• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NY Post: AAR in "bad finacial shape"

M

mwebster

Guest
NY Post radio columnist John Mainelli reports:
"Amid the scandal over taking $875,000 from a Bronx Boys & Girls Club to fund its start-up, the Air America radio network is in such bad financial shape that its announcers are begging listeners for help paying the bills. In a rare move for commercial radio, the all-liberal network began asking listeners for donations and selling blocks of weekend airtime"....

Link for full article (free registration required)
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/54171.htm

I know some of you think the Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, is inherently suspect. However, Mainelli is one of the better reporters covering radio for general circulation newspapers (and one of the few good ones). His reporting is thorough and straight-forward (regardless of what happens in other sections of the paper).
 
Re: NY Post: rehashing old information for RW spin

it has been discussed here ad nauseum about the "alleged" scandal and using Dampier's term of "taffy pull"...the columnist is simply spinning that Air America is in trouble by introducting an associates plan....there is no meat on the RW's bone here....the associates plan is of little difference from promotional support on O'Reilly's web site, Hannity's site, and its similiar to what public broadcasting asks of its listeners. While the premiums are not extensive, there are those who may find this to be something they may wish to do...or not...

Since Mr Mainelli doesn't add any significant facts to provide any real insight into the Air America financial records, this columm appears to be no more than further negative spin toward AAR on his part. His columm reeks of RW blogs and conjecture stirred up ever since information about the "scandal" was first published...

Your comments on the quality of this columnist's reporting are hereby suspect from the lack of substantive information and true evidence.

You also fail to mention the following statement from AAR in the columnn in response to Mr. Mainelli

"An Air America spokeswoman told The Post that the network was "in strong financial shape" and that engineers had recently built "state-of-the-art" studios on Sixth Avenue."

The company just opened recently two locations, one for the al franken show / sundance franken show...and now has provided studios for the remaining hosts....hardly a sign of lack of capital....

funny that Mr. Manielli doesn't look internally to his newspaper as a sign of financial turmoil....and I have another example of Murdoch wasting his money...i had the misfortune of being up listening to Tim Russerts show on CNBC. He was interviewing Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol who are key management at the Weekly Standard. Both admitted to Tim that Rupert Murdoch heavily funds this magazine to keep it going. Both Barnes and Kristol made it clear that the Standard makes NO money and its propped up by Murdoch for his own vision...as is the Post itself...which never makes Murdoch one thin dime.


Many organizations try to find ways to bring in more revenue. AAR chose one where people have the choice of saying...i like what Im getting enough so that now I can contribute and AAr will give me premiums to make me feel like im special ...and its a choice not something enforced. So whats the issue? There isn't one unless you are on the left or you are George Soros. This column offers nothing and says little.

Do you have the same energy in criticzing the Bush administration for setting up a web site to collect more more money (despite wasting over $30 billion in taxpayer money so far) for Iraqui reconstruction? Gee i don't see any criticism of that organization and its web site (currently have collected a total of $600 so far) on the right.


> NY Post radio columnist John Mainelli reports:
> "Amid the scandal over taking $875,000 from a Bronx Boys &
> Girls Club to fund its start-up, the Air America radio
> network is in such bad financial shape that its announcers
> are begging listeners for help paying the bills. In a rare
> move for commercial radio, the all-liberal network began
> asking listeners for donations and selling blocks of weekend
> airtime"....
> "
> Link for full article (free registration required)
> http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/54171.htm
>
> I know some of you think the Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's
> News Corp, is inherently suspect. However, Mainelli is one
> of the better reporters covering radio for general
> circulation newspapers (and one of the few good ones). His
> reporting is thorough and straight-forward (regardless of
> what happens in other sections of the paper).
>
 
This isn't politics; this is radio

Yes, many organizations do find in ways to bring in more revenue. They do it by improving their product line and/or enhancing their marketing. AAR has done neither.

If News Corp wastes money, they are a profitable company and have surplus funds to waste. AAR is not profitable and does not have money to waste. They are not in a position to buy fancy equipment or give exorbitant salaries and bonuses to managers or to comedians.

AAR is a mismanaged company producing a bad product. They deserve to go under. Hopefully, they will get out of the picture before they completely discredit and ruin the progressive talk format.

This is a radio board, not a political board or a government board. What Bush does not directly related to radio is for discussion in some other venue.

Go ahead and get your three bumper stickers for $50.00. It may make you feel better but it also makes a statement that progressive talk radio can't make it on its own as a going concern.

Comparisons to NPR are invalid. AAR is a commercial enterprise. Comparison to host websites are invalid. Those are done by the host, not the syndicator. And the host websites are selling something; not asking for donations (with a premium).

And if you don't think AAR is in trouble, listen to the spot load (network spots, not local spots). Look at the numbers. And notice that the progressive talk stations doing well are those which are selective in their use of AAR programming.

Bottom line: Even the most confirmed progressives won't keep listening to BAD RADIO. Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY the most confirmed progressives won't keep listening to BAD RADIO. NPR puts out an excellent radio product. And such people can and do read - they always have books, magazines and newspapers to fall back on. Radio is an election. People vote with their tuners. AAR is a weak candidate. They are losing.
 
> the Air America radio
> network is in such bad financial shape that its announcers
> are begging listeners for help paying the bills.

Really? I've listened to approximately 20 hours of Air America programming since the "associates" program was announced on the AAR web site (and in an e-mail message) and I've never heard one of the AAR "announcers" ask for money. Sounds like Mainelli is swallowing the latest right-wing talking point about AAR hook, line, and sinker without checking it out.

By the way, wasn't "mwebster" banned from posting on this board several weeks ago when he was went a little too far in his anti-AAR campaign while posting under another user name?
 
you can spout off, but call the response political...thanks mr. kettle

i think you should read your caption to your post...this is a thinly veiled AAR rant which probably belongs on the off the air board...

> Yes, many organizations do find in ways to bring in more
> revenue. They do it by improving their product line and/or
> enhancing their marketing. AAR has done neither.

opinion.....you have a right to it but you offer nothing to prove this point
>
> If News Corp wastes money, they are a profitable company and
> have surplus funds to waste. AAR is not profitable and does
> not have money to waste. They are not in a position to buy
> fancy equipment or give exorbitant salaries and bonuses to
> managers or to comedians.

Like Mr. Mainelli in his columnn, you seem to possess information no one has seen....amazing how the right wing can do that...
>
> AAR is a mismanaged company producing a bad product. They
> deserve to go under. Hopefully, they will get out of the
> picture before they completely discredit and ruin the
> progressive talk format.

Your thoughts on the management are again opinion without supporting evidence. But you are incorrect about "ruining" the format. AAR and Jones/Dem Radio both provided the ignition to get progressive radio out into the market again...like 'em or not....without either of these organizations, we would still have limited choices to the RW echo machine on talk radio.
>
 
> NY Post radio columnist John Mainelli reports:
> "Amid the scandal over taking $875,000 from a Bronx Boys &
> Girls Club to fund its start-up, the Air America radio
> network is in such bad financial shape that its announcers
> are begging listeners for help paying the bills.

I used to have some respect for John Mainelli, but he got this story wrong in the first sentence.

No announcers are "begging listeners for help paying the bills".

None.

AAR has sent out exactly one e-mail to its registered web site users (I know because I am one) promoting its "AAR Associates" program. That's the only promotion of it they have done.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
AAR = PAX.

>
> Comparisons to NPR are invalid. AAR is a commercial
> enterprise. Comparison to host websites are invalid. Those
> are done by the host, not the syndicator. And the host
> websites are selling something; not asking for donations
> (with a premium).
>
> And if you don't think AAR is in trouble, listen to the spot
> load (network spots, not local spots). Look at the
> numbers. And notice that the progressive talk stations
> doing well are those which are selective in their use of AAR
> programming.
>
> Bottom line: Even the most confirmed progressives won't keep
> listening to BAD RADIO. Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY the
> most confirmed progressives won't keep listening to BAD
> RADIO. NPR puts out an excellent radio product. And such
> people can and do read - they always have books, magazines
> and newspapers to fall back on. Radio is an election.
> People vote with their tuners. AAR is a weak candidate.
> They are losing.
>

The aura of unsuccess around both AAR and PAX is very similar. Both companies tried to push a mediocre brand nationally on the assumption that people would eagerly flock to their new niche. PAX eventually had to kill their brand because it was indelibly associated with lousy television (not that they've improved the programming much or at all as Quote-i-Unquote). AAR, I suspect, will end up doing the same. Each host will just develop their own branding, as everyone under Premiere's umbrella does now (ie Rush with EIB, Beck with Fusion, etc.)

