From: Gene McAloon 

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:30:15 +1200, dmhills{at}attglobal.net (Don Hills) wrote:

>In article ,
>Gene McAloon  wrote:
>>
>>It is not a question of who is a better source, Orlowski or me. Rather the
>>question is why would you rely on Orlowski when his source cites figures that
>>are very different both from what the recording industry claims and what an
>>independent source also claims?
>
>Let's see. Three sources. 2 to 1. You may take a majority decision, but I
>wonder why there is dissention and dig deeper. Andrew's right more often
>than he's wrong, at least in the stories I've been interested enough in to
>follow up. Keep digging, Gene. The truth is out there.

There is no "truth" out there. There are only the facts and that
facts concerning this issue are well known. It is only the na‹ve or perhaps
the deliberately na‹ve who would pay any attention to the claims of some
obscure character writing on techie stuff for a web site notorious for its
tenuous grasp
on reality.

Surely you can do better than this kind of drivel.

>
>>That there has been a drop off in CD sales in both the UK and the US is
hardly a
>>secret. It has been reported extensively. The only dispute is the possible
>>cause.
>
>Have you examined the other URL I gave you yet? Have you read Andrew's
>interpretation of it?
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/28588.html

Indeed I have. It proves beyond a doubt that Olowski is a certified nut case. He
claims some other character has discovered the reason CD sales have fallen
is that the recording companies cut production of CDs. Was that in the face
of increased demand or even a sustained demand? Why no, it was in the face
of an over 10% drop in demand, which these brilliant types believe
demonstrates a continuing high demand for CDs.

That you take this kind of utter idiocy seriously . . but then you would and do.
Incredible.
>>Orlowski's source obviously is not reliable. Why then would Orlowski
>>report it? Well, of course that is precisely what you would expect of the
>>Register, isn't it? It is part of what makes the Register such a sick joke,
>>hardly better than the junk one would read in the National Inquirer or any
>>supermarket tabloid in the US.
>
>It's part of a journalist's job (and for many, the best part of it) to dig
>under rocks and ferret out anomalies and questionable items. Andrew's good
>at that but I don't think he digs deeply enough. There's another story in
>why the 3 sources differ.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5