About a third of the callers to this talk show defended Hill, and praised
his
actions. One guy went so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be
targeted
as well as abortion doctors.

Truly an accurate representation, wouldn't you say Chuck? Or are you
generalizing once
again?

You question fails any test of basic logic.
Reporting what a single caller suggested is not a "generalization," nor can it
be since it only concerns a single individual. What do you mean by the first
sentence? The intent is unclear. Do you agree that homosexuals should be
targeted along with abortion doctors? Is that what you meant by an "accurate
representation."

BTW: Were the 1/3 radicals, conservatives or liberals? There are extremists
among all
the groups Chuck. Or didn't you know that? Your friend Harry is a prime
example.

Again, your question has no basis in logic.
It is conceivable that the roughly 1/3 of the
people who felt that Hill had acted properly and were prepared to defend his
murder of the abortion doctor had *nothing* in common except their defense of
Hill. Unless Harry was calling a conservative talk station in Seattle using an
assumed name, there is no reason to bring him into the conversation.

Scary to think that those people are loose in society- but they have a
right to
think any way they want until it turns into actual violence.

I agree. We have nut cases on both ends of the political spectrum.

I've got to clean the monitor screen. Almost thought that "Jim" agreed with
Gould on something. Has to be an electronic misprint.



Once again you generalize, this time about the make up of the audience.

Actually, no, I do not. There is a science called demographics. Demographic
studies scientifically define the nature of the audience for TV and radio
programming. Demographics for this particular station is an audience that is
predominantly male, primarily white, average listener age about 55, middle to
upper middle income bracket. This is the station that broadcasts Limbaugh,
Hannity, et al in our market. They self proclaim to be the home of
"conservative talk radio" in Seattle. I'm an ultra liberal, and I often listen
for short periods of time, but I can tell by the phone calls from the local
audience that there are either very few liberals listening or the screener does
not let them on the air.

If you care to dispute my analysis, I would suggest that you first listen to
the station in question. At that point we'd be discussing a single set of known
variables rather than the question of whether a liberal could ever accurately
represent his observation of a radio station.

Personally, I am farther to the right on the abortion issue than 99% of the
people on the planet. It should never be used for birth control. No
exceptions
where the only issue is birth control. Rape and situations where the
mother's
life could be endangered by a pregnancy.....reluctantly. BUT, the
difference
between Hill and me.....I'd never interfere with another person's legal
right
to
obtain one or presume to execute somebody for perfoming one. I mean, what
if
Hill and I are wrong? Who are we to impose our standards on others?


We agree on something. Fantastic. I knew with enough work you would slowly
turn
around.

Sorry, but you get no credit for my opinion.
I've felt this way for at least 30-years, soon after I came to realize/believe
that all living things have a soul.....(bet we don't agree on that!) :-)