You didn't even do that.Ah, the pedantic prof presence raises its head again.
Yes, if this were an academic paper I would more accurately state that he cherry picked data, put it out of context and used them to create a misleading claim. But this being the politics board I just did a 'your numbers are wrong because.....'
You challenged him that his chart was wrong by showing a different chart.
That isn't "I'm not being academic", that was you trying to imply he was lying about his numbers.
You could have - very easily - made your point right away that in perspective the numbers are down.
Indeed you should, since I think it is an important point.
Instead you decided to go with a different approach and then got upset when I pointed out the discrepency.
IT also fucked you over, because by making your original pitch an implication he had the wrong numbers, you look like an ass when it turned out he didn't.
It's not about academic precision, it's about you choosing a really bad way to make your point.
Got it.Note that we also don't use Chicago or API formatting here, that the xitter is as acceptable as peer assessed journals in this pay to publish era and no person has final say over what passes and fails, other than the mods.
Your criticisms are noted but will be ignored for the purpose of this format of discussion.
You will lean in on bullshit and don't appreciate it being called out.
That's fine.
I answer these rhetorical questions users put here to clarify the graphs and numbers people use.