> It is axiomatic that people who resort to personal
> attacks and slurs have lost the argument. Clearly
> you have no sensible alternative so you respond by
> branding me with names and try to impugn my character.
> I think those who frequent this forum can see through
> such cheesy tactics.
Trying to avoid the question doesn't make it go away.
Is there a reason why you've now attacked TWO Asian oriented stations (WMBC-TV and the future WWTR)? It seems to me you have an agenda.
I too have an agenda, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I challange misinformation wherever I find it. In this case, you've stated that those listeners served by the Asian programming don't deserve it. Why not? If you don't like it, that's fine. I don't happen to like it either. That's irrelevant. It serves a portion of the public, which by *your own arguement* the station is obligated to serve. So which it is? Does a station have an obligation to serve the public or not?
> attacks and slurs have lost the argument. Clearly
> you have no sensible alternative so you respond by
> branding me with names and try to impugn my character.
> I think those who frequent this forum can see through
> such cheesy tactics.
Trying to avoid the question doesn't make it go away.
Is there a reason why you've now attacked TWO Asian oriented stations (WMBC-TV and the future WWTR)? It seems to me you have an agenda.
I too have an agenda, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I challange misinformation wherever I find it. In this case, you've stated that those listeners served by the Asian programming don't deserve it. Why not? If you don't like it, that's fine. I don't happen to like it either. That's irrelevant. It serves a portion of the public, which by *your own arguement* the station is obligated to serve. So which it is? Does a station have an obligation to serve the public or not?