Rush is back!

[Ernie S.]

I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general. I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.



Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV. Dog the Bounty Hunter? Jerry Springer? People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs? Fake wrestling?....

You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation? And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.

I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works. Your defensiveness is the emotional part.

"Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
" If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
-- that is a subjective analysis. It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased. IOW it's opinion, not fact. Damn right that's subjective. And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.

But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.

 

[Pogo]

You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation? And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.

I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works. Your defensiveness is the emotional part.

"Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
" If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
-- that is a subjective analysis. It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased. IOW it's opinion, not fact. Damn right that's subjective. And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.

But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

 

[Ernie S.]

[

The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.

How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.

Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?

Really?

Really?

Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.

He's costing them money, so he has to go.

LINK

Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]

And as to the Rush question.... I suppose you could read the link provided in the OP. If you have trouble with the big words, PM pogo. He knows everything.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works. Your defensiveness is the emotional part.

"Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
" If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
-- that is a subjective analysis. It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased. IOW it's opinion, not fact. Damn right that's subjective. And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.

But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.

 

[Pogo]

[

The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.

How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.

Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?

Really?

Really?

Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.

He's costing them money, so he has to go.

LINK

Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]

And as to the Rush question.... I suppose you could read the link provided in the OP. If you have trouble with the big words, PM pogo. He knows everything.

See, now there you go spreading the same rumor.

If I knew everything I'd know what the hell this "Kellerman study" is.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works. Your defensiveness is the emotional part.

"Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
" If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
-- that is a subjective analysis. It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased. IOW it's opinion, not fact. Damn right that's subjective. And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.

But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

Oh and I'm thinking Illar didn't run away to lick his supposed wounds. I'm thinking he's looking for something for the pain from the ribs he bruised, laughing.

 

[Pogo]

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.

I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true. I never said that makes me an "expert". That's not how I roll.

Fallacy of Assumption?

 

[Ernie S.]

How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.

Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?

Really?

Really?

Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.

He's costing them money, so he has to go.

LINK

Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]

And as to the Rush question.... I suppose you could read the link provided in the OP. If you have trouble with the big words, PM pogo. He knows everything.

See, now there you go spreading the same rumor.

If I knew everything I'd know what the hell this "Kellerman study" is.

There ya go! Get with Joe. He can explain Kellerman while you help him figure out how to follow and read a link.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh nozies.

Rush has said mean things about The ONE!

No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!

At least you admit your MessiahRushie was saying mean things in your attempted diversion from the claim that he was "humorous" rather than vicious which I was rebutting. Calling someone a "rat" is not humor.
Thank you.

 

[Pogo]

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

Oh and I'm thinking Illar didn't run away to lick his supposed wounds. I'm thinking he's looking for something for the pain from the ribs he bruised, laughing.

Who knows. We'll see what he comes back with, at which time I look forward to the usual...

 

[Ernie S.]

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.

I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true. I never said that makes me an "expert". That's not how I roll.

Fallacy of Assumption?

Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have never called myself an "expert". That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth. I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds. Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points. Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.

Oh and I'm thinking Illar didn't run away to lick his supposed wounds. I'm thinking he's looking for something for the pain from the ribs he bruised, laughing.

Who knows. We'll see what he comes back with, at which time I look forward to the usual...

It may bore you, but in my opinion, the few times he actually addressed substance, he buried you.

Yes that is subjective, but your support here is Joe B(igot)666.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm taking a break. Need caffeine.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.

I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true. I never said that makes me an "expert". That's not how I roll.

Fallacy of Assumption?

Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.

That's not what an Argument from Authority fallacy is.

Appeal to Authority (as a fallacy) means the arguer falsely identifies himself as an authority. Not that he is one. If the latter were the case, qualifications would have no meaning, there could never be an expert witness in court, and no study could be legitimate.

 

[Ernie S.]

Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh nozies.

Rush has said mean things about The ONE!

No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!

