Not only does the article you replied to show that your numbers are completely wrong, but your comment isn’t even internally consistent… 462,657 is like 3% of 16.2 million, not less than 1%. What are you smoking?
Again, your numbers are completely and totally wrong to begin with, proved by the very article you replied to—I’m just ALSO saying that even using your wildly incorrect numbers you’re still wrong in yet another way
Not only does the article you replied to show that your numbers are completely wrong, but your comment isn’t even internally consistent… 462,657 is like 3% of 16.2 million, not less than 1%. What are you smoking?
you’re right, that’s 2.8%, that’s much better /s
Again, your numbers are completely and totally wrong to begin with, proved by the very article you replied to—I’m just ALSO saying that even using your wildly incorrect numbers you’re still wrong in yet another way