But just as PAX failed to grab the family-values TV niche that Pat Robertson abdicated because they didn't provide enough quality programming (really, enough programming period), AAR has failed to establish the progtalk listener base that should exist in roughly equal numbers to the conservative talk listener base, but hasn't had a choice in the vast majority of markets.

I think there is definitely room for progressive talk. Someone should have had the foresight to develop it alongside conservative talk 20 years ago, but they didn't. If they had, it'd be king in the ratings right now, because the people on the outside looking in are your disgruntled listener/caller base.

The comparison to NPR is wrong on two fronts:

1) Raising money in that manner is what NON-commercial stations do. Commercial networks shouldn't need to do this, nor is it really appropriate to do so. The airlines are losing gabs of money, I don't see them begging for donations to keep the planes flying and offering me a set of genuine copilot wings for 30 bucks. Same for radio. If you can't sell spots, maybe it's time to fill a few hours with infomercials . . . Oh, wait, they're doing that now.

2) While many NPR listeners probably do hold some progressive views, they're not listening to public radio for ranting and political cheerleading (which doesn't happen in NPR anyway, so I don't know where certain rightists get the liberal bias thing from). They're listening for the in-depth analysis and insightful commentary that they can't get anywhere else. AAR is at best a weak fascimile of what public radio has to offer, especially during the prime drivetimes. The rest of commercial progtalk doesn't really compare well, either.

I suspect that the likely progtalk listener isn't tuned to NPR at all, but rather to music, less-political local talk or sports. Plenty of people are probably excited to hear that their city is getting a talk station they can agree with . . . Then they listen, hear mediocre radio, and tune back to their normal station. Ideology alone can't drive the product, it needs to be more compelling than its conservative counterpart. No one in or out of AAR is at that level yet.
 
It's about radio ...

> i think you should read your caption to your post...this is
> a thinly veiled AAR rant which probably belongs on the off
> the air board...
>

I wish you political true believers would find your own board to haunt so we can get back to the art and business of radio, subjects people like you clearly fail to appreciate or to grasp.

You assume any criticism of Air America Radio is motivated by political disagreement because that is the way you work. You turn discussions of radio into cheap shot Point/Counter-Point political debates because apparently that is the only game you know how to play.

Read the AAR=Pax post, please.

Good radio/bad radio has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, agree/disagree.
Rush is good radio; Mike Gallagher is bad radio; both are conservatives.
NPR is good radio; AAR is bad radio; both are liberal.

Unlike you, I can appreciate radio well done, even when I disagree with the point of view expressed. And I can see the flaws in radio poorly done, even when I agree. Your comments suggest you have no tolerance for political views other than your own.

And I have no interest in trying to prove anything to someone who hears only what he wants to hear and is unwilling to operate outside his own frame of reference.

Goob-bye.
 
Re: It's about radio ...

> Goob-bye.
>
You have no idea what you are talking about. This isn't true believer or anti free speech. Air America is doing quite well and they are loaded with spots. Your brand of doomsday predictions is silly and the sign of someone with an axe to grind and no knowledge of the true state of Air America radio. If you think you are acomplishing anything you are sadly only fooling yourself. It seems that every day the NY Post has a story about Air Americas failure. I saw a story printed yesterday. That too is a waste of the ink they use to print it. Anyone who reads that paper for news content is a moron and outside of it's sports section it's not even worth lining a bird cage with. What a shame because at one time it was a good newspaper. If you think I'm wrong pick up a copy and see how many advertisers they have and what kind of sponsors they attract. If it weren't for Murdochs holly war against democracy that paper would be a memory like the Tribune and the Mirror (out of businesss NY papers). I love it when people come to this country from abroad (Murdoch is still an Australian, not a native American and then there's Rev Moon)and try to sway U.S. political opinion. I'd feel the same about those from the left. You'd think those who call themselves conservatives would speak up. It just goes to show that they too are full of Sh*t as long as there political views are promoted, they don't care who does it. It's shameful.
 
