Its often not even exaggerated, its just not viciously, perfectly defined to a nonsensical degree.
In this case, its "big" because its an area that was large enough to be put on a map and disrupt local inhabitants, compared to say someone just calling their house sovereign and independent. But they are saying it needed to be relatively "big" to the entire area to be true, which is nonsense.
His only mistake was using the word percentage, which does give them a legup on him to "fact check" like this.
yep, "big" is a relative term, so the only way to fact check it is to recontextualize the original quote. Seattle times is certainly making a fool of themselves here, but the real question is who can see it?
Its often not even exaggerated, its just not viciously, perfectly defined to a nonsensical degree.
In this case, its "big" because its an area that was large enough to be put on a map and disrupt local inhabitants, compared to say someone just calling their house sovereign and independent. But they are saying it needed to be relatively "big" to the entire area to be true, which is nonsense.
His only mistake was using the word percentage, which does give them a legup on him to "fact check" like this.
yep, "big" is a relative term, so the only way to fact check it is to recontextualize the original quote. Seattle times is certainly making a fool of themselves here, but the real question is who can see it?