Perhaps substituting "most popular" for "best" would be less controversial.

"Most profitable" would actually be the best way to say it. That better Tall Midget?

Exactly. Popularity and quality are hardly synonymous. In 2004, George Bush won the most votes in the history of American presidential elections. Does that also make him our best president? I don't think so.

So you "know" that B&B are better than Mully & Hanley despite the fact that you never listen to Mully & Hanley?Are you by chance a music critic for Maxim magazine?

Not a good analogy because he wasn't running against past American Presidents. He was just running against John Caray. Plus there are far more people in this country than the 1800's and 1900's. That's why he got more votes.

But I get your point Tall Midget.

Ok Midget. I get your point. You win. Mully and Hanley are better. Jeez.

Chip's brother?

Yes, but Mully and Hanley aren't competing against B&B, either. They don't have access to the afternoon drive time slot and its much larger listening audience, just as earlier presidents weren't operating in the same political climate with the same population as George Bush was in 2004. Consequently, my analogy is perfectly valid. Rather, it's your reasoning that is flawed.

I never stated Mully and Hanley are better as a matter of fact, only as a matter of opinion. You are the one who has falsely conflated his opinion with "objective" reality.

No. Your analogy is stupid. But you can still think Mully and Hanley are better.

Den Der's Dowes witout de internets. Dems the salt of the earf, dem.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Since I am not as smart as you, please demonstrate its flaw for me.

I was just kidding around, no problem KC.

Maybe Mike North knows

_________________
“What's the difference between a 3-week-old puppy and a sportswriter? In 6 weeks, the puppy will stop whining.”
Mike Ditka

Forget the reach of each time slot. Are Mully and Hanley even 2nd in male demo for their time slot? I don't think so. B&B are.

Thus making your point that M&H might be better automatically wrong.

You said that Bush having the most votes makes him the most popular President for your analogy. But that was one of the smallest margin of victories in any Presidential election. It was a small percentage victory. This shows he was one of the least popular candidates to win an election. So that's the flaw right away.

B&B are 2nd in male demo. Many Presidents have won by a bigger percentage margin than Bush did. Now do you get why it's flawed?

I know it's your want to argue with me. For once, just admit that I got you on this one. Or don't. Either way it's entertaining to me.

1)How does the question of whether or not Mully & Hanley are 2nd in the male demo decide whether or not they are "better" than B&B? You are again conflating a qualitative issue with a quantitative one, which means your logic is flawed at best.


2)Why is Bush's margin of victory relevant here? You argued that quality (B&B's status as "best" show) was a function of quantity (size of listening audience). I extended your logic to the political realm to reveal its absurdity. Now that you realize the illogical premise of your original assertion, you are changing your argument to say that Bush can't be the best--despite his record vote total--because he won by a slim margin. That simply doesn't make sense and is a de facto admission that you have lost this argument.

He got a record vote total because more people decided to vote. Plus the country has more people. Plus women and blacks couldn't vote at one point.

I just asked if Mully and Hanley are 2nd because we can't go by total listeners. They don't have the reach. That's the only way to fairly compare the shows.

You like to go down swinging. I'll say that for you Midget. Your premise that Bush is most popular is the biggest flaw. He wasn't. So there can be no analogy to your B&B point. B&B are popular in their target demo. That's a fact. Bush, by the percentage of his victory, wasn't a popular winner.

Just focus on that. You asked about the analogy Midget. I showed you why it's flawed.

Stealing Ohio helped, too...

The only thing you've shown is that you are capable of congratulating yourself for forwarding uniquely insipid arguments.

1)How is the fact that "more people decided to vote" evidence that Bush is unpopular? Wouldn't it logically prove exactly the opposite? Your assertion that Bush wasn't "most popular" is simply factually inaccurate: In 2004, he won the popular vote with the single largest vote total in the history of American politics.

2)Again, why does listenership in the male demographic indicate the quality of a radio show? Why do you view quantity and quality as synonymous? There is no logical basis for such a connection.

