In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

He is not arguing. In order to argue a point one has to provide
information supporting one's position. This information must support
one's position in a logical way or it does not sway anyone else's
thinking. He can not prove that his arguments are valid. He falls back
to a position of having "special knowledge" that no one else can
verify.

Nearly everyone in commercial radio has access, for example, to Arbitron
data. However, it is copyright and costs... as an example... as much as $2
million a year to an LA station cluster to subscribe... and can not be given
out freely. So that is the sort of data that I have and you don't. I also
have access to all kinds of proprietary radio research that you can never
get, either. Some guys at Coke have access to the formula for the soft
drink, but you don't...

The world is filled with special knowledge. In the case of radio, you have
none of it. Your choice is to believe those who do have access, or to pound
sand. Apparently you like the beach better than the truth.

I like the beach better than the BS you dish out. This not the only
instance of "special knowledge" you have demonstrated and is a fallback
position anytime someone tries to pin you down on a specific that you
continually pontificate on the news group. I generally give people the
benefit of the doubt but you have far gone far beyond reasonable doubt
my fabricating friend.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California