Well Ed has had the hots for Rush for years now and loves to go to the most vile hate sites to pluck stuff off of to copy and paste. He has yet to provide a single link to a source or put a single comment into its full context. We can all go to hate sites where we can find almost anybody sayng anything about anybody and we can copy and paste them til the cows come home.

The Left especially likes to do that with somebody like Rush. You'll notice Pogo, bless his heart, did not challenge my assertion that he could not accurately define the meaning of a single Rush-ism or put a single comment into context of the list he posted either.

Of course it wrecks threads and there is rarely a grain of truth to any of the mostly manufactured stuff they post, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.

As you have been programmed by your MessiahRushie, you have been telling this same LIE for years, and for years I have been challenging you to link to these hate sites. You haven't because you can't because the only hate site I get my quotes from is your MessiahRushie's.

It is piss easy to confirm this, simply take my quote and put it in quotation marks and google it and you will find every site that has posted the quote. You won't because then you would have to admit you are wrong and it is so much easier to keep on lying.

Here is a good test. This is a quote I have been using for years and if you google it you will find that it has been used by ME, your MessiahRushie, and sites parroting him or me. No Daily Kos, no MediaMatters, no Democratic Underground, no Think Progress, etc. Just MessiahRushie and me and people agreeing with either of us.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

"The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" - Google Search

 

[edthecynic]

You'll notice Pogo, bless his heart, did not challenge my assertion that he could not accurately define the meaning of a single Rush-ism or put a single comment into context of the list he posted either.

First of all, I posted the list and then I gave your MessiahRushie's rationalization for calling Obama a little squirrel, a squirrel is a rat with better PR.

Here is another, his rationalization for perverting Cuomo's name, using it to attack Jackson's speech patterns. He actually calls his insults an "act of compassion," and you are probably vile enough to agree with him and defend him.

April 1, 2008
RUSH: New York governor Mario Cooomo who was on -- where was this? -- The Situation Room. For those of you new to the program, "Rush, it's Cuo-mo." I know that. But a long time ago, I heard the Reverend Jackson pronounce his name "Cooomo." You know, it's not stylish and it's not classy to correct somebody's pronunciation of things, especially when the mistake is made by a man of the cloth and a respected, revered Rev. So if he thinks it's Cooomo, then on this program, it's Cooomo, and that is an act of compassion.

 

[Pogo]

Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.

I don't post my personal info on the internets, so that level of detail is not gonna happen.

It comes down to whether you believe me about my experience or not (have I ever lied to you?).

To produce an Argument from Authority fallacy, your job is to prove I'm lying about that experience. If you simply don't accept my word, then you don't accept my authority, that's all there is to it. But you haven't proven a fallacy. To do that you must prove a negative.

But it's interesting that Foxy's authority gets accepted on her say-so and mine doesn't.


Appeal to Authority outlined here

(/offtopic)

 

[Foxfyre]

Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.

I don't post my personal info on the internets, so that level of detail is not gonna happen.

It comes down to whether you believe me about my experience or not (have I ever lied to you?).

To produce an Argument from Authority fallacy, your job is to prove I'm lying about that experience. If you simply don't accept my word, then you don't accept my authority, that's all there is to it. But you haven't proven a fallacy. To do that you must prove a negative.

But it's interesting that Foxy's authority gets accepted on her say-so and mine doesn't.


Appeal to Authority outlined here

(/offtopic)

It's because I'm special. And make a better snckerdoodle.

 

[Pogo]

Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.

I don't post my personal info on the internets, so that level of detail is not gonna happen.

It comes down to whether you believe me about my experience or not (have I ever lied to you?).

To produce an Argument from Authority fallacy, your job is to prove I'm lying about that experience. If you simply don't accept my word, then you don't accept my authority, that's all there is to it. But you haven't proven a fallacy. To do that you must prove a negative.

But it's interesting that Foxy's authority gets accepted on her say-so and mine doesn't.


Appeal to Authority outlined here

(/offtopic)

It's because I'm special. And make a better snckerdoodle.

OK, ya got me on that. I concede.