Economists Say Slump Has Ended in the City

"even though bjw and LIC didn't understand it (thinking somehow the overall median cancelled it out)."

Ahem, strawman. The hypocrisy is amazing.

the irony! bjw, you keep claiming that I don't know what a strawman is, but you've got it wrong again! Even if that were false, it would not be a strawman!

Seriously, you have no idea what it means.

Second, it was not only not a strawman, it was TRUE. Its in black and white!

me: "Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more"
you: "No, median price overall down 12.3%."

The word "no" shows a clear lack of comprehension of the statement you responded to. All three clauses were true.... but the word "no" not demonstrates not only that you were wrong (because the original statement was true) but that you didn't understand the statement, thinking that overall median contradicts category medians.

Sorry, NOT a strawman (you seriously should look up what that means) and absolutely true.

Sorry, troll.... you're just wasting space here!

"Why does LICcomm consistently abbreviate "somewhereelse" as "sme"? Is it an inside joke, or merely another education problem?"

Given his lack of comprehension of basic math and stats and, well, English... I go with the latter choice.

btw, the updated data I promised, I posted it in a new clean thread...

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/21856-data-causing-the-screams-declines-by-category

"(thinking somehow the overall median cancelled it out)"

That's the strawman. Or did you not get to parse that sentence yet?

troll, get yourself a dictionary... you still don't know what it means!

the thread is yours.... it isn't that much fun dunking on the special olympics crew anymore...

"Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more"

No, not ALL of them are down 20% or more. All inclusive is down 12.3%. That doesn't cancel anything out, and it's ludicrous you accuse anyone of saying as much. You're a special troll, aren't you?

How typical of you to disappear when your malarkey is exposed. Le sigh.

> All inclusive is down 12.3%.

Which is neither by size OR by ppsf!

If you are claiming I said ALL medians are down 20% or more... then, get this bjw.... THAT would be a strawman!

I said "the medians by size and by ppsf "

saying I saw "ALL the medians".... thats a strawman!

rotfl.

i love it!

> That doesn't cancel anything out, and it's ludicrous you accuse anyone of saying as much

Except you yelled "NO!" to the statment! Tell me, did you also redefine the word "no" to NOT mean you are contradicting the statement?

You haven't added a thing to the thread, just screaming about claims that weren't made and repeating data already listed and using it wrong!

I love it!

Sorry troll. Your posts are so moronic, its actually better if you're just trolling. It would be 100x worse if you actually believed what you were saying!

lmao

thanks for the laughs, troll!

i love that bjw has redefined the words "strawman", "peak", and "no" to avoid being called on his bs!

rotfl.

bye, troll!

ok, I was wrong, I admit it.

Slam dunking on the special olympics troll is a bit fun!

sme needs to learn coherent communication skills. The inability to communicate is a sign of a weak mind.

Not all apartment sizes are down 20% or more from market peak based on median sales. Studios and one-bedrooms are not down that much. sme is wrong in what he said, plain and simple.

Okay sme- post a bunch of rambling insults with explanation points and hope no one notices how dumb your comments have been.

Somewhere, LIC
Stats can suport any view. There are so many stats out there, all collected with different methods, and sampling.
With all the back and forth, I am not in the mood to compare, but it is possible each of you will find stats to support your views.

> btw, if you run the median per category numbers for manhattan
> 1 bed - 20%

rotflmao!

> Okay sme- post a bunch of rambling insults with explanation points and hope no one notices how dumb
> your comments have been.

licc, you're doing all the incoherent rambling insults (plus moronic statements) we can handle!

I just have to point to the data.

I love it!

"With all the back and forth, I am not in the mood to compare, but it is possible each of you will find stats to support your views."

Riversider, you'd be on if it were in fact comparing which data point says more than the other. That certain stats are "better" than others. That would be a worthwhile discussion, sure. But this isn't that.

This is folks just getting specific stats wrong. This is LICC just being WRONG about actual specific numbers... just like the above case.

LICC just doesn't understand what the numbers mean.

"Stats can suport any view. There are so many stats out there, all collected with different methods, and sampling. "

Agreed 100%.

But we're talking about someone who just can't read a stat at all.

sme just repeated his incorrect stat as if that proved he was correct. Nice try, but still dumb.

