I received a note from a colleague after I released my latest post “In Case You Missed It: The New Clinton Inc. Is Open For Business”
In the note he questioned the following, “I think you may have been either reaching, or looking too hard for that color “purple.” When I looked at a few other sources her outfit for that earlier speech appears to be blue, not purple.”
It’s a fair point. The view on my monitors, and as I stated in my source picture, appeared to be a light shade of violet, and as I stated in that article, “Not stunningly purple as was that at her concession speech. But purple nonetheless.”
It could very well be the lighting makes it appear to have that purplish hue that I was noticing. And as one can clearly see in the picture I used – that’s how it appeared too me. Hence, why I used the source to begin with and asked readers to always judge for themselves.
So with the above said, here was my reply. To wit:
“It’s a fair point. So let’s say you’re right for the sake of argument, and I made a mistake. The larger question is: Does it change anything, or any of the conclusions I made? Again, it’s a fair point. However, in her latest appearance she’s; clad in purple; and arguing what for all-intents-and-purposes appears to be the new “product” (i.e., fake news.) I may be a tad off in my original color note (although I still stand behind, as my defense, the picture I originally posted.) But, with that said, her latest appearance clearly shows there’s something more going on here. Again, as I’ve been pointing out: Why the sudden displaying of purple? To reiterate, even if you may be 100% correct: the points I made still stand, and don’t change in the slightest. Which is, after all, the most important point of the observations to begin with, are they not?”
And, as always dear reader, the final arbiter of judgement is always you.
© 2016 Mark St.Cyr