A hole in the ground

Let me repeat, "At least the ones watching MSNBC."

What I meant was that when Olbermann gets serious, there's a certain gravity to what he's saying. It's compelling. Yes, we all know O'Reilly's ratings are better. Let's move past that.

 

It's good that you're finally realizing my superiority.

Progress.

 

So not only are you misstating what you originally said, now you're putting words in my mouth. You, sir, are no Olbermann -- but on second thought, maybe you are.

 

And here they told me you had no sense of humor!

 

Why is it that the first criticism which the O'Loofah lovers always have of Olbermann is his supposedly low ratings?

 

See: Reply #47 on this thread.

 

O'Loofah. Ha!

 

If you've been paying attention, you'll know I've said O'Reilly is a blowhard. He and Olbermann are two sides of the same, ridiculous coin.

 

Y'know, Webster, you have a very good point. And the same applies to those who point to O'Loofah's ratings, too.

Lyman, serious question here, and I promise I'm not trying to pile on: Why DO you and others constantly bring up ratings when arguing these kinds of issues?

 

If he's reading just comic books and cereal boxes, he has the president beat, at least.

 

Because, apparently, for all the glory Olbermann is coated in on this site, the public at large doesn't really seem to be buying it. Kind of like the "I don't understand how Nixon won, everybody I know voted for McGovern" philosophy.