Carmel Group Merger Points
Jimmy Schaeffler of Carmel Group published an interesting article regarding the merger. Carmel Group did some initial studies on the merger, and I have in the past conversed with Mr. Schaeffler, and conducted an in depth interview based on his opinions. That article is available in the archives of Satellite Standard Group.
As with any opinion there are opposing points of view. In his article Schaeffler offers a comparison between the wine industry and the satellite radio industry and draws a conclusion that the merger is not a good thing for consumers. In summary the article offers the following example of an event in the wine industry”
The 2-Buck-Chuck Test
“‘The 2-Buck-Chuck Test’ title comes from the remarkable wine product offered by vintner Charles Shaw, who, several years ago, began competing with the significantly higher-priced wines in the national market place by, for example, selling a bottle of quality cabernet for two dollars. The move was revolutionary because not only did Shaw sell a remarkable quantity of spirits, but the competition was forced to respond (and produce more value), and the consumer was treated to a stunningly valuable offering (which the consumer loves, I can assure you from talking with my friends in the wine industry). All three parts of this consuming cycle benefited, and the economic model called basic capitalism did best what it does best: It competed head-to-head and things improved.”
From this example Mr. Schaeffler goes to this:
“Satellite radio is really just a varietal among many other choices. And the problem there is that if you allow the XM-Sirius merger, it is the equivalent of allowing Gallo to purchase the sole remaining competitive cabernet sauvignon producer, leaving just one single maker of cabernet sauvignon. I drink what Gallo gives me (and only that).
I can still go out and purchase merlot, or a zinfandel, or really a lot of other red wines. But what if I just want to purchase cabernet sauvignon – or, in our example, satellite radio – and the merger means there is now only one maker and one choice of cabernet sauvignon … or satellite radio? Is that the best way to run an economy? You pick a business and simply eliminate competition by permitting mergers and telling consumers that other, different types of products or services are adequate substitutes (even if they are not)?
And what if the cost of getting into the cabernet sauvignon – or satellite radio – business is so great that it means, de facto, that no one else will enter and no other competitor for cabernet sauvignon or satellite radio will ever compete? Do you solve my problem by just telling me, well, go drink another type of red wine? Or do you solve my problem of no intra-industry satellite radio competition by telling me my only answer is to go through the hassle, the huge learning curve, and time and cost of downloading scores or hundreds of songs, and buying an expensive device that I don’t want? Or do you solve my problem by telling me to simply listen instead to ad-filled AM-FM broadcast radio?”
Now if I may, I would like to present the opposing argument:
1. Mr. Schaeffler states that, “satellite radio is really just a varietal among many other choices”. A correct statement. But, given the fact that satellite radio is just one variety of choice, the emergence of one satellite radio company or two would have had a similar impact. When satellite radio was first developed and launched, the choices were fewer. There was terrestrial radio, pre-recorded content on CD’s and satellite radio. Now the landscape has changed dramatically, and some of those new competitors have had more success than satellite radio (such as iPods).
2. The merger is not the equivalent of letting Gallo purchase the sole remaining cabernet sauvignon. A varietal is a term used for differing wines made from the same grape variety. For the audio entertainment landscape, this would translate to the content being offered, not the method of delivery. The varietal is audio entertainment. FM, AM, HD, cellular, Internet, MP3, Slacker, and satellite are all methods of delivery from which consumers can access content. Essentially these methods of delivery are all focused on providing audio entertainment and information (the common product) to consumers. The merger of satellite radio still allows for many differing delivery methods that the consumer has a choice in, and in point of fact the consumer can get the same audio entertainment (the varietal) if satellite radio merged, OR, did not exist at all.
3. The argument of the cost of getting into the satellite radio business being cost prohibitive steps away from the varietal that the article is based on. The method of delivery in the initial phase of the article is not the issue. The cost of getting into the satellite radio business would equate to how Gallo, or any cabernet sauvignon company choose to deliver their product, not the product being delivered. In the case of audio entertainment, if I were to sit Mr. Schaeffler into a new Ford with SYNC, and play him Rush’s “YYZ”, he likely could not tell me whether it was delivered via AM, FM, HD, cell, CD, MP3, Slacker, XM or Sirius. Mr. Schaeffler could in fact hear YYZ on all of those mediums.
