Thank you for sharing this video. I will be adding an update to the header.
It should be noted:
1) The article did denote that it was likely that the gathering had released its attendee count orally at the closing ceremonies. Second paragraph in the "Trend to Obfuscate Trends" section.
2) The video you linked was only uploaded yesterday (June 15, 2019) while this article was posted on May 23rd, 2019. Now I may be a decent researcher, but I cannot watch videos that have not been posted yet. Such ability to time travel is outside of my scope.
3) Given how quick this comment was made after said video was posted tells me a lot of information about the person who posted the comment.
Either they were one of the 23 viewers of said video, or were the poster of said video (or someone who knew the video had been posted by someone else). Given the personal inflection of the comment it is more likely it is the later than the former.
This article is nearly a month old, the odds the someone would find the FWA video posted just yesterday and then this month old article at random is highlight unlikely. Therefore, it is far more likely that it was someone who had read this article and held resents over it, which posting the video alleviated.
If that point is true then I will give this advise to 'anonymous', if you are passive aggressively going after someone over an article about releasing of attendance numbers of all things, then what's going to happen when people critique things of more vitality of the gathering? And they are just an attendee that doesn't have a platform like this?
It's concerning is all I would say if it is true. And the anon knows it if it is true or not.
Thank you for sharing this video. I will be adding an update to the header.
It should be noted:
1) The article did denote that it was likely that the gathering had released its attendee count orally at the closing ceremonies. Second paragraph in the "Trend to Obfuscate Trends" section.
2) The video you linked was only uploaded yesterday (June 15, 2019) while this article was posted on May 23rd, 2019. Now I may be a decent researcher, but I cannot watch videos that have not been posted yet. Such ability to time travel is outside of my scope.
3) Given how quick this comment was made after said video was posted tells me a lot of information about the person who posted the comment.
Either they were one of the 23 viewers of said video, or were the poster of said video (or someone who knew the video had been posted by someone else). Given the personal inflection of the comment it is more likely it is the later than the former.
This article is nearly a month old, the odds the someone would find the FWA video posted just yesterday and then this month old article at random is highlight unlikely. Therefore, it is far more likely that it was someone who had read this article and held resents over it, which posting the video alleviated.
If that point is true then I will give this advise to 'anonymous', if you are passive aggressively going after someone over an article about releasing of attendance numbers of all things, then what's going to happen when people critique things of more vitality of the gathering? And they are just an attendee that doesn't have a platform like this?
It's concerning is all I would say if it is true. And the anon knows it if it is true or not.
I'll leave it at that.