The Daily Wire: Abbott versus Gillard: Who has told more lies? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

Abbott versus Gillard: Who has told more lies?

#1 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:24 PM

There's been discussion of late as to whether Gillard or Abbott is the bigger liar.

It is time to settle this argument with a simple challenge. Post documented examples of the lies.

Ground rules:
  • To be accepted, every posted lie must be substantiated in the following manner:
    • Verbatim quotation with proper context. For example, if the statement is an answer to a question, the question and answer must both be posted in full.
    • If a lie is a part of a larger context, highlight the lie in bold.
    • A link to the source for the quotation, preferably a primary source or a secondary source that identifies a primary source.
    • A date must be provided. If a source also specifies an exact time (eg: Hansard) this should be provided as well.
    • Evidence to support the proposition that the statement is a lie. Such evidence must also include citations.

  • To ensure a fair comparison, we should limit the lies told by both politicians to the time when both were federal Members of Parliament - that is, no earlier than 3 October 1998, the date on which Julia Gillard became the Member for Lalor. (Tony Abbott became the Member for Warringah on 26 March, 1994.) Lies from earlier than this can be posted if desired but won't be included in the comparison.
  • Lies about political matters or matters in the public interest should get priority.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:55 PM

Date: December 2, 2009
Source: New Liberal leader Tony Abbott promises no new taxes, consideration of nuclear power (Herald Sun, published 3 December 2009)

Quote

Whether it's a stealth tax (like) the emissions trading scheme, whether it's an upfront and straight forward tax like a carbon tax, there will not be any new taxes as part of the Coalition's policies.

Source: TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW (tonyabbott.com.au)

Quote

QUESTION: Mr Abbott, is a carbon tax part of your alternative climate change policy?

TONY ABBOTT: Louise, the Coalition will not be going to the election with a new tax. Whether it’s a stealth tax, the emissions trading scheme, whether it’s an upfront and straightforward tax like a carbon tax, there will not be any new taxes as part of the Coalition’s policy.

Then Tony Abbott breaks this commitment:

Date: 10 March 2010
Source: TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MHR JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW WITH ISOBEL REDMOND MP, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA (tonyabbott.com.au)

Quote

QUESTION: Mr Abbott, if you’d had this is in your mind for so long, why did you give a promise only a few weeks ago not to have any new or increased taxes?

TONY ABBOTT: That’s a fair question, Michelle. But sometimes, for very important purposes, for very good reasons, you have to make departures from principle. Now, obviously we are the party of lower taxes, smaller government and greater freedom. We’re also the party of a fair go for families and respect for institutions that have stood the test of time. Now, generally speaking, of course I support lower taxes, but I also support a fair go for families and given the waste and extravagance, given the debt and deficit that we’ve had from this government, in the short and medium term the only way to secure a fair go for families through a paid parental leave scheme which is a fair dinkum scheme, is with this modest levy on the profits of larger businesses. Now, as I explained in the Parliament yesterday, were the fiscal position of the Commonwealth to be different we would have done this differently, but given the circumstances that we find ourselves in the only way to get a fair dinkum scheme is to have this levy on the taxable income of larger businesses.

That's a new tax, after earlier promising no new taxes would be a part of Coalition policy.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by Bam: 01 April 2013 - 02:57 PM

0

#3 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:27 PM

Posted Image
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:51 PM

View PostNotFrogman, on 02 April 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:




Besides the fact that you did not read the topic heading, your example of a lie is rather weak. Hockey's claim is meaningless pollie speak but you can't prove it was a lie.

Interest rates always lower under the Coalition, implies under a Coalition government. As their was no ALP government in November 2007 (to check if the interest rates would have been higher still) and there was no coalition government today (to check if interest rates could have been lower) it is impossible to verify such a claim.

On the other hand any political leader who solemnly promises just before a tight election there will be no...... (fill in the blanks) under a government I lead, can be called to account for any such unambiguous statements.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:52 AM

Lateline 30/09/2004



Quote

TONY JONES: Tony Abbott on another matter, have you met Archbishop Pell during the election campaign?

TONY ABBOTT: Not that I can recall.

TONY JONES: Not that you can recall, because we believe that you've had at least one meeting with him quite recently?

You don't recall that?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, when?

Where?

TONY JONES: At the presbytery in Sydney.

TONY ABBOTT: Ah, actually now that you do mention it, I did met with Cardinal Pell.

So what?

Why shouldn't I meet with Cardinal Pell?

TONY JONES: Why couldn't you recall meeting him, I think, 10 days ago?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, whenever it was, so what?

Why shouldn't I meet Cardinal Pell.

Cardinal Pell is a fine man.


I class this as a lie. "Not that I can recall" is about as believable as Sinodinos "forgetting" 6 company directorships.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:02 AM

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/InterviewTranscripts/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7382/Interview-with-Neil-Mitchell-Radio-3AW.aspx

14 May 2010

Quote

NEIL MITCHELL:

Did you propose a $10,000 payment for stay at home mums?

TONY ABBOTT:

No, I didn’t.

NEIL MITCHELL:

Did you propose any payments for stay at home mums?

TONY ABBOTT:

Look, Neil, all sorts of issues are bounced around in Shadow Cabinet, as you’d expect…

NEIL MITCHELL:

And was that one knocked back?

TONY ABBOTT:

…but what matters, but what matters is the decisions that were made.

NEIL MITCHELL:

No, what matters, did you put it up and it was knocked back?

TONY ABBOTT:

No, No. What matters is the decisions that were made.

NEIL MITCHELL:

So, you’re denying that you put this to the Shadow Cabinet are you?

TONY ABBOTT:

I’m saying that we had a discussion that covered all sorts of subjects.

NEIL MITCHELL:

Yeah, but I asked you if you put it up and you said, no, no. So, are you denying that you put it up?

TONY ABBOTT:

And the point is, Neil, you know, conversations that take place in the Shadow Cabinet are conversations that I am allowed to keep to myself and fellow Shadow cabinet members.

NEIL MITCHELL:

So, I’m just asking, is it a denial or not?

TONY ABBOTT:

What I’ve said is what I’ve said and you can put whatever construction you like on it.

NEIL MITCHELL:

No, but you’ve been contradictory. You said no, no and then you went on to say you wouldn’t say. It’s a simple thing. Was this discussed? Was it raised? Was it rejected?

TONY ABBOTT:

And there was a discussion about many things and I’m not saying that this wasn’t one of the things that we discussed but the important thing is what we decided and what we decided…

NEIL MITCHELL:

Well, let’s just be up front because a minute ago you said no, no.

TONY ABBOTT:

And what we decided was that the reckless spending must stop.

NEIL MITCHELL:

Alright, the reports as you’re well aware is that you put it up and that you were rolled by the Shadow Cabinet. Is that right?

TONY ABBOTT:

Well, I don’t think that is a fair construction to put on…

NEIL MITCHELL:

Well, what is a fair construction?

TONY ABBOTT:

I’m just not going to do that for you, Neil, I mean, we can go around…

NEIL MITCHELL:

Well, what about doing it for the Australian people? Forget me. I mean, you’re the leader, you’ve put up a proposition that’s reported that has been knocked back. Now you’ve mucked around on the answer here, you’ve deliberately tried to avoid it, you’ve deliberately been misleading, how about answering it?

TONY ABBOTT:

Well, Neil, I’ve done the best I can and I’m sorry of I’m a disappointment but I’ve done the best I can.

NEIL MITCHELL:

Oh, don’t play that trick on me.

TONY ABBOTT:

Yeah, I’m sorry mate. I’m being a wimp, ok?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 03 April 2013 - 09:02 AM

August 30, 2003



The Herald shows Mr Abbott his handwritten letter to Terry Sharples of July 11, 1998, promising Sharples will not be "further out of pocket" in pursuing the case against One Nation

Quote

Q: You did an interview with Four Corners about two weeks after that [letter] in which the reporter asked you whether there had been any discussion with Terry Sharples about funding from any source and you said "Absolutely not".

A: Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament as a political crime. But my memory - and I thought about that a lot at the time, what I think the reporter said, and I haven't got a transcript - was "'Is there any Liberal Party money behind this?"

Q: The question was "So there was never any question of any party or other funds from any other source being offered to Terry Sharples?"

A: And I said "there is no question of party funds".

Q: No, you just said "Absolutely not".


Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:08 AM

View PostHDMC, on 03 April 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:



A fairly poor example of a lie. Sometimes we are faced with situations where we are not allowed to tell the truth. There is cabinet confidentiality. Or what is said in board rooms or between lawyer and client or doctor and patient. By not telling the truth or by denying suggestions as to what is said is the sort of lie that European resistance workers in WW2 said to the Germans when asked if they were hiding Jews or hiding downed British pilots. Lies of necessity. Or as the SMH says “dodging the truth” but for a reason.

Have you proved he actually told a lie? The Nationals had been proposing a doubling of the baby bonus to $10,000 and that may have been taken up by Abbott – that is not quite the same as a $10,000 payment to stay at home mums (SAHMS). Considering Abbott could not reveal what was said in the shadow cabinet, he might have thought denying what was only partly right would get him out of it. It didn’t work and then he resorted to refusing to reveal what was said or proposed.

Abbott was caught out, unprepared, hamfisted. Call him for that. But telling lies? He was badgered to reveal what happened in the shadow cabinet and after first appearing to deny, he realised he should have said nothing. That made him sound like a wimp as he admitted, but was the only thing he could do.

From your link not quoted:

Quote

NEIL MITCHELL:
What was your plan for a $10,000 payment to stay at home mums, the SAHMS?
TONY ABBOTT:
There isn’t any such plan.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:32 AM

Quote

Then there was Abbott's controversial paid parental leave policy - something he once said would be introduced ''over my dead body'' but he now sees as a crucial way to differentiate himself from the social conservatism of the Howard years.

He had said he would introduce no new taxes, but the parental policy was paid for by a ''temporary'' 1.7 per cent tax on big business. Except then a few weeks later he said the levy would be permanent, but might one day be offset by an across-the-board cut in company tax, which would leave small business even further ahead.



Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2PMMmPJTa
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 03 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

Quote

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Mike Seccombe then reported that, in 1998, the Australian Electoral Commission asked Abbott to disclose his donors, as required by law.

He refused, telling the Commission that before seeking donations:

‘I spoke with one of Australia’s leading electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not be covered by disclosure provisions.’

The AEC took him at his word and closed the file until forced to reopen it in 2003.

Abbott had lied again!

When I asked him on September 2003 why he took legal advice on secrecy before soliciting for donations, he said:

‘I didn’t take legal advice on disclosure till after I got the AEC’s letter. I sought legal advice and got oral advice from a senior lawyer.’

In other words, he lied to the AEC.




http://www.independe...-of-corruption/

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

View Postlenxyz, on 02 April 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Besides the fact that you did not read the topic heading, your example of a lie is rather weak. Hockey's claim is meaningless pollie speak but you can't prove it was a lie.

Then why does he make this misleading claim at all? It's simple: because unlike the various visitors to this forum of all political persuasions, the general public has many people who lack the ability to analyse political pronouncements and so sort out the rubbish from the truth. They swallow the most outrageous fallacies whole because they lack the capacity for clear thinking and do not know what a fallacy is.

The same applies to some other political pronouncements which I won't go into detail here.

Quote

Interest rates always lower under the Coalition, implies under a Coalition government. As their was no ALP government in November 2007 (to check if the interest rates would have been higher still) and there was no coalition government today (to check if interest rates could have been lower) it is impossible to verify such a claim.

I've noticed that Coalition supporters have (1) been very quiet about comparative interest rates in the last few years, and (2) have recently had a tendency to resort to this line of defence when the "Lower interest rates" claim was debunked.

A simple way of checking it is to compare interest rates over the last 40 years. The general trend has been down with each passing government since the all-time high of 22% for some customers under Howard as Treasurer.

Quote

On the other hand any political leader who solemnly promises just before a tight election there will be no...... (fill in the blanks) under a government I lead, can be called to account for any such unambiguous statements.

You're shaping the argument in narrow terms specifically to paint Gillard in a bad light when Abbott's got his own closet full of broken promises with different wording. For example, Abbott's got his "rock solid, iron-clad commitment" of which more will be posted soon.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by Bam: 03 April 2013 - 07:40 PM

0

#12 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:15 AM

Today's Abbott lie is his assertion that the Gillard government is "illegitimate", with connotations of winning government by a coup, as if Gillard won government with the military invading the lawns of Parliament House with tanks and artillery.

This is a very obvious lie.

In the Australian Federal Parliament, the Government is the group of politicians that commands majority support on the floor of the House. Gillard does. Abbott does not. That Gillard requires the support of independents and some minor parties to do so hasn't happened Federally for many years, but it is not that unusual given that every state and territory in the country has had a minority government in the last 25 years. Every single one of them. And not a question was raised about the legitimacy of these minority governments.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#13 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:27 AM

Abbott claimed that the "carbon tax" would be a great big new tax on everything and would put the price of groceries up.

New Daily Wire member swannysbasket has a site which blows a substantial hole in that one.



http://swannysbasket.com.au/
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 08 April 2013 - 09:20 AM

How about recently announced super changes are "shades of Cyprus?"

For this not to be a deliberate misrepresentation, Abbott would have to be so stunningly ignorant of the facts that he would not be able to do up his own shoes.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#15 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

View PostHDMC, on 08 April 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

New Daily Wire member swannysbasket has a site which blows a substantial hole in that one.


Swannysbasket of ten items. :emot-downsbravo:

The ABS would be indeed proud of the outgoing member for Lilley.

Nice coding to get the interactive graph though.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:08 AM

View Postscotto, on 08 April 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

How about recently announced super changes are "shades of Cyprus?"


Hyperbole.

Try this this instead for the sort of playing with words that gives politicians a bad name:

This was PM Gillard on 6 February 2013 repeating a promise made in 2010.

Quote

Facing intense pressure over the past week about possible changes to the super regime that were leaked to The Australian Financial Review, Ms Gillard told Parliament Labor would keep its May 2010 assurance that people over 60 would not have to pay tax on payments from their superannuation savings.
“The government reaffirms that it will never remove tax-free superannuation payments for the over-60s,” she said, referring to a commitment made when it released a review of the taxation system by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry in 2010.

http://www.afr.com/p...9z2J002C9On5OeI

Apparently the new changes are not a broken promise since payments from super funds to over 60’s are not taxed but earnings on super funds. That is the equivalent of saying that interest on bank deposits will be taxed when it is credited but not when you withdraw it from the bank. As there are strict rules requiring a minimum of withdrawals from super funds if they are in the retirement phase (e.g. an allocated pension) then the difference between taxes on earnings and withdrawals is semantics.

That didn’t stop the ALP from claiming that the opposition is telling “barefaced lies” about broken promises.

Quote

Ms Gillard told parliament on February 6 that the government reaffirmed that it would "never remove tax-free superannuation payments for the over-60s" - a vow that repeated a similar statement from Mr Swan in May 2010.
Coalition superannuation spokesman Mathias Cormann said the tax on earnings would reduce payments.
"The government has shifted the goalposts by introducing a tax on super payments for the over 60s through the backdoor," Senator Cormann said.
"It is a clear broken promise."
Others drew a clear distinction between "payments" and "earnings" and said the Prime Minister's statement to parliament in February had left room for the changes announced yesterday.
Mr Swan said the Coalition claims represented a "bald-faced lie" and there were no bounds to Mr Abbott's irresponsibility.
"Yesterday he was saying everyone's super accounts were under threat - today he is lying about our announcement," the Treasurer said last night.

http://www.theaustra...x-1226613677274
OK, who is lying? Who is twisting words so that they no longer represent what most people think they mean. No tax on payments from super funds to the over 60’s. Err.... we won’t tax payments but we will tax earnings.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#17 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

Sure, Gillard, or rather the ALP, backed themselves into yet another corner that they should not have by ever implying that they would make 'no changes'.

Abbott's reaction though, was at the level of a clever 9-year-old trying the make himself look good. A blatant misrepresentation designed to frighten older people.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#18 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

View Postlenxyz, on 08 April 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

View Postscotto, on 08 April 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

How about recently announced super changes are "shades of Cyprus?"

Hyperbole.

That's rather a stretch to assert this, especially given that Abbott is also proposing to force over 3 million Australians to pay more tax on their meagre savings so that he and 16,000 others like him can have more money.

He is intentionally misleading the public and I won't accept a one-word response that handwaves away any discussion.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#19 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:25 PM

View Postlenxyz, on 08 April 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Hyperbole.

Try this this instead for the sort of playing with words that gives politicians a bad name:

This was PM Gillard on 6 February 2013 repeating a promise made in 2010.

http://www.afr.com/p...9z2J002C9On5OeI

Apparently the new changes are not a broken promise since payments from super funds to over 60’s are not taxed but earnings on super funds. That is the equivalent of saying that interest on bank deposits will be taxed when it is credited but not when you withdraw it from the bank. As there are strict rules requiring a minimum of withdrawals from super funds if they are in the retirement phase (e.g. an allocated pension) then the difference between taxes on earnings and withdrawals is semantics.

It's not semantics. These are not the same. Withdrawals from the lump sum after 60 and before retirement are not the same thing as a revenue stream earned from investing the lump sum after retirement.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:32 PM

View Posticey, on 08 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Swannysbasket of ten items. :emot-downsbravo:

The ABS would be indeed proud of the outgoing member for Lilley.

Maybe he's been influenced by the use of small data sets by Bolt and others? Swan didn't do a very good job of emulating Bolt because his basket seems to be a random sample rather than cherrypicked from a larger set.

Quote

Nice coding to get the interactive graph though.

I suspect it's actually pretty easy using standard code libraries.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply