Fox Noise REACHES Fewer Viewers Than Any Cable News Channel!
milt...@yahoo.com
CNN's press release on their Q3 ratings highlights their reach. "CNN
continues to dominate the cable news competition in reach." Reach, or
cumulative audience, is a number representing someone tuning in to a
particular channel for no particular amount of time. The figure is not
used for advertising sales purposes. As one insider tells me it is
used "as a talking point" to tell a story of the audience.
Here is the Q3 2007 average monthly reach:
P2+ Reach
CNN: 66,485,000
FNC: 55,570,000
HLN: 53,790,000
MSNBC: 53,578,000
P25-54 Reach
CNN: 30,917,000
MSNBC: 26,063,000
HLN: 25,645,000
FNC: 24,636,000
To translate, this is the number of people who just tune in to watch a
particular channel, rather than just a specific program. What this
means is, when people want to watch "the news," they tune to CNN and
HLN twice as much as Fixed Noise. In fact, when you take out the old
people, Fox is dead last.
Funny, but it would seem that only good old boys sitting alone in
their trailers are watching Fixed Noise.
Let the wingnut squealing begin!
nob...@nowhere.com
Oddly Miltie felt the need to assume another identity to post this
one. What really gave it away (besides the fact that it was posted
from the same IP) is the failure to attribute where it came from.
>
>Let the wingnut squealing begin!
Let the Miltie squirming begin!
ZNUYBV
The only wing nuts I hear squealing are the left ones. I never hear
anyone squealing over MSNBC.
Galen Hekhuis
>Oddly Miltie felt the need to assume another identity to post this
>one. What really gave it away (besides the fact that it was posted
>from the same IP) is the failure to attribute where it came from.
I don't know any of the people involved in this from Adam's cat, but I
have some experience with tracing folks on the net. We got into a
discussion about tracing by IP some time ago when I got involved in
helping set up a moderated newsgroup. It seems there are two main
types of IP addresses, that is, dynamic IP's and static IPs. Many
(most?) folks get access via a ISP using a system that employs a
"pool" of IP numbers (dynamic IPs) that are assigned by demand to
their subscribers. An individuals IP address may change every time
they log on, whenever the central station "reboots," any number of
things. While an individual's IP may change quite frequently (hence
the name "dynamic") it does remain within a particular range. My own
IP address changed at least 7 times in the three months before I quit
counting. In short, while IP numbers are often considered the "gold
standard" in posting identity they are actually very easy to change
and can be spoofed. In short, while an IP number may give a clue as
to the author's identity, it is by NO means definitive. There are
ways to trace folks using logs and machine records, but IP numbers are
not the way. As I said to the people investigating moderating a
group, no one (not even noone) can write the code that will identify a
poster positively simply by using an IP number. It simply cannot be
done. Anyone who claims to be able to do so is lying.
I'm retired now, but I've been a programmer, systems administrator
(for several AT&T Unix boxes), maintained computer networks and
systems, and a bunch of other stuff. Like I say, if you think you
can positively ID someone from an IP address you'll have to show me
the code, I say it is impossible.
--
Galen Hekhuis ghek...@earthlink.net
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand
milt....@gmail.com
some reason, though the last few days, he's posted without the
"robxr4ti"... although it doesn't matter, since he posts with an
anonymous profile shared by a million other people.
>
> >Let the wingnut squealing begin!
>
> Let the Miltie squirming begin!
Oh, in case you haven't figured it out yet, "robxr4ti" doesn't really
understand the concept of "irony."
Clay
Cite.
-C-
hoo@crawfordranch.net RightIsRong
"Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191439303.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 1:18 pm, milt0...@yahoo.com wrote:
You listen to hate radio and imagine
that you are not the butt of the joke.
nob...@nowhere.com
I didn't say anything about there being anything wrong with posting
from an anonymous profile. What I commented on was the fact that you
had just been taken to task for posting a similiar post about MSNBCs
ratings without taking a moment to provide a valid cite. You then did
the identical thing about CNN's ratings while posting under another
name. I merely question the reason you chose to do so under a
different name, again without a cite.
>>
>> >Let the wingnut squealing begin!
>>
>> Let the Miltie squirming begin!
>
>Oh, in case you haven't figured it out yet, "robxr4ti" doesn't really
>understand the concept of "irony."
And I was right about the squirming....
Nebuchadnezzar II
He already did, you subliterate dipshit.
--
398 days before Clay goes back into hiding.
nob...@nowhere.com
Galen,
While what you say is perfectly valid, it would be a heck of a
coincidence that he posted a short time before with the same IP
address under "Milt Shook". The author of the post I responded to was
also named Milt. He also posted again shortly after with the same IP
address, again as Milt Shook. Too many coincidences for me.
The only reason I brought it up at all is that he's been talking about
"sock puppets" and has insinuated that people who disagree with him
are actually the same person posing as someone else. So here he is
posting under another name. Oh, and Miltie is always mumbling about
irony too...