But even if I were to accept your premise that there is necessarily a link between ratings in the male demographic and the quality of a show, you still couldn't prove your point. Based on what Ted Cox wrote in January of 2008, Mully and Hanley beat Silvy and Waddle for overall ratings 3.0 to 2.9. He also said that Silvy and Waddle earned a 5.4 in the male demographic, which means, I would infer, that Mully and Hanley garnered similar numbers (I can't say for sure what their ratings were because he does not report them; he only gives S&W's numbers and then says Mully and Hanley beat them.). This 5.4 would be a half point better than what B&B earned in the most recent ratings. Thus, by your logic, Mully and Hanley are actually the Score's best show since they perform better in the category you identify as most important.

Once again, you are correct.

First off, you don't even know what those numbers represent in listeners and secondly, I believe Mike and Mike are 2nd in the demo.

Have to agree with you on that one.

_________________

I don't know what Mike and Mike have to do with this. B&B are 2nd in afternoons in the male demo. Right behind MJH. That's a fact. That's all I was saying.

Ok Midget. Early on I admitted I should have said "most profitable" rather than "clearly the best show". Although being the most profitable would mean the best. But I won't argue this anymore. I'll concede that Hanley and Mully could do well in afternoons. Maybe they are the best. It's a matter of opinion.

Your analogy is what's wrong. I don't know how you don't see that. You're right. Nobody now thinks Bush is the most popular President ever. But, your analogy suggests that by getting the most vote total he was the most popular at his election. That's just wrong.

Yes, Bush got the most votes ever. But his opponent got the most votes for any candidate not to be elected. One could argue that makes Bush the least popular President ever elected.

This was the crux of your analogy. B&B are clearly popular. Bush was clearly not the most popular President elected. He was one of the least popular in fact. You have to go by the margin of his victory. That's the only way to compare all Presidential elections. For all the factors I've mentioned. Country population, women and blacks not voting, higher voter turn out. So you go by the percentage of the victory. Pretty simple.

I'm sure you'll have a response Tall Midget. I rest my case. If you don't understand you never will. I'm off to solve other insignificant debates.

The point of my analogy was to demonstrate that quantity (a high vote total or a large listening audience) and quality are not synonymous. I used Bush's vote total to make my point obvious. No one in their right mind would argue that Bush's record vote total means he is a good president; indeed, one could argue, as you have done, that it isn't even an indicator of popularity. The same can be said of B&B and their ratings. Thus, my analogy remains valid, and you remain deluded.

The same can't be said of B&B. There is no comparison to Bush's vote total and B&B's ratings. Being 2nd means they are popular. It just does. Thus, not an appropriate analogy.

Being 2nd doesn't mean they're popular. They pull in fewer than 5% of the listening audience. If 5% is popular, then you are contradicting yourself with regards to Bush.

But again, your point was that quantity and quality are synonymous. My analogy exposes the flaw behind your reasoning.

Christ. They have a target demo. Males 25-55. That's all they're going for with their format. They're not gonna get women. Plus men, 25-55, are more appealing to advertisers. So we just compare what they do in that target demo. 2nd is 2nd. 2nd is good. 2nd means they're popular.

You're getting desperate with that last effort Tall Midget. Keep them coming.

Their second place demo still means they pull in a small fraction of the total male listening audience. You say this makes them popular, but won't acknowledge Bush's much higher percentage as an indicator of popularity. Thus, you are being inconsistent. What's more, you're pathetically attempting to conceal your inconsistency by calling me desperate, an attribute much more applicable to your mental state than it is mine.

Again, the main point of my analogy is that quantity and quality are not logically connected, a point you cannot disprove.

I disproved it several times. Trying to add a little more each time. You won't ever see it. It's basically apples and oranges.

I've got to go to bed. I'll leave by insulting myself. I'll save you from trying to think of another clever insult Midget.

This whole thread proves one thing that certainly can't be disputed. I need to get a date. Talk to you later Tall Midget.