If you can be allowed to make these kind of claims, I don't see why I should not be allowed to set forth my views when encountering such claims as to why they are outlandish.
You say I have not made a reasonable case, but I have used the sort of logic
that most people would find both logical
What you apparently fail to understand is that, with considerable sums of money in play, and far more parties than just the record companies involved, the sort of under-reporting and deception you accuse the music industry of perpetuating simply isn't possible
. The retailers will require full payment for all copies sold - whether digital or physical - and they are all audited so they can't "hide" sales (not that you have ever explained a reason why anyone would want these sales to be hidden). The record companies are audited and some even publish their accounts. The tax man certainly will not countenance any fiddling of the numbers. If you think the record companies are under-reporting so that they can pay their artists less than they should, then it's a lot of effort to go to, as the fraction of the sale price for each unit that ends up going to the artists is quite small in the first place.
It's also unclear what the chart compiling company stands to gain from manipulating sales figures. I suppose they're on the take, too.
Graham76man wrote: You started this fight again, by slagging me off, putting things in that you know would cause a reaction. When you can't put up a reasonable case, you use ridicule to undermine me.
That last statement has things in it that only an fool would use. I've put them in bold, seeing how stupid you are, so you will know.
So you call me a fool, and stupid - I have not once called you names.
Graham76man wrote:Let's take your argument to the conclusion you drew:
True or Possible. Since you don't understand who/where the information for the Real Charts comes from you can't say either way if it's true or false.
You are like a man who doesn't know how to drive a car saying to the instructor he's a liar in that respect, as far as I'm concerned.
So - once more (and I think I'm doing the impossible
here by correctly predicting the future) - tell us all, concisely, precisely, and without referring to metaphor or descending to bluster, who/where the information for the Real Charts comes from
Like I said before, I want to believe. Why won't you share your information?
Graham76man wrote:Possible - lots of things were impossible till they happened. You must have a closed mind to think that anything can't change. Perhaps you are like the clergymen that thought Darwin needed to see a doctor.
Some things though - like walking through walls, and turning base metals into gold, will always remain impossible.
Outlandish claims - Too you yes - but to me the claims of the Record Industry are outlandish, they have millions of pounds to spend backing up their claims,
And how outlandish do you think it looks when, within the space of a few days, you re-adjust your own figure for the sales of Hold On from 1 million down to 500k? Unless you have the sales figure for every single from 20-odd years ago in your head, I doubt you would just write the figure down from memory without first going to check it. If you can make an error of doubling your now-valid sales figure so easily, or change your mind on the total to such an extent in such a short amount of time, what other errors might you have made?
And you are asking me who just has a blog site, around £60 to live on a week, to justify figures to an person who can waste £5 a week on a paper who's clients could spend £60 on an coffee break
I'm only asking for a valid explanation. For you to type an explanation costs you nothing.
Graham76man wrote:And unless you actually worked in an industry which made records in 1991, you are only going on what you have been told, plus as I keep saying that information is classified, for it is the income of Rich People, who don't want you or anyone else to know what they earn.
So you're saying that you did work in an industry which made records in 1991? And/or that you have access to information that is classified?
If you don't have access to this classified information, how do you know that you're right, and that I'm wrong?
END of argument.
You've said that before, but I'm guessing (again!) that's not the case!
Last edited by irishguy28 on Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.