On Jun 25, 9:29=A0am, the stupidest poster on USENET, milt.shook, is on
a roll <LOL>:
...
> On Jun 25, 6:43=A0am, Clay <clays0nl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 7:03=A0pm, the stupidest poster on USENET,milt.shook, sadly
> > will always be just that =A0*sigh*:
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> > > On Jun 24, 1:25=A0pm, Clay <ClaysRi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 24, 1:14=A0pm,milt.shookjust doesn't get it <LOL>:
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> > > > > On Jun 24, 7:57=A0am, "Brian Carey" <car...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > <milt.sh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > > > >
>news:6789a967-e746-4ae4-b387-07388477f691@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, "Brian Carey" <car...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > > >>Are his ratings 1/4th those of O'Reilly yet?
>
> > > > > > > > > Actually, he has surpassed O'Reilly in the target
demogra=
phic of 25-44
> > > > > > > > > year olds,
>
> > > > > > > > Oooooooooooh.... Thats gotta hurt?
>
> > > > > > > > >and over all averages about 2/3rds of O'Reilly's
viewer****=
p
> > > > > > > > > these days.
>
> > > > > > > > Really? Where did you read that?
> > > > > > > >TV Newser posts the ratings every day, Brian. Do keep up.
> > > > > > > >In the demo, Olbermann is barely 20% behind O'Reilly these
d=
ays, on
> > > > > > > >average.
>
> > > > > >
>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/20/cable-news-ratings-for-th=
ursday-...
>
> > > > > > > O'Reilly has more than twice the viewers that Olbermann has.
=
Sorry.
>
> > > > > > > Actually, no I'm not sorry.
> > > > > > >I said the demo,you moron. No one cares about the part of the
=
audience
> > > > > > >who lives in front of the tv and never buys anything. In the
2=
5-54
>
> > > > > > Looks like you're the moron because the demo that Zepp cites
ab=
ove is 25-44
> > > > > > not 25-54.
>
> > > > > Jesus, Brian, are you so desperate you're pointing to a typo?
>
> > > > > > Doesn't matter anyway. =A0O'Reilly has more than twice the
view=
ers of the
> > > > > > Bush-hater.
>
> > > > > Not of the people that matter.
>
> > > > <http://tinyurl.com/54r85b>
>
> > > > Tuesday Jun 24, 2008
> > > > What's FNC Saying With This Ad?
>
> > > > FOXNews Channel took out a print ad in this week's Advertising Age
> > > > specifically promoting "The O'Reilly Factor", while taking a
Fox-es=
que
> > > > shot at their competition. They crossed off several 8pmET shows
sen=
t
> > > > to the cable graveyard, and boldly, partially crossed off the two
> > > > competing shows still on the air.
>
> > > > Click above to see the ad.
>
> > > > -C-
>
> > > And you think this is a positive sign from Fixed Noise?
>
> > God, you're so stupid.
>
> The obligatory third grade insult...
milt.shook, you are the stupidest poster on USENET today. This is not
"a third grade insult"... it's a do***ented fact.
Watch !!!
> > It's positive that you are what you eat. =A0I call MSNBC... well, you
> > know what I call them. =A0And you call FOXNews, "Fixed Noise"... just
> > like your brain-dead master, Froth, tells you to.
>
> Yeah, well, I used to call them Faux News, but I liked that one
> better. I have NEVER called them "News" as a rule.
Now... stupid... how would one say "Faux News"? The French word
"faux" is pronounced "pho" (as in phone or as in "faux pas"). So...
you're saying that you used to call them "pho news"?
See how stupid you are?
You wrote "Faux News" on USENET b/c you saw someone else do so...
point blank and period. If you had simply *thought* (such as you do
that) about it, you wouldn't have used it b/c it makes no sense.
See how stupid you are?
No one calls FOXNews "Fixed News" or "Fixed Noise" EXCEPT your master,
Froth Olbermann.
Now comes the good part.
> > And... for whatever reason, you truly feel that YOU are different.
>
> I'm always different. I'm an individual. I think for myself.
I believed I've exposed that canard with my previous statement.
God... you're so stupid.
> That's why I don't need any news channel to tell me what
> I already know, and reinforce my opinion.
That's a lie... the fact that you have stupidly discussed your master,
Froth Olbermann's ratings is proof of that lie, milt.shook.
> I disagree with Olbermann quite often.
Another lie.
> But I respect his work, because he uses actual facts to sup****t his
progr=
am
Another lie. If not, produce one cite where he has done that.
> unlike pretty much anyone at Faux.
Bill O'Reilly has had Al Sharpton, Medea Benjamin and Mother****p
Dennis on his show. They've not agreed all of the time, but at least
they've discussed issues. Indeed, O'Reilly consistently has voices of
Democrats on his show.
Name me once when Froth has had someone on his show who didn't tow the
leftist line down to the syllable.
Just once will do.
> Hannity STILL insists the non-
> existent Iraqi nukes are in Syria, for example, yet you rely on him
> and the insane Orally for "news."
God, you're so stupid.
I post on USENET, so the following should be very easy to prove --
cite when I have "relied on either Hannity (you forgot Alan Colmes is
also part of the mix) or O'Reilly for my news".
God, you're so stupid.
> And YOU brag about Fox's ratings,
> because you are the one with the need to have his opinions validated.
HEHEHEHEHEHE... now this one is funny, milt.shook.
I "brag" about FOXNews' ratings b/c I know leftist morons will come on
USENET and go ballastic.
Your contribution to this thread is proof positive of that.
<ROTFLMFAO>
> > Now that's utter stupidity. =A0Don't you get that?
>
> That's funny; I only came on here to correct the record.
But you didn't do that, milt.shook. You only made yourself look more
stupid than you normally do.
> Brian asked
> if Olbermann had 1/4 of O'Reilly's ratings yet. In the demo, Olbermann
> has about 80% of the Factor's audience, and when you "factor" in that
> Fox is available in more homes than MSNBC, because Murdoch strong-arms
> the channel onto cable systems, even if they don't want it, and then
> they insist that it be carried on the regular cable tier, they're
> actually close to dead even.
You live in a leftist, moronic (read: stupid) fantasy land,
milt.shook. Fox News and MSNBC rates are roughly 17 cents per
subscriber for Fox News and 13 cents at MSNBC.
Cite the smear you just presented, stupid. And don't go posting
anything that's leftist b/c it'll only expose your cowardice as well.
> Did you know that Comcast has moved MSNBC
> to its digital tier on some of its systems, for example? Murdoch would
> never allow that; he would cut off FX, or refuse to allow the cable
> company to carry Fox network programming if they did that.
And you're saying that NBC doesn't sell MSNBC as a package? If
someone wants Bravo or USA or CNBC... they have to take money-losing
MSNBC as well.
> > <ROTFLMFAO>
>
> > > I hate to break it to you, Junior, but this is the first sign of
> > > panic.
>
> > Bragging about disposing of the competition is "panic"?
>
> Yes. Of course it is. What other reason would they have?
Uhhh... stupid... b/c it's true.
> And the partial cutoff of Countdown is a joke.
Which is what it was meant to be.
> The ratings are still RISING;
> why would they kill off the first program that has competed with
> O'Reilly in 10 years? It's a sign of panic. There's no other reason to
> mention it...
Hmmm... to piss off Froth?
> > See how stupid you are,milt.shook?
>
> I see how gullible and stupid you are, Clay.
Nah, kid... I see how stupid you are, milt.shook.
> > > When someone in the media tell you about the ***** they USED to
> > > kick, that's panic. Put it this way.... of the shows on the MSNBC
> > > list, Olbermann's has lasted the longest (5 years) and is the only
on=
e
> > > that has trended UP for most of its run.
>
> > This, my stupid USENET poster, is what's called "tweaking the nose" of
> > the competition. =A0FOXNews did not say that they've destroyed
Froth...
> > just that Froth is frustrated that he cannot beat his master.
>
> You don't tweak the nose of the competition unless they're breathing
> down your neck.
On this, you again prove your stupidity. The examples are
legendary... Hertz & Avis... Pepsi & Coke... GM & Ford... the list
goes on and on.
> And no one expected Olbermann to ever beat O'Reilly.
But this is what you came onto USENET to brag about a few weeks back,
stupid. Doncha remember that?
> That it's competitive is a surprise to everyone, including me. Fox has a
=
loyal
> audience, and no one should expect their ratings to drop by any great
> degree. The fact that Olbermann is increasing his audience so
> significantly is a pleasant surprise.
Only to brain-dead leftist sycophants like yourself, milt.shook.
<LOL>
> > Hmmm... if Bill O'Reilly is Froth's master and Froth is your master...
>
> > Do the math, stupid.
>
> I'm doing the math. Olbermann had about 1/3 O'Reilly's audience three
> years ago. He now averages about 80% of O'Reilly's audience. Like I
> said, it's a nice surprise. It shows there actually is an audience of
> people who like to think about ****, and don't want to be force-fed
> propaganda. And that audience continues to grow rapidly, while Fox's
> audience will continue to die off over the next ten years.
"Force-fed"???
Again, stupid... name me once when Froth had someone on his show who
he could actually debate. Howard Fineman has pretty much ruined his
reputation b/c he is so aligned with the leftist bias of
MakingSureNeophyteBarack(is)Chosen.
When someone said that he (Fineman) worked on "The Obama Network",
Howard went ape-****. But it's too late.
Bottom line, stupid... the ratings will fluctuate wildly this campaign
season b/c this is an im****tant presidential campaign. Anyone who
would get their news from one source is... how should I put this...
hmmm... "stupid".
OBTW... I'll continue to post cable news ratings and you will continue
to react accordingly. That's the way God planned it.
See what I mean?
Too ****ing funny.
-C-
|
