R&R Summit

[The RadioFan]

Re: Topic

> > > > Overall, I disagree with you and you disagree with me.
>
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. There is true and false and right and wrong
>
> > > here...these are not matters of opinion.

I am glad you think you have it all together. I guess you never can be wrong. However, if anyone else disagree they are automatically wrong. That's interesting. It sounds like an issue of self-righteousness.
> > >
> > I guess you believe that you are in the right and anyone
> > disagreeing with you are in the wrong. I understand.
>
>
>
> > I didn't pick the term "Urban Gospel" or "Black Gospel."
>
> Well, I'm not sure I recall hearing them anywhere else,
> so....
So what?
>
>
>
> > Both of these terms seem to
> > be the most popular in the industry in describing this
> > particular format.
>
> Or, perhaps, you've seen them said by other amateurs like
> you on an internet
> message board and have come to "believe" yet another
> falsehood. That's the
> problem with message boards -- amateurs and wannabes spewing
> their opinions
> appear to be equal and level with pros who are telling you
> the truth. You wind
> up getting fooled and then "believeing" falsehoods.
>
I guess the programmers know what's right. The result is an overall decline in terrestrial radio listenership.
>
> > I am sure that not all
> > listeners or artists prevalent in this genre are from the
> > urban areas or is desire by all people in the urban areas.
>
>
No, you rather skirt around the issue.
>
>
>
> > I think the term "Rhytmic AC" is a better term.
>
> No, it's not. Such a term, though not actually used by
> anybody as far as I
> know, suggests something completely different.
>
I didn't say it was used by anyone else. It sure beats the term "Urban."
>
> > Plus, why would a Christian station
> > allow a Black racist Muslim host a one-hour show before
> they
> > would allow white bible-believer on the air.
>
> Again, you have a "belief" that is false -- that gospel
> stations are actually
> Christian stations for black people. That's incorrect.
> Here I go having to
> repeat myself again...
>
> In most cases, "Urban Gospel," as you call it, is really the
> black-targeted
> equivalent of "Bright AC." Although gospel stations might
> be consumed by a
> number of black Christians, they are not Christian stations
> for black people!
>
Read the post again, you moron.I never said that gospel stations are Christian stations for black people. Actually, I am saying the opposite and you are the one that made the remark that "Urban Gospel" is the black-targeted equivalent of "Bright AC." Therefore, you are the that made the notion that "Urban Gospel" are targeted to black audiences.
>
> > > They didn't "allow" it...it's not as if talk shows are
> > > scripted such that they
> > > can be vetted before broadcast.
> > >
> > He made the statement on the national airwave without any
> > apologies.
>
> So? What does that have to do with what you said about
> Salem? You've changed
> from "Salem" to "he." Do you understand that there's a
> difference??
>
Okay, maybe I can leave Salem out of the picture. Although, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager and Mike Medved seem to have a desire to blame the other race quite often as well. They are doing the same things the civil rights industry are doing with their blaming the white race mentality. However, all these people claim to have moral values.
>
> > > > Although, he said that would be
> > > > immoral, it was still in his mind and he spoke it over
>
> > > > the airwaves.
> > >
> > > Are you sure you understood the context of the
> discussion?
> >
> > Yes, plus it was in the news for days. If you think the
> > statement was in the right, then something is really wrong
>
> > since not all babies grow up in the same enviroment or are
>
> > alike.
>
> OK, do you (and everybody else) see what you just did there?
> You made a very
> brief statement about the issue itself but then immediately
> left the realm of
> fact to devolve it into conflicting opinion and make my
> "opinion" the issue
> rather than the issue itself.
>
> You really should cut that out.
>
> And, if you think that's a legitimate way to debate, you
> have a lot of learning
> to do in that area in addition to the learning you need to
> do about radio and
> marketing.
>
I can easily go into greater detail. However, I don't have all the time in the world like you do.