4. Mr. Schaeffler states (or implies) that other delivery mediums are not adequate substitutes. How does he draw this conclusion. Millions upon millions of MP3 players have been sold. Millions upon millions of terrestrial radios have been sold. Millions upon millions of cell phones have been sold. Satellite radio is a very small percentage of the audio entertainment industy (a bit over 4%). 50% of those that try satellite radio in their new car make the choice to NOT SUBSCRIBE. Are these people listening to road noise? Or are they more likely satisfied with a differing delivery method giving them their audio entertainment?
5. Mr. Schaeffler states that AM-FM is ad filled, and perhaps a this is something that dis satisfies consumers. The main difference between terrestrial radio from a consumer perspective is the commercials. With terrestrial the price of listening to audio entertainment comes in the form of commercials. Dollars do not change hands, but your time is taken away in the form of commercials. With satellite, you do not have to listen to commercials, but do have to part with some cash. It is a time vs. dollars issue. Whichever the consumer values more will be their choice.
6. Consumers are attracted to satellite, not because of how it is delivered, but because of what is delivered.
7. Terrestrial radio is available in may ways. In point of fact nearly every car sold in the country has a terrestrial radio installed and that installation is subsidy free. I have yet to see a car that came with satellite radio and did not have a terrestrial radio. I have seen thousands upon thousands that come with terrestrial radio but do not include satellite.
8. The price point of free for terrestrial radio is part of what keeps satellite radio prices in check. If the OEM take rate was at 65% or more, then it would imply that consumers feel that satellite radio is so compelling that they have to have it. If a $12.95 price point only attracts half of those that get exposed to the service, how much room in upward price movement does satellite radio actually have?
Schaeffler points out some things to consider, but also makes some comparisons that are well off base. At the end of the day, we have satellite radio making up less than 5% of radio listening. Toss in MP3’s, cells, Internet, etc., and there is no way that you can conclude that this merger creates a giant that is going to cause a shift that crushes other markets.
Position – Long Sirius, Long XM, No Position Ford, No Position wineries.
I remember the Carmel Group’s original statement regarding satellite radio, “…satellite radio, with more than seven mil. subscribers, and its competition comes in the form of traditional analog AM & FM radio, as well as burgeoning services like MP3 players, terrestrial radio, and video- and Internet-to-the-vehicle. ”
The Carmel Group would obviously state that Toyota has a monopoly on the Toyota Prius if someone paid them.
>>> The main difference between terrestrial radio from a consumer perspective is the commercials. With terrestrial the price of listening to audio entertainment comes in the form of commercials. Dollars do not change hands, but your time is taken away in the form of commercials. With satellite, you do not have to listen to commercials, but do have to part with some cash. It is a time vs. dollars issue. Whichever the consumer values more will be their choice.
This argument is absurd.
To suggest that inserting 1/3 commercials into the music channels does not fundamentally alter the product is just ridiculous. You aren’t getting the SAME product and just paying for it differently. You are getting a different product altogether. Which is a rather obvious fact.
>>> Millions upon millions of MP3 players have been sold. Millions upon millions of terrestrial radios have been sold.
Which have absolutely nothing satellite radio. You could just as easily talk about the billions of CDs that have been sold over the years.
>>> Millions upon millions of cell phones have been sold.
Again, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Cell phones are, well, phones, not satellite radios.
>>> Satellite radio is a very small percentage of the audio entertainment industy (a bit over 4%).
Yes, exactly what was predicted in the original SDARS Report and Order for this time, YEARS ago. So, what has changed?
>> 50% of those that try satellite radio in their new car make the choice to NOT SUBSCRIBE. Are these people listening to road noise? Or are they more likely satisfied with a differing delivery method giving them their audio entertainment?
What does that have to do with anything? Maybe they’re listening to CDs. Maybe to terrestrial or iPods. They simply made a choice to listen to something OTHER than satellite radio.
This really isn’t complicated; I don’t see why it is so difficult for you that you have to hear it over and over again from different people and still can’t comprehend it. Satellite radio is not the same as an iPod or as terrestrial.
Duh.
You feel that the argunemt is absurd. Thats fine. I would expect nothing different from you given your feeling on sirius and on the merger. How many times have you heard, “Why would I pay for radio”?
MP3 players DO have something to do with satellite radio. They are competing for the attention of the consumer. I could have mentioned CD’s and that would be relevant as well. The CD business is on a dowside. I was speaking more in line with how consumers are reacting to audio entertainment choices today and in the future. Your sentiment on CD’s likely explains why your cell phone comment was what it was….speaking of which:
You said, “a cell is, well, a phone”
This is a statement that someone who is not following the industry would make. Yesterday I had 91 emails on my cell phone. I had 32 phone calls. I also went onto the internet several times, and got the afternoon drive traffic report. I guess those e-mails and internet use don’t count in your book. Look at the iPhone. millions sold at top dollar…..In your view those people are just looking for phone capability though. The fact is that the cell phone goes WELL BEYOND phone calls these days, and with each passing month they do more and more.
As for OEMN take rates. The fact that they made a choice other than satellite radio is compelling. They made a decision and had many other avenues of choice available. A merger will not change this. Consumers have many choices. Schaefflers argument falls on its face here.
Satellite radio is a business that competes in a wide landscape. You can deny it all you want, but it does not change that fact.
By the way, check out these cool cell phones that are, well, phones 🙂
http://products.vzw.com/index......ads//music
http://www.apple.com/iphone/
and thats just a few
Frontmed is a extremist, and pointless to argue with him. He has already eluded that if the DOJ and FCC were to approve this merger then they would have been wrong to do so. I think the DOJ has a little more knowledge on antitrust matters then Frontmed does. But maybe he thinks they dont care about that or the publics welfare. He might believe they are in the pocket of Mel K., or maybe they are mad becuase they were not given any of NABs money. There must be some reason they would approve a merger (no matter how crazy) that gos against most antitrust laws and would be such a monopoly as Frontmed has stated. Trust me Tyler you would be better off trying to convince a North Korean his leader should be replaced. Also thank you for your work Tyler, I find the articles to be vary informative.
>>> How many times have you heard, “Why would I pay for radio”?
Many times. Never from anyone who had tried satellite radio, however.
>>> They are competing for the attention of the consumer.
So are televisions. Why are you not counting THEM as competition?
Is it possible, in your opinion, to have a merger that is anticompetitive? If so, could you provide an example of a merger between two companies that you would consider to be anticompetitive, i.e., one which should be challenged by the DOJ?
>>> Yesterday I had 91 emails on my cell phone. I had 32 phone calls. I also went onto the internet several times, and got the afternoon drive traffic report. I guess those e-mails and internet use don’t count in your book.
Well, they count as Internet access and emails. But they certainly don’t count as competition for sat radios.
>>> The fact that they made a choice other than satellite radio is compelling.
Nonsense. They simply decided they didn’t want to pay for sat radio. Duh.
>> I think the DOJ has a little more knowledge on antitrust matters then Frontmed does.
I totally agree. And by the most credible accounts, the people who actually have the knowledge are recommending AGAINST allowing the merger.
Frontmed is not an antitrust expert, but he has done his homework with an open mind. Tyler wants the merger and I fully respect his right to post here with that POV. But it doesn’t mean it would be a righteous outcome.
The decision by DOJ should, IMO, be based on the law and the law is absolutely clear. Unfortunately, it is a political process (as Tyler has admitted), and politics may rule the day. As a consumer, I don’t want that, as it is obviously anti-consumer, just as Schaffler’s article points out.
I think anyone who has developed even a moderate understanding of the concepts involved can understand what the CORRECT outcome would be. That does not mean the correct outcome will occur (or won’t).
>>> He might believe they are in the pocket of Mel K
I don’t think they’re “in the pocket” of Mel. I do believe Mel has done a great job of selling the concept (not only to regulators, but to XM’s management, who were totally made fools of in the negotiations — but that’s another story).
Mel had his own reasons for the merger — Sirius is in a huge jam if it doesn’t go through. And he understood that the DOJ was more friendly to mergers RIGHT NOW than they’ve ever been. So, if you’re going to try it, now is the best time ever.
But it has been a huge, expensive mistake. Even if it is approved, the so-called synergies will not materialize, certainly not the kinds of numbers they’ve claimed. Just isn’t going to happen. This is all about buying time for SIRI to get its financial situation straightened out.
I believe Mel was smart enough to sell this nonsense to XM’s institutional shareholders, and XM management probably didn’t have much choice in the matter. I would love to have heard THAT pitch.
