I guess that's why I said you were manipulating the data and being
deceitful. The non-indexed numbers are obviously there, and I accused you
of deliberately ignoring them. I guess "I was in error" too. The thought
never occurred to me that you just didn't see 'em.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there
are.

In which case I have no choice but to admit that I was in error. Once I
found
the page with the GDP numbers, it did not occur to me to look for
additional
pages where different versions of the statistic might be reported.

I hope the phrase, "I admit that I was in error" doesn't cause a complete
short
circuit throughout usenet. It's not often seen on the screen. :-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
I guess that's why I said you were manipulating the data and being
deceitful. The non-indexed numbers are obviously there, and I accused you
of deliberately ignoring them. I guess "I was in error" too. The thought
never occurred to me that you just didn't see 'em.


Ya know what's interesting? Gould, in his first post on this thread used the
following GDP numbers-

1997 GDP: 8,318.4
2002 GDP: 10446.2

After which he stated "Compare that to the national debt for the same years.
It's close, so use a
calculator."

Well, if *he* had used a calculator, he would have come up with a 64.5%
ratio for 1997, and a 58.75% ratio for 2002, both within 1% of my original
numbers which he originally labeled "Bow-gus!".

Then again, it's possible he did use a calculator, but only after he posted,
and then scrambled to find more friendly numbers.

"Joe" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
I guess that's why I said you were manipulating the data and being
deceitful. The non-indexed numbers are obviously there, and I accused
you
of deliberately ignoring them. I guess "I was in error" too. The
thought
never occurred to me that you just didn't see 'em.


Ya know what's interesting? Gould, in his first post on this thread used
the
following GDP numbers-

1997 GDP: 8,318.4
2002 GDP: 10446.2


The other funny thing about those numbers is that they don't appear anywhere
on the link that he kept citing as his "source". Look:
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm
(That's the source he kept referencing in his argument)

In fact, those numbers are the "actual" GDP numbers...the same numbers he
now claims that he never saw on the bea.gov website in the first place.
Then where did he get them?

I believe this is the point where he can no longer claim an "honest
mistake"...and has lost any and all credibility in this debate.