>
>
> > Country and Rap are two different styles of music...
> > The urban industry has developed
> > many successful white artists in that genre. The smooth
> > jazz and oldies formats are probably the most diverse
> > formats available. The alternative format is more diverse
> > than Christian AC or "Urban Gospel"...
>
> Okay, now look what you've done here -- once again, you're
> looking at and
> defining formats in a top-down-only fashion! And, largely
> as a result of doing
> so, you've changed the subject.
>
> What I wanted you to look at and think about was a series of
> utterly silly
> attempts to force styles of music on an audience that does
> not expect or want
> it! Think bottom-up, NOT top-down!
>
> Now....go back and try to think those combinations through
> again. What would be
> the result?
>
I am speaking by reality.


>

>
> > The list goes one and yet Christian radio only plays one
> side.
>
> I don't really want to accept your terminology, but, if I
> must, then I'll say
> that Christian radio, where done best, does indeed play one
> side -- the
> side of the desires of the largest available audience!
>
That is why a lot of these stations are still ranked in the bottom half of their markets. Their may be a few that are doing okay like KLTY-FM, WHAL-FM, WFSH-FM and WPZE-FM.
>
> > Again, if you think you are in the right, then so be it.
>
>
> You're still not getting it...I don't "think" anything
> except that any radio
> station I'm to be involved in must reflect the preferences
> and desires of its
> listeners! As far as what goes on the air, I am a music
> agnostic! I really
> don't care what it is as long as it's exactly what the
> audience the station has
> been called to serve wants!

What audience are you called to serve in your perception?
>
> What I'm saying is right because *it* is, not because *I*
> am. What you're
> saying is wrong because *it* is, not because you're the one
> saying it. Does
> that make sense to you?
>
If that's your perspective, so be it. I will not be listening to the Christian AC station. It's way too much hypocrisy involved in it for me to accept it as place for truth. It seems that the idea is to serve mammon instead focusing on being a light in this dark world. Christian radio is doing more damage to the world instead of being a true witness.

 

[The RadioFan]

Re: Examples

> > ...I have the free choice to change the dial
> > and stop listening to these stations.
>
>
> Exactly! That's the challenge we face every second of every
> day!
>
> And congratulations on another instance of bottom-up
> thinking (yay!)-- the consumer has
> the option to make another choice or discontinue use if the
> current choice becomes
> unacceptable!
>
> Now, tell me this -- what would happen if a station,
> employing top-down thinking
> like yours, started playing music its listeners do not want,
> forcing it upon them
> "for the good of" whatever it is you're thinking?
>
What will happen if Christian programmers and listeners began to take to the focus off themselve and began to walk according to scripture?
>
> I think we're done here. Discussion over. Feel free to
> apologize anytime....
>
Why should I apologize for you self-centeredness, self-righteouseness and disobedience of the scriptures for the sake of mammon. I am not going to apologize for you at all. Instead, I will probably turn off the Christian radio so I can make sure that I am not supporting or listening to people like you.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: No!

The RadioFan wrote:
"if anyone else disagree they are automatically wrong."

Only if the position they disagree about, is wrong.




"No, you rather skirt around the issue."

Actually, I think he's done a great job addressing this thread.


"It's way too much hypocrisy involved in it for me to accept it as place for truth."

It seems a few situations (as you cited in examples) have given you a broad impression of the entire format. It also appears you have drawn conclusions that aren't really based on any more than personal experience and opinion...but that is how most listeners choose preferences, I imagine.

" Christian radio is doing more damage to the world instead of being a true witness."

Ok. Now you've got my passion again. To say this format is not a true witness and does more damage than good is a cheap shot and totally incorrect.

I may not always agree with the concept of the "cottage industry" the "Christian marketplace" seems to be, but there is most definitely need and desire for these formats. And I have heard countless stories of changed lives through this type of witness. Faithful, hard working people who have poured their hearts and minds into making stations sound great and reach people with God's amazing love, grace, and goodness.

Christian radio helped teach me when I began my walk with Christ...amazing communicators like Tony Evans, Elisabeth Elliot, and Steve Brown...incredible lyrics from artists like dcTalk, Nicole C. Mullen, Matthew West, Jeremy Camp, Mercy Me...and times for prayer, praise and worship from leaders like Darlene Zschech, Chris Tomlin, and Matt Redman.

To say this format is not a witness of the power of God is to not appreciate it's purpose...and instead what it to serve your own.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: wow!

The RadioFan wrote:

"What will happen if Christian programmers and listeners began to take to the focus off themselve and began to walk according to scripture?"


Another broad brush statement slamming the industry without any merit or validity.

You have lumped every PD in the format together and accused the industry and it's listeners of being selfish and against the Word.

Such a statement shows a complete disregard for the hearts and lives of the people in this industry.

It also most certainly reveals that it just isn't up to YOUR standards.

Perhaps one day, you will be running a radio station and please yourself. Or you can just load and ipod and be set.

Elizabeth

<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: Topic

> I am glad you think you have it all together.

Oh, gosh! Far from it!

However, I do know that you cannot force people to change their preferences
against their will. They will dismiss you.



> I guess you never can be wrong.

I can be and am wrong from time to time...some might even think it frequent! However, I try to minimize the number of times it happens by:

-- never thinking I know anything until I actually do.
-- never thinking I will speak out loud unless I know for sure what I'm talking about.
-- never thinking I can decide what's true and what's not.
-- never thinking I know better than the audience what it wants.
-- never thinking I can force the audience into liking (or even putting up with!) something it doesn't.



> ...if anyone else disagree they are automatically wrong.

If they "disagree" with the truth, then, yes, they are wrong. I am not a factor
in the equation! I'm not allowed to decide what's true!




> That's interesting. It sounds like an issue of self-righteousness.

That's interesting...it sounds like an issue of trying to hide your failure in
an argument by changing the subject to your opponent.




> > > I didn't pick the term "Urban Gospel" or "Black Gospel."
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure I recall hearing them anywhere else,
> > so....
> So what?

So....you picked the term!

What's so hard about this?



> I guess the programmers know what's right.

Only the ones who are losing or are about to. Those of us who want an audience
do everything we can to ignore what we like and find out what the potential
audience wants.




> > > I am sure that not all
> > > listeners or artists prevalent in this genre are from the
> > > urban areas or is desire by all people in the urban areas.
> >
> >
> No, you rather skirt around the issue.

You just argued with yourself. I have no idea what you're doing.



> > > I think the term "Rhytmic AC" is a better term.
> >
> > No, it's not. Such a term, though not actually used by
> > anybody as far as I
> > know, suggests something completely different.
> >
> I didn't say it was used by anyone else. It sure beats the
> term "Urban."

As I said, it suggests something completely different. "Urban" is a term the
industry has used for more than twenty years, I think, and is pretty much
universally understood. Again, you're an outsider who's trying to get into and
understand our world...the vocabulary of it -- just like the taste of
your listeners -- is not yours to define.




> > > Plus, why would a Christian station
> > > allow a Black racist Muslim host a one-hour show before
> > they
> > > would allow white bible-believer on the air.
> >
> > Again, you have a "belief" that is false -- that gospel
> > stations are actually
> > Christian stations for black people. That's incorrect.
> > Here I go having to
> > repeat myself again...
> >
> > In most cases, "Urban Gospel," as you call it, is really
> the
> > black-targeted
> > equivalent of "Bright AC." Although gospel stations might
>
> > be consumed by a
> > number of black Christians, they are not Christian
> stations
> > for black people!



> Read the post again, you moron.I never said that gospel
> stations are Christian stations for black people.

Here's exactly what you said:

"Plus, why would a Christian station allow a Black racist Muslim host a one-hour
show before they would allow white bible-believer on the air."

I answered your question. Just like your issue with the topic of the thread,
you're constructing the question with a flawed or false premise.





> > OK, do you (and everybody else) see what you just did there?
> > You made a very brief statement about the issue itself but then immediately
> > left the realm of fact to devolve it into conflicting opinion and make my
> > "opinion" the issue rather than the issue itself.
> >
> > You really should cut that out.
> >
> > And, if you think that's a legitimate way to debate, you have a lot of learning
> > to do in that area in addition to the learning you need to do about radio and
> > marketing.
>
> I can easily go into greater detail. However, I don't have
> all the time in the world like you do.

