Re: for the ass lickers [Archive] - Lounge0101 Discussion Forum

The Central Scrotinizer

March 17th, 2006, 09:31 AM

In article <ouml12tsv1a88o0dm9t4us328s77dfm2tk@fe05.buzzardnews.com>,
Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:33:56 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <pan.2006.03.17.15.21.31.440565@furburger.net>,
> > KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:10:14 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Didn't they make them available to the general audience because no one
> >> > would pay the premium cost for run-of-the-mill radio?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Excellent point.
>
> So you believe that they were on the premium channel becuase they were
> no good, then they were taken off becuase they were no good. Great
> logic.

They were on the premium channel, but then virtually no one paid. Then
they made them a part of the mainstream where all subs could hear them
and maybe build a fan base that way. Which they did. But as a premium,
it wasn't selling.

Now by your logic, you're saying if you have a product that's selling,
you should start giving it away for free. Is that why XM is starting to
offer $3 monthly fee to subs that want to cancel, because they're doing
so well?

You're flailing.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

March 17th, 2006, 09:31 AM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:33:56 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer wrote:

>> > Didn't they make them available to the general audience because no one
>> > would pay the premium cost for run-of-the-mill radio?
>>
>> No.
>
> Excellent point.

Hey, you fucking asked.

>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And how's that DirectTV going (sound of bomb dropping in background...
>>
>> It's going fine.
>
> Riveting.

Again: your topic, your question.

The Central Scrotinizer

March 17th, 2006, 09:31 AM

In article <pan.2006.03.17.16.03.56.444338@furburger.net>,
KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:33:56 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer wrote:
>
> >> > Didn't they make them available to the general audience because no one
> >> > would pay the premium cost for run-of-the-mill radio?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Excellent point.
>
> Hey, you fucking asked.

And you fucking answered. Thanks.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And how's that DirectTV going (sound of bomb dropping in background...
> >>
> >> It's going fine.
> >
> > Riveting.
>
> Again: your topic, your question.

You're good at this!

--
The Central Scrotinizer

yqf@my-deja.com

March 17th, 2006, 10:59 AM

The Cunning Linguist :Þ- Cmdr. Usenet OperAtions wrote:
> "subscriber1997" <duke5595@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:53rRf.18836$nB6.16461@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> > all of this can only mean
> > O n A weren't bringing in a significant
> > listnership to XM sat radio
> >
>
> Oh so THAT'S why they made them available to the general audience

You call XM bailing out on the 3 month old plan to sell Opie and Aunt
Bee as a premium after hardly anybody signed up "making them available
to the general audience"????

Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.

Hoody

March 17th, 2006, 11:00 AM

On 17 Mar 2006 09:39:27 -0800, yqf@my-deja.com wrote:

>The Cunning Linguist :Þ- Cmdr. Usenet OperAtions wrote:
>> "subscriber1997" <duke5595@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:53rRf.18836$nB6.16461@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>> > all of this can only mean
>> > O n A weren't bringing in a significant
>> > listnership to XM sat radio
>> >
>>
>> Oh so THAT'S why they made them available to the general audience
>
>You call XM bailing out on the 3 month old plan to sell Opie and Aunt
>Bee as a premium after hardly anybody signed up "making them available
>to the general audience"????
>
>Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.

Howie is not on a premium channel. By your logic that means he is a
failure and no one wants to listen to him.

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 12:30 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:10:14 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <5fASf.17409$iR1.15804@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "The Cunning Linguist :Þ- Cmdr. Usenet OperAtions"
> <the_witchboy@yahooX.com> wrote:
>
>> "subscriber1997" <duke5595@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:53rRf.18836$nB6.16461@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>> > all of this can only mean
>> > O n A weren't bringing in a significant
>> > listnership to XM sat radio
>> >
>>
>> Oh so THAT'S why they made them available to the general audience and put
>> them on DirectTV, AOL, and XM Canada
>> Idiot
>
>Didn't they make them available to the general audience because no one
>would pay the premium cost for run-of-the-mill radio?

Including the premium cost, how much does it cost to subscribe to
sirius and listen to stern? No need to include the hardware costs. Is
there an extra fee to stream stern on the internet?

Buzzer

March 17th, 2006, 12:30 PM

SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote in
news:sa2m12lgo76dsn3isj201j6u8j3gc5fpg3@4ax.com:

> stream stern on the internet?
>
>

Like this will ever happen ;-)

Tony Elka

March 17th, 2006, 12:59 PM

In article <34ul12tlfkmhmo09trjoo8av8ejsk1o81i@fe05.buzzardnews.com>,
Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2006 09:39:27 -0800, yqf@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.
>
> Howie is not on a premium channel. By your logic that means he is a
> failure and no one wants to listen to him.

Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
to their service.

And clearly, it worked.

You need to work on that logic thing.

Tony

Hoody

March 17th, 2006, 12:59 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:37 -0800, Tony Elka
<shadowlane@shadowlane.com> wrote:

>Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>to their service.
>
>And clearly, it worked.
>
>You need to work on that logic thing.

So I guess they never put him on a premium channel becuase they KNEW
no one would pay extra for him right ?

Clearly it worked ? Like they got a sales spike over Xmas and then
dropped off again ? Some revolution.

Buzzer

March 17th, 2006, 12:59 PM

Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote in news:o04m12p8htdtl1ith0cb6dbbb5bg7ckjr2
@fe05.buzzardnews.com:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:37 -0800, Tony Elka
> <shadowlane@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>>uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>>to their service.
>>
>>And clearly, it worked.
>>
>>You need to work on that logic thing.
>
> So I guess they never put him on a premium channel becuase they KNEW
> no one would pay extra for him right ?
>
> Clearly it worked ? Like they got a sales spike over Xmas and then
> dropped off again ? Some revolution.
>

Clearly Stern was a failure because they did not put him on a premium
channel anyhow. If SOOO many people wanted stern, they would have charged
more for him so that they can try and dig out of their huge debt. But, they
gave him away free because barely anyone subscribed for him.

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 01:30 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:37 -0800, Tony Elka
<shadowlane@shadowlane.com> wrote:

>In article <34ul12tlfkmhmo09trjoo8av8ejsk1o81i@fe05.buzzardnews.com>,
> Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2006 09:39:27 -0800, yqf@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.
>>
>> Howie is not on a premium channel. By your logic that means he is a
>> failure and no one wants to listen to him.
>
>
>
>Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>to their service.
>
>And clearly, it worked.
>
>You need to work on that logic thing.
>
>Tony

The lack of stern on a premium channel seems to indicate sirius'
belief that stern would not do too well. because of all the money they
spent on stern, they felt that people would not pay for stern on
premium and hoped to make up any lost potential revenue with more
subs.

Hoody

March 17th, 2006, 01:59 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:00:26 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>The lack of stern on a premium channel seems to indicate sirius'
>belief that stern would not do too well. because of all the money they
>spent on stern, they felt that people would not pay for stern on
>premium and hoped to make up any lost potential revenue with more
>subs.

Stern really ---- the bed in bringing in subscribers for Sirius.
People were not as interested as Howie hoped. Could you IMAGINE the
failure if they tried to put him on a premium channel ?

Hoody

March 17th, 2006, 01:59 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:42:43 -0500, Buzzer <none@email.org> wrote:

>Clearly Stern was a failure because they did not put him on a premium
>channel anyhow. If SOOO many people wanted stern, they would have charged
>more for him so that they can try and dig out of their huge debt. But, they
>gave him away free because barely anyone subscribed for him.

Bingo. It really burns the $12.95ers when you use Howie logic on
Howie.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 04:31 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:00:26 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:37 -0800, Tony Elka
><shadowlane@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <34ul12tlfkmhmo09trjoo8av8ejsk1o81i@fe05.buzzardnews.com>,
>> Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2006 09:39:27 -0800, yqf@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.
>>>
>>> Howie is not on a premium channel. By your logic that means he is a
>>> failure and no one wants to listen to him.
>>
>>
>>
>>Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>>uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>>to their service.
>>
>>And clearly, it worked.
>>
>>You need to work on that logic thing.
>>
>>Tony
>
>The lack of stern on a premium channel seems to indicate sirius'
>belief that stern would not do too well. because of all the money they
>spent on stern, they felt that people would not pay for stern on
>premium and hoped to make up any lost potential revenue with more
>subs.

Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.

Tim Donohoe

March 17th, 2006, 04:31 PM

The Cunning Linguist :Þ- Cmdr. Usenet OperAtions wrote:

> "subscriber1997" <duke5595@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:53rRf.18836$nB6.16461@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>>all of this can only mean
>>O n A weren't bringing in a significant
>>listnership to XM sat radio
>>
>
>
> Oh so THAT'S why they made them available to the general audience and put
> them on DirectTV, AOL, and XM Canada
> Idiot
>

More retard logic

Tim Donohoe

March 17th, 2006, 04:31 PM

Hoody wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:33:56 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <pan.2006.03.17.15.21.31.440565@furburger.net>,
>>KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:10:14 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Didn't they make them available to the general audience because no one
>>>>would pay the premium cost for run-of-the-mill radio?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Excellent point.
>
>
> So you believe that they were on the premium channel becuase they were
> no good, then they were taken off becuase they were no good. Great
> logic.

Have you ever had an idea that didn't come directly out of the clones'
mouths? They were on a premium channel to see if they could draw subs,
when they proved they couldn't XM took them off. Good or bad. I wouldn't
expect the clones to tell you the truth about this so this might be the
only place you hear this idea.

Tim Donohoe

March 17th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Hoody wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2006 09:39:27 -0800, yqf@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>>The Cunning Linguist :Þ- Cmdr. Usenet OperAtions wrote:
>>
>>>"subscriber1997" <duke5595@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>>news:53rRf.18836$nB6.16461@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>>all of this can only mean
>>>>O n A weren't bringing in a significant
>>>>listnership to XM sat radio
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh so THAT'S why they made them available to the general audience
>>
>>You call XM bailing out on the 3 month old plan to sell Opie and Aunt
>>Bee as a premium after hardly anybody signed up "making them available
>>to the general audience"????
>>
>>Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.
>
>
> Howie is not on a premium channel. By your logic that means he is a
> failure and no one wants to listen to him.

More retard logic.

March 17th, 2006, 05:30 PM

> Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
> uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
> to their service.
>
> And clearly, it worked.
>
> You need to work on that logic thing.
>
> Tony

Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 06:30 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:12:56 -0600, <Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>
>> Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>> uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>> to their service.
>>
>> And clearly, it worked.
>>
>> You need to work on that logic thing.
>>
>> Tony
>
>Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.
>
600,000 subs when the announcement was made. 3.3 million subs by the
end of 2005. Prove it didn't work.

Huh? What's that?

March 17th, 2006, 06:30 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:30:10 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:

> They were on a premium channel to see if they could draw subs,
> when they proved they couldn't XM took them off. Good or bad.

How does your explanation make any more sense than theirs?

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 07:30 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:05:00 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:00:26 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:37 -0800, Tony Elka
>><shadowlane@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <34ul12tlfkmhmo09trjoo8av8ejsk1o81i@fe05.buzzardnews.com>,
>>> Hoody <hoody@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Mar 2006 09:39:27 -0800, yqf@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Nice spin!! I call that giving away something that you couldn't sell.
>>>>
>>>> Howie is not on a premium channel. By your logic that means he is a
>>>> failure and no one wants to listen to him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>>>uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>>>to their service.
>>>
>>>And clearly, it worked.
>>>
>>>You need to work on that logic thing.
>>>
>>>Tony
>>
>>The lack of stern on a premium channel seems to indicate sirius'
>>belief that stern would not do too well. because of all the money they
>>spent on stern, they felt that people would not pay for stern on
>>premium and hoped to make up any lost potential revenue with more
>>subs.
>
>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.

They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
are a non-profit organization, right?

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 07:30 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:59:57 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:12:56 -0600, <Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> Howard was never offered on a premium channel. Sirius marketed an
>>> uncensored Stern show from day one as just one more reason to subscribe
>>> to their service.
>>>
>>> And clearly, it worked.
>>>
>>> You need to work on that logic thing.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>>Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.
>>
>600,000 subs when the announcement was made. 3.3 million subs by the
>end of 2005. Prove it didn't work.
>
>Huh? What's that?

<raises hand> Ohhhh.....me.....call on me........

March 17th, 2006, 08:00 PM

> >>
> >> You need to work on that logic thing.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >
> >Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.
> >
> 600,000 subs when the announcement was made. 3.3 million subs by the
> end of 2005. Prove it didn't work.
>
> Huh? What's that?

Is your name Tony?

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 08:00 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>
>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>are a non-profit organization, right?

Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
strawman argument.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 08:31 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:39:48 -0600, <Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>> >>
>> >> You need to work on that logic thing.
>> >>
>> >> Tony
>> >
>> >Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.
>> >
>> 600,000 subs when the announcement was made. 3.3 million subs by the
>> end of 2005. Prove it didn't work.
>>
>> Huh? What's that?
>
>Is your name Tony?

Good subterfuge. You should be a pest.

March 17th, 2006, 09:00 PM

> >> Huh? What's that?
> >
> >Is your name Tony?
>
> Good subterfuge. You should be a pest.

Seriously, I addressed TONY. Mind your buisiness.

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 09:00 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>
>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>
>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>strawman argument.

If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 09:00 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:36:28 -0600, <Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>> >> Huh? What's that?
>> >
>> >Is your name Tony?
>>
>> Good subterfuge. You should be a pest.
>
>Seriously, I addressed TONY. Mind your buisiness.

Send him email, then. Don't post in the fucking public newsgroup,
dumbass.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 09:32 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:40:27 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>>
>>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>>
>>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>>strawman argument.
>
>If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.

They did.

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 09:59 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:07:07 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:40:27 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>>>
>>>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>>>
>>>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>>>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>>>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>>>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>>>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>>>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>>>strawman argument.
>>
>>If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>
>They did.

I agree. Actually, I think they overcharge for listening to him but
that's just my opinion.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 10:30 PM

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:51:34 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:07:07 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:40:27 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>>>>
>>>>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>>>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>>>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>>>>
>>>>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>>>>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>>>>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>>>>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>>>>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>>>>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>>>>strawman argument.
>>>
>>>If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>>
>>They did.
>
>I agree. Actually, I think they overcharge for listening to him but
>that's just my opinion.

Yet you pay the same amount of money to listen to an unfunny clone
show. OK. Hey, who am I to argue?

Tony Elka

March 17th, 2006, 10:59 PM

In article <441b803d$0$17688$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
<Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > >> Huh? What's that?
> > >
> > >Is your name Tony?
> >
> > Good subterfuge. You should be a pest.
>
> Seriously, I addressed TONY. Mind your buisiness.

Well, Tony doesn't have a fucking clue what you're trying to say.

Tony
--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Tony Elka

March 17th, 2006, 10:59 PM

In article <441b72f5$0$17688$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
<Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > >>
> > >> You need to work on that logic thing.
> > >>
> > >> Tony
> > >
> > >Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.
> > >
> > 600,000 subs when the announcement was made. 3.3 million subs by the
> > end of 2005. Prove it didn't work.
> >
> > Huh? What's that?
>
> Is your name Tony?

Yes it is.

Tony
--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

SapperPest19

March 17th, 2006, 11:30 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:16:05 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:51:34 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:07:07 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:40:27 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>>>>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>>>>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>>>>>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>>>>>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>>>>>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>>>>>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>>>>>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>>>>>strawman argument.
>>>>
>>>>If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>>>
>>>They did.
>>
>>I agree. Actually, I think they overcharge for listening to him but
>>that's just my opinion.
>
>Yet you pay the same amount of money to listen to an unfunny clone
>show. OK. Hey, who am I to argue?

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:23:47 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>And you're right...they're no longer clones.

Boom

March 17th, 2006, 11:30 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:04:59 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:16:05 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:51:34 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:07:07 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:40:27 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>>>>>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>>>>>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>>>>>>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>>>>>>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>>>>>>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>>>>>>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>>>>>>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>>>>>>strawman argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>They did.
>>>
>>>I agree. Actually, I think they overcharge for listening to him but
>>>that's just my opinion.
>>
>>Yet you pay the same amount of money to listen to an unfunny clone
>>show. OK. Hey, who am I to argue?
>
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:23:47 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>
>>And you're right...they're no longer clones.

HAHAHAHAHA! Nice edit job. let me re-add the part you cut out:

And you're right...they're no longer clones. They harp and harp on
Howard much more than Howard ever harped on anyone.

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 02:02 AM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:13:35 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:04:59 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:16:05 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:51:34 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:07:07 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:40:27 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>>>>>>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>>>>>>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>>>>>>>I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>>>>>>>negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>>>>>>>public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>>>>>>>public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>>>>>>>this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>>>>>>>strawman argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>>They did.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Actually, I think they overcharge for listening to him but
>>>>that's just my opinion.
>>>
>>>Yet you pay the same amount of money to listen to an unfunny clone
>>>show. OK. Hey, who am I to argue?
>>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:23:47 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And you're right...they're no longer clones.
>
>HAHAHAHAHA! Nice edit job. let me re-add the part you cut out:
>
>And you're right...they're no longer clones. They harp and harp on
>Howard much more than Howard ever harped on anyone.

You liked that? Seriously, I do not agree that they are clones. They
may have started off using an acceptable format, albeit one pioneered
by stern, but they are by ne means his clone.

Michael

March 18th, 2006, 08:31 AM

Boom wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>>
>>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>>are a non-profit organization, right?
>
>
> Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
> I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
> negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
> public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
> public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
> this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
> strawman argument.

There was the gouging perception by some of the general public anyhow.

If they'd put Stern's show on a premium channel, the easiest explanation
is that the show would be totally uncensored and parents wouldn't have
to worry about kids hearing it since there's no way to block a regular
Sirius channel, much like the current state of cable with the really
nasty channels available if you pay an extra fee.

Michael

Tim Donohoe

March 18th, 2006, 09:30 AM

KK wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:30:10 +0000, Tim Donohoe wrote:
>
>
>>They were on a premium channel to see if they could draw subs,
>>when they proved they couldn't XM took them off. Good or bad.
>
>
> How does your explanation make any more sense than theirs?

It is equal in its spin but it makes more sense. Tim Donohoe fans will
now regurgitate this for 3 years.

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 09:59 AM

In article <780n1211hk74fobs22i60e4i7jja02mhkc@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
> >>
> >>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
> >>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
> >>are a non-profit organization, right?
> >
> >Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
> >I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
> >negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
> >public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
> >public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
> >this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
> >strawman argument.
>
> If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.

so lame. your argument is weak and your logic is twisted. the original
topic was how o&a couldn't pull off the premium channel vibe. your
latent obsession with stern is pretty funny, though... every subject
coming back to him. i bet you told your grade school teachers he ate
your homework, too.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 09:59 AM

In article <clhn12dj1uimmkurp5bs43uovsgrvk9988@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
> You liked that? Seriously, I do not agree that they are clones. They
> may have started off using an acceptable format, albeit one pioneered
> by stern, but they are by ne means his clone.

if back in the day, o&a just said "howard stern is one of our biggest
influences" none of this would be going on. you could squash this entire
argument with "the said stern's their biggest influence, so fuck off".
actually, this argument wouldn't have started in the first place.

but they had to pretend like they invented the wheel, in stern's
backyard no less, and it's just dishonest.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 09:59 AM

In article <441b72f5$0$17688$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
<Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > >>
> > >> You need to work on that logic thing.
> > >>
> > >> Tony
> > >
> > >Explain that logic, Tony. Prove it worked.
> > >
> > 600,000 subs when the announcement was made. 3.3 million subs by the
> > end of 2005. Prove it didn't work.
> >
> > Huh? What's that?
>
> Is your name Tony?

my name is kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid!

--
The Central Scrotinizer

Tim Donohoe

March 18th, 2006, 10:30 AM

The Central Scrotinizer wrote:

> In article <clhn12dj1uimmkurp5bs43uovsgrvk9988@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>>You liked that? Seriously, I do not agree that they are clones. They
>>may have started off using an acceptable format, albeit one pioneered
>>by stern, but they are by ne means his clone.
>
>
> if back in the day, o&a just said "howard stern is one of our biggest
> influences" none of this would be going on. you could squash this entire
> argument with "the said stern's their biggest influence, so fuck off".
> actually, this argument wouldn't have started in the first place.
>

They used to say that constantly.

> but they had to pretend like they invented the wheel, in stern's
> backyard no less, and it's just dishonest.
>

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 10:30 AM

In article <p0XSf.19932$4%1.6453@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
Tim Donohoe <tdonohoe@aol.com> wrote:

> The Central Scrotinizer wrote:
>
> > In article <clhn12dj1uimmkurp5bs43uovsgrvk9988@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You liked that? Seriously, I do not agree that they are clones. They
> >>may have started off using an acceptable format, albeit one pioneered
> >>by stern, but they are by ne means his clone.
> >
> >
> > if back in the day, o&a just said "howard stern is one of our biggest
> > influences" none of this would be going on. you could squash this entire
> > argument with "the said stern's their biggest influence, so fuck off".
> > actually, this argument wouldn't have started in the first place.
> >
>
> They used to say that constantly.
>
> > but they had to pretend like they invented the wheel, in stern's
> > backyard no less, and it's just dishonest.
> >

well ----. i guess i should go fuck off now :)

--
The Central Scrotinizer

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 02:00 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:54:42 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <clhn12dj1uimmkurp5bs43uovsgrvk9988@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>
>> You liked that? Seriously, I do not agree that they are clones. They
>> may have started off using an acceptable format, albeit one pioneered
>> by stern, but they are by ne means his clone.
>
>if back in the day, o&a just said "howard stern is one of our biggest
>influences" none of this would be going on. you could squash this entire
>argument with "the said stern's their biggest influence, so fuck off".
>actually, this argument wouldn't have started in the first place.

Yeah, sure. Do you really believe that?

>but they had to pretend like they invented the wheel, in stern's
>backyard no less, and it's just dishonest.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 02:00 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:43:38 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <780n1211hk74fobs22i60e4i7jja02mhkc@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>> >>
>> >>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>> >>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>> >>are a non-profit organization, right?
>> >
>> >Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>> >I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>> >negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>> >public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>> >public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>> >this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>> >strawman argument.
>>
>> If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>
>so lame. your argument is weak and your logic is twisted. the original
>topic was how o&a couldn't pull off the premium channel vibe. your
>latent obsession with stern is pretty funny, though... every subject
>coming back to him. i bet you told your grade school teachers he ate
>your homework, too.

You want to call o&a failures for changing something that stern was
not even willing to try. Just pointing out some hypocrisy.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 02:30 PM

In article <7uro12lksc05eei49mu59okcu2bqfbjni9@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:43:38 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <780n1211hk74fobs22i60e4i7jja02mhkc@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
> >> >>
> >> >>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
> >> >>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
> >> >>are a non-profit organization, right?
> >> >
> >> >Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
> >> >I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
> >> >negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
> >> >public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
> >> >public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
> >> >this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
> >> >strawman argument.
> >>
> >> If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
> >
> >so lame. your argument is weak and your logic is twisted. the original
> >topic was how o&a couldn't pull off the premium channel vibe. your
> >latent obsession with stern is pretty funny, though... every subject
> >coming back to him. i bet you told your grade school teachers he ate
> >your homework, too.
>
> You want to call o&a failures for changing something that stern was
> not even willing to try. Just pointing out some hypocrisy.
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
extra bucks out of their pests.

Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.

How is that hypocritical?

Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 02:30 PM

> Send him email, then. Don't post in the fucking public newsgroup,
> dumbass.

And I publicly addressed Tony, so stop wasting your time chiming in and go
fight with your boyfriends some more.

March 18th, 2006, 02:30 PM

> Well, Tony doesn't have a fucking clue what you're trying to say.
>
> Tony

Neither do I anymore, to be honest

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 02:59 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:15:10 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <7uro12lksc05eei49mu59okcu2bqfbjni9@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:43:38 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <780n1211hk74fobs22i60e4i7jja02mhkc@4ax.com>,
>> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>> >> >>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>> >> >>are a non-profit organization, right?
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>> >> >I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>> >> >negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>> >> >public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>> >> >public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>> >> >this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>> >> >strawman argument.
>> >>
>> >> If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>> >
>> >so lame. your argument is weak and your logic is twisted. the original
>> >topic was how o&a couldn't pull off the premium channel vibe. your
>> >latent obsession with stern is pretty funny, though... every subject
>> >coming back to him. i bet you told your grade school teachers he ate
>> >your homework, too.
>>
>> You want to call o&a failures for changing something that stern was
>> not even willing to try. Just pointing out some hypocrisy.
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com
>
>Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
>extra bucks out of their pests.
>
>Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
>Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
>onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.
>
>How is that hypocritical?

Because the stern fans like to claim that not making it on a premium
is a sign of failure.

>Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 02:59 PM

In article <k70p12dqbacu0gtm9incpq5v6nquoa638p@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:

> >Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
> >extra bucks out of their pests.
> >
> >Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
> >Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
> >onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.
> >
> >How is that hypocritical?
>
> Because the stern fans like to claim that not making it on a premium
> is a sign of failure.
>
> >Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

They failed to milk a couple more bucks out of the fans. Has nothing to
do with their on-mic talent, so don't get all butt hurt.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 03:30 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:57:05 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <k70p12dqbacu0gtm9incpq5v6nquoa638p@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
>> >extra bucks out of their pests.
>> >
>> >Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
>> >Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
>> >onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.
>> >
>> >How is that hypocritical?
>>
>> Because the stern fans like to claim that not making it on a premium
>> is a sign of failure.
>>
>> >Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com
>
>They failed to milk a couple more bucks out of the fans. Has nothing to
>do with their on-mic talent, so don't get all butt hurt.

I don't take it as a sign of failure. I'm paying more now than I would
have if I were in the states when they were on premium.

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 03:30 PM

In article <7uro12lksc05eei49mu59okcu2bqfbjni9@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:43:38 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <780n1211hk74fobs22i60e4i7jja02mhkc@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
> >> >>
> >> >>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
> >> >>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
> >> >>are a non-profit organization, right?
> >> >
> >> >Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
> >> >I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
> >> >negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
> >> >public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
> >> >public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
> >> >this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
> >> >strawman argument.
> >>
> >> If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
> >
> >so lame. your argument is weak and your logic is twisted. the original
> >topic was how o&a couldn't pull off the premium channel vibe. your
> >latent obsession with stern is pretty funny, though... every subject
> >coming back to him. i bet you told your grade school teachers he ate
> >your homework, too.
>
> You want to call o&a failures for changing something that stern was
> not even willing to try. Just pointing out some hypocrisy.
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
himself as a pay per view OPTION.

You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why? That
makes no sense.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 03:59 PM

In article <cf1p12t54bmmdvi8or5g69gnpflma15u5p@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:57:05 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <k70p12dqbacu0gtm9incpq5v6nquoa638p@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
> >> >extra bucks out of their pests.
> >> >
> >> >Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
> >> >Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
> >> >onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.
> >> >
> >> >How is that hypocritical?
> >>
> >> Because the stern fans like to claim that not making it on a premium
> >> is a sign of failure.
> >>
> >> >Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.
> >>
> >> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> http://www.usenet.com
> >
> >They failed to milk a couple more bucks out of the fans. Has nothing to
> >do with their on-mic talent, so don't get all butt hurt.
>
> I don't take it as a sign of failure. I'm paying more now than I would
> have if I were in the states when they were on premium.

"We went from having a show that was syndicated in 17 major markets to
having a few thousand listeners." - Opie

--
The Central Scrotinizer

Tony Elka

March 18th, 2006, 06:00 PM

In article <441c7b13$0$5997$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
<Dereck_Barker@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Send him email, then. Don't post in the fucking public newsgroup,
> > dumbass.
>
> And I publicly addressed Tony, so stop wasting your time chiming in and go
> fight with your boyfriends some more.

That's telling him, boyfriend!

Tony

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 06:00 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <7uro12lksc05eei49mu59okcu2bqfbjni9@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:43:38 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <780n1211hk74fobs22i60e4i7jja02mhkc@4ax.com>,
>> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:54:26 GMT, Boom <mmm@nnn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:16:38 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Or maybe they just didn't want to be greedy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>They only offered stern $500 million over 5 years. I'm sure they are
>> >> >>not interested in more profits or anything like that. After all, they
>> >> >>are a non-profit organization, right?
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh please! Ever hear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
>> >> >I don't give a fuck what they paid Stern. There would have been
>> >> >negative consequences putting Stern on a premium, which would be the
>> >> >public perception that Sirius and Stern were trying to gouge the
>> >> >public. $13 is the reasonable market price for satellite radio at
>> >> >this time, with or without Stern. So enough with this bull----
>> >> >strawman argument.
>> >>
>> >> If they had a hot product, they would charge accordingly.
>> >
>> >so lame. your argument is weak and your logic is twisted. the original
>> >topic was how o&a couldn't pull off the premium channel vibe. your
>> >latent obsession with stern is pretty funny, though... every subject
>> >coming back to him. i bet you told your grade school teachers he ate
>> >your homework, too.
>>
>> You want to call o&a failures for changing something that stern was
>> not even willing to try. Just pointing out some hypocrisy.
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com
>
>Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
>build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
>himself as a pay per view OPTION.
>
>You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
>the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why? That
>makes no sense.

Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
it showed that they were successful.

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 06:00 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:34:05 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <cf1p12t54bmmdvi8or5g69gnpflma15u5p@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:57:05 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <k70p12dqbacu0gtm9incpq5v6nquoa638p@4ax.com>,
>> > SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
>> >> >extra bucks out of their pests.
>> >> >
>> >> >Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
>> >> >Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
>> >> >onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.
>> >> >
>> >> >How is that hypocritical?
>> >>
>> >> Because the stern fans like to claim that not making it on a premium
>> >> is a sign of failure.
>> >>
>> >> >Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.
>> >>
>> >> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> >> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> >> http://www.usenet.com
>> >
>> >They failed to milk a couple more bucks out of the fans. Has nothing to
>> >do with their on-mic talent, so don't get all butt hurt.
>>
>> I don't take it as a sign of failure. I'm paying more now than I would
>> have if I were in the states when they were on premium.
>
>"We went from having a show that was syndicated in 17 major markets to
>having a few thousand listeners." - Opie

"I suck." - Stern

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 06:00 PM

In article <6i9p125etscknknanp9836gbdcmftjvq4p@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:34:05 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <cf1p12t54bmmdvi8or5g69gnpflma15u5p@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:57:05 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <k70p12dqbacu0gtm9incpq5v6nquoa638p@4ax.com>,
> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@work.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >Well here's a little applause to your boys for trying to milk a few
> >> >> >extra bucks out of their pests.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Stern wasn't willing to try? Why should he? People already pay for
> >> >> >Sirius. He moved to Sirius to become a part of the family and to build
> >> >> >onto Sirius, not become a separate entity, a pay per view option.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How is that hypocritical?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the stern fans like to claim that not making it on a premium
> >> >> is a sign of failure.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Remember, he doesn't have to one-up your boys. He's not chasing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> http://www.usenet.com
> >> >
> >> >They failed to milk a couple more bucks out of the fans. Has nothing to
> >> >do with their on-mic talent, so don't get all butt hurt.
> >>
> >> I don't take it as a sign of failure. I'm paying more now than I would
> >> have if I were in the states when they were on premium.
> >
> >"We went from having a show that was syndicated in 17 major markets to
> >having a few thousand listeners." - Opie
>
> "I suck." - Stern

"You're floundering." -me

--
The Central Scrotinizer

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 07:32 PM

In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >
> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
> >
> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why? That
> >makes no sense.
>
> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
> it showed that they were successful.

Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and they
gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.

It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make money
on them.

Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?

--
The Central Scrotinizer

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 07:32 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
>> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
>> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
>> >
>> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
>> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why? That
>> >makes no sense.
>>
>> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
>> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
>> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
>> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
>> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
>> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
>> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
>> it showed that they were successful.
>
>Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and they
>gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.

Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
from the lineup.

>It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
>bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
>were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.

>Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make money
>on them.

Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.

>Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
>other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?

If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
failures because they won't try.

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 07:59 PM

In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
> >> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
> >> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
> >> >
> >> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
> >> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why? That
> >> >makes no sense.
> >>
> >> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
> >> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
> >> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
> >> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
> >> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
> >> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
> >> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
> >> it showed that they were successful.
> >
> >Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and they
> >gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.
>
> Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
> from the lineup.

Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
now would it?

>
> >It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
> >bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
> >were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
>
> >Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make money
> >on them.
>
> Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.
>
> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
>
> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
> failures because they won't try.

Or, they're just smarter than Evel.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

Tony Elka

March 18th, 2006, 07:59 PM

In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
>
> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
> failures because they won't try.

So if I claim I can eat the moon and fail, are you a failure for not
even trying?

Tony

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 08:59 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:33:31 -0800, Tony Elka
<shadowlane@shadowlane.com> wrote:

>In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
>> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
>>
>> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
>> failures because they won't try.
>
>
>
>So if I claim I can eat the moon and fail, are you a failure for not
>even trying?
>
>Tony

Go back and read the thread again. This time, pay attention.

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 08:59 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:18 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
>> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
>> >> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
>> >> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
>> >> >
>> >> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
>> >> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why? That
>> >> >makes no sense.
>> >>
>> >> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
>> >> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
>> >> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
>> >> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
>> >> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
>> >> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
>> >> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
>> >> it showed that they were successful.
>> >
>> >Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and they
>> >gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.
>>
>> Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
>> from the lineup.
>
>
>Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
>family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
>now would it?

Why not? Would being on premium force howard to broadcast from a
different studio than the rest of the sirius dj's?

>> >It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
>> >bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
>> >were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
>>
>> >Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make money
>> >on them.
>>
>> Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.
>>
>> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
>> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
>>
>> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
>> failures because they won't try.
>
>
>Or, they're just smarter than Evel.

And why is that?

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 09:30 PM

In article <bhlp12pvibbid9gq5r2omqpn5or53s4at7@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:18 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
> >> >> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
> >> >> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
> >> >> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why?
> >> >> >That
> >> >> >makes no sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
> >> >> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
> >> >> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
> >> >> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
> >> >> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
> >> >> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
> >> >> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
> >> >> it showed that they were successful.
> >> >
> >> >Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and they
> >> >gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.
> >>
> >> Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
> >> from the lineup.
> >
> >
> >Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
> >family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
> >now would it?
>
> Why not? Would being on premium force howard to broadcast from a
> different studio than the rest of the sirius dj's?
>
> >> >It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
> >> >bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
> >> >were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
> >>
> >> >Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make money
> >> >on them.
> >>
> >> Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.
> >>
> >> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
> >> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
> >>
> >> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
> >> failures because they won't try.
> >
> >
> >Or, they're just smarter than Evel.
>
> And why is that?

Let's get back on track here. Putting O&A on a premium channel was a
failure. Keeping them on a premium channel would have choked them out.
It has nothing to do with The Howard Stern Show.

I'm keeping this short because it's obvious your tiny brain can only
wrap around so much.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 11:30 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:27:06 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <bhlp12pvibbid9gq5r2omqpn5or53s4at7@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:18 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
>> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
>> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> >> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and to
>> >> >> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by separating
>> >> >> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked off"
>> >> >> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why?
>> >> >> >That
>> >> >> >makes no sense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
>> >> >> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern failed
>> >> >> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
>> >> >> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
>> >> >> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
>> >> >> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can look
>> >> >> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
>> >> >> it showed that they were successful.
>> >> >
>> >> >Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and they
>> >> >gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
>> >> from the lineup.
>> >
>> >
>> >Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
>> >family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
>> >now would it?
>>
>> Why not? Would being on premium force howard to broadcast from a
>> different studio than the rest of the sirius dj's?
>>
>> >> >It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
>> >> >bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
>> >> >were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
>> >>
>> >> >Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make money
>> >> >on them.
>> >>
>> >> Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.
>> >>
>> >> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
>> >> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
>> >>
>> >> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
>> >> failures because they won't try.
>> >
>> >
>> >Or, they're just smarter than Evel.
>>
>> And why is that?
>
>
>Let's get back on track here. Putting O&A on a premium channel was a
>failure. Keeping them on a premium channel would have choked them out.
>It has nothing to do with The Howard Stern Show.
>
>I'm keeping this short because it's obvious your tiny brain can only
>wrap around so much.

My tiny brain can wrap around a good bit. That's why I can go off on a
tangent. For example, why would other stuntmen not try that jump?
Because they know they would fail. Evel would have been the pioneer to
even try it and only someone greater would have been able to actually
complete the jump. No wonder you wanted to "get back on track."

And where does the sirius family broadcast from?

The Central Scrotinizer

March 18th, 2006, 11:30 PM

In article <idtp12pbhpbhtjsk37klukndeekth2gi9k@4ax.com>,
SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:27:06 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bhlp12pvibbid9gq5r2omqpn5or53s4at7@4ax.com>,
> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:18 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
> >> >> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by
> >> >> >> >separating
> >> >> >> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked
> >> >> >> >off"
> >> >> >> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why?
> >> >> >> >That
> >> >> >> >makes no sense.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
> >> >> >> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern
> >> >> >> failed
> >> >> >> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
> >> >> >> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
> >> >> >> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
> >> >> >> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can
> >> >> >> look
> >> >> >> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
> >> >> >> it showed that they were successful.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and
> >> >> >they
> >> >> >gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
> >> >> from the lineup.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
> >> >family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
> >> >now would it?
> >>
> >> Why not? Would being on premium force howard to broadcast from a
> >> different studio than the rest of the sirius dj's?
> >>
> >> >> >It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
> >> >> >bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
> >> >> >were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make
> >> >> >money
> >> >> >on them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
> >> >> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
> >> >>
> >> >> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
> >> >> failures because they won't try.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Or, they're just smarter than Evel.
> >>
> >> And why is that?
> >
> >
> >Let's get back on track here. Putting O&A on a premium channel was a
> >failure. Keeping them on a premium channel would have choked them out.
> >It has nothing to do with The Howard Stern Show.
> >
> >I'm keeping this short because it's obvious your tiny brain can only
> >wrap around so much.
>
> My tiny brain can wrap around a good bit. That's why I can go off on a
> tangent. For example, why would other stuntmen not try that jump?
> Because they know they would fail. Evel would have been the pioneer to
> even try it and only someone greater would have been able to actually
> complete the jump. No wonder you wanted to "get back on track."
>
> And where does the sirius family broadcast from?

I wanted to get back on track because your tangent was diverting
attention away from the fact that o&a as a premium option was a failure.
That's it, man. my hat's off to them for trying, but it just did not
work.

carry on.

--
The Central Scrotinizer

SapperPest19

March 18th, 2006, 11:59 PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:19:33 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
<mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:

>In article <idtp12pbhpbhtjsk37klukndeekth2gi9k@4ax.com>,
> SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:27:06 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bhlp12pvibbid9gq5r2omqpn5or53s4at7@4ax.com>,
>> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:18 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <6cgp12197hpsha2q1r45q4kdvuea66ilt0@4ax.com>,
>> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:23:25 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> >> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <389p12d9rq4umnv2ka7l7a9hqfp6j7qoor@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:17:34 -0800, The Central Scrotinizer
>> >> >> >> <mudshark@edgewater.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Stern signed on with Sirius to be a part of the Sirius family and
>> >> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> >build it up. Not to sap a few extra bucks from the fans by
>> >> >> >> >separating
>> >> >> >> >himself as a pay per view OPTION.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You say it's hypocritical to make fun of O&A for getting "kicked
>> >> >> >> >off"
>> >> >> >> >the premium station because Stern didn't go the premium route? Why?
>> >> >> >> >That
>> >> >> >> >makes no sense.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sure it does if you take the blinders off. Either not making it on
>> >> >> >> premium is a sign of failure or it is not. If it is, then stern
>> >> >> >> failed
>> >> >> >> because he did not even try. If it is not, then o&a did not fail
>> >> >> >> because they were added to the mail list instead of an option. You
>> >> >> >> have to look at the reason o&a were put on premium. They were
>> >> >> >> separated from the regular lineup because of their past. You can
>> >> >> >> look
>> >> >> >> at it as a probation. Once they were put in with the regular lineup,
>> >> >> >> it showed that they were successful.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Their "probation" was XM only granting them one year contracts, and
>> >> >> >they
>> >> >> >gained success AFTER they were put on the regular line-up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, that was part of it. The other part was to separate them further
>> >> >> from the lineup.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
>> >> >family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
>> >> >now would it?
>> >>
>> >> Why not? Would being on premium force howard to broadcast from a
>> >> different studio than the rest of the sirius dj's?
>> >>
>> >> >> >It was a bad idea to put them on as a premium. It didn't work. No one
>> >> >> >bought into it. The definition of failure is lack of success. If they
>> >> >> >were successful on the premium station, it would still be a premium.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Companies don't like to give things away for free if the can make
>> >> >> >money
>> >> >> >on them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok....I now see why sirius didn't put stern on a premium channel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Evel Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon and failed. So now are all
>> >> >> >other stuntmen failures because they won't try it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the other stuntmen claim to be so superior to Evel, yes, they are
>> >> >> failures because they won't try.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Or, they're just smarter than Evel.
>> >>
>> >> And why is that?
>> >
>> >
>> >Let's get back on track here. Putting O&A on a premium channel was a
>> >failure. Keeping them on a premium channel would have choked them out.
>> >It has nothing to do with The Howard Stern Show.
>> >
>> >I'm keeping this short because it's obvious your tiny brain can only
>> >wrap around so much.
>>
>> My tiny brain can wrap around a good bit. That's why I can go off on a
>> tangent. For example, why would other stuntmen not try that jump?
>> Because they know they would fail. Evel would have been the pioneer to
>> even try it and only someone greater would have been able to actually
>> complete the jump. No wonder you wanted to "get back on track."
>>
>> And where does the sirius family broadcast from?
>
>I wanted to get back on track because your tangent was diverting
>attention away from the fact that o&a as a premium option was a failure.
>That's it, man. my hat's off to them for trying, but it just did not
>work.
>
>carry on.

Ok, I will carry on.

O&A as a premium option was a failure. Stern saw that the pioneers of
satellite radio could not make it as a premium option and was too
scared to try, knowing that if O&A could not make it, neither could
he. There you go. I carried on.

And once again, because I keep missing it, where does the wonderful
sirius family broadcast from?

Boom

March 19th, 2006, 01:00 AM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:57:00 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>>Stern has said several times that working at Sirius is like a big
>>family. Separating him from the line-up wouldn't be very family like,
>>now would it?
>
>Why not? Would being on premium force howard to broadcast from a
>different studio than the rest of the sirius dj's?

You are starting to sound like a mental patient. You know goddamn
well that as much as you so-called non-fans bitch about Howard going
to pay radio and being a part of the regular channel lineup that you'd
bitch a million times worse if Howard's show was an extra pay service.

No matter how you pests slice it, you will always think of Howard
being a failure and no matter what he does, he can do no right in your
eyes. Good thing for him that your opinions don't matter worth a
fuck.

Boom

March 19th, 2006, 01:30 AM

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:45:25 -0600, SapperPest19 <bob@bob.com> wrote:

>>I wanted to get back on track because your tangent was diverting
>>attention away from the fact that o&a as a premium option was a failure.
>>That's it, man. my hat's off to them for trying, but it just did not
>>work.
>>
>>carry on.
>
>Ok, I will carry on.
>
>O&A as a premium option was a failure. Stern saw that the pioneers of
>satellite radio could not make it as a premium option and was too
>scared to try, knowing that if O&A could not make it, neither could
>he. There you go. I carried on.

Wow, what a shock to Stern it must have been that after 25 years of
innovating and changing the entire face of radio, he's now chasing
some ----ty show who can't stay at any one company longer than 3 years
because they get themselves fired. Do you not realize how stupid you
sound? I thought you were semi-intelligent for a pest. Then you say
stupid ---- like this.

Got news for you...Stern could easily get $2 more a month to be on a
premium service. Not wanting to assrape his fans that way, though, is
usually thought of as a good thing, not a bad thing. And speaking of
assraping their fans, do you own your ----ty-ass t-shirt with the
cartoon O&A on it yet?

>And once again, because I keep missing it, where does the wonderful
>sirius family broadcast from?

NYC is their home base.