|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 14:06:43 GMT -5
That would have been the sales for first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared. In case it still isn't clear to you, March 2018 comes before May 2018. Tiffany's first video with Maddie came in March 2018, which contradicts your statement above. You accused Richard of misrepresentation. Did you or did you not write the quoted statement at the top of this post (in bold)? Is the statement correct or is it erroneous? That was the point of my reply to you, which you keep avoiding. You accused Richard of misrepresentation, when in fact, you did the same thing in your reply to him. And you have continued to do the same in your replies to me. You have shown yourself to be disingenuous and incapable of admitting that you were wrong. Those are not impressive or admirable qualities. |
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Aug 27, 2019 14:07:46 GMT -5
Why are people still talking about the young artists and $$$$$$$ , who gives a scrap about it , be concerned about your bank account , money can hurt & harm in lots of ways as who is really a friend , etc , etc , etc . i hope they all have a career they love . Most all i know seems to be good people . Beachy, your only friend is a buck, and the more bucks you got the more friends you'll have. Take it to the bank. Book it. 🤑 haha , i got bucks and no friends here , i got back and no friends here ...i do have a family of friends close by , the Ben Franklin gang . |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 14:09:16 GMT -5
As I said in the last post, I happily stand corrected on the date when Maddie began work with Tiffany's It's not the fight of the century, but it's a matter of whether someone has the integrity to honestly admit a mistake. This statement is a "misrepresentation" by you. You did not state in your previous post that you "happily stand corrected on the date when Maddie began work with Tiffany's". What you wrote in your previous post was this: "If in fact the article is wrong on the starting date of the campaign, I do stand corrected on that point". Why do you want to try to twist things? It's dishonest. The article wasn't wrong about the starting date of the "Believe in Dreams" campaign. You took it upon yourself to state that Maddie hadn't done any advertising with Tiffany before that campaign, and as I showed, you were wrong. Again you miss the point. I was not addressing when Maddie signed with Tiffany's but what the article stated in relation to Richard's claim for the article. If what he said were true, then there is no other conclusion than that the turnaround point for Tiffany's was whatever was the only thing they mentioned about Maddie. And if the turnaround were also connected to her signing, then the two go together. The fact that none of it was true does not change the implications since I was trusting his evidence to supply the details for his claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 14:16:10 GMT -5
In case it still isn't clear to you, March 2018 comes before May 2018. Tiffany's first video with Maddie came in March 2018, which contradicts your statement above. You accused Richard of misrepresentation. Did you or did you not write the quoted statement at the top of this post (in bold)? Is the statement correct or is it erroneous? That was the point of my reply to you, which you keep avoiding. You accused Richard of misrepresentation, when in fact, you did the same thing in your reply to him. And you have continued to do the same in your replies to me. You have shown yourself to be disingenuous and incapable of admitting that you were wrong. Those are not impressive or admirable qualities. Here we go again. Richard stated the turnaround began with the signing of Maddie. He gives this article as evidence. The only thing mentioned about Maddie is the "Believe in Dreams" campaign which began in May 2018. Therefore he must be claiming this is the turnaround point - what else could it be if it is in the article? Therefore he is stating May 2018 is the turnaround point. It isn't. When Maddie began her work with Tiffany's is irrelevant to the point I was making. By Richard's claim, the only thing mentioned about Maddie is the only possible evidence for her being the turnaround in the article he provided as evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 14:23:18 GMT -5
Again you miss the point. I was not addressing when Maddie signed with Tiffany's but what the article stated in relation to Richard's claim for the article. You're the one who is missing the point. AGAIN, try reading (again) my intial post to you. If you do, you will see that my reply to you was that you misrepresented the facts, in your statement (which you wrote - it was not taken from the article) that Maddie's advertising for Tiffany did not appear until after the first quarter of 2018. Your statement was a misrepresentation of the facts, which I demonstrated by posting a link to the March 2018 video. I've proven my point. The issues you have with Richard's statements are between you and Richard. |
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 14:26:20 GMT -5
When Maddie began her work with Tiffany's is irrelevant to the point I was making. No, it isn't irrelevant. You misrepresented the facts, plain and simple, and that is not irrelevant, especially since you accused Richard of the same offense. |
|
|
|
Post by Knock it Off on Aug 27, 2019 14:27:09 GMT -5
Jezuzzzz, children, someone has to take the high road and end this pissing match over misunderstandings and misstatements. One poster misstated, another corrected, a third escalated. This could have easily been an adult discussion. And if you think you're not the one who escalated, look in the mirror.
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 14:31:06 GMT -5
Again you miss the point. I was not addressing when Maddie signed with Tiffany's but what the article stated in relation to Richard's claim for the article. You're the one who is missing the point. AGAIN, try reading (again) my intial post to you. If you do, you will see that my reply to you was that you misrepresented the facts, in your statement (which you wrote - it was not taken from the article) that Maddie's advertising for Tiffany did not appear until after the first quarter of 2018. Your statement was a misrepresentation of the facts, which I demonstrated by posting a link to the March 2018 video. I've proven my point. The issues you have with Richard's statements are between you and Richard. Actually, I have no beef with Richard. He clarified what he meant a half-dozen pages ago and I am perfectly satisfied with that. I did try to explain to you that I was basing everything on the article in relation to the original post as given and not making absolute claims but I guess that got lost somewhere in translation. |
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 14:31:51 GMT -5
Jezuzzzz, children, someone has to take the high road and end this pissing match over misunderstandings and misstatements. One poster misstated, another corrected, a third escalated. This could have easily been an adult discussion. And if you think you're not the one who escalated, look in the mirror. As far as I'm concerned, it has already ended. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 14:32:55 GMT -5
Jezuzzzz, children, someone has to take the high road and end this pissing match over misunderstandings and misstatements. One poster misstated, another corrected, a third escalated. This could have easily been an adult discussion. And if you think you're not the one who escalated, look in the mirror. This is what happens when you are retired and have too much free time on your hands. You gotta laugh at yourself before you laugh at anything else (that's directed at me - not you). |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 14:37:29 GMT -5
Six and a quarter inches versus six and a three-eights... Yes, it's the fight of the decade! In a sign of good will and olive branch stuff, I will concede to Pin the Tail the extra 1/8.  |
|
|
|
Post by Knock if Off on Aug 27, 2019 14:37:33 GMT -5
The thread is about to hit 1000 pages (or may have while I type). Drinks all around.  |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 27, 2019 14:38:35 GMT -5
it is not her on stage events but her off stage events have killed her career The evidence shows that the rumors of the death of Jackie's career have been greatly exaggerated. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 14:42:07 GMT -5
it is not her on stage events but her off stage events have killed her career The evidence shows that the rumors of the death of Jackie's career have been greatly exaggerated. Does anyone by any chance know how tickets have been selling for her concerts (apart from 54 below which I don't really count as anything but a guest spot)? |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 27, 2019 14:45:11 GMT -5
Jezuzzzz, children, someone has to take the high road and end this pissing match over misunderstandings and misstatements. One poster misstated, another corrected, a third escalated. This could have easily been an adult discussion. And if you think you're not the one who escalated, look in the mirror. Actually that is the exact type of thing a discussion site is about. |
|