> sme just repeated his incorrect stat as if that proved he was correct.
> Nice try, but still dumb.

LICC, oh genius one, "correct" the number then. Miller Samuel wants you to update their numbers for them.

From their report:

One bedroom median Q1 2008 - 795,000
One bedroom median Q2 2010 - 639,000

and your statement..

> one-bedrooms are not down that much (20%)... based on median sales.

Tell us, oh genius LICC, those are the medians for 1 bedrooms. Tell us that they're NOT down 20%.
Tell us what magical steve-like math idiocy are you going to pull out and tell us that is NOT 20%?

Q1 2008 was not the market peak. If you want to use Q1 2008, the overall median is down even less than 12.3%

Thanks for being disingenuous again sme.

Calculated Risk ran a good piece a while back on problems with NAR stats. I cant find it now..

Also one should take into account the changing mixture and composition of sales along with volume.

However all that is not always possible.

Ha, I love it! LIC wants to change what "peak" means so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong.

Hillarious!

Year Quarter 1 Bedroom
2010 2 639,000
2010 1 627,500
2009 4 661,000
2009 3 645,000
2009 2 650,000
2009 1 710,000
2008 4 715,000
2008 3 727,000
2008 2 778,961
2008 1 795,000
2007 4 749,000
2007 3 689,000
2007 2 700,000
2007 1 635,000

Sorry toots, you've been OWNED!

> Also one should take into account the changing mixture and composition of sales along with volume.

Riversider, exactly. Thats why I provided the medians by SIZE and by PPSF. Some folks just don't like what it says... LIC in this case can't get past the overall median, and he doesn't understand the shifting composition within.

> One bedroom median Q1 2008 - 795,000
> One bedroom median Q2 2010 - 639,000

btw, for those who don't have time to calculate.... the median numbers are on bedrooms are indeed down exactly 20%

so LIC's claim:
> one-bedrooms are not down that much (20%)... based on median sales.

is a giant... WHOOPS!

what was that about being disingenous and calling out mistakes LICC?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and, btw, 1 bedrooms PPSF... down 26%.

WHOOPS!

sorry you guys generally have good things to day. Unfortunately they are all getting lost in this..

RS, Yes, absolutely. I posted the data pretty clearly, although over a couple posts, but folks like LICC seem to confuse themselves with numbers and screaming insults. But the data is pretty straightforward (well, assuming one understands that "peak" means highest, and important concepts like that).

Thats why I posted it in a clean post to make it simple. All the data in one place on a new thread:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/21856-data-causing-the-screams-declines-by-category

(and no hopping mad LICC... yet)

"If you are claiming I said ALL medians are down 20% or more... then, get this bjw.... THAT would be a strawman!"

Wow, this is unprecedentedly stupid, even for you. You said: "Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more." ALL still down is what you said. The median for all sizes is NOT, hence the "no" that you are in a hissy fit about. Or are you not clear on the definition of "all" and "no"? And "taxes" for that matter? Sorry, swe, no need to be wrong and an a-hole at the same time.

"but folks like LICC seem to confuse themselves with numbers and screaming insults"

Pot, kettle...

The peak for the overall market was Q2 2008. Why did sme only post the 1-bedrooms instead of the overall market? Because he is disingenuous and not smart enough to debate on the merits.

sme, you just got caught- hook, line and sinker.

On top of all this, sme is splitting hairs and missing the big picture. 18%, 20%- neither are down 50%, which is what bears on this Board screamed and yelled was going to happen.

Wrong, and wrong.

Thank you.

Why does LICcomm consistently abbreviate "somewhereelse" as "sme"? Is it an inside joke, or merely another education problem?

very good question

> How typical of you to disappear when your malarkey is exposed. Le sigh.

omg, I missed this! textbook trolling from bjw!
rotfl.

"Wow, this is unprecedentedly stupid, even for you. You said: "Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more." ALL still down is what you said. The median for all sizes is NOT, hence the "no" that you are in a hissy fit about. Or are you not clear on the definition of "all" and "no"?"

Wow, you're getting dumber by the second!

me: "Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more"
your response: "No, median price overall down 12.3%."

sorry, moron, median price overall is NOT "median by size".

You screamed "no" and didn't know what it meant!

rotfl!

You can keep screaming and screaming and screaming, but you thought that median overall had something to do with the statement.