Take care.
nob...@nowhere.com
wrote:
Miltie's response to this one is usually "everyone knows where it came
from so I don't have to cite it".
milt....@gmail.com
Um, Rob? A "sock puppet" isn't when someone named "Milt" posts as
"Milt" using a different e-mail address. I obviously made no attempt
to hide my identity, did I? I had a reason for posting under the other
e-mail address, which canyon can verify is actually mine...
milt....@gmail.com
It's not anonymous. "nob...@nowhere.com" is an anonymous profile.
> What I commented on was the fact that you
> had just been taken to task for posting a similiar post about MSNBCs
> ratings without taking a moment to provide a valid cite.
Taken to talk? By who? YOU? It SAID it was a MSNBC press release.
> You then did
> the identical thing about CNN's ratings while posting under another
> name. I merely question the reason you chose to do so under a
> different name, again without a cite.
>
So?
>
> >> >Let the wingnut squealing begin!
>
> >> Let the Miltie squirming begin!
>
> >Oh, in case you haven't figured it out yet, "robxr4ti" doesn't really
> >understand the concept of "irony."
>
> And I was right about the squirming....
If you thought so, then you are proving me right about the irony.
let me assure you... you have never made me "squirm."
milt....@gmail.com
milt....@gmail.com
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:21:43 -0000, Clay <clays0nl...@gmail.com>
It'sa CNN press release! can't you READ?
Galen Hekhuis
>
>Galen,
>
>While what you say is perfectly valid, it would be a heck of a
>coincidence that he posted a short time before with the same IP
>address under "Milt Shook". The author of the post I responded to was
>also named Milt. He also posted again shortly after with the same IP
>address, again as Milt Shook. Too many coincidences for me.
While "Galen" isn't encountered too frequently, "Milt" is probably
more common than you imagine. It wasn't at all uncommon to find
several many people logged onto one of my machines at the same time
with the same first name, indeed, they might even participate in the
same newsgroup. IP addresses are machine access points, not user
identifiers. A number of users logged into the same machine or using
a network may indeed share a single IP number, even though they do not
share a physical address. There are just so many possible
configurations where such a situation as you describe may occur that I
am somewhat amazed that you even consider it a "coincidence." It's
just kind of a ho-hum non-event as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, it
isn't that important to me exactly who you were talking to.
What is important is that IP numbers make poor identifiers. Often I
hear comments by people who seem baffled that so-and-so bypassed some
filter or killfile. Granted, IP numbers are more difficult to change
than email names, but that isn't saying much, because changing your
email or pseudonym or screen name is trivial. Also many of the same
tools and techniques for tracing people are also available to the
people being traced. In other words, your tracing may lead you down
*exactly* the path that the person you were tracing may want you to go
down, which may or may not lead to who you thought.
>The only reason I brought it up at all is that he's been talking about
>"sock puppets" and has insinuated that people who disagree with him
>are actually the same person posing as someone else. So here he is
>posting under another name. Oh, and Miltie is always mumbling about
>irony too...
Oh, I see.
>Take care.
>
--
Galen Hekhuis ghek...@earthlink.net
"Mistakes were made"
nob...@nowhere.com
Um, Miltie? I didn't say that your secondary identity was a sock
puppet. I mentioned your interest in proclaiming people sock puppets
and your insinuation that some post from different names but are
really the same person and there you were, posting from a different
name.
nob...@nowhere.com
See what I mean? At least you never disappoint.
nob...@nowhere.com
Read what I said again. Comprehend if you can.
>
>> What I commented on was the fact that you
>> had just been taken to task for posting a similiar post about MSNBCs
>> ratings without taking a moment to provide a valid cite.
>
>Taken to talk? By who? YOU? It SAID it was a MSNBC press release.
>
> > You then did
>> the identical thing about CNN's ratings while posting under another
>> name. I merely question the reason you chose to do so under a
>> different name, again without a cite.
>>
>So?
Already explained.
>>
>> >> >Let the wingnut squealing begin!
>>
>> >> Let the Miltie squirming begin!
>>
>> >Oh, in case you haven't figured it out yet, "robxr4ti" doesn't really
>> >understand the concept of "irony."
>>
>> And I was right about the squirming....
>
>If you thought so, then you are proving me right about the irony.
>
>let me assure you... you have never made me "squirm."
And your failure to address the following should be construed as what?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/65f89594dae3a2f2?dmode=source
"You mean like this recent whopper Steve pointed out that you ran
from:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/87c3324dd22d4c72?dmode=source
"I also figured out that many people in my area share the same IP
address. Not at the same time, of course, as I explained before. But
every time I reboot my modem, I'm assigned a new IP address, from a
different connection point, and someone else will be assigned the IP
address later. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?
"Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I
moved into a house. "
Can't say I've seen you address this one so it must be option "c"."
>
nob...@nowhere.com
Wow, Miltie finally comes through with one (after being beaten over
the head about it most of the day). Of course, had the article linked
to the actual press release instead of excerpting it, it would have
been more complete and discussable :)
>
>
milt....@gmail.com
Thank you for proving what I already knew. You're a troll.
nob...@nowhere.com
Guess you missed the " :) ", Miltie. Libs have no sense of humor.l
nob...@nowhere.com
Apparently it was option "c" since Miltie ran away again...