http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/nyregion/17NUMB.html
b team strikes again. i know the b team at the NY Times has been very excited by the blackout. they got to go out drinking and write stories about it! woohoo! just like college! anyway. above is a link to an article claiming the statistic that 50 million people lost power is hyperbole. Something called the North American Electricity Reliability Council released a statement that said, and i'm paraphrasing, that areas cover 50 million customers lost power. now they're back-peddling and saying "quite a few" and that is a quote, of those areas had power.
let's look at this. if you told me that 50 people were stupid, and then the next day said, no, i was exaggerating, quite a few of those are smart, i would ask you to tell me how many. quite a few would indicate to me at least more than five (if 2 is a couple, and 3 is several or a few, quite a few would be quite a few more than 3). so you're telling me 5 million people had power in the blackout areas. ok- fine. who the hell cares? and where are they? and can you prove either stat to me? it seems that the 50 mllion statistic is easily provable--you know where the blackout areas were, how many electrical customers do you have? do an average per household and you have a fairly accurate figure, accurate to within more than quite a few anyway. you'd have to go around to individual household sto find out of any of them magically had power.
i'd suggest that reporter Mike McIntire think about what he's writing a little more before just rushing a non-story (a nice bit of propaganda) to the pages of the NY times. and where was the damn editor? vacationing on Hen Island, no doubt.
b team strikes again. i know the b team at the NY Times has been very excited by the blackout. they got to go out drinking and write stories about it! woohoo! just like college! anyway. above is a link to an article claiming the statistic that 50 million people lost power is hyperbole. Something called the North American Electricity Reliability Council released a statement that said, and i'm paraphrasing, that areas cover 50 million customers lost power. now they're back-peddling and saying "quite a few" and that is a quote, of those areas had power.
let's look at this. if you told me that 50 people were stupid, and then the next day said, no, i was exaggerating, quite a few of those are smart, i would ask you to tell me how many. quite a few would indicate to me at least more than five (if 2 is a couple, and 3 is several or a few, quite a few would be quite a few more than 3). so you're telling me 5 million people had power in the blackout areas. ok- fine. who the hell cares? and where are they? and can you prove either stat to me? it seems that the 50 mllion statistic is easily provable--you know where the blackout areas were, how many electrical customers do you have? do an average per household and you have a fairly accurate figure, accurate to within more than quite a few anyway. you'd have to go around to individual household sto find out of any of them magically had power.
i'd suggest that reporter Mike McIntire think about what he's writing a little more before just rushing a non-story (a nice bit of propaganda) to the pages of the NY times. and where was the damn editor? vacationing on Hen Island, no doubt.