Once again I am not going to argue with you most of the premises you use for your arguements are faulty. You can’t give me one sane reason they would approve considering your argument of it going totally against antitrust law and being a total monopoly. Example you say it is political most congressmen disaprove of the merger considering the letters sent so far by them. Now I believe congress can be influenced other wise lobbyist would be out of a job. You are like that North Korean that has had half of his family killed by starvation and the other half suffering from it, and instead of believing it to be his leaders fault, blames the United States, and would never be convinced otherwise, Reguardless of the facts. You were the only one I have read from, that stated; it would be wrong for this to be approved but thinks it might still be. that is a total counterdiction. Unless you were to believe the FCC and DOJ to be dishonest or criminal in there actions which is still not a sane reason. Even you have to believe that they have got to have a good enough reason to approve. They just cant say okydoky, and leave it at that.
One more premise which is faulty the people that you say are against the merger is first of all rumor. Second they are the underlings for a reason, if they knew it all they would not be underlings, they would be at the top making the decisions, not giving the top people the condensed information which is there main job. That you think the underlings opinion should be trusted over the people in charge of making the decision is another faulty premise. Hell why dont we let junior executives make the desions for all the companies, not going to happen ever. Next I put that Mel K. thing in as a crazy reason. Yet you believe it to some extent. What is Mel K. the antichrist he waves his hand and everybody believes everything coming out of his mouth. I give the executives at XMSR and millions of share holders more credit then that. But that is your premise that he has some how hoodwinked XMSR the people hired (independant)to look at the merger and millions of others invested.
Hey Frontmed whats the next argument you want to have, that Mel is the antichrist. LOL
At first when I read the concept of Gallo and the cabernet sauvignon, it kinda made sense… it does seem similar. But when I thought about it my opinion changed.
Wine, as with most products, is mostly unregulated when it comes to competition. You can open a vineyard and sell wine relatively easily, and the government won’t get involved too much. This is like most things. I can start a company and make tv’s, computers, hammers, whatever… and who cares. These are all consumer products where competition is expected. And sure if I take over my biggest competitor and have over 50% of the market, maybe the DOJ will try to stop me.
Fair enough… so Gallo would not likely be able to take over the last remaining Cabernet makers and thereby control the market, even though there would be other wine choices.
But SatRad is a totally different animal. It was regulated by the government from the get go. No new players can enter the market without FCC approval. And there were only two licenses given at the start, for XM and Sirius, thereby creating a Duopoly right from the beginning.
Why would the government of the united states, the most capitalistic and competitive country in the world, organize a government sanctioned duopoly in SatRad? It doesn’t actually matter why, they just did it. (as a side note which is explained further at the end, a capitalistic country like the usa should in theory eagerly create duopolies because in theory a duopoly would lead to perfect competition… but in reality this theory will never hold because of differentiation, and many other factors, so Sirius and XM are technically not a duopoly, and in reality there are no duopolies whatsoever in the universe)
So what’s the difference between a duopoly (such is the current satrad state), and a monopoly (if you consider Sirius and XM merging to be a monopoly)… well it would seem to me that in this case, there is not much difference between a monopoly and a duopoly. Both would offer limited choice if you consider satrad to be an exclusive segment. And since the government already sanctioned and created the duopoly with limited choice, why would they really care if they allowed a monopoly in this industry. They wouldn’t. So even if you conclude that the merger would create a monopoly, I still say the government will allow it.
And some will say, “but at least with a duopoly there is some competition, whereas with a monopoly the consumers are guaranteed to lose.” Well, this is wrong and arrogant because: if you are narrow minded enough to call a merged satrad industry a monopoly even though they are just a tiny part of the whole radio and audio device market, then why not break everything down to the atomic level. You can just as well say that Sirius has a monopoly on Howard Stern because you can’t listen to him on XM, or that McDonald’s has a monopoly on Big Macs because you can’t buy a Big Mac at Burger King. There are always some limits to choice. This also ties into Tyler’s argument of the varietal.
Now some would argue that in the true sense of the word, a duopoly is actually a great thing for consumers because in theory, a duopoly would lead to perfect competition and marginal cost pricing, so a duopoly would actually technically be considered by the governemtn to be a great thing for consumers (you can look it up). If you look at other duopoly’s of sorts like Pepsi and Coke or AMD and Intel, yes it would be true that the consumers benefit because of the competition. But not to the theoretical maximum, so in reality these are not actual duopoly’s in a positive sense, just as consumers are not being aided by Sirius and XM as separate entities to a maximum extent.
The positive results are limited because of the differentiation of the products. XM and Sirius are not commodities… they are different services with different products. They would never reach a level of perfect pricing, so having them survive in a pseudo duopoly would never yield absolutely positive results, and neither would allowing a ‘monopoly’ but there would not be much difference.
So, in the technical theoretical world, a Monopoly and Duopoly are deemed to have the completely opposite effects on the consumers, but I would argue that in a practical sense, they are almost identical.
And if we take this one step further, (I know I’ve lost all of you already, so why not just give’r) since a duopoly and a monopoly are the same, and if we assume that xm and sirius are currently in a pseudo duopoly, we can extrapolate that they are also already in a monopoly, and as such, are, for all practical purposes, already merged. Think that one out, because it actually makes sense. Sirius and Xm are already merged, all that remains is to consolidate the balance sheets and some paperwork. They have over the years, being a pseudo duopoly, basically competed themselves out of business, and they are no longer able to compete against each other, but they are working together to compete against the other audio entertainment providers.
Anyone writing an economics thesis because this one is a doozie – “Duopoly leads to Monopoly or Duopoly is Monopoly?” or even better “Duopoly = Monopoly + Monopoly = Monopoly” Guaranteed A+
Just in case it is not clear, I’m for the merger OORAH
>>> So what’s the difference between a duopoly (such is the current satrad state), and a monopoly (if you consider Sirius and XM merging to be a monopoly)… well it would seem to me that in this case, there is not much difference between a monopoly and a duopoly.
Apparently, Mel thinks there is —
“You are dealing with two
companies — it would be
great if there was a monopoly,
but the second best thing to a
monopoly is a duopoly.”
— Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin (Ad Age, April 22, 2005)
Take it up with Mel.
>>> Once again I am not going to argue with you most of the premises you use for your arguements are faulty.
Saying this and showing it with facts are two different things. My arguments are faulty if and only if you can show them to be faulty.
>>> You can’t give me one sane reason they would approve considering your argument of it going totally against antitrust law and being a total monopoly.
Obviously, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I recommend you go read up on the Whirlpool/Maytag case. Of it, the NYT said —
” American antitrust officials have become gun-shy in recent years, in part because of two setbacks in the courts in 2004 — a defeat of the Federal Trade Commission’s effort to block Arch Coal’s acquisition of Triton Coal, and a loss by the Justice Department in its effort to stop Oracle from buying PeopleSoft.
And there are other signs of the federal government’s lack of interest in antitrust enforcement these days. Despite the wholesale deregulation of some industries and the widespread consolidation of others, no one can remember a major case under the Sherman Antitrust Act against a company for acting as a monopolist since the Clinton administration’s pursuit of Microsoft. ”
The AAI, probably the most important observer of antitrust enforcement (comprised predominantly of antitrust attorneys) —
“They don’t even seem to think that monopolies are bad,” said Albert A. Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute, a research organization. “Big is efficient and efficient is good. This is a story about how ideology has taken over the law enforcement process.”
The reality is that under the current administration antitrust enforcement has sunken to new lows.
As may be the case with XM/SIRI, management overruled the staff in the Whirlpool/Maytag merger, and bowed to political pressure from above to approve the merger even though the staff had determined that antitrust law SHOULD prevent it.
I don’t know how much more proof you need, but if you do some homework instead of criticizing my remarks out of ignorance, you’ll find plenty of support for my position. Ten years ago, in the Staples/Office Depot case, one that is ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL to the XM/SIRI case on the issues, DOJ blocked the merger and WON.
Your reference to Congress is ridiculous; Congress has NO ROLE in this process. This is a matter for DOJ. Congress has no say, whatsoever, in the matter.
>>> They just cant say okydoky, and leave it at that.
Apparently, you don’t understand how it works. The managers normally follow the advice of staff, since the staff recommendations are based on solid legal research. But if Barnett decides he wants to do so, he can thumb his nose at the staff and do as he wishes. He may be called before Congress to explain his actions (he SHOULD be, if it happens), but in the end, it is his decision.
As I said, before you start criticizing my remarks, I recommend you come up to speed on the topic, because you are obviously clueless on the subject.
>>> That you think the underlings opinion should be trusted over the people in charge of making the decision is another faulty premise.
Once again, you don’t understand the process. The staff are the brilliant legal minds. If they say antitrust law prohibits the merger, it does. If management decides to ignore their advice, it is their prerogative, but it is indisputably for non-legal reasons (I will say that management has the right to consider the hazards of litigation, as was suggested in the cited NYT article — but even this is heavily researched by the staff and the enforcement threat resulting from failed litigation is carefully detailed, BY THE STAFF). These people are not idiots, they know what they are doing.