Re: It's about radio ...

I wasn't the one who posted a columnist's thoughts....not information from a reporter. You by your own words knew the source was considered to be (and is) a very right-leaning paper...that aside...and getting to your argument on radio.

You are stating that you think AAR is "going into the ground", but you haven't one piece of solid, verifable info that supports your argument. Like Dampier, I have to follow his line of thinking...you have to provide something that can't be debunked by anyone with access to google or any other suitable research medium... Rants on the right do not make you accurate.

you accuse me of going off politically but all ive done is offer an alternative view which should join your comments in the off-the-air section.

I don't argue your right to your opinion....you think AAR sucks or its bad or whatever....like Dampier, Tom Betz, and others here, I try to provide some supporting info for my posts....rather than just rant...and if im just expressing my opinion i state it as such. Your post was nothing of that nature.

This isn't about radio....and ill say it again, your points are best left on the off the air column where opinions like yours and mine can roam free of criticism but can be debated...here its just a rant....


> > i think you should read your caption to your post...this
> is
> > a thinly veiled AAR rant which probably belongs on the off
>
> > the air board...
> >
>
> I wish you political true believers would find your own
> board to haunt so we can get back to the art and business of
> radio, subjects people like you clearly fail to appreciate
> or to grasp.
>
> You assume any criticism of Air America Radio is motivated
> by political disagreement because that is the way you work.
> You turn discussions of radio into cheap shot
> Point/Counter-Point political debates because apparently
> that is the only game you know how to play.
>
> Read the AAR=Pax post, please.
>
> Good radio/bad radio has nothing to do with
> liberal/conservative, agree/disagree.
> Rush is good radio; Mike Gallagher is bad radio; both are
> conservatives.
> NPR is good radio; AAR is bad radio; both are liberal.
>
> Unlike you, I can appreciate radio well done, even when I
> disagree with the point of view expressed. And I can see
> the flaws in radio poorly done, even when I agree. Your
> comments suggest you have no tolerance for political views
> other than your own.
>
> And I have no interest in trying to prove anything to
> someone who hears only what he wants to hear and is
> unwilling to operate outside his own frame of reference.
>
> Goob-bye.
>
 
Re: It's about radio ...

> NPR is good radio; AAR is bad radio; both are liberal.
>
> Unlike you, I can appreciate radio well done, even when I
> disagree with the point of view expressed. And I can see
> the flaws in radio poorly done, even when I agree. Your
> comments suggest you have no tolerance for political views
> other than your own.

Talk about "true believers." "mwebster" (formerly "PW") displays his true colors when he calls NPR "liberal." I have many liberal friends who consider NPR a lacky for its corporate underwriters and their friends in the Bush administration -- and when you're being attacked by both the right and the left that usually means that you're in the center of the road.
 
Re: It's about radio ...

> You are stating that you think AAR is "going into the
> ground", but you haven't one piece of solid, verifable info

There's nothing to support. It's an OPINION. Based on his personal observations and interpretations.
 
I have no respect for John Mainelli. He's a fraud who slants his radio column to support his agenda. He posted inaccurate information about CBS FM when it changed to Jack to bolster his claims about oldies which I took him on at the dentist's sycophant board and now he posts more inaccurate information about this. He's perfect for the NY Post. Maybe that can make him an anchor over at Faux News.
 
> I know some of you think the Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's
> News Corp, is inherently suspect. However, Mainelli is one
> of the better reporters covering radio for general
> circulation newspapers (and one of the few good ones). His
> reporting is thorough and straight-forward (regardless of
> what happens in other sections of the paper).

Apparently not. He's just reprinting Unequalizer reports these days. There is no scandal over AAR and the Boys & Girls Club matter -except- on right wing blogs. AAR is not in bad financial shape, and many AAR stations are not airing AAR repeats over the weekend anyway (and they won't carry paid shows either.)

Funny that for a guy who is supposedly so in touch with the radio industry, he doesn't presume failure based on other stations selling weekend blocks of airtime to Christian groups, their ad clients for pseudo "expert" shows they pay to air, or for outright brokered airtime for ethnic audiences, etc.

