I guess being in your cult, you don't realize how stupid you look most days.
Poor Richard.... quickly reduced to chanting the words 'cult' and 'stupid'. Sucks to be you...
The drop wasn't from $120 one minute to $85 the next minute.
^^ Bogus position assignment.
Bogus position assignments don't work either, Richard...
The drop was from $120 at the wee hours of March 9th to $85 around the mid afternoon hours of March 9th. That's a 30% drop over that time period, Richard.
How stupid are you actually?
Continued chanting.
They can be. But they don't have to be.
They don't have to be, but they are. It's common practice nowadays, Richard.
Now it is you trying to manipulate the "facts" by claiming things could be true that are not in evidence. The fact is you don't know what time the article was written
It doesn't matter when most of the article was written. What matters is that the article was published at 4:31PM ET and that it is common practice to update the finer details of 'current events' within the article up until the very minute that the article is published (and sometimes even AFTER!).
The writer and editor(s) of this article knew full well that the price of oil had dropped down to $85/barrel by the time that this article was published, but instead of saying that, they said that the price had "dropped somewhat" from the high of "nearly $120" earlier in the day. That's purposely manipulative reporting because they were trying to insinuate that the price of oil was still near $120/barrel instead of already being all the way down to $85/barrel by the time that the article was published.
or what the price for WTI crude was at when the article was written.
Obviously the article was written during the morning of March 9th (otherwise the writer wouldn't've had access to the data for the "nearly $120/barrel" reference, which happened during the very wee hours of that morning).
Since more sensitive information is updated all the way up to the very moment that the article is posted, this writer also had access to the data that showed that the price of oil was, for a whole hour before the article was published, down to $85/barrel (and it was even at $90/barrel before noon that day). Brent crude was even down to roughly $90/barrel by the time the article was published. That's still a 25% drop, which warrants more than saying "down somewhat".
This is all made up cult ranting on your part based on nothing but your cult beliefs.
Continued chanting.
OK. Tell us who updated it.
The author and/or editor(s).
The problem is you are now arguing that the story wasn't edited to your liking.
No, I'm arguing that it was purposely manipulative in language.
That is much different from your earlier claim.
Nope, it's the very same claim.
You are simply making things up because otherwise you would have to admit that you have no real argument at this point.
Projection.
The fact that the price of WTI crude approached a high and then came off it is a fine detail in a story when it is buried in the middle of the story that is 26 paragraphs long?
Yes, and it didn't just "[come] off it"... it came down
30% from it
.
Prior to what you are complaining about, the article says this -"
Now, as oil prices hover near $100 a barrel just over a week into the war and US gas prices are moving sharply higher."
Yeah. So?
But what is even more interesting is the article includes a chart of prices of WTI crude prices for the day.
Nope, it includes a chart of prices of Brent crude.
It shows that at 4PM, the price was $100. It didn't drop to $89 until 8PM on that day. I guess being in a cult, you think 8PM is before 4:30PM.
Nope, you're just confusing Brent crude with WTI crude.
What we are left with is you are in a cult and can't get simple facts straight.
Continued chanting.
The price of WTI crude was not at $85 at 4:30.
Yes, it was.
You are lying to yourself and lying to us.
Projection.
