My apologies, mhaze.

On re-reading your post, it does indeed appear you were merely expressing butthurt over the fact that you were not credited for bringing the criticism of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness to my attention. Sorry for neglecting to credit you for prompting my later discoveries.

<<There is an inherent problem with basing one's evaluation of the relevant importance of historic events on the number of Google hits you get on a search.>>

Only I wasn't evaluating the importance of historic events. So, your example with the ‘massacre’ searches is irrelevant.

Relying on the number of hits in a Google search IS problematic, though. There may simply be more webpages containing the words one searched for, for example. However, I made it clear in my last post that I was counting relevant articles, not the number of hits:

“... a small handful of relevant articles appeared.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8085#251099)

Which is why I took a look at the actual results in the first 10 or so pages (you’ll note, too, that when you specify a date range, Google doesn’t show the number of hits).

A further problem, when using a past date range as I did, is that some webpages and websites won’t exist anymore. So I searched “Y2K bug” between the years 1995 to 1999 and was presented with an abundance of RELEVANT results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=monica+lewinsky+affair&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:1999&ei=a2tYWqrqA4ex0gTv64XADg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1745&bih=863

Not analogous, you reckon? Two totally different issues? Okay, let’s try, “monica lewinsky affair” with the same date range:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=y2k+bug&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:1999&ei=f2pYWsrIEonQ0AT78rfIDw&start=20&sa=N&biw=1745&bih=863

Again, plenty of results. Despite your protestations, my use of Google searches appears to have been adequate for the purpose of the exercise.

<<No [Trump] attracts what you perceive to be more attention because he is a greater threaten to the left.>>

In what way?

<<[The Left] have no way to fight [Trump] other than to try to overturn the election via these silly assertions about his mental state.>>

Why is Trump so much harder to fight than any other former POTUS? The same mechanisms are all in place. Let me guess, it's his unmatched "stability" and "genius"? *Snigger*

Continued...

...Continued

<<Its rubbish and they know it, even though the followers (no names mind you :) fall for it.>>

I don’t give a damn what they say. I go purely by my own observations. I have fallen for nothing. I've been aware of Trump's grandiose narcissism for a long time now, and I'm not the only one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yBGE80covk

Yes, I understand why you call Obama “Obamessiah”. The clue is right there in the label. The label still sounds very emotive, though. What do you think of the cult following Trump has? As he himself points out, he could shoot someone in the street and he still wouldn’t lose votes.

<<So either way we end up with more religious warfare on our streets. Brilliant idea!!>>

Possibly, in the short term at least. No-one said a solution would be easy, but there are less inflammatory ways of dealing with the situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y

I didn’t propose any ideas, by the way. I simply pointed out why Trump’s was terrible.

<<I know its a load of rubbish and will blow over as soon as the next excuse for overturning the election is discovered.>>

Oh, you KNOW this, do you? How? Because the other side would benefit from it? That would be some rather fallacious thinking.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

Trump’s Narcissism and probable NPD have been a big topic since he first started running for president, so I don’t see why you should think it would blow over. Talk of it may die down, but it will always be there.

<<In a year or three, when you'll be able to assert that she never had any influence by doing a Google and finding that she's barely mentioned.>>

Well, it seems I’ve discredited that one.

<<I'm sure the algorithms are already at work ...>>

Time to get that tinfoil hat out.

Of course, those two links to Google searches should be the other way around.

The left may well question Trumps mental state.

One thing is for sure, we don't have to question the lefts honesty, the answer is there for all to see.

AJ,

Irrespective of how diligent you were in your Google research, the fact remains that you were misled by that research in regards to Bush and the attacks on his mental capacity to lead.

Your failure to adequately note that, will mean that in the future you'll be similarly misled...and you can't always rely on my being around to set you straight. :)

The fact is Google leans left and will always give you the results it thinks you should have. That's why I stopped using it ages ago.

You might want to mollify you naivety by thinking its a conspiracy theory and I'm sure that if you use Google to research Google's bias you'll be reassured but, for example....http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/

or

http://www.wired.com/story/james-damores-lawsuit-is-designed-to-embarrass-google/amp

"I don’t give a damn what they say. I go purely by my own observations. I have fallen for nothing."

Oh I do seem to recall you've fallen for a few "beautiful things".

SR,

"So you now accept it seems that this are not BS as you previously claimed."

No I didn't make that claim. I said your use of the figures was BS not the figure themselves.

You tried (unsuccessfully) to claim that the falling unemployment rate was due to these people dropping out of the work-force. I pointed out that the increasing participation gave the lie to your assertions...that the unemployment rate was falling even while more people were seeking work.

That is why you got the logic exactly arse-about.