How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
George M. Middius wrote:
