(05-16-2012 03:09 PM)Saint3333 Wrote: Dear internet tough guy,
I knew that would be the reply, predictable for someone that doesn't understand the difference between marketing materials and financial data.
Take off those blue shaded glasses and consider which source is more credible, one that is trying to pump donors up (and can word things in such a way to make it look better) or the second one that is used for reporting purposes and audited by the state of Georgia. Take pride in your increase is donations, but don't be blind to the contributions received.
I've not resorted to name calling, unlike you I don't need to ask like a bully I use logic in my posts.
See you in the baseball tourney in a couple weeks right?
Dear Internet Dope,
The fact that you, of all people on this board, is telling anyone about "shaded glasses" and "using logic" is nothing short of epic given the posts you have made on this very thread.
The so-called "marketing materials" is the university's official annual report, put together under NCAA guidelines of fair and accurate reporting practices. To actually suggest that Georgia State University lied about its donation revenues is nothing short of asinine, and further shows to what lengths you will go to once you have been proven wrong and exposed for the fraud that you are.
On the other hand, you talk about using "logic" by touting a USA Today report, which pieces together data from unknown sources for well over a 120 institutions vs. getting data directly from the source. This is the SAME USA Today report that was OFF by $11 million on UNT's revenues, and that was just one mistake I caught right off the bat.
Tell me, since you like to use logic, could it be possible that if the report can be so colossally wrong about UNT, that it could be, and likely is wrong about other institutions in that report? Logically speaking, if the report is found to be wrong and with incomplete/incorrect data, shouldn't the entire report be questioned?
In fact, use logic to think about this for a second. According to that USA Today report, Georgia State had $1.4 million in contributions in 2010, when we had a total of 608 donors. In 2011, we almost doubled the number of donors (1,106), yet somehow our contributions went down almost 50%, LMAO!!
Anyone with ANY objective, logical assessment would clearly see that the report is flat-out inaccurate, but let's be real, you're not posting here with logic or objectivity.
You started out by reaching, and you are now at the point of flat-out denial and lies, and even that might be putting it mildly.
You claimed that if we went back any time period, App State's basketball RPI average would be better than GSU's. I proved you wrong; you said you "need more data" -- whatever that means, LOL!
You said I had ZERO evidence to support the $3 million figure for GSU. I gave you the report straight from GSU and proved you wrong again; you claimed it was marketing propaganda, and touted a clearly inaccurate report.
And you then wonder why you are being called names. I call them like I see them, and I call them what they are. If you had some humility, some basic human decency to admit you are wrong, and bow out gracefully, I would call you something different. But you didn't. You opened your proverbial message board mouth without doing research, and then tried to cover up for your lack of research by lies and red herrings. You keep exposing yourself for who you are: a dope, liar and a fraud. Nothing less. And you will be called what you are. Every. Single. Time.