Having the same point repeated over and over again isn't needed though. It's the same people who post the same opinion when it overtakes another album as well. :lol:

 

Don't talk to me about it, talk to the people who bought it! :P

Having the same point repeated over and over again isn't needed though. It's the same people who post the same opinion when it overtakes another album as well. :lol:

 

Don't talk to me about it, talk to the people who bought it! :P

 

We're not talking to you, but anyone who'll listen. It's a public forum, not a text message. If you don't want to know our opinions, don't read them.

There is no way 21 is the second best studio album ever.

 

Given that you seem to equate quality and quantity you might be interested in knowing that, with all probability, 21 has already outsold Sgt. Pepper.

Given that you seem to equate quality and quantity you might be interested in knowing that, with all probability, 21 has already outsold Sgt. Pepper.

 

Actually my point didn't state that quantity equates to quality. Just my opinion on the news really which is that IN MY OPINION the album isn't deserving of all this success. Of course perhaps I should have reworded that sentence so that it was obvious what I meant since so many appear unable to read between the lines.

Edited December 29, 201212 yr by T Boy

Actually my point didn't state that quantity equates to quality.

 

Reading comprehension test:

 

Data: 21 becomes the second best-selling studio album ever.

 

Statement: There is no way 21 is the second best studio album ever.

 

Question: What is the assumption in this statement?

 

Answer: That best-selling equates to best.

Reading comprehension test:

 

Data: 21 becomes the second best-selling studio album ever.

 

Statement: There is no way 21 is the second best studio album ever.

 

Question: What is the assumption in this statement?

 

Answer: That best-selling equates to best.

 

Don't want to speak for T-Boy but surely he is saying the opposite in that others will make the assumption this is a great album because of the amount of copies sold? The British public are bunch of sheep at the best of times...

Don't want to speak for T-Boy but surely he is saying the opposite in that others will make the assumption this is a great album because of the amount of copies sold? The British public are bunch of sheep at the best of times...

 

 

Hilderic wasn't the only person to deduce that T-Boy was equating sales with quality. I did too.

 

Perhaps the statement would have been better worded thus: It's a shame that people may come to the opinion that 21 is one of the best albums ever made because its sales are high enough to place it in the top 5 of all time.

 

Or something similar.

 

Edited December 29, 201212 yr by AnthonyT

Hilderic wasn't the only person to deduce that T-Boy was equating sales with quality. I did too.

 

Perhaps the statement would have been better worded thus: It's a shame that people may come to the opinion that 21 is one of the best albums ever made because its sales are high enough to place it in the top 5 of all time.

 

Or something similar.

 

Perhaps but we can all pick holes in every post and take it literally if we choose too. It's like he said, read between the lines. He doesn't think it's deserving of that kind of acclaim. That's how I read it anyway.

 

Hilderic wasn't the only person to deduce that T-Boy was equating sales with quality. I did too.

 

Perhaps the statement would have been better worded thus: It's a shame that people may come to the opinion that 21 is one of the best albums ever made because its sales are high enough to place it in the top 5 of all time.

 

Or something similar.

 

True, but since we'd already discussed it anyway, it seems pedantic for someone else to bring it up again.

You suggested ignorance on the part of others here:

 

so many appear unable to read between the lines.

 

When your original post means one thing and one thing only. I accept what you said afterwards (which is a different thing and cannot be inferred from the original post, no matter how much reading between the lines one does).

Edited December 29, 201212 yr by Hilderic

Perhaps but we can all pick holes in every post and take it literally if we choose too. It's like he said, read between the lines. He doesn't think it's deserving of that kind of acclaim. That's how I read it anyway.

 

 

We were reading between the lines which is where we went wrong. We made a deduction which was false.

You suggested ignorance on the part of others here:

When your original post means one thing and one thing only. I accept what you said afterwards (which is a different thing and cannot be inferred from the original post, no matter how much reading between the lines one does).

 

I'm getting slightly irritated by you going on about this. If you'd bother to read the rest of the thread instead of picking at my one post you'd have realised that what I meant had been dealt with long before you even made your first post. I've also admitted what I should have done-so what exactly are you expecting whilst you keep on having a go.

 

And besides all that, since Torresgirl was able to infer what I actually meant from the original post, you are clearly wrong in your point. It may not have been clear to you or others but it was to some so to say 'it cannot be inferred' is incorrect. I don't mean any disrespect but I am feeling slightly picked on here when I've really done nothing wrong and all confusion was put right several posts before you even joined in.

I'm getting slightly irritated by you going on about this. If you'd bother to read the rest of the thread instead of picking at my one post you'd have realised that what I meant had been dealt with long before you even made your first post. I've also admitted what I should have done-so what exactly are you expecting whilst you keep on having a go.

 

And besides all that, since Torresgirl was able to infer what I actually meant from the original post, you are clearly wrong in your point. It may not have been clear to you or others but it was to some so to say 'it cannot be inferred' is incorrect. I don't mean any disrespect but I am feeling slightly picked on here when I've really done nothing wrong and all confusion was put right several posts before you even joined in.

 

 

I had read the rest of the thread and I already said that I accept what you said afterwards. But after explaining, you suggested that "so many" were wrong because of their inability to read between the lines. I know I am being irritating but this actually irritates me. Torresgirl commented on your post after you explained your point so her ability to infer from the original post is a pure hypothesis.

But I do realise I am being irritating so I conclude this post with my apologies.

Good oh.....let's move on then.

Further things we can see from this list!

 

Since March 2012 the increases have been

 

1- QUEEN- 2K

2- THE BEATLES- 14K

3- ABBA- 54K

4- ADELE- 413K

And 35k for morning glory in the same time. Wonder if anyone else would overtake it anytime soon?

 

Wonder if the small no. For queen is just to do with rounding - rounded up b4, rounded down now so appears less

Wonder if the small no. For queen is just to do with rounding - rounded up b4, rounded down now so appears less

 

I think even accounting for rounding it should be showing a much bigger increase than 2k.