If management ignores the staff recommendation, it is pretty safe to conclude that it was done out of political considerations IMO.
to frontmed; swea nigh ge my pow.
“Apparently, Mel thinks there is –
“You are dealing with two
companies — it would be
great if there was a monopoly,
but the second best thing to a
monopoly is a duopoly.”
— Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin (Ad Age, April 22, 2005)
Take it up with Mel.”
Well maybe he doesn’t know the technical definitions of the two, since they are actualy the exact opposite, but even if we just take his view, my point still stands.
If Mel say they are a duopoly, and this is the next best thing to a monopoly, then the two would be very similar, and since the government not only sanctioned, but rather, created and forced the duopoly, then why would it be such a stretch to simply allow a monopoly.
You can read the sentance other ways for other companies too.
it would be
great if we were coke,
but the second best thing to a
coke is pepsi. – ok, and coke and pepsi are basically the same.
or,
it would be
great if we were Home Depot,
but the second best thing to a
Home Depot is Lowes.
so,
it would be great if we were XM/Sirius,
but the second best thing to XM/Sirius is XM and Sirius.
>>>>>>>>>>If Mel say they are a duopoly, and this is the next best thing to a monopoly, then the two would be very similar, and since the government not only sanctioned, but rather, created and forced the duopoly, then why would it be such a stretch to simply allow a monopoly.
The entire point of the duopoly was to avoid a monopoly — that is the reason FCC sold two licenses and that is the reason, as a condition to holding the licenses, the two companies had to agree before the fact to a prohibition against any future merger.
So, it is not a stretch to allow a monopoly; it is absolutely contrary to the rules that were established as conditions to licensure.
Hi there FrontMed, aka StackPointer, I see you’re hard at work on this full time job of yours.
Can you imagine the horrified looks on consumer’s faces when they are forced to bow down to the all-powerful satellite radio monopoly?
“The service sucks, and they charge me more now, but I have to keep paying because they offer 170 channels!”
Makes sense, right Stack?
News flash: There is no such thing as perfect competition in the real world. Capitalism forces companies to differentiate to stand out and make money. You’re right – satellite radio, technically speaking, has no perfect substitutes – but you are delusional if you think that gives them any substantial market power in real life. Because in the real world, the one which slipped by you a long time ago, non-fanatical subscribers have tons of options that match WHAT THE CONSUMER WANTS.
In other words, “170 nationwide channels” means nothing to a consumer who just wants 3 or 4 good channels. An iPod can’t match 170 live channels, but it obviously doesn’t have to, or else it wouldn’t have 10 times as many customers as satrad. Likewise with the other options – they don’t offer everything satellite radio does, but they don’t have to to compete.
A market isn’t defined by what a company sells – it is by what the consumer is buying. Customers don’t buy satellite radio – they just buy audio, and whichever service sells it the best gets the customer’s money.
Now go find a new job and quit wasting our time.
Hey JB Frontmeds real name is J*** D******* he most likly doesn’t know how I found this out but thats for him too figure out. Also I have gone from thinking him to be a extremist to knowing him to be a moron. He says prove his premises to be false, yet I gave him ample examples. He then comes back with double talk, he says they are gun shy because of cases lost in court. Maybe the FTC did what the people working for them (underlings) told them to do, and the DOJ isn’t going to make the same dumb ass mistake the FTC did and get there butts handed to them in court. Because of the solid legal research the underlings did they should have won right, thats why the people in charge make the decisions. Then he gos on with his double talk, he says its because of political pressure that Tyler had even said was involved, and politics may rule the day, then says; I’m ridiculous that congress has nothing to do with this process (I said; you said it was politial yet letters sent by congress have mostly been against). JB I know this maybe hard to follow but thats what happens when Frontmed talks out of every side of his mouth. It’s like he doesn’t scroll up to see what he has said before, he takes bits and pieces of arguements and puts those together and then skips the parts that he knows are right, such as the examples I gave him that his premises were faulty. Then when all else fails he gets fustrated and resorts to insults.
What does his real name have to do with anything? Am I missing something here?
First of all it is ment as a joke to HB calling him StackPointer. Second, He (frontMed) eluded to me having no deductive reasoning and no research skills, yet I am smart enough to figure out his real name. Which takes quite a bit of both and for something as miner as figuring his real name. It should show him what research I am willing to do for a subject that I have a fested interest in. So before he throughs his insults he should be sure if they are meaningful or true, because if not they just show how desperate his arguements are getting.
I was wondering what other peoples opinions are on this?