JMS on CompuServe (May 29, 1996) *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* 2/2
Brent Barrett
[ Continued from previous section -- BB ]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The following posts may contain SPOILERS for
upcoming Babylon 5 episodes.
Continue at your own risk.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL IS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE
RESPECTIVE MESSAGE AUTHORS AND CANNOT BE
REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED
PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.
Note that JMS has expressed his public permission
that all of his messages may be reproduced freely.
I give permission for my summaries to be reposted in
any form, however I reserve all rights to them and
the right to revoke this permission at any time.
[ Summary of subjects in this section: ]
Sb: #514213-<WWE II>
Sb: #514122-<WWE II>
Sb: #513914-<War W/o End #2>
Sb: #514414-<War W/o End #2>
Sb: #514372-WWE <<Major Spoiler>>
Sb: #514307-IT IS DONE
#: 514213 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
28-May-96 19:11:34
Sb: #511336-#<WWE II>
Fm: ROWAN KAISER
>> Thanks. Actually, I seem to recall, after that Londo/G'Kar scene was shown
the last time, posting somewhere that folks now knew *what* has happened, but
they don't yet know the *context*. Very few picked up on that and thought to
actually reverse what they *thought* they were seeing to what they *might* be
seeing.<<
"You must surrender to your greatest fear, knowing that it will destroy you"
I figured that that would be G'Kar, but not like that. Wow. And I want to
know when Londo and G'Kar become "old friends". But you answer to that will be
"wait and see", right?
Speaking of them, was that thingy on Londo's shoulder his controller? It
looked somewhat alien, but that might just be me reading something into it.
#: 514490 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
29-May-96 00:02:33
Sb: #514213-<WWE II>
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Yes, that was his keeper.
jms
#: 514122 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
28-May-96 17:16:43
Sb: #<WWE II>
Fm: CASEY J. PETER
>> Thanks. Lurker's pulled the flash because it ain't so, and I indicated
as much to them. >>Obviously they're eager, and want for good news to come
soon, as do we all, so they >>can't be faulted for enthusiasm.
Yer welcome. (I'm not sure why you're thankin' me, as you're the one(s) bustin'
yer behinds making sure we get this show!<g>)
I'm not too worried 'bout renewal, though. A long time ago, in a post far, far
away, a certain guy with the initials of........uh.....<g> JMS spoke of a time
to worry. He mentioned that he'd be out wavin' his virtual arms and shoutin'
to the housetops. (paraphrasing).
You haven't been doing that.
After seeing Broadcast's book on the ratings, it seems to me that demo-wise
B5's actually doing better than all of WB's own stable of shows. Killing a
show that makes it budget, does well in the syndi-ratings, has verifiable local
station support, and has a VERY VOCAL cadre of fan support would be fool-hardy.
While I will NEVER pretend to know show business (thank goodness!) just as you
don't pretend to know the deep end of computing (which I do<g>), there are
certain things you don't do in business, one of which is: cutting profit.
(Well, at least in capitalistic countries.)
So while I'm on pins and needles, they're not as sharp nor as agonizing as they
were at this time last year.
Keep up the good work my virtual friend.
See ya round the nets,
Casey J. Peter
IBM LAN Administrator
ISSC/IBM Boulder
cnt...@ibm.net
#: 514491 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
29-May-96 00:02:34
Sb: #514122-<WWE II>
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Thanks. Actually, the final demographic report just came out for the
second quarter of 1996, and we now officially have the *best* demographics of
ANY dramatic series in syndication, finally beating DS9 and Baywatch.
jms
[ Summary: Asks if JMS will have an ending similar to "The World
According to Garp," in which the story follows each of the characters
to their eventual deaths. ]
#: 514492 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
29-May-96 00:02:35
Sb: #513914-<War W/o End #2>
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
No, no Garp ending planned at this juncture.
