You are unbelievable. You make a claim, I ask you to support it with even the slightest evidence, and when you can't, you think that if I can't prove that your claim is untrue that somehow makes you right. You claimed that the Mets were inflating their attendance, which can only mean that you are saying that the numbers they are reporting as tickets sold are untrue, since that is the only thing that is reported as attendance. This is a completely unsupported fabrication. Since doing this would constitute fraud, you're actually accusing them of committing a crime without any evidence whatsoever, so that makes it slander, too. You did not claim that many people who buy Mets tickets don't show up to the games, but when your obvious fabrication was exposed, you tried to change the argument, as you do so often. You claimed that Mets and Yankees attendance was close when the Mets first came into being. This is demonstrably false, as your own numbers showed. You have not come close to backing up anything you said, as is blindingly obvious to anyone reading this thread. When your nonsense was exposed, you refused to acknowledge it, as has always been the case in every argument you have ever had on this board.
It's not a claim, we all know it's true. It cannot be proven on paper just like you cannot prove the Mets do not inflate #s. It's just hysterical how you expect me to prove something that cannot be proven yet when I ask the same of you it's a shock and funny. It's very easy to see, anybody can tell the #s don't come close to matching up in many of their games. I NEVER change my arguments. Prove it.
If I had said "The Mets do not inflate their attendance numbers" you would have every right to expect me to provide even the slightest evidence to support that statement, which is a claim. I never did that - you did, which means that YOU are the person who needs to back it up. Thinking that you've somehow proven an arbitrary statement is true when someone else doesn't disprove it is the sort of thing 7-year-olds think. "It seems to me that the actual attendance at Mets games does not come close to the announced number of tickets sold" and "The Mets inflate their attendance figures" are two completely different statements, as anyone can see. The first statement is an opinion, and might be right or wrong, and you have every right to hold it; the second is a slanderous accusation of criminal conduct unless you have evidence to support it. You have never come close to the slightest evidence to support the claim you made. Period. I will admit that I thought you were backtracking once you realized you made the ridiculous second statement (since you couldn't possibly admit that you shouldn't have done that), but you seem instead to want to insist that these two statements are the same thing. If that's the way you want it, okay, you're not backtracking - you're just not able to understand the difference between two completely different statements. Feel better? Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of trying to have an intelligent discussion with you knows that you constantly change your arguments when they are proven wrong, since you are physically incapable of ever admitting that you're wrong. That's not a claim, we all know it's true. Prove it isn't - after all, in your world, if you can't I must be right. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Mets outdrawing the Yankees each of their first 12 years at Shea, and 21 of the first 29 years, corresponds to the attendance being "close early on."
So basically what you are saying is that you are not making a claim. Just pointing out a fact that everyone recognizes as true. An obvious, basic thing that for some reason, is totally unprovable. Let's follow this line of logic: 1) You perceive that there are far fewer people at the games than actually reported 2) To explain this observation,you conclude that the Mets must be committing tax fraud to make them look more popular than they really are 3) Number two is necessary to prove number 1, but since we know number one is true in the first place that means number 2 is true as well. Therefore, the Mets are selling fewer tickets than they say they are.
First off prove that I change my srguments, it should be easy since you claim I do it all the time. Second, why are attendance figures at so many Met game so far off? Why do 10,20,30K Met fans buy tickets to games and not show up? it would be one thing if it was a special circumsatnce like last night's Yankee game that was rained out from the night before where they listed 53,000 but obviously closer to 25K were in the building. if that happened all the time like it has for the Mets over the years then you'd have something but why is it that the Mets have so many no show? It's not like the Jets or giants who have their building filled w/ season ticket holders who have to pay in the summer and if they stink they don't go. Shea doesn't have that type season ticket base. Please explain that to me? As far as the attendance #s I am not going to waste my time going year to year, I posted the links you analyze them on your own time. I don't see what was wrong w/ my quote: "It was close early on": We led first 2 years, Mets led next 12 years then the yanks led next 8 years so after 22 years the Mets led by 2 years- that's not close? "the the Mets took the lead": So nthey had a slim lead but from '84-'92 they really pulled out in front to take a an 11 year lead. "but we have owen the attendance for a long time now": We have led every year since 1993, 1993 was 15 years ago which is a long time ago, right? Where was I mistaken w/ my quote? Again, please show me where I always change my arguments?
You've already established that I don't need to prove anything, since if you can't disprove it, it must be right. As far as the attendance figures go, you were the one who replied to my post trying to "set me straight" ("We've been through this before ..."), when everything I said was 100% correct. Why chime in with your typically condescending BS when everything I said was true, unless you were disagreeing with it? YOU are the one who claims that the Mets apparently get tens of thousands of no shows all the time, and have for years. YOU are the one who needs to substantiate that claim, or else YOU are the one who is full of crap. None of which has anything to do with the original point, the fact that YOU are the one who has accused the Mets of tax fraud without the slightest evidence to back it up. Dozens of posters here have noted that you are incapable of ever admitting you are wrong, and in order to somehow avoid it you twist your arguments around; in fact, there have been entire threads devoted to it, with many specific examples given. One obvious example is your "guys like you" attack, where when you cannot dispute what someone said you accuse them of believing something someone else said. Your frequent invocation of a counterfactual fallacy ("If the Mets/Red Sox/Duke did this you would say something completely different") is another example. Your claim that if someone else cannot disprove a statement you made that means the statement is true, used in this very thread (as well as many others), is a third example. You make statements, and then when they are proven to be wrong you claim you never made them ("The guy has been a consistent playoff performer his entire career w/ a few blips of poor play" and "He has been a consistent playoff performer his entire career," followed by "when did I say he wasn't more inconsistent from '01-'07?"); that's a fourth example. Do I really need to go on? You are the only poster here who is absurd enough to claim that they "win" 99% of the arguments they have had, and when people point out that this is ridiculous, your reply is that the only reason people disagree is because they can't stand to admit that you're so much smarter than they are. It's all reminiscent of Amy Winehouse - people keep telling you that you have a problem, but you just say "No, no, no." I am done. You will now make one more post claiming that you have once again proven yourself to be right, and will put it in your imaginary win column. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
