Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it to be constructive.
Please think about your headline and a little math.
If something is 1 time something else, that's considered a 100% of that thing.
Think about cash. If you start with $1 and you've got 1 time (100%) less than when started, you've got $0 left. If you've got 2 times less than when you started, you've got $2 LESS than when started, so you actually OWE $1. If you've got 10 times less, you OWE $9.
So, if the media reported that there were 10 mass shootings but the number was really 1 time ( 100% ) less, then that would mean there were NO mass shootings. Since we're talking about events, you can't actually have fewer occurrences of the events than all the events claimed.
With the words in the headline, that can only mean we've started bringing people back from the dead. I don't know if this wording is part of the 'new math' but I've noticed it being used in many places - and it's not good to propagate mistakes. We COULD say, the public is unintentionally led astray.
If I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to know about the new concept.
So you would disagree then that if GVA reported 300 events but for the same statistical category the FBI only reported 30 the author's headline is still invalid because you only have one dollar? Your logic is flawed, your post is spurious in that your first statement says it purports to be constructive but in fact offers no suggestions for alternatives ways to report the statistical fact that the GVA is inflating their numbers. You are mistaken and your attempt to discredit the author and the truth of his article has failed.
Mike is correct on the grammatical error...you don' have "10 times less", but instead have one-tenth; those phrases are not synonymous. Of course in todays idiomatic landscape, most people arrive at the same conclusion; only us pedants really pay attention to the grammar. His explanation, however, is where it falls apart. An better way to write the headline would be "FBI data shows number of mass shooting to be 1/10th of what media reports" or "Based on FBI data, legacy media inflates mass shooting numbers 10x."
You obviously agree with the gun haters in the media and the Democrat party so you try to prove the facts reported by the FBI to be false. Sorry but I don’t trust the Democrats or the media.
I couldn't find another way to edit, so deleted and reposted -
Come on guys, read what I said. There is NOTHING in there that said the FBI data was false. I don't trust the media or most Democrats either. I've been GOP since I was a teen. I've owned and hunted with guns since before that.
The error is in how the title is presented.
Ten times less than something isn't the same as 1 tenth of something.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it to be constructive.
Please think about your headline and a little math.
If something is 1 time something else, that's considered a 100% of that thing.
Think about cash. If you start with $1 and you've got 1 time (100%) less than when started, you've got $0 left. If you've got 2 times less than when you started, you've got $2 LESS than when started, so you actually OWE $1. If you've got 10 times less, you OWE $9.
So, if the media reported that there were 10 mass shootings but the number was really 1 time ( 100% ) less, then that would mean there were NO mass shootings. Since we're talking about events, you can't actually have fewer occurrences of the events than all the events claimed.
With the words in the headline, that can only mean we've started bringing people back from the dead. I don't know if this wording is part of the 'new math' but I've noticed it being used in many places - and it's not good to propagate mistakes. We COULD say, the public is unintentionally led astray.
If I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to know about the new concept.
So you would disagree then that if GVA reported 300 events but for the same statistical category the FBI only reported 30 the author's headline is still invalid because you only have one dollar? Your logic is flawed, your post is spurious in that your first statement says it purports to be constructive but in fact offers no suggestions for alternatives ways to report the statistical fact that the GVA is inflating their numbers. You are mistaken and your attempt to discredit the author and the truth of his article has failed.
Mike is correct on the grammatical error...you don' have "10 times less", but instead have one-tenth; those phrases are not synonymous. Of course in todays idiomatic landscape, most people arrive at the same conclusion; only us pedants really pay attention to the grammar. His explanation, however, is where it falls apart. An better way to write the headline would be "FBI data shows number of mass shooting to be 1/10th of what media reports" or "Based on FBI data, legacy media inflates mass shooting numbers 10x."
I was hoping that by bringing the error to light, some might better understand.
I must adjust the scope of my hope.
The most complete course for destroying a society is to destroy its language and the understanding of its history.
You obviously agree with the gun haters in the media and the Democrat party so you try to prove the facts reported by the FBI to be false. Sorry but I don’t trust the Democrats or the media.
I couldn't find another way to edit, so deleted and reposted -
Come on guys, read what I said. There is NOTHING in there that said the FBI data was false. I don't trust the media or most Democrats either. I've been GOP since I was a teen. I've owned and hunted with guns since before that.
The error is in how the title is presented.
Ten times less than something isn't the same as 1 tenth of something.
Well said, Lee.
Thanks, Mike.