"Sorry, swe, no need to be wrong and an a-hole at the same time."

Agreed... so why are you doing that over and over again?

Can't get much dumber than that!

> "but folks like LICC seem to confuse themselves with numbers and screaming insults"
> Pot, kettle...

Sorry, no, clearly you and LIC and confused! and hopping mad.

> The peak for the overall market was Q2 2008. Why did sme only post the 1-bedrooms instead of the
> overall market? Because he is disingenuous and not smart enough to debate on the merits.

Because I already posted the link to ALL the data. Days ago. And because you commented specifically on one bedrooms, so I posted that data.

And now you're CRYING about it.

> sme, you just got caught- hook, line and sinker.

Yes, I got caught being right. And slam dunking on your head!

The numbers were exactly what you said they WEREN'T.

Poor, poor, LICC, wrong again!

> 50%, which is what bears on this Board screamed and yelled was going to happen.

Show me where i said 50% down LIC? Come on, LIC, or was this a strawman?
You just got SPANKED for getting the numbers WRONG... and you have to change the subject?

Come on, lic... you got SPANKED.

Your claims, as usual... WRONG.

> one-bedrooms are not down that much (20%)... based on median sales.

uh, uh, uh, uh.... WRONG AGAIN, LICC!!

(as usual)

"Why does LICcomm consistently abbreviate "somewhereelse" as "sme"? Is it an inside joke, or merely another education problem?"

maybe he's faking english problems so you don't notice all his math problems.

> Because he is disingenuous and not smart enough to debate on the merits

rotlf

> one-bedrooms are not down that much (20%)... based on median sales.

and then cries that I gave... get this.... MEDIAN DATA ON ONE BEDROOMS.

I love it!

SPANKED.

poor, poor licc.

and, for those who don't freak out anytime data is posted...

"For the record, as of the May 2010 CSI NSA data released today, CSI NY Metro is now down 21% from peak."

and the full set of Manhattan medians by price and PPSF are still here:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/21856-data-causing-the-screams-declines-by-category

"not smart enough to debate"
hahahahahahaha

"maybe he's faking english problems so you don't notice all his math problems."
... non-ironic hahahahahahaha

hee, hee. i have to say this thread has provided me with quite a lot of enjoyment (and a little guilt)

"omg, I missed this!"

You did, didn't you? Kind of like this case:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/21705-15-versus-25-year-tax-abatement

"sorry, moron, median price overall is NOT "median by size"."

Sorry, moron, but by definition, it includes all sizes. But you clearly don't know what "all" means. I don't get why you're crying all over the place when we're actually in agreement on what prices have done, for once. But you're a troll who loves to kick and scream and whine in all caps, ad nauseum. Good stuff.

Uh, moron, 12.3%, the number you gave in response, is the number for whole market, NOT by size.

Sorry, whoops!

> But you clearly don't know what "all" means

no, you just don't know what "by size" means.

12.3% is not a median by size.

Sorry!

> I don't get why you're crying all over the place

pot, kettle!

> But you're a troll who loves to kick and scream and whine

ha, again, pot, kettle!

keep trollin!

You're hopeless. Again, all, *by definition* includes all sizes. But tell us again what "all" means and lie about condo taxes! I'll bring the popcorn.

I blame the teachers' unions for your poor education.

My actual statement:

Not all apartment sizes are down 20% or more from market peak based on median sales. Studios and one-bedrooms are not down that much.

sme being a liar (as usual) by saying my statement was:

one-bedrooms are not down that much (20%)... based on median sales.

Interesting attempt at the use of ". . ." Did you plagiarize your way through school? That would explain a lot.

sme's actual statement:

Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are ALL still down 20% or more (caps added by me)

Studios are not down 20% from peak, using any time period. One-bedrooms are not down 20% from market peak (although the peak for one-bedrooms was different that the overall market peak).

Therefore, sme is wrong. But according to him, he is not wrong, because he never said that all were down by 20%. Even though he used the word "all".

He must have cheated his way through vocabulary class too.

LICC, I'm pretty sure swe said studios were the only exception.