This is all you can expect and less from a Murdoch paper.
 
> Really? I've listened to approximately 20 hours of Air
> America programming since the "associates" program was
> announced on the AAR web site (and in an e-mail message) and
> I've never heard one of the AAR "announcers" ask for money.
> Sounds like Mainelli is swallowing the latest right-wing
> talking point about AAR hook, line, and sinker without
> checking it out.

Randi Rhodes is lampooning it on the air herself when she talks about "asking for money," and she's still on the air, so the only desperation in this whole matter is among the right wingers hoping that AAR will finally go away.
 
Re: NY Post: rehashing old information for RW spin

> "An Air America spokeswoman told The Post that the network
> was "in strong financial shape" and that engineers had
> recently built "state-of-the-art" studios on Sixth Avenue."
>
> The company just opened recently two locations, one for the
> al franken show / sundance franken show...and now has
> provided studios for the remaining hosts....hardly a sign of
> lack of capital....

By the way, despite the Unequalizer's comments on O'Reilly the other day, the new studio was paid for, in part, by Sundance Channel and was requested by them for the TV version of Franken's show. Baloney tried to claim it was a petulant move on Franken's part to demand new studios.

BTW, Franken's Sundance Show podcast version has been in the top three requested podcasts via Apple's own podcast directory - usually he's number two, but sometimes number one. I already saw the first reaction to that from Ms. Coulter who said only liberals would own Macs anyway. She doesn't even have the first clue.

> Both admitted to
> Tim that Rupert Murdoch heavily funds this magazine to keep
> it going. Both Barnes and Kristol made it clear that the
> Standard makes NO money and its propped up by Murdoch for
> his own vision...as is the Post itself...which never makes
> Murdoch one thin dime.

Fox News itself blasted through millions of dollars of losses when it launched - nobody watched or wanted Fox News for a few years after it launched. It was only when they started to run heavy opinion/personality talk shows as a TV version of conservative talk radio did they draw viewers. Most of them are the same people who also listen to conservative talk during the day and then watch it at night.

This whole Associates thing is no different than Factor Gear or Limbaugh Letters, except for those who have an agenda.
 
Re: This isn't politics; this is radio

> Yes, many organizations do find in ways to bring in more
> revenue. They do it by improving their product line and/or
> enhancing their marketing. AAR has done neither.

In your opinion, and everything you've written shows you're no fan.

> If News Corp wastes money, they are a profitable company and
> have surplus funds to waste. AAR is not profitable and does
> not have money to waste. They are not in a position to buy
> fancy equipment or give exorbitant salaries and bonuses to
> managers or to comedians.

1) Show me your evidence AAR is not profitable. Evidence is not a right wing blog that says it's so.

2) Define waste.

3) Please provide a list of "fancy" equipment AAR has purchased. Model numbers would be appreciated along with your definition of "fancy."

4) Please provide a list of current salaries paid to AAR employees along with your scale showing "reasonable" vs. "exorbitant."

5) Please provide a list of paid bonuses, making one column labeled "managers" and the other "comedians."

> AAR is a mismanaged company producing a bad product. They
> deserve to go under.

Pardon me, your AGENDA is showing.

> Hopefully, they will get out of the
> picture before they completely discredit and ruin the
> progressive talk format.

Yeah, after just three hours of Al Franken, no one will want to hear liberal talk ever again because listeners are just stupid!

> Go ahead and get your three bumper stickers for $50.00. It
> may make you feel better but it also makes a statement that
> progressive talk radio can't make it on its own as a going
> concern.

But Factor gear and the Limbaugh Letter are just fine. Again, your agenda is showing.

> Comparisons to NPR are invalid. AAR is a commercial
> enterprise. Comparison to host websites are invalid. Those
> are done by the host, not the syndicator. And the host
> websites are selling something; not asking for donations
> (with a premium).

The fire marshall is going to declare this post a fire hazard with all this straw lying around. Nobody here respects your straw man argument that sets up a scenario that says AAR is on the verge of failing because they as a network have an Associates program (and AAR is very unique in its network business plan) while ignoring several right wing talk shows that pitch their own stuff. The -only- difference here is that AAR considers itself a network family with hosts that talk about each other's shows - not as a modular program provider.

> And if you don't think AAR is in trouble, listen to the spot
> load (network spots, not local spots). Look at the
> numbers. And notice that the progressive talk stations
> doing well are those which are selective in their use of AAR
> programming.

Most of the spots are coming from the same advertisers that also air on right wing shows. Gotomypc, the psychic cassette lady, Oreck, etc. I hear these same ads on talk shows of all kinds. Do you actually listen to AAR? Whether a station airs Majority Report or Lionel doesn't prove anything as to the viability of AAR as an entity.

> Bottom line: Even the most confirmed progressives won't keep
> listening to BAD RADIO. Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY the
> most confirmed progressives won't keep listening to BAD
> RADIO. NPR puts out an excellent radio product. And such
> people can and do read - they always have books, magazines
> and newspapers to fall back on. Radio is an election.
> People vote with their tuners. AAR is a weak candidate.
> They are losing.

And you present no real evidence to prove that. The only people saying it are right wing bloggers with selective rating quotes or jumping on AAR if a station drops the format (while ignoring two or three new stations that add it).
 
Re: AAR = PAX.

> The aura of unsuccess around both AAR and PAX is very
> similar. Both companies tried to push a mediocre brand
> nationally on the assumption that people would eagerly flock
> to their new niche.

Like Madge, you are asking us to soak in your faulty premise.

Sorry. No go.
 
Re: It's about radio ...

> > You are stating that you think AAR is "going into the
> > ground", but you haven't one piece of solid, verifable
> info
>
> There's nothing to support. It's an OPINION. Based on his
> personal observations and interpretations.

Of course, the right-wing ideologues have been voicing the same "opinions," (based on their hopes and dreams), for the past year and a half now, and seem no closer to reaching orgasm than they did in March 2004.
 
Re: It's about radio ...

> I wish you political true believers would find your own
> board to haunt so we can get back to the art and business of
> radio, subjects people like you clearly fail to appreciate
> or to grasp.

You win the Ironic Statement of the Week award with this one. Apparently someone hacked your account because you apparently missed the fact that some guy named "mwebster" started this thread called "NY Post: AAR in bad financial shape." There is this strange shock and awe reaction when people question the veracity of the claims made within the article posted by this "mwebster" who quite often starts/responds to threads giving negative views about AAR.

When it appears the article's standing has been reduced to credibility rubble, this same guy now complains that the board is overrun with "political true believers."

> You assume any criticism of Air America Radio is motivated
> by political disagreement because that is the way you work.
> You turn discussions of radio into cheap shot
> Point/Counter-Point political debates because apparently
> that is the only game you know how to play.

This is probably because the anti AAR agenda crowd has a long history of only posting negative articles which support their personal positions (and you have told us you can't wait for AAR to fail) and then act surprised when the audience sees the agenda behind door number two. I can at least appreciate you have come right out and told us you want AAR to be put out of its misery.

> Read the AAR=Pax post, please.

That faulty premise mess on aisle five was already cleaned up.

> Good radio/bad radio has nothing to do with
> liberal/conservative, agree/disagree.
> Rush is good radio; Mike Gallagher is bad radio; both are
> conservatives.
> NPR is good radio; AAR is bad radio; both are liberal.

NPR is not liberal. AAR is not one show - it's many, and lots of listeners disagree with you.

> Unlike you, I can appreciate radio well done, even when I
> disagree with the point of view expressed. And I can see
> the flaws in radio poorly done, even when I agree. Your
> comments suggest you have no tolerance for political views
> other than your own.

I can and do appreciate radio that is well done, even when I disagree with the political premise. But I don't hide my agenda behind reposting negative news articles about the shows and networks I dislike. Limbaugh can amuse me - Majority Report gets on my nerves, O'Reilly is nutty and Savage is unlistenable. I can say that without having to dig out negative news reports from right wing columnists or bloggers and then post it and act all shocked when people don't just accept that as blue ribbon fact.

> And I have no interest in trying to prove anything to
> someone who hears only what he wants to hear and is
> unwilling to operate outside his own frame of reference.

If you are just innocently reposting news articles to keep us informed, without an agenda, you shouldn't need to prove anything. The only thing you did prove is my point.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom