As you can probably tell, I'm a real stickler for math accuracy, so I just have to point this out. Maybe Bob will learn some math in the process.
Bob said in a comment on Columbuzz that the trustee was paid $8000 25 years ago and now is paid around $40,000 which is an increase of 500%. Can anyone find the mistake in Bob's math? What is the correct percent increase? The first person with the correct answer gets a gold star from Dude!
24 comments:
40,000 (current pay) - 8,000 (original pay) = 32,000
32,000 / 8,000 (original pay) = 4
4 * 100 = 400% over 25 years
GOLD STAR FOR ANONYMOUS!!!!!!!!
And here's an alternate way to calculate the correct answer:
40,000/8,000 - 1 = 5 - 1 = 4
4*100 = 400%
Darn! I'm no math major and I had it down at 3.125% per yer.
And of course, the fact that the pay was $8000 25 years ago means nothing. You have to look at the current labor market and the average pay for someone in a similar position as the trustee.
Some interesting data about Bob's never ending claim that Fred Barkes' salary is somehow unusual and too high:
Check out the table at the bottom of the Social Security Administration's "National Average Wage Index" at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html.
National average wages:
1984 - $8,067 (this is the national average of $16,135 divided by 2, since at that time the position only required about 20 hours per week)
2009 - $40,934 (this is almost an exact match to the Trustee's current salary)
Now, is it just me or don't those two numbers prove that the Trustee hasn't seen the outrageous pay increases that Bob claims and that Bob is trying to trick people?
Bob, that is what you call actual PROOF.
Something else just occurred to me - Bob picked 1984 as the starting date in his tired salary rant.
I wonder... with all Bob's delusions and censorship, if he and the Bob-o-bots think they're leaders in the Thought Police of Columbus? Are Jeremy and Jimmer actually covert agents looking for Thought Crimes?
One thing I am sure of, George wouldn't vote for Bob.
Wow, a "1984" reference. I'm impressed. You get a gold star too Yikes!
Does it count if Bob doesn't get the reference?
Does that make everyone who disagrees with Bob an 'unperson'?
I doubt if Boob is familiar with classic novels. He tests concrete for a living, you know.
Merc - don't forget that he also makes money on the internet and tries to get 18 year old girls to send him naked pics and try to get them to play with him and his webcam
pic says it all
http://oi52.tinypic.com/34zk4ld.jpg
at least he admits he is a pervert. but a nice one.
Chris..... I might want to inform you that it is EXTREMELY easy to act like ANYONE on the internet. That little screen shot is not near enough proof to make the accusations you are making.
For all I know, you could have made that account and wrote all the material. How did you come by this screen shot, anyway?
I believe someone who runs an online news site would have a little more respect for the political dangers and consequences of those actions. I could be wrong, but your case has no basis.
Chris is probably just following Bob's example. Bob never has proof, but that doesn't stop him.
Phil,
1. I tried to play nice, and ask straight questions on his site, unbiased, and i was told to shut up, i was wrong for asking questions, so at that point i decided that was fine, to the point that i will do anything and everything i can to go against bob, since asking questions is wrong in his book. since then, my comments have been deleted. so be it.
2. when going to your site, the first thing that pops up is praise for bob, which tells me that no matter what proof i have, you are set in supporting bob, so why should i waste my energy when you have your mind set up. it would be like trying to convert a catholic to Muslim beliefs, there is no point.
3. As far as me writing that material that was posted in the screencap, I have better things to do. I will not waste my digital imaging skills on something that low quality. if i were to make something up, i would have spent time and effort on it, to the point that experts could only come up with the simple word of inconclusive. and as bobs example, i'm right - if you don't like it - prove me wrong. with my comment, all it takes is pulling exif data and taking the image to a people that knows digital imaging and they can back it up once they look at it.
Phil, I don't think you understand what's happening on columbuzz. Bob has banned many people from accessing his site just because they disagree with him.
From what I have seen from this site and topix, i would ban or moderate your comments on my site as well. probably just moderate.
THe difference between Bob and I? I actually say that I will do that.
