Web-based discussions are superior to radio discussions

That's stating the obvious. Below is my Jan or Feb 2014 comment posted at ToledoTalk.com. #todo find the link to my comment.

(Another user said:)

"Fred - why not invite AC down to speak on behalf of the residents who so far have chosen not to represent their own interest. I suggest though that you keep a finger on the bleep button because AC seems wound up."

(Then I responded with ...)

Why choose radio for discussions? That's like choosing a newspaper op-ed to host a discussion.

They are discussing here, in their own distinct styles, without the restrictions of some government entity and without the limitations of an old paradigm.

Web-based discussions are superior to radio discussions.

Radio is still be good for disseminating information, but for hosting discussions? That's a new one.

People can't call a commercial radio show at the callers' convenience, any time of the day and night, and get on the air. And people can't talk as long as they want without interruptions. But users can write whenever they want and in most cases, as much as they want on the Web.

But commercial radio, like WSPD, probably benefits some people.

Also based on the commercials that run on WSPD; Liberals wouldn’t make a good target audience. Not enough of us owe thousands to IRS; owe over $10K in credit card debt, over weight by 40lbs, have hormone issues or have a hard time “getting it up”. We’re also not good targets for endless “work from home schemes” and “invest in gold scams” ...

Commercial radio.

I'll even go out on a limb and say that the costs for WSPD or just Fred's show for one year exceeds the costs to fund this site for a year.

The Web. Disruptive. For discussions, simple-shit technology trumps bloated, archaic methods, and that fact hacks off many people in the media industry.

#forums - #web - #radio - #blog_jr