jms
[ Summary: Wonders if the literary device of showing some of the end of the
story in the middle has been used elsewhere. ]
#: 514493 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
29-May-96 00:02:37
Sb: #514414-<War W/o End #2>
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
If you check out some of the more experimental South American magic
realism and fantasy work, you'll find this used a bit more. Also, I believe
that Pratchett and Gaiman's collaboration kind of began at the ending (unless
my memory is acting up again).
jms
#: 514372 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
28-May-96 21:09:47
Sb: #511862-#WWE <<Major Spoiler>>
Fm: STEVE BRIGHTMAN
> have the same subatomic particle exist in two separate places at the same >
time, much to everyone's consternation.
Joe, I don't know why the consternation. Back when I was learning to become a
physicist (I quit when it became too bizarre <g>) most particles were
considered to be defined in space by a probability function. Add to that the
wave/particle dualism thing and any particle probably exists in many places at
once.
On a different note I usually dislike the time travel thing and all the
paradoxes involved. However, in the case of WWE you wove it together with
Babylon Squared so well I'm simply in awe.
And on a final note if B4 can be sent back in time to save the day why can't
the Shadows send reinforcements back in time as well. After all aren't they
technically superior to the Minbari ?
Steve Brightman, The lurker formerly known as "Smeghead"
Pre-emptively multitasking since '87, here via Autopilot
#: 514494 S6/Babylon 5: Upcoming
29-May-96 00:02:40
Sb: #514372-WWE <<Major Spoiler>>
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Time travel isn't that easy, and at this juncture it will never happen
again in the B5 universe.
jms
[ Summary: The regular German poster, Na'Ka'Leen Feeder, post a detailed
message thanking all members of the forum, and especially JMS, for
enriching his life. ]
#: 514537 S5/Babylon 5: General
29-May-96 02:26:25
Sb: #514307-IT IS DONE
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
The thanks are entirely mine.
jms
Londo Mollari
>From Brent Barrett's <bbar...@speedlink.com> CIS reposts:
CASEY J. PETER wrote in CIS:
[snip]
> After seeing Broadcast's book on the ratings, it seems to me that demo-wise
> B5's actually doing better than all of WB's own stable of shows. Killing a
> show that makes it budget, does well in the syndi-ratings, has verifiable
> local station support, and has a VERY VOCAL cadre of fan support would be
> fool-hardy.
[snip]
JMS replied on CIS:
> Thanks. Actually, the final demographic report just came out for the
> second quarter of 1996, and we now officially have the *best* demographics of
> ANY dramatic series in syndication, finally beating DS9 and Baywatch.
>
> jms
Can someone post the details on this since it is almost impossible
for people outside the industry to get hold of B5 ratings on a
regular basis? What does "*best*" demographics of any dramatic
syndicated series actually mean? DS9 is almost always listed
in the top 10 of various demographic ratings published by
_Electronic_Media_ while B5 very rarely is.
If anyone (is Mr. Peter reading?) can take the time to give
a detailed posting of the data, it would be greatly appreciated.
Jeffrey D. Schultz
In article <01BB4D50...@bbarrett.speedlink.com> Brent Barrett,
bbar...@speedlink.com writes:
> Thanks. Actually, the final demographic report just came out for the
>second quarter of 1996, and we now officially have the *best* demographics of
>ANY dramatic series in syndication, finally beating DS9 and Baywatch.
>
> jms
This sounds like good news, but I don't know the full context of what
that means. Does B5 lead in *all* demographic groups (wouldn't that make
it number one in the ratings?), or does B5 lead in the *key* groups, or
what? Maybe it means that B5 is the most appealing show to advertisers,
even though it is not the most watched..?
* Jeff Schultz <*> jd...@cornell.edu <*> <http://mist.cit.cornell.edu/> *
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us
...and our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible
in-between." - Centauri emperor, The Coming of Shadows, Babylon 5.
******** Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell University *********
Jms at B5
Okay, I dug out the demographics report that just came in for 2nd quarter
1996. This will eventually be broken down into smaller and smaller groups
now that the quarter is done, so you can know how subset groups are doing,
but that won't be along for a while now, and won't contradict anything
here. (I'm very eager for the subset breakdown...should prove most
enlightening. The demos only break down the 18-49 age range as that's the
most fiscally important.)
Anyway, here's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
range, the most sought after group for advertisers, for men, women, and
both. The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
1000 is nearly impossible to get. Warners is *extremely* pleased by this;
it's the first time we've had the best demographics of all dramatic
series.
BABYLON 5
Women: 429
Men: 497
Both: 1057
DS9
Women: 408
Men: 473
Both: 881
BAYWATCH
Women:364
Men: 315
Both: 679
BAYWATCH NIGHTS
Women: 340
Men: 343
Both: 683
RENEGADE
Women: 369
Men: 362
Both: 731
HIGHLANDER
Women: 393
Men: 394
Both: 787
HERCULES
Women: 369
Men: 360
Both: 730
XENA
Women: 355
Men: 380
Both: 735
jms
Andrew Blanchard
On 31 May 1996 01:28:07 -0400, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
[SNIP]
>Anyway, here's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
>range, the most sought after group for advertisers, for men, women, and
>both. The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
>1000 is nearly impossible to get. Warners is *extremely* pleased by this;
>it's the first time we've had the best demographics of all dramatic
>series.
>
>BABYLON 5
>Women: 429
>Men: 497
>Both: 1057
Well the advertisers must want the show to be renewed then, I take it
that this is a good sign for there being a 4th and 5th season then?
I'm not going to ask the obvious - it'll be here soon enough.
Andy
/ Internet: The truth is out there... -------------------------------\
| -------- Andrew Blanchard -------- an...@zocalo.demon.co.uk -------- |
\-------------------------------- ...but I'm damned if I can find it. /
Londo Mollari
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> Okay, I dug out the demographics report that just came in for 2nd quarter
> 1996. This will eventually be broken down into smaller and smaller groups
> now that the quarter is done, so you can know how subset groups are doing,
> but that won't be along for a while now, and won't contradict anything
> here. (I'm very eager for the subset breakdown...should prove most
> enlightening. The demos only break down the 18-49 age range as that's the
> most fiscally important.)
>
> Anyway, here's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
> range, the most sought after group for advertisers, for men, women, and
> both. The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
> 1000 is nearly impossible to get. Warners is *extremely* pleased by this;
> it's the first time we've had the best demographics of all dramatic
> series.
>
> BABYLON 5
> Women: 429
> Men: 497
> Both: 1057
[snip]
Okay, I understand that the higher, the better. But what is
the actual number correspond to in terms of viewers? Or is
just some number that Nielson spits out but no one actual
knows what it means? ;-)
Thanks.
J.Norris
OK, now I'm confused. In JMS's message, excerpted below, the "Both"
figure seems to represent the total of women and men -- except for B5 and
Hercules. For Hercules, the difference is insignficant (369+360=729 rather
than 730), but for B5 it's huge (429+497=926, not 1057). Even the lower
number makes B5 number one by a nice margin, but I don't understand the
discrepancy. Enlightenment?
In article <4om017$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
wrote:
[Okay, I dug out the demographics report that just came in for 2nd quarter
[1996. ... [H]ere's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
[range ... The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
[1000 is nearly impossible to get.
[
[BABYLON 5
[Women: 429
[Men: 497
[Both: 1057
[
[DS9
Andrew Johnston
>Anyway, here's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
>range, the most sought after group for advertisers, for men, women, and
>both. The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
>1000 is nearly impossible to get. Warners is *extremely* pleased by this;
>it's the first time we've had the best demographics of all dramatic
>series.
>
>BABYLON 5
>Women: 429
>Men: 497
>Both: 1057
Amazing! That's great news, but....
