media=7
US News & World Report, 3 million more readers-http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2004/narrative_magazines_audience.asp?cat=3&media=7
Politico male demo.-http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13311.html
Talk/polital radio- about 66% male-http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_radio_talk_radio.php?cat=6&media=10
Rush Limbaugh, majority male-http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/rush_limbaugh_whos_really_list.html
freerepublic, majority male-http://www.quantcast.com/freerepublic.com
What do demographics for other sites have to do with anything? Why are you back to claiming quantcast as your source, after saying that you lied when you claimed it as your source before? You can’t decide which lie to tell from one minute to the next. I know it’s April Fool’s Day, but you’re taking it to the extreme. And no one is fooled by you.
Quantcast has always been my source for freerepublic and you keep lying about that, my point is that I didn’t need to see those numbers to already know what common sense about news/politics, gender and use of media tells me.
I didn’t post it because it was already posted in 335.
You seem to have thought that freerepublic was a majority female site and you were proven wrong, your reaction has been to get emotional and start venting and attacking.
Can you think of any general public media that is almost pure news/politics that has a mostly female audience excluding possibly television “news”?
You have no idea what I thought, except what I’ve told you. I asked you for a source. You couldn’t provide one. You’ve wasted a lot of time trying to lie your way out of it. At least now I, and everyone who’s read your posts here, know not to believe anything you say. We can all save time by realizing that your name at the bottom of the post means it’s full of lies, and we can just skip it, and spend our time reading something more believable. Good day.
You keep lying I told you to “read the thread” for the source.
You jumped in at post 474 asking for a source for post 315, the source was in post 335, it was your job to read the thread, not mine to serve you, that is why in 475 I told you to read the thread and by post 480 someone else sent you to the source linked at 335.
Since you saw the source and the fact that freerepublic is a majority male site you have been off and running on an angry attack of personal insults and time wasting nonsense rather than just absorbing the little fact that you seem unwilling to absorb.
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.