By the way, when I wrote that you were wrong (or something) about more than one issue now, I wasn't referring to your conspiracy theory. So, I didn't bring it back up, as you have accused me of having done. Your one-note-Johnny train of thought just thought that I had.

You keep making vague allusions to my being wrong about something without ever stating what it is I'm wrong about.

Either explicitly state your vague allegations or have a big cup of shut the fuck up.

I meant that last post to be phrased as a question, so here is the question..

What *else* do you think I'm wrong about, Kitt?

Be explicit.

Given that about 20% of the adult US population is functionally illiterate I stand by my numbers.

http://www.lovetoread.org/dev/literacy.html

There are 61 million Americans under 14 years.

http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/U_S_Demographics.htm

That leaves say 230 million over 18 years.

64 million/230 million = 27.8%

So, 27.8% of adults read a newspaper if the average number of readers is two per paper.

What percentage of those are going to read the NIE story?

If 75% of the 27.8% of newspaper readers read the NIE story then that works out to 20.85%

Again, close enough for a BOTE calculation.

I allowed for the gap between 14 and 18 year olds..

There are 61 million under 14 and under, I allowed another 9 million for those between 14 and 18.

300,000,000 - *70,000,000 = 230,000,000

You appear to have a problem with basic arithmetic.

You also appear to think that everyone who gets information from another source does not read the newspaper.

Where do Americans get their news?

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=200

Forty two percent from local "news" programs.

Thirty one percent from daily newspapers.

Fifteen percent from talk radio..

You also have failed to respond to my question so I shall ask it again:

What the fuck else am I wrong about?

By the way, when I wrote that you were wrong (or something) about more than one issue now, I wasn't referring to your conspiracy theory. So, I didn't bring it back up, as you have accused me of having done. Your one-note-Johnny train of thought just thought that I had.

What else then do you think I'm wrong about?

I'm going to keep asking the question until you either answer or go away.

I just tried to make some input with some facts, figures and guesses, but the penchant you have for circling round and round from comment and reply made you so dizzy that you lost direction all together.

I too responded with facts, figures and guesses.

That you do not like my guesses is not my problem.

Once again I note that the usual cast of regulars have not chimed in on this discussion to pile on me as is their usual wont.

The fact is that the great majority of Americans are not news junkies like you and I and a considerably smaller percentage are interested in or follow politics.

The fact is also that a plurality of Americans get their news from the local "news" shows on TV.

When the NIE hits the local "news" shows, then it will be noticed (in passing) by Joe and Jane Sixpack.

Most people these days are overwhelmed with a vast deluge of information. Overwhelmed to the point that they go to considerable lengths to avoid information that they do not wish to have to process.

Information overload is a significant problem these days, too much data is just as bad as too little. Too much data and your processing systems simply cannot keep up with the load.

That's the kind of smart-ass, flippant, phony remark that makes you not worth discussing with.

For someone who is not worth "discussing with" you sure have wasted a lot of time and verbiage on me.

"Don't feed the trolls", eh?

And yes, once someone decides to disrespect me I do consider them my "opponent", treat me with respect and I shall respond in kind. On the other hand if you disrespect me I will attempt to rip your metaphorical heart out and show it to you while it is still beating.

I'm not interested in wasting my time and energy debating with you on Glenn Greenwald's blog about your favorite conspiracy theory. Especially since you seem to think that wearing everyone down and boring them to distraction, means that you've won the argument, since no one bothers to reply to you again and again.

Hmm.. You have "bothered" to reply to me again and again since you made that remark.

I wonder why that might be?

Would it make you happy if I were to lower my guess of Americans who will remain ignorant of the NIE to 75%..

Somehow I think not.