Anyway, looking deeper into the data, we can see why the overall median in this past quarter is up so much: an unprecedented volume of sales in the 3BR market. 500. That's been a trend in the past year it seems, but nothing's even come close to 500 in all the years of data Miller has made available. It'll be interesting to see if this trend continues. If not, we can probably expect the overall median to come down again next quarter or so. Again, this is why both overall and segmented data are valuable. Tells more of the story, even though some people will just search for and cling onto whatever the "biggest" numbers are, to corroborate their biased and shortsighted analysis.

sme's full quote: Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more (with the exception of studios, down 18% now)

Which he then quoted himself numerous times without the parenthetical.

And he keeps missing the big picture- 18%, 20%- neither are down 50%, which is what bears on this Board screamed and yelled was going to happen.

Don't pull a shirley sherrod on steviejhx.

Wrong thread, swe.you may call me w6, but don't call me Shirley.

Wow. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and disengage. Just my two cents. The bickering on this thread is unbelievable.

downtownchica: Oh, that's nothing. You missed a major meltdown on Sunday.

Stark raving mad.

It made these guys look tame and polite in comparison.

indeed, hey everyone.. it's 2for1 latte day at starbucks.. everyone get some fresh air. Let's pick this up at the top of the hour...

> You're hopeless. Again, all, *by definition* includes all sizes

And which size was the 12.3% stat you gave?

rotfl. I love it!

> sme's full quote: Actually, the medians by size and by ppsf are all still down 20% or more (with the exception
> of studios, down 18% now)

And what LIC leaves out is.... I was 100% correct.

He also leaves out where he said 1 bedrooms are NOT down 20%.....

and, he was... wait for it..... WRONG.

Whoops.

"And which size was the 12.3% stat you gave?"

Studio or larger. Any more questions, genius? How bout you explain your condo tax "information" now?

> "And which size was the 12.3% stat you gave?"

> Studio or larger. Any more questions, genius

WRONG. omg, I can't believe you are this dumb.

Studios down 18%. Do you think that equals 12.3%?
One bedrooms down 20%. Do you think that equals 12.3%?
Two bedrooms down 24%. Do you think that equals 12.3%?
Three bedrooms down 40%. Do you think that equals 12.3%?
4 Beds down 61%. Do you think that equals 12.3%?

Tell me, genius.

Which of the above numbers is 12.3%

rotfl.

oh my god, its so funny to watch you struggle so bad!

It's hilarious to watch you writhe and squirm, yet you're clearly the idiot here. Studio or larger includes all sizes. Guess what the overall median is? Exactly. 12.3%. Whoops.

"Everyone needs to take a deep breath and disengage. Just my two cents. The bickering on this thread is unbelievable."

Not a bad idea, but some folks don't want others to see that actual data. So I posted it on another clean thread:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/21856-data-causing-the-screams-declines-by-category

"but some folks don't want others to see that actual data"

Can't speak for LICC, but if you actually read the posts here, you'll see that I quite clearly think ALL the data points should be known. But you can't help yourself making sh!t up, right?

> It's hilarious to watch you writhe and squirm, yet you're clearly the idiot here.

Pot, kettle.

Sorry, genius, but 18%, 20%, and 60% are NOT 12.3% no matter how much you cry!

> Studio or larger includes all sizes.

Each of which... wait for it... NOT 12.3%!

> Guess what the overall median is? Exactly. 12.3%. Whoops.

You mean the number I posted?
"overall - 12%"

right there, several days ago? I don't need to guess, I posted it!
Exactly what I said it is.

You know what "median by size" is NOT? OVERALL median!

You can kept screaming it over and over again, but 12.3% isn't the median by size for ANY category.
When you say "all of them", it makes it even worse!

moron!

medians by size...
Studios down 18%. Not 12.3%!
One bedrooms down 20%. Not 12.3%!
Two bedrooms down 24%. Not 12.3%!
Three bedrooms down 40%. Not 12.3%!
4 Beds down 61%. Not 12.3%!

not all of them... NONE of them!

i love it!
Sorry, toots, you lose again!

WHOOPS!

> you'll see that I quite clearly think ALL the data points should be known.

uh, no.

except for that whole part where he screams "no!" and tries to point you at different numbers that don't have anything to do with the original! Screaming "no" at the ACTUAL data and naming an incorrect stat as a replacement.

look right there, guy is still trying to scream that the medians by size are 12.3%, which is the overall median NOT the median by size for any category. 20 postings on this because he doesn't want to just let the data be seen!

All because he doesn't want you to see the actual medians by category.

Lets piss him off some more!

medians by size...
Studios down 18%. Not 12.3%!
One bedrooms down 20%. Not 12.3%!
Two bedrooms down 24%. Not 12.3%!
Three bedrooms down 40%. Not 12.3%!
4 Beds down 61%. Not 12.3%!

none of them 12.3%!!!

Keep repeating the same bs, but you're just wrong. And screaming at the top of your lungs and posting insults all day ain't gonna change it. It's entertaining to watch you hyperventilate, at least, when you're called on your bs. It just flows so naturally from you. Too easy.

> "And which size was the 12.3% stat you gave?"

> Studio or larger. Any more questions, genius
[studios and larger each in actuality 18-61%]

LMAO!!!

spin it baby, spin it!

"[studios and larger each in actuality 18-61%]"

And again, studio or larger is all inclusive. Down 12.3%. Whoops.

> Keep repeating the same bs, but you're just wrong.

bjw, no matter how much you cry and repeat, none of those numbers are 12.3%!

cry, cry, baby!

> And screaming at the top of your lungs and posting insults all day ain't gonna change it.

Agreed, I was right from the start! (you were wrong... perhaps you should take you own advice)

> It's entertaining to watch you hyperventilate

Yes, all the laughing at you is making it hard to breathe.

> at least, when you're called on your bs.

bs = not believing that 18% <> 12.3%

if thats bs, I'll take it!

> It just flows so naturally from you.

Yes, it does.

> Too easy.

Yes, must admit, you trying to claim that 18% or more is 12.3% made it... waaaaay too easy.

Spanked!

Lets piss him off some more!

medians by size...
Studios down 18%. Not 12.3%!
One bedrooms down 20%. Not 12.3%!
Two bedrooms down 24%. Not 12.3%!
Three bedrooms down 40%. Not 12.3%!
4 Beds down 61%. Not 12.3%!

none of them 12.3%!!!

lmao

It's in base thirteen

LMAO
awesome, alan

I take it back, I was wrong. 18% is 12.3%. 61% is 12.3%

somewhereelse: Sing it: "Wah Wah...
I don't need your wah wah..." ("Wah Wah", George Harrison; the Concert for BanglaDesh)

Yep, I'm a sucker for taking all this troll bait. The facts of what was said are all there, but you interpret them as you will to continue your trolling, lying, and Peewee Herman style rants. Bye troll!

> Yep, I'm a sucker for taking all this troll bait.

The guy trying to claim 20% is equal to 12.3%, and they crying "why aren't you responding" is... by definition... the troll...

> The facts of what was said are all there,

Which is why its so easy to make fun of you for it!

> but you interpret them as you will

Yes, its my "interpretation" that 12.3% is not 20%!

> to continue your trolling, lying

Someone claiming that 20%, and 60% are 12.3% calling someone else a liar. I love it!

> Bye troll!

Slam dunk on the bjw troll!

Sorry, toots, 20% 'aint 12.3%!

WHOOPS.

Truth, et tu? This thread is turning into Whack-a-Troll. For the record, Wah Wah is originally from "All Things Must Pass."

> somewhereelse: Sing it: "Wah Wah...
> I don't need your wah wah..." ("Wah Wah", George Harrison; the Concert for BanglaDesh)

ha.

I was thinking more a
na, na, na, na...
na, na, na, na...
hey, hey, hey, goodbye....

(of course, I'm sure the bjw troll will return, he can't help himself)

"The guy trying to claim 20% is equal to 12.3%"

Nice strawman. You're setting new lows for even yourself. Yikes.

> This thread is turning into Whack-a-Troll

And the "12.3% = 24%" troll just got WHACKED!

too easy, too funny.

sme is cherry-picking his time periods. Totally disingenuous, as usual.

The overall market is down 12.3% Period. Fact. Just as bjw said.

sme can use caps, explanation points and insults all he likes (which actually does nothing but make him look like an idiotic lunatic), he is still wrong.

Having all the data points is great, because it shows how sme misinterprets it.

sme is caught again- hook, line and sinker.

Thank you, and thank you.

