On Nov 27, 1:55 am, UCLAN
thanks.org> wrote:> Obveeus wrote:
>>>Read the thread, Kenny. From the beginning. I was responding to why
>>>certain *areas* did not have an overrun. Geographic *area* was all that
>>>mattered, and as such I gave a URL showing geographic regions. Only
>>>a fool would believe it was a discussion about population.
>
>> The thread is there for everyone to see. Your continued attempts to
>> misrepresent it are not fooling anyone.
>
>> The thread started with a post about TV overrun effecting ratings. Ratings
>> are population based data, not land area based.
>
> Get a clue. I responded to a poster who claimed his area had no overruns.
> I explained why. From my very first post on this subject:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> There wasn't an overrun in all markets (none here in Buffalo)
>
> Since CBS did NOT have a double-header this week, some markets only
> had an early game. CBS's only late game - Pittsburgh/NY Jets - was
> seen by less than 20%% of the country.
>
>
http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2007-11-CBS.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Note that ratings were never mentioned, and the URL I gave had NOTHING
> to do with population. I responded to *that* poster's comment, not to
> the OP's theory about how overruns affect ratings. But you know that.
>
>> Your response was a map along with a claim that the overrun only occurred in
>> 20%% of the country.
>
>> I responded that it might be 20%% of the country in area, but was surely much
>> more than that in population.
>
> So you agree that my initial comment was about geographic area after all!
>
>> After all, this thread was about ratings, so
>> population is what matters to ratings, not land area.
>
> One last time: I responded to a posters remark about what occurred in his
> area, which had nothing to do with ratings. It had to do with what the
> affiliate *in his area* did. Pay better attention.
>
>> You responded with a claim that it was not much more than that in population
>
> No, I didn't. I said I doubted it, and asked you to define "much" more. You
> ignored that request.
>
>> If you were only talking about land area, then
>> why try to deny that it was 'much more' than that in population?
>
> I said I doubted it was "much more", and asked you to better define what
> "much more" meant.
>
>> Why
>> present land area into the ratings data conversation at all?
>
> I didn't. My response was to a statement about what occurred in the
> poster's area. It didn't have a single thing to do with ratings data.
>
>> Since that time you have continually claimed your 20%% was accurate,
>
> I actually didn't say "20%%." I said "less than 20%%", and posted the
> URL as a reference. Are you maintaining that the red states represent
> more than 20%% of the area of the country? Don't forget Alaska, which
> was a yellow state (KC@Indy.)
>
>> provided nothing to support it. So, you just eyeballed the map and
>> estimated, but won't admit to that.
>
> Gee, by saying I was going by the map at all, you're admitting that I
> was talking about geographic area, since the map made no mention of
> population. Thanks for the admission. Sure I was estimating. How can
> "less than 20%%" be other than an estimation? If I had the exact percentage
> I would have said "18.79%%", or whatever it was. Duh...
>
>> Meanwhile, you have continued to
>> downplay the population that saw the overrun
>
> Where have I done this? I did note two stations that I'm aware of that
> switched what game they were showing just a couple of days before game time,
> so the population percentage *you* gave was inaccurate.
>
>> but you have provided nothing to
>> counter the written 32%% fact that was provided.
>
> See previous paragraph
>
>> You have 'belittled' Houston,
>
> OK, I'm calling you on this fabrication. How did I "belittle" Houston.
>
>> you 'belittled' NFL direct TV packages,
>
> By saying...what?
>
> Man, Obveeus. You've really lost it this time.
>
>> You
>> currently have 13 posts in this ratings thread all denying that you are
>> talking about population even though the thread is about TV ratings
>
> Again, my initial post was a reply to a post that had NOTHING to do with
> population or ratings. My comments about population in this thread are
> solely a result of *your* insistance that my initial post was about
> population. Anybody with half a brain can see that.
>
> "Belittled Houston"...???
Dear Obveeus,
UCLAN is in full denial mode, he's not going to admit making a mistake
even when it's staring him in the face. Here's his response to my
question about Houston being part of "virtually nothing west of the
Mississippi River" as he put it was;
http://tinyurl.com/2g27ll
"Houston's 1.8%% of the US TV market is the main reason I wrote
virtually
nothing." Without it (and those Zonies) I could have dropped the
"virtually."
So, "TV Market" not "land area" or "geographic size" was the "main
reason". His words.
But he's not going to admit to it, he'll simply ignore it and chop it
out, pretending he didn't write it or perhaps be more entertaining and
try to twist it into something it's not. Whatever the case may be, it
was "population" then, but "land area" now. He has convinced himself
it was always about "land area" and nothing else. So throw all his
contradictions at him, he'll ignore it. That's his way.
Just chalk it up as a consession.
Ken
