On Jun 25, 10:36=A0am, Clay <cnote...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:29=A0am, the stupidest poster on USENET,milt.shook, is on
> a roll <LOL>:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 6:43=A0am, Clay <clays0nl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 7:03=A0pm, the stupidest poster on USENET,milt.shook,
sadl=
y
> > > 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]
>
wro=
te:
>
> > > > > > > <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]
>
wro=
te:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>Are his ratings 1/4th those of O'Reilly yet?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, he has surpassed O'Reilly in the target
demog=
raphic of 25-44
> > > > > > > > > > year olds,
>
> > > > > > > > > Oooooooooooh.... Thats gotta hurt?
>
> > > > > > > > > >and over all averages about 2/3rds of O'Reilly's
viewers=
hip
> > > > > > > > > > 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=
days, on
> > > > > > > > >average.
>
> > > > > > >
>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/20/cable-news-ratings-for-=
thursday-...
>
> > > > > > > > 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
th=
e audience
> > > > > > > >who lives in front of the tv and never buys anything. In
the=
25-54
>
> > > > > > > Looks like you're the moron because the demo that Zepp cites
=
above 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
vi=
ewers 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
Ag=
e
> > > > > specifically promoting "The O'Reilly Factor", while taking a
Fox-=
esque
> > > > > shot at their competition. They crossed off several 8pmET shows
s=
ent
> > > > > 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. =A0This is not
> "a third grade insult"... it's a do***ented fact.
No, Clay. It's not. If you're talking about the **** the Stalker
posts, he posts a few small mistakes I've made, but most of the ****
he posts about me, demonstrate HIM to be a moron. Like his stupidity
about the First Amendment, his ridiculous notion than margin trading
entails the same risk as cash trading, and a host of others too
numerous to mention.
>
> 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"? =A0The French word
> "faux" is pronounced "pho" (as in phone or as in "faux pas"). =A0So...
> you're saying that you used to call them "pho news"?
It's a pun, ****tard, and we're typing this ****.
>
> See how stupid you are?
Yeah, and yet YOU are arguing phonics on text-only Usenet. Go figure.
>
> You wrote "Faux News" on USENET b/c you saw someone else do so...
> point blank and period. =A0If 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.
My master? Wow. I'm a fan of his, and have been since he did s****ts
alongside Hal Fishman in LA. But master? I don't wor****p him like you
do the Fixed Noise gang.
>
> Now comes the good part.
Gee... can't wait to watch you hoist yourself up by your own petard.
>
> > > 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.
No, actually, you didn't. The current path of my life, about which you
(and the Stalker) know nothing, proves you wrong.
>
> 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.
Hey, Brian was trying to claim that Olbermann had low ratings. He
doesn't.
>
> > =A0I disagree with Olbermann quite often.
>
> Another lie.
Based on zero evidence. Still not getting that irony concept, are ya,
Sparky?
>
> > But I respect his work, because he uses actual facts to sup****t his
pro=
gram
>
> Another lie. =A0If not, produce one cite where he has done that.
Watch his show. He cites a source for everything. If you have evidence
that he's lied and not corrected it, please present it. In absence of
that, I submit his entire show.
>
> > unlike pretty much anyone at Faux.
>
> Bill O'Reilly has had Al Sharpton, Medea Benjamin and Mother****p
> Dennis on his show.
Wow.
> They've not agreed all of the time, but at least
> they've discussed issues. =A0Indeed, O'Reilly consistently has voices of
> Democrats on his show.
And he yells and screams and cuts them off pretty much all of the
time. Olbermann would never do to anyone what O'Reilly did to Jeremy
Glick, for example.
>
> Name me once when Froth has had someone on his show who didn't tow the
> leftist line down to the syllable.
He has Pat Buchanan on all of the time. John Dean is a regular, and
he's not exactly a leftist. He always has people on, and he disagrees
with them quite often. He's just not rude about it.
> 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.
That's funny. I just corrected the record here. I have never said
Olbermann has higher ratings than O'Reilly; I said that he has about
80% of O'reilly's audience. YOU are the one frothing here, trying to
prove that O'Reilly's kicking Olbermann's ass. He's still beating him
in the ratings, but it's getting closer, and Fox is worried.
>
> Your contribution to this thread is proof positive of that.
No, I just like watching you continue to make a fool of yourself.
>
> <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. =A0You only made yourself look more
> stupid than you normally do.
Oh, I did that already. Brian asked if Olbermann's audience was 1/4th
of O'Reilly's yet, and I showed him where to check the ratings, which
show it's a lot more than 1/4. In fact, in the demo, it's 4/5 and
gaining.
>
> > 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. =
=A0Fox News and MSNBC rates are roughly 17 cents per
> subscriber for Fox News and 13 cents at MSNBC.
First of all, NBC doesn't force cable operators to carry channels like
Bravo and USA, which is what I was talking about.
But your rate-per-subscriber rates are pulled directly from your ass.
In 2007, CNN charged 46 cents, FNC charged 33 cents on average, and
MSNBC charged 17 cents. And with the huge multi-year contracts Fox
forced in cable operators last year kicking in, expect FNC to cost
around 50 cents or more within a year or two.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/printable_cabletv_economics.htm
No wonder you and the stalker like each other; your "facts" are pulled
directly from your rectum.
>
> Cite the smear you just presented, stupid. =A0And 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? =A0If
> someone wants Bravo or USA or CNBC... they have to take money-losing
> MSNBC as well.
No, actually, they don't. And NBC doesn't force cable operators to
carry them on a lower-priced tier, or hold their highest rated network
shows as hostage, either. If the cable operator doesn't pay the 50
cents per month for FNC, he doesn't get local carriage of American
Idol or the NFL, either. Haven't you noticed that cable companies have
been forced to not carry Fox stations in some markets, while Fox
hardballed them into paying more for FNC?
>
> > > <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.
It was true 2-3 years ago. Why now?
>
> > And the partial cutoff of Countdown is a joke.
>
> Which is what it was meant to be.
No. It's not.
>
> > 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
=
one
> > > > that has trended UP for most of its run.
>
> > > This, my stupid USENET poster, is what's called "tweaking the nose"
o=
f
> > > 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. =A0The examples are
> legendary... Hertz & Avis... Pepsi & Coke... GM & Ford... the list
> goes on and on.
Um... are you even aware that you just proved my point?
Try RC and Coke... a lot of tweaking on the part of Coke, is there?
>
> > 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. =A0Doncha remember that?
I'm not bragging... just tweaking. I don't even watch Olbermann. I
listen to the podcast.
>
> > 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"???
Yes.
>
> Again, stupid... name me once when Froth had someone on his show who
> he could actually debate. =A0Howard Fineman has pretty much ruined his
> reputation b/c he is so aligned with the leftist bias of
> MakingSureNeophyteBarack(is)Chosen.
Fineman reins Olbermann in quite often, if you would bother to watch.
When Olbermann gets a little too snarky for his own good (and he
does), Fineman, Jonathans Alter and Turley and Richard Wolfe often
disagree with him and kind of ask him to stop.
>
> When someone said that he (Fineman) worked on "The Obama Network",
> Howard went ape-****. =A0But it's too late.
He works for Newsweek. Newsweek and the Wa****ngton Post have a working
agreement with MSNBC. So?
>
> Bottom line, stupid... the ratings will fluctuate wildly this campaign
> season b/c this is an im****tant presidential campaign. =A0Anyone who
> would get their news from one source is... how should I put this...
> hmmm... "stupid".
And yet, you demonstrate that you only get your "news" from Faux.
>
> OBTW... I'll continue to post cable news ratings and you will continue
> to react accordingly. =A0That's the way God planned it.
As long as they're accurate and relevant, I won't say a word.
|