"All Things Must Pass."
... the Ex-Lax years

> The guy trying to claim 20% is equal to 12.3%"
> Nice strawman. You're setting new lows for even yourself. Yikes.

nope, sorry toots, you said it... !

or did you mean one of the other medians?

medians by size...
Studios down 18%. Not 12.3%!
One bedrooms down 20%. Not 12.3%!
Two bedrooms down 24%. Not 12.3%!
Three bedrooms down 40%. Not 12.3%!
4 Beds down 61%. Not 12.3%!

which ones equal 12.35?

WHOOPS.

sme wants you to believe that if every single category has a median greater than 12.3%, that the median for all the points in the combined categories can be 12.3%. This is impossible. People who understand numbers know this.

This only results in sme's warped analysis because he is cherry-picking different time periods for his data points.

sme's credibility, as damaged as it always was, is now smashed to pieces.

Thank you, and thank you.

> e overall market is down 12.3% Period. Fact. Just as bjw said

And just as *I* said...

> sme is cherry-picking his time periods.

peak to current is exactly cherry picking, genius! I love it.

What did you think peak to current means? Did you think peak was the name of a month?!?!

ROTFL

> Totally disingenuous, as usual.

From the guy still yelling one bedrooms aren't down 20%!!!!! Tell me, what does your "special" math say LICC? 12.3%

I love it!

> The overall market is down 12.3% Period. Fact. Just as bjw said.

Yes, the overall median is down 12.3%. As I said several times. How many more time you want me to post it?

But, genius, it doesn't change the other numbers.

> sme can use caps, explanation points and insults all he likes (which actually does nothing but make him look like an
> idiotic lunatic), he is still wrong.

LICC still says 20% isn't 20%, and still hasn't got one think right.

Sorry, toots, WRONG.

WHOOPS.

You got spanked.

Having all the data points is great, because it shows how sme misinterprets it.

sme is caught again- hook, line and sinker.

Thank you, and thank you.

"nope, sorry toots, you said it... !"

No, toots, I simply didn't. Sorry.

"sme wants you to believe that if every single category has a median greater than 12.3%, that the median for all the points in the combined categories can be 12.3%."

Oh my god, LIC just proved why he's dumb.

Lets first assume he meant median DECLINE. I'll give him that.

Then, if he doesn't think its possible, well then we've proven he doesn't know math!

> This is impossible.

No, its not! Hell, it was even discussed earlier in the thread!

> People who understand numbers know this.

If by that you mean YOU, no, you don't understand math or numbers.

You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

(but at least some of can be so clear why)

"... the Ex-Lax years"

Brits are notoriously gassy.

> No, toots, I simply didn't. Sorry.

we got 40 posts from you to the contrary.

sorry, toots....

you got SPANKED.

"sme wants you to believe that if every single category has a median greater than 12.3%, that the median for all the points in the combined categories can be 12.3%."

LMAO. please let me make sure you got this right, so I can paste this over and over again and laught about it.

Am I right that this is what you meant?

"sme wants you to believe that if every single category has a median DECLINE greater than 12.3%, that the median DECLINE for all the points in the combined categories can be 12.3%. This is impossible. People who understand numbers know this."

PLEASE, PLEASE... can you clarify this is what you mean.

PLEASE. pretty please.

pretty please

"we got 40 posts from you to the contrary."

And yet you can't reproduce one where I supposedly said "20% is equal to 12.3%." Until you do, it's probably best to stfu. Maybe you wear Spanx, but you're not doing any of the spanking, toots, sorry.

and you talk about squirming! i love it!

> "And which median by size was the 12.3% stat you gave?"

> Studio or larger. Any more questions, genius
[studios and larger each in actuality 18-61%]

LMAO!!!

spin it baby, spin it!

come on, spin it some more

squirm, baby squirm!

Dance for us! its so fing funny!

come on licc... PLEEEEEEEEEEEZE?!?!

"sme wants you to believe that if every single category has a median [DECLINE] greater than 12.3%, that the median [DECLINE] for all the points in the combined categories can be 12.3%. This is impossible. People who understand numbers know this

rotfl.

Alanhart: Everybody knows that you can't give Ex-lax to babies!

brits are notoriously farty... must agree.. we have this guy we used to call Mr. Farter... in a british accent... flmao

i definitely fart more than I used to. Louder, but less smelly for some reason (or am I just immune).

Alan, there's your "sme" explanation.