"Please leave a comment on any topic in Bartholomew County. Be advised, the freedom of speech on this page is fully enjoyed by me, but limited to visitors. I reserve the right to delete your comment if it 1, is derogatory 2, is slanderous or libellous, and/or 3 is not productive."
I can't have my commentors making remarks about officials or anyone that are libelous or derogatory. That gets you and possibly me into trouble. there was a case where a citizen journalist HAD to give up the identity and all information about certain commentors because a commissioner wanted to press charges because the commentors were spewing libel and derogatory statements about him and his friends.
I'm not saying you guys would do that on my site, but you have done it on others. I don't blame Bob for banning some of you guys, BUT he needs to follow the same rules he seems to be applying to you.
You're Chris Chambers, right? the photographer and fire fighter? It would be too easy for you to do that, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm saying that it is SO easy today to get on the internet, create a fake profile on some low quality dating or singles or young people's chatroom and make it look like Bob Freeman. or anyone, for that matter.
So that screen shot is not near enough evidence to damn Bob for allegedly being a creeper. That's just as unfounded (with the evidence provided) a some of the claims Bob makes.
But I ask, how did you come by that screen shot, Chris?
I've only made one comment on topix and it was plugging my blog. I don't believe my comments on columbuzz should have been moderated. I was just echoing the style of writing I saw Bob use on his site. I did not libel or use foul language. I was blunt and I called him out. He didn't like that at all.
phil,
sure, lets go with that last name, it sounds good, and since photoshop is so hard to use. ifigure this place will allow comments, which are opinions, i will make them, happily, since when i was not allowed to ask legit questions that went against his beliefs, thats what he wants, fine.
also, here is a funny one, on your blog it states he is editor of columbuzz, yet he has stated here that site is not his, even that he has not read the requirements. you keep asking for proof for things, how is that for a start
Phil, your words "be advised, the freedom of speech on this page is fully enjoyed by me, but limited to visitors" is exactly the opposite of that right's intended purpose - look it up, since you enjoy sourcing so much. Simply telling someone you intend to infringe on a specific right doesn't give you carte blanche in its violation. There are a ton of examples for you to read. Happy Googling.
i like number 3 of that point - non productive. who makes that choice? does that mean that if he doesn't like it it goes away? that sounds an awful lot like another site that i know of...
and, here is an interesting thing since i am being questioned if i made that screencap -
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/columbus-in/TDU9ICG2S63UU0OJ4/p2
comment 29 he admits being on there, and comment 31 he admits that he left teen out of it. and in comment 29 he says he had not been on there for a couple years but then turns around and says he talks to about once a month, and seems like that is more frequent than the couple years ago. also, on the previous page, comment 13 he says he has never been to a penpal site, a complete the contradiction to comment 29 and 31. no where does he deny the conversation took place. and, if you had done your investigation further, you would see that the screencap you question has been posted on several places, from several people before me. http://www.interpals.net/bobfreeman is a link to his profile at that site. and if he hasn't been on in so long, why when i pulled it up tonight does it show last login 5 days ago and join date march 2009? that shows that his profile has been there quite a while before and after the screencap.
you keep asking for proof. then more proof. if you go into a kitchen and someone says don't put your hand in that pot of boiling water, you will get burnt, at what point do you stop saying prove it will burn me? i just hope this doesn't fall under rule #3 non productive, make it go away theory. and you not believe it because he doesn't flat out admit it.
I don't ban anyone on Columbuzz. Others who help with the site do that. I might edit or delete what you say, but I don't ban.
gee bob i am not sure what is worse, the fact that you admit that the site you are the editor of has slackies that do the dirty work for you so you can say that you personally don't ban people, or the fact that you admit to editing and deleting comments at will, thus saying that if someones opinion differs from yours may be edited and a complete different context be shown. nice. and i thought that you stated that you allow opinions on your site, but then in your comment just all but admit that only opinions that go along with your thoughts are safe. nice. so much for freedom of speech, you know in that constitution thing, or is that something that you would edit out as well if you could?
"I don't ban anyone on Columbuzz. Others who help with the site do that. I might edit or delete what you say, but I don't ban. "
Thanks for the laugh Bob! You're a funny guy!
great job on the ball gag for miss liberty bob - way to go!
Post a Comment