[golfhobo]

I didn't think this was possible, but this subject is even more irrelevant than the whole Imus thing.

I think you might have been right the first time, Rev. I'm not sure that there are "degrees" of irrelevancy. Maybe degrees of Relavancy, but if something is irrelevant.... can it be MORE irrelevant? Or the MOST irrelevant thing?

Hmm..... just wondering (to keep from falling asleep!) :wink:

[Fredog]

I only posted it to see what kind of responses it would get. I dont know what their true rating is, but I'm sure it's pretty low, but they have some listeners who enjoy them, and if you enjoy them, then who gives a crap if you listen to them? Why does it matter to some of you what other people enjoy? I know a few who always listened to them until Howard came back and then they switched to him, when Howard leaves, they will probably go back to O@A IF they are still on. The main thing is we have a choice.
I dont think Imus should have been fired, this country is getting too wussified, if he said something that offended you, dont listen. He has always been a racist idiot. When are Sharpton and Jackson going to be fired? They are the biggest racists on the planet. By the way, 3 of the ( nappy headed ho's) are white, why is nobody worried about them being offended?

[Fredog]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I think you might have been right the first time, Rev. I'm not sure that there are "degrees" of irrelevancy. Maybe degrees of Relavancy, but if something is irrelevant.... can it be MORE irrelevant? Or the MOST irrelevant thing?

Hmm..... just wondering (to keep from falling asleep!) :wink:

I think the proper term would be "least relevant"

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Fredog

I think the proper term would be "least relevant"

That falls under "degrees of relevancy." If something IS relevant, to some degree, it might be more or less relevant than something else.

But, if we say something IS "irrelevant." It has no relationship to be quantified.

Just my opinion, maybe. Probably not "information." :lol:

[Jack_07]

I think you have to be sick in the head to enjoy that rude and lewd stuff, all they are is radio pornogrophy, but thats my opinion.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

That falls under "degrees of relevancy." If something IS relevant, to some degree, it might be more or less relevant than something else.

But, if we say something IS "irrelevant." It has no relationship to be quantified.

I contend that there are degrees of irrelevancy as well. And, since I always back my comments up with proof ( :lol: ), I'll quantify my position:

ir·rel·e·vant (?-r?l'?-v?nt)
adj.

Unrelated to the matter being considered.

Since the word "irrelevant" means that it is unrelated to the matter being considered, we need to look at the matter being considered. I have stated the subject of Opie and Anthony are more irrelevant than the subject of Imus. I never stated what I was comparing their relevancy to (nor do I intend to). Therefore, there is no basis upon which an outsider can compare their relevancy (or irrelevancy), and so there is no basis to dismiss which one is the most irrelevant.

So, in conclusion, my statement was correct, as my perception of their irrelevancy was never quantified.

So there. :P

[Fredog]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I contend that there are degrees of irrelevancy as well. And, since I always back my comments up with proof ( :lol: ), I'll quantify my position:

ir·rel·e·vant (?-r?l'?-v?nt)
adj.

Unrelated to the matter being considered.

Since the word "irrelevant" means that it is unrelated to the matter being considered, we need to look at the matter being considered. I have stated the subject of Opie and Anthony are more irrelevant than the subject of Imus. I never stated what I was comparing their relevancy to (nor do I intend to). Therefore, there is no basis upon which an outsider can compare their relevancy (or irrelevancy), and so there is no basis to dismiss which one is the most irrelevant.

So, in conclusion, my statement was correct, as my perception of their irrelevancy was never quantified.

So there. :P

I forgot what we were talking about

[ben45750]

Originally Posted by Fredog

I forgot what we were talking about

Leave it to Rev to turn it into a bore fest. Now we are focusing on the definition of irrelevant :roll:

But it all comes back to the fact Howard lies to his fans.

[ben45750]

Originally Posted by Fredog

I dont know what their true rating is, but I'm sure it's pretty low

So if you don't know what their rating is, how can you be sure it's low?


I think it's hilarious when O&A play Howard clips. Howard should be paying O&A because he is being heard by more people on the O&A show than his own show.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by ben45750

But it all comes back to the fact Howard lies to his fans.

Who cares? It's an entertainment radio program. It isn't real. :roll:

I'll let you in on a little secret. You know the sitcoms that they play on TV? Those aren't real either. Neither are the movies that they play in theaters. They are all lies, designed to entertain.

It's only when yahoo's like you try to pretend that they actually mean something that things get all confusing for you.

Originally Posted by ben45750

I think it's hilarious when O&A play Howard clips. Howard should be paying O&A because he is being heard by more people on the O&A show than his own show.

I trust you have some sort of numbers to back this claim up with..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: