Really? 176 is closer to 250 than to 100? By whose math?

176-100=76. 250-176=74. A statistical tie, Nat. A distinction that makes no difference.

Oh, and let's look again at my original statement:

"Nobody, not even ad-supported mags, charges only $2.95 for a 250-page package. Try $4.95. The cover price, on an ad-supported package, has to pay for the distribution costs...and $2.95 won't pay them for a package that size. Check out the newsstands. Anything that costs under $3 has a page count in the 100 range, not the 250 range."

Gee, Vibe and Source are charging three bucks ($2.99 if you want to Nat-pick) for packages under 250 pages. In fact, for packages under 200 pages. Looks like that's closer to my statement than you'd care to admit.

I said "100-page range," Nat--not 100 pages, not fewer than 100 pages. Is 176 in the 100-page range? I guess that depends on how you define "range", doesn't it? But you'll agree it's not in the 250-page range, right?

Oh wait, I just used another bit of rhetoric you object to. I told you what you'd agree to, in the form of a rhetorical question. I guess now you'll tell me I'm lying about you or something.



[This message has been edited by Pat ONeill (edited 04-18-2001).]

By any math that comes to mind. Even your own calculations showed it closer to 250 pages than to 100 -- and then you tried to slough it off as "A statistical tie", as if we were doing a random sampling here with a margin of error. It's not. It's a specific statement about a specific set of numbers, and it's not a tie at all. You try going to basketball players and telling them that a 76 to 74 game was a tie. They know better.

And if you look at it on relative scales: 176 pages won't fit into a 100 page range even if that range is "give or take 75%", a large margin; it will, however, fit into a 250 page range, give or take 30%, a much smaller margin.

Pat, nothing I've seen indicates that mathematics is a strong suit for you. You may want to be more cautious when it comes to throwing numbers (or terms like "statistical") around.

And if someone had made the inane claim that "no one charges three bucks for packages under 200 pages", you might have a point as that standing against it. But as far as I can recall, no one has made that claim. So it looks like you're desperately trying to reframe a false statement you made, and thrashing out against folks for daring to point out that the false statement was false.

No, but I will suggest that it's not a device likely to win over arguments, as it suggests that you don't know what you're talking about. You've got a poor record of being right in such things, and it doesn't actually advance your cause in any visible way to try to posit your views as mine, particularly when it gets revealed as an inaccurate posit. You waste time and bandwidth doing so. AT's post makes some good points about the end goal of the use of rhetorical devices.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JayBabcock:
[B] THE SOURCE sells more copies on the newsstand than any other pop music magazine, including ROLLING STONE. How on Earth could you not be aware of it?

Why would anyone who doesn't read music magazines--or have any interest in modern popular music--have any inkling of its existence?
I certainly hadn't heard of it.

Jim. The point is that Pat is positioning himself as an expert on magazines, and he wasn't aware of one of the highest-selling newsstand magazines there is.

We are talking about comic books, which are a popular medium. Pop music is also a popular medium. Therefore, anyone who enters into a discussion about popular media should be expected to have _some_ level of knowledge about the other popular media out there.

I don't read THE SOURCE or VIBE or SPIN or VANITY FAIR or GQ or LOS ANGELES regularly. I don't read TV GUIDE or ROLLING STONE or NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC either. But I know that they exist. And I know that they belong in a discussion about page counts/price points/ad ratios etc. in periodicals.

If you don't know about these magazines, so it goes. No offense was intended.

jay

Pat, I doubt very much that the Feb issue of THE SOURCE had a US price of $3.99. I don't believe an issue of THE SOURCE has ever retailed for more than $2.99.

The new issue of THE SOURCE -- May 2001 -- is 208 pages and is $2.99 US.

I have a friend who collects THE SOURCE. I will ask him if the cover price of the Feb issue was really $3.99. I doubt very much that it actually was.



Really? I'll accept that wager.

Jay

Um, by normal math.





This has been shown to be wrong in a number of instances now, Pat. How many more do we need to find for you before they stop being 'exceptions that prove the rule' and start being Facts That Might Tell Us Something of Value in This Discussion?




You made two statements. As far as I can tell, several magazines already cited are indeed quite far from what you said was possible.

You have been shown to be wrong on empirical grounds. Why not just admit it (or at least stop disputing it) and let's move on with this discussion? Is that really so much to ask?

jay

Blah...blah...blah....

The simple fact is this: comics are becoming too expensive. I hear it from long time collectors, new readers, parents, teenagers.....who are we to argue. They are the ones shelling out the money. Comics have long been thought of as "cheap entertainment". When the "cheap" is completely gone, many of the readers will go as well. When they decide that they are not getting their money's worth, we are all finished. I dont know how they will do it, but the publishers will have to find a way to keep prices down.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. And it ain't a new opinion, either; we were hearing the exact same complaint when comics were rising up to a buck apiece. They probably were griping when the price went up to 12 cents. That people are griping about the price of something is not in itself proof of a problem.

" That people are griping about the price of something is not in itself proof of a
problem."

This is true Nat. If you are looking for proof, how about the combined evidence of people griping and the dramatic drop in circulation.

I think looking at the dropped sales as simply or even primarily a reaction to pricing misses more vital factors.