You'll pardon my pedantry here but I have a lonely crusade to debunk the most likely apocryphal notion that Barnum made that statement about suckers. It wasn't a commonly-used term in his time, and there is some evidence that Barnum was honestly baffled and wounded by people being angry about his exhibits. He seems to have thought that p…
You'll pardon my pedantry here but I have a lonely crusade to debunk the most likely apocryphal notion that Barnum made that statement about suckers. It wasn't a commonly-used term in his time, and there is some evidence that Barnum was honestly baffled and wounded by people being angry about his exhibits. He seems to have thought that people knew they were fanciful and when he initially discussed how they were acquired or made in his autobiography, he was so taken aback by the response that he bought up every copy of the original book that he could find and released an edited version.
The sentiment may be true, but the source most likely is not.
You'll pardon my pedantry here but I have a lonely crusade to debunk the most likely apocryphal notion that Barnum made that statement about suckers. It wasn't a commonly-used term in his time, and there is some evidence that Barnum was honestly baffled and wounded by people being angry about his exhibits. He seems to have thought that people knew they were fanciful and when he initially discussed how they were acquired or made in his autobiography, he was so taken aback by the response that he bought up every copy of the original book that he could find and released an edited version.
The sentiment may be true, but the source most likely is not.
Entirety plausible and without direct evidence, quite possible. But we use a well known name to reinforce the sentiment.