I don't care how much detail you can go into...you left the issue and went after
the person, and you left the truth and went into calling it opinion to try to
discredit it. Shouldn't we be better than that?



> > > Country and Rap are two different styles of music...
> > > The urban industry has developed
> > > many successful white artists in that genre. The smooth
> > > jazz and oldies formats are probably the most diverse
> > > formats available. The alternative format is more diverse
> > > than Christian AC or "Urban Gospel"...
> >
> > Okay, now look what you've done here -- once again, you're
> > looking at and
> > defining formats in a top-down-only fashion! And, largely
> > as a result of doing
> > so, you've changed the subject.
> >
> > What I wanted you to look at and think about was a series of
> > utterly silly
> > attempts to force styles of music on an audience that does
> > not expect or want
> > it! Think bottom-up, NOT top-down!
> >
> > Now....go back and try to think those combinations through
> > again. What would be the result?
>
> I am speaking by reality.

No, you're speaking by what you want, for some undisclosed motivation, to
be "reality!"

By the way, I'm not not noticing that you're trying to avoid answering my
question:

"...go back and try to think those combinations through again. What would be
the result?"

What would be the result of going by your top-down idea of forcing styles of
music onto an audience that does not want or expect it??



> > > The list goes one and yet Christian radio only plays one side.
> >
> > I don't really want to accept your terminology, but, if I
> > must, then I'll say
> > that Christian radio, where done best, does indeed play one
> > side -- the side of the desires of the largest available audience!
> >
> That is why a lot of these stations are still ranked in the
> bottom half of their markets. Their may be a few that are
> doing okay like KLTY-FM, WHAL-FM, WFSH-FM and WPZE-FM.

You didn't actually look, did you? (You made it easy for me to tell.)

As I said, if you would really look, you would find many great surprises.
However, many do, of course, remain in "the bottom half" of their markets, but
the reason for that is NOT the reason that, for some motivation you won't tell
us, you want to be true.





> > > Again, if you think you are in the right, then so be it.
> >
> >
> > You're still not getting it...I don't "think" anything
> > except that any radio
> > station I'm to be involved in must reflect the preferences
> > and desires of its
> > listeners! As far as what goes on the air, I am a music
> > agnostic! I really
> > don't care what it is as long as it's exactly what the
> > audience the station has
> > been called to serve wants!
>
> What audience are you called to serve in your perception?

As I've indicated here a number of times before, I'm not currently in the
format (BLATANT PLUG -- stations may contact me at the address in my profile!).
Thus, I'm not personally called to serve any audience at this moment.

However, if you'd look into these stations, you'd see that many came into
existence because a group of several individuals were righteously indignant that
no Christian station in their area was programming to people not sitting in
Heaven's waiting room. Once they achieved starting or getting a station, they
made a station that could serve the largest available audience.



> > What I'm saying is right because *it* is, not because *I*
> > am. What you're
> > saying is wrong because *it* is, not because you're the one
> > saying it. Does
> > that make sense to you?
> >
> If that's your perspective, so be it.

It's not "my" "perspective"...it's truth.



> I will not be listening to the Christian AC station.

And for each one of you, a hundred or a thousand would not be listening to a
station that tried to simultaneously be all things to all people in the way that
you want it done. The result would be a much lower number of people
being served.

Remember, as you have admitted (couched within your threat not to
listen), people can choose to listen to something else or not listen at all!
Programming in a manner that is against the desires of the largest available
audience -- by definition! -- results in a smaller audience!

You have made my point! Can we end this now?



> It's way too much hypocrisy involved in it for me to accept
> it as place for truth.

This is really wild and weird. Everywhere that there's been observable,
provable, actual truth involved, you've called it opinion. Now, you offer a
blatant opinion but use the word "is" (in the conjunction "it's") as if what you
state is truth!

You've got it all completely backwards, man...completely backwards!



> It seems that the idea is to serve mammon instead focusing on being a light in
> this dark world. Christian radio is doing more damage to the world instead of > being a true witness.

The audience would completely disagree with you...you know, the record-setting
audiences who are being ministered to in ways and to a degree that they never
have been before! An audience, by the way, that often (if not usually!)
contains a greater number of non-Christians than Christians!

Ponder that....!

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: No!

> "No, you rather skirt around the issue."
>
> Actually, I think he's done a great job addressing this
> thread.

Thanks....I try. I haven't reached the point of being as gentle yet effective
as Jon Hull, but I try...

You're not bad, yourself.

By the way, if I may, the "cite" you want is "cite."



> It also
> appears you have drawn conclusions that aren't really based
> on any more than personal experience and opinion...but that
> is how most listeners choose preferences, I imagine.

This happens a lot, of course. I just wish these folks would start their
sentences with "I have seen..." rather than stating these things as if they're
pervasive to the degree of being universal and, thus, "true."

Heck, we've all seen things!




> I may not always agree with the concept of the "cottage
> industry" the "Christian marketplace" seems to be,...

Yeah, that occasionally made me uncomfortable...but outsiders now seeing
Christians as a market segment and marketing to and through them (us) is
really starting to weird me out!




> ...incredible lyrics from artists
> like...Matthew West, Jeremy Camp,Mercy Me...Chris Tomlin, and Matt Redman.


What in the world are such youngsters doing having such amazing lyrics??!

Gotta be a God thing!

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: No!

neutral_observer wrote:
"I haven't reached the point of being as gentle yet effective as Jon Hull"


Jon Hull is great!



"By the way, if I may, the "cite" you want is "cite." "


did I do that? oh my... thanks for catching that!


<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: Last Word to "E"

> You don't balance the scales, you tilt them in your
> direction on each subject that is discussed.


It's absolutely fascinating that you're using a "scales" metaphor, incorrectly
implying that a debate is supposed to wind up "in balance" with "opinions" on each
side being considered to have equal weight.

That's false.

What she's saying is true. The opinion or unique observation you're offering is false. The "scales" do tilt her direction!

 

[The RadioFan]

Re: Topic

>
> You have made my point! Can we end this now?
>
What point are you talking about. I disagree with you 100 percent.
I've by trying to end this argument with you. You the one who is easily offended and want to continue this argument. I had mention earlier that I disagree with you and that's point blank. You think you are in the right and I think you are just another self-righteous individual who doesn't have a clue what is going on around you. Again, I ready to end this. However, I am sure you want to defend you pride and have the last word.
As far as being all things to all people, well again, CHR radio is able to format a station perfectly with a variety styles of music. Oldies radio is doing the same thing as well. I guess those listener have a wide range of taste than most Christian listeners. I have a hard time believing that all Christian listeners only like pop-oriented Christian music. The Christian CHR station in my hometown played a variety of music, and Christian listeners enjoyed various forms of music. Christian radio programmers are content with programming to a segment of society which they belong. They basically monopolized the Christian radio market. Now, they basically tell their listeners what to listen to instead of the programmers listening to their listeners. Elizabeth and you have proved that most Christian programmers don't listen to their listeners. They have the Christian music radio market to themselves and they tell the listeners what to listen to. It sounds like a sign of payola since most Christian stations sound alike, similar to what is found in secular radio.


>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by The RadioFan on 12/23/05 02:00 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[The RadioFan]

Re: wow!

> The RadioFan wrote:
>
> "What will happen if Christian programmers and listeners
> began to take to the focus off themselve and began to walk
> according to scripture?"
>
>
> Another broad brush statement slamming the industry without
> any merit or validity.
>
> You have lumped every PD in the format together and accused
> the industry and it's listeners of being selfish and against
> the Word.
>
> Such a statement shows a complete disregard for the hearts
> and lives of the people in this industry.

Well, I am not going to change my views just to please you, the industry or anyone else.
>
> It also most certainly reveals that it just isn't up to YOUR
> standards.

More like I am not up to Christian radio's standard which seems to be the only right way according to you and that neutral observer guy who seems to have all the answers.
>
> Perhaps one day, you will be running a radio station and
> please yourself. Or you can just load and ipod and be set.


>
> Elizabeth
>
Load and ipod. That's exactly what I will probably do. In this way, I don't have depend on the cookie-cutter programming approach found on terrestrial radio including most Christian radio stations.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: wow!

The RadioFan wrote:
"Well, I am not going to change my views just to please you, the industry or anyone else."

I don't think anyone is asking YOU to change your VIEWS. This thread is a debate on whether those views are based on fact or personal opinion.

I have, however, seen much on how the industry ought to accommodate those views. Which is just not a logical argument.

"More like I am not up to Christian radio's standard which seems to be the only right way according to you and that neutral observer guy who seems to have all the answers."


Oh gosh, if I had all the answers, I think I'd be on a beach somewhere enjoying the sun.

I would say, regarding this whole "only right way" argument you keep proposing...there is a successful way to program, and a not so successful way to program. Some stations are making it work, others are not.


"Load and ipod. That's exactly what I will probably do. In this way, I don't have depend on the cookie-cutter programming approach found on terrestrial radio including most Christian radio stations."

Which again, is your choice. Happy downloading to you.

<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[whatzthat]

Re: Topic /Black

For all the politically correct,
Since you find the word black is so offensive perhaps this will put it in perspective:
Why not check out http://www.radioblack.com/ with the format discription: "Black Gospel Upbeat religious music typically heard in predominately black churches. It is typical for stations to include some preaching and instructional programming." Sounds like a format to me.

http://www.tvradioworld.com/directory/Radio_Formats/radio_formats_religious.asp -another description:"Black Gospel: Music and spirituals of the type heard in predominantly African-American churches"

or perhaps you could check out
http://www.interep.com/pdf/IP_018.pdf for their share audience statistics for oh my goodness - Black Gospel. It's there.

or maybe Arbitron's article "Gospel music a key to reaching affluent blacks, advertisers find" or another Arbitron article that includes their definition of the format- 34 Black Gospel Radio Internet-only) Gospel Live365 www.live365.com 168,027 15,457

or perhaps http://www.cbmr.org/ for the Center on Black Music Research. or perhaps you would like to hop over to Amazon.com for "their black music at Amazon.com" or RhapsodyLive.com where they invite you to , in their own words
" Download Black Music" and of course the biggie BET - Black Entertainment Television. So while we are arguing over the word black and white, everyone else is taking it in stride.

The entire discussion over how to get all color music accepted has been lost on a few who are shocked to hear the word black and white. I get very upset to hear programmers use the word "black music" disrespectfully and again I don't think it is deliberate. We are adults and we should be able to talk about something serious without freaking out over the descriptive titles of white and black.

 

[whatzthat]

Re: wow!

"Perhaps one day, you will be running a radio station and
> please yourself."

Well gee, some of us are doing that but you are telling us we are doing that wrong. Which station are you running "E"? Are you the GM or PD?
Now you are slamming radio fan for giving his opinions because you don't like them. He has the right to give his opinions as one who listens to what we do everyday.

 

[The RadioFan]

Re: wow!

Wow, you are sure quick with your replies. According to the indicated times on this board, you usually reply within a couple of hours and sometime within just minutes, no matter what time of day. There has to be more to life than replying to posts all day. GET A LIFE! You are not getting any younger. Just accept the fact that we are in disagreement and omve on with your life before it passes you by....Geez! <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by The RadioFan on 12/23/05 05:02 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[whatzthat]

Re: Last Word to "E"

"It's absolutely fascinating that you're using a "scales" metaphor, incorrectly
implying that a debate is supposed to wind up "in balance" with "opinions" on each side being considered to have equal weight."

Last time I heard, everyone works really hard to balance scales but then again I guess I don't know about that either. It is so good to have two people who are so proficient in EVERYTHING even scales on this discussion board. I suppose the rest of us should just leave and you and "E" can agree on everything in la la land.
argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal. Notice there are two sides not just one domineering the entire process.
discuss the pros and cons of an issue. debate; deliberate discuss the pros and cons of an issue. No where do I see that a debate is only your agreement.
Here's where we are:
stickle - dispute or argue stubbornly (especially minor points)or spar - fight verbally; "They were sparring all night"(we pretty much have done that for days) Maybe I should look up PMS and see if that applies to anyone.

 

[whatzthat]

Re: Topic re:Radio Fan

"If that's your perspective, so be it. I will not be listening to the Christian AC station. It's way too much hypocrisy involved in it for me to accept it as place for truth. It seems that the idea is to serve mammon instead focusing on being a light in this dark world. Christian radio is doing more damage to the world instead of being a true witness."

Please believe me Radio Fan, you are not seeing a true repesentation of Christian radio here. Christian radio is made up of great people, and even these people so demanding that you agree with them are great people, and they love the Lord and desire to serve Him. We are all flawed and fail. Don't leave Christian radio because of this discussion, we need you. Your input is important!
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by whatzthat on 12/23/05 05:07 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: wow!

> Well, I am not going to change my views just to please you,
> the industry or anyone else.

I don't care. I don't think anybody cares. But would you change your "views"
to match the truth? Wouldn't you want your "views" to match the truth? Why are
you seemingly obsessed with matching your "views" to falsehoods and/or things
that are nothing more than anecdotal? What is your motivation to have such
"views?"




> More like I am not up to Christian radio's standard...

I'm not aware of any "standard." However, you don't seem to be up to the age or
amount of estrogen of the typical Christian AC listener. Perhaps that's your
problem. Remember that Christian AC stations -- like, dare I say, all AC
stations -- have a definite lean toward women to one degree or
another...sometimes virtually 100%. Now, keep in mind that's target, not
expected results. You're perfectly welcome to listen.




> ...I don't have depend on the cookie-cutter
> programming approach found on terrestrial radio including
> most Christian radio stations.

Once again, you're mistaken. Christian AC stations differ from each other
perhaps more than stations of any other format!

Now, a number of them are learning good practices (and some even best
practices!), so there are now a number of similarities showing up in each, but
there's still great variance in playlist, playlist size (~175 on the low end,
800+ on the high), sound of imaging, number of talk positions, kinds of things
talked about, promotions, contests, marketing...

But what's it really matter? You generally don't get more than one local
Christian AC per market...if you do.

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: wow!

> Wow, you are sure quick with your replies. According to the
> indicated times on this board, you usually reply within a
> couple of hours and sometime within just minutes, no matter
> what time of day. There has to be more to life than
> replying to posts all day. GET A LIFE! You are not getting
> any younger. Just accept the fact that we are in
> disagreement and omve on with your life before it passes you
> by....Geez!


Hey, E, that's the internet way of begging for the beating to stop. It looks like
he's finally conceded. Hopefully, he'll end it and give us all the opportunity to
relax and enjoy Christmas now....

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: Last Word to "E"

> Last time I heard, everyone works really hard to balance
> scales but then again I guess I don't know about that
> either.

No, I don't. I work hard to learn what's true.



> I suppose the rest of us should just leave and you
> and "E" can agree on everything in la la land.

Now, why would you act like that?

You said you went to the R&R Summit...why'd you go? Wasn't it to learn?

When people who knew what they were talking about took to the mic at the front
of the room, did you immediately decide whether you "agreed" or "disagreed" and
learn nothing?




> argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and
> against some proposition or proposal. Notice there are two
> sides not just one domineering the entire process.
> discuss the pros and cons of an issue.

There's only one side to the truth, though, and you ain't on it...just that false
charge over and over for some reason you won't disclose.

So, as you can see, we're not even really arguing. You keep making a false charge
over and over and refusing to back it up. We're just correcting your false charge
for the sake of those who might be reading this and going away with a false belief.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Topic /Black

There you go again, defining people and music by the color of skin.

Only now, you bring in examples of how others do it, so we should not have issue at all.

Glad not to follow you to that bridge whatzthat.

If you seriously believe this is about people being "politically correct", you have missed the discussion entirely.





<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>