>BAYWATCH
>Women:364
>Men: 315
>Both: 679
Am I the only one who's astonished that BAYWATCH
has better demos with women than with men?
That's downright bizarre!
--
Andrew Johnston and...@echonyc.com/a.joh...@worldnet.att.net
"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist"
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Brian 'Doc' O'Neill
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> BABYLON 5
> Women: 429
> Men: 497
> Both: 1057
Ummm...not to be picky, but this doesn't add up...429+497=926, not
1057...is Zathras running the Neilsens now? It would explain a lot...
:^)
--
======================================================================
Brian O'Neill - Director of Computing, Computer Science (508) 934-3645
University of Massachusetts at Lowell <*> one...@cs.uml.edu
"And the eighth deadly sin is PIZZA" - Jimmy Buffett, Bank of Bad Habits
Kim Sommer
Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote:
: Okay, I dug out the demographics report that just came in for 2nd quarter
: now that the quarter is done, so you can know how subset groups are doing,
: but that won't be along for a while now, and won't contradict anything
: here. (I'm very eager for the subset breakdown...should prove most
: enlightening. The demos only break down the 18-49 age range as that's the
: most fiscally important.)
: Anyway, here's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
: range, the most sought after group for advertisers, for men, women, and
: both. The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
: 1000 is nearly impossible to get. Warners is *extremely* pleased by this;
: it's the first time we've had the best demographics of all dramatic
: series.
: BABYLON 5
: Women: 429
: Men: 497
: Both: 1057
[other shows trimmed but <1000]
Holy cow. Congratulations! I don't know what kind of standard
deviations are attached to these numbers but it looks like you're smoking
the competition.
And yes, the breakdowns might prove most enlightening. Maybe even
provide a good reason to get another issue of Micro Machines out.
Kim
--
-------
Kim A. Sommer - kaso...@kiva.net
-or- kas...@dice.nwscc.sea06.navy.mil
//Aikido, B5, Team OS/2, things that go zoom//
LMCostich
>BABYLON 5
>Women: 429
>Men: 497
>Both: 1057
>
>
I don't understand what these numbers mean. Intuitively, the "Both"
category would be the sum of "Women" and "Men". Even *my* math skills are
good enough to tell me that this is wrong. So, if "Both" is not men and
women together, what is it??? Narn & Centauri?
Also, does this mean that 429 women out of (insert number here) were
watching B5 on a given night? Or does it mean something else entirely?
Like perhaps that the Neilson company is practicing voodoo and they
sacrificed 429 chickens in front of the houses of 429 women?
Can anyone explain?
Lisa the Neilson impaired
Lorrie Wood
In article <a.johnston-31...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Andrew Johnston <a.joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Am I the only one who's astonished that BAYWATCH
>has better demos with women than with men?
>That's downright bizarre!
Why not? Leering is an equal opportunity activity.
I mean, not that you'd catch me dead watching "Buttwatch,"
but there's a point to be made in ... recreational objectification,
if you will.
-- Lorrie
--
Lorrie Wood lor...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
Proponent/proposed moderator, soc.religion.paganism -- Babylon 5 fan
CDA Protest: Fuck Senator Exon and the dead gay horse he rode in on.
Jay Denebeim
In article <a.johnston-31...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Andrew Johnston <a.joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>BAYWATCH
>>Women:364
>>Men: 315
>>Both: 679
>
>Am I the only one who's astonished that BAYWATCH
>has better demos with women than with men?
>That's downright bizarre!
And by a hefty margin as well. I thought it was quite bizzare too.
For instance, look at XENA, you'd expect baywatch to have the same
sort of demos as xena...
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: ras...@solon.com *
* moderator contact address: rastb5-...@solon.com *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
John Beaderstadt
Andrew Blanchard wrote:
> >BABYLON 5
> >Women: 429
> >Men: 497
> >Both: 1057
>
> Well the advertisers must want the show to be renewed then, I take it
> that this is a good sign for there being a 4th and 5th season then?
