Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Its objective (and i intentionaly used that word with hopes of channeling my inner silver). The reason it is objective is that you take two identical playlists put one on the regular radio and one on satilite radio everyone would listen to satilite radio.
No comercials is objectively better than comercials.
More selection over content is objectively better than less selection over content.
Now once you ask the question is satilite radio worth the cost over regular radio that is a subjective opinion.
|
But that's not how it works. You can't take the pay portion out of it and still speak to satellite radio. It's imbedded as part of it.
The question is(and it is only THIS question:
Is commercial free radio with more channels at a monthly fee objectively better than free radio with commercials and a smaller selection?
That's it, you can't take out one element and still say you're comparing them equally. If you're taking out the financial part of the equation, you should also take out the commercial-free and higher selection part of the equation.
Plus, you've got it backwards. If you put two identical playlists on Satellite and FM, everyone would listen to FM. Why? Because it's the exact same thing for FREE.
You know what, it GMG that people don't understand the objective value of things or how to compare them properly. You can't just change the makeup of something and say "Well everyone would like it if it didn't have this one thing!" A. You're no longer comparing the actual product, and B. Your still only considering subjective value. Just enjoy your stupid radio like a normal human being.
What's wrong with me? I'm debating radio on the Internet. What kind of backwards world is this?