You don't have to repeat. All you have to say is "You were right and I was wrong. I posted stale inaccurate data, through inadvertently submitting it with the wrong publishing date-stamp."
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. Even the responses to this thread showed that significant changes had taken place over the elapsed three years. "Roughly" is not taking responsibility for giving the right data in the wrong time frame.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark.
If you were only interested in FR positioning in the pack, yeah, ballpark. But not the precise relationships of every other site.
That’s not shoving anything aside.
It is.
It’s telling you that the info is still dependable.
Not for each and every site in the slate. The information was valid only for the date it was first published. The ranking is clearly time-dependent, with significant changes.
Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
If you want to be faithful to the image and credibility of FR, just admit to having made a mistake in dating the stale information. That's not hard, is it? I am assuming that for sure the mis-dating of the publication of the article was merely an oversight, am I not?
It's something like saying,"Yesterday this was oats. Today it is still oats. The horse only used it once overnight."
Nothing you can say will change that.
Why else do you think that virtually every MSN org and every talk show host, radio and TV, either search FR daily or hire lackeys to do it?
They are not smart enough to find the truth on their own, and of course have no desire to do so except to falsely refute it with their nefarious actions.
So where else would they go except to THE premiere conservative website on the internets?
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
Perhaps he read your proclamation posted earlier where YOU were "introducing that dimension":
I sometimes forward such material to other [without an “s” at the end of that word this sentence is deemed unreliable] for reliable information, and if I had done so with the extensive information taken from this particular post of yours, my stamp on it would have proven me unreliableOh that oats thingie was clever, be careful when throwing the next day ones in a glass house.