>
> I'm not going to ask the obvious - it'll be here soon enough.
And here it is: 429 + 497 = 926. Who supplied the other 131 "votes"?
--
"The fortunate man knows how much he can safely leave to chance."
-- Lady Barbara Hornblower
Jms at B5
I've checked into this (the 1057 figure), and they sent out a new report
and it's still the same figure. If you add the two figures together,
they're 926, which is *still* the highest figure around, so the facts
still stand.
We had broken 1000 several other times in the "both" category, the week of
4/1 at 1057 and 4/29 at 1022; don't have the other weeks at hand.
I talked at length to one of the researchers about this, and he said he
was going to backtrack with the Neilsen company and see what they had to
say. (They're the company that actually does the computations and pulls
in the figures, WB has nothing to do with it, all syndicated shows get the
same reports.)
He did indiate that there are a certain percentage of forms that come in
where the person with the ratings book for one reason or another chooses
not to put down either his/her sex or the sex of the person watching with
them. (Some consider it a privacy issue, some don't want to indicate that
they're alone at home at night watching with a person of the same sex, so
they "forget" to put it down, or just withhold the information.) So
there's always some variance; they can't just ignore the data of the
number of persons watching, but they can't plug in what they don't have.
For instance, in Hercules for that quarter, you've got a figure of 369 for
women, 360 for men, and a total of 730, which is 1 more than the two
figures combined.
So the researcher is going to backtrack some more, but indicated that it
may be that we have an unusually high number of same-sex couples who watch
the show, but may be somewhat closeted about it. Which would be
consistent with the fact that we get a lot of mail from gays and lesbians
who watch the show.
I'll be out of town for a couple weeks, but will eventually get back to
this.
jms
Andrew Blanchard
>Andrew Blanchard wrote:
>
>> >BABYLON 5
>> >Women: 429
>> >Men: 497
>> >Both: 1057
>>
>> Well the advertisers must want the show to be renewed then, I take it
>> that this is a good sign for there being a 4th and 5th season then?
>>
>> I'm not going to ask the obvious - it'll be here soon enough.
>
>And here it is: 429 + 497 = 926. Who supplied the other 131 "votes"?
I meant renewal actually, as I never noticed this. Hmm. Either math
not JMS skill again or the Shadows are doing someting positive...
Anyone have the correct figures then?
mike foy
Obviously some of the voters had partial Minbari souls and rated two vote
(one for the human half and one for the Minbari portion)
Eric Lowell Davis
The figures are very surprising; isn't Baywatch the most popular tv show
in the world?
-Eric
In article <4oqs0h$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
wrote:
Eric Davis
Berkeley Internet Connections
er...@berkeleyic.com
http://www.berkeleyic.com
Andre Leopold
[snip]
>BABYLON 5
>Women: 429
>Men: 497
>Both: 1057
I just wonder, what exactly do these numbers mean (like, a share, a
rating, or whatever else)?
Bye,
Andre
--
Andre Leopold - l...@btp2x5.phy.uni-bayreuth.de
Roger Halstead
Deleted stuff...
> : Anyway, here's the breakdown for the second quarter in the 18-49 age
> : range, the most sought after group for advertisers, for men, women, and
> : both. The higher the number, the better your coverage within that group;
> : 1000 is nearly impossible to get. Warners is *extremely* pleased by this;
> : it's the first time we've had the best demographics of all dramatic
> : series.
>
> : BABYLON 5
> : Women: 429
> : Men: 497
> : Both: 1057
> [other shows trimmed but <1000]
Deleted stuff...
These figures are great...Now consider that B-5 was going up against shows
that were, in general, broadcast in "much" better time slots.
Roger Halstead http://members.mdn.net/rdhalste/index.htm
Jon S Anthony
> I've checked into this (the 1057 figure), and they sent out a new report
> and it's still the same figure. If you add the two figures together,
> they're 926, which is *still* the highest figure around, so the facts
> still stand.
>
> We had broken 1000 several other times in the "both" category, the week of
> 4/1 at 1057 and 4/29 at 1022; don't have the other weeks at hand.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe it is meant as a "peak" number? Highest that was received for
the period?
/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178
Eric Pawtowski
Just remember, everyone, that the figures posted are demographics, not
ratings. Please don't go off into other newsgroups and shout that B5
has better ratings than Baywatch, it doesn't. It has better demographics.
People still shouldn't go shouting about it on other groups (it only makes
the people who read those groups mad) but if you *must*, at least use
the correct term.
Eric
--
epaw...@vt.edu----------------------------------------------------
Roxanne
On 1 Jun 1996 02:33:05 -0400, dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay
Denebeim) wrote:
>Andrew Johnston <a.joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Am I the only one who's astonished that BAYWATCH
>>has better demos with women than with men?
>>That's downright bizarre!
How so? Think about this...fashion and entertainment magazines are
the most pervasive in the publishing industry...and these are mainly
pitched to...and purchased by... women. These magazines usually
feature beautiful...scantily clad... women. Sound familiar? Now
consider the same demographics for a series like Melrose Place that
also features..beautiful..scantily clad women. Guess what? It's also
mostly watched by women.
Btw, the women of Baywatch are often featured in fashion and
entertainment magazines. Since women tend to watch other women for
beauty and fashion tips among other things these demographs are not at
all bizarre or strange.
>And by a hefty margin as well. I thought it was quite bizzare too.
Ahhhh my dear Jay...that's because women have no problems looking at
or critiquing other women..... <grin>
Ooops...I think I just gave away some inside info... ;>
*INCOMING!*
Peace.
Roxanne.
---------"Lovemaking is the consolation for living in the body just
as art is the consolation for living in the world."
Helmut -- The God In Flight.
Daniel M Silevitch
In article <eric-01069...@ericld.vip.best.com>,
Eric Lowell Davis <er...@berkeleyic.com> wrote:
[Syndicated demographic ratings snipped]
:The figures are very surprising; isn't Baywatch the most popular tv show
:in the world?
Yes. These figures, however, are strictly US-based, and in the
US, Baywatch is not nearly as popular as it is in Europe and
elsewhere. I guess that there is hope for this country after
all....
-dms
Andre Leopold
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, randall katz wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960602...@btp2x5.phy.uni-bayreuth.de> you wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >BABYLON 5
> > >Women: 429
> > >Men: 497
> > >Both: 1057
> > [snip]
>
> > I just wonder, what exactly do these numbers mean (like, a share, a
> > rating, or whatever else)?
>
> > Bye,
> > Andre
>
>
> In terms of general ratings, there are usually two numbers, the rating
> itself and the share. The rating is given in points, and refers directly
> to how many TV households watched the show.
[snip (explanation of share and rating)]
Yes, but what do -these- *points to the numbers in the demographics*
numbers mean? Obviously, they neither represent a rating (otherwise, with
over 1 billion people between 18 and 49 watching the show it would never
have to worry about renewal again :) ) nor do they represent a share. So
again, what do these numbers mean? Perhaps added up ratings (hm, let's
say a quarter of a year = 13 weeks, so one week would be 1057/13=81.3,
that multiplied with 950000 viewers per rating point gives about 77
million viewers per week, which is still too high obviously, so it's not a
rating like this), or added up shares (in the group of viewers between
18 and 49)?
Jamie Plummer
I'm still in the dark as to what these numbers actually mean
429 what? 1057 what? Couls someone please clear this up?
--
Jamie Plummer jc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu
Save MST!!! go to http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jcp9j/canceled.html
"Ask yourself if you have what it takes to be a columnist... do you have enough self-confidence so that after studying a magazine article on brain
surgery for 20 minutes, you feel comfortable giving a lecture to a thousand brain surgeons on what's wrong with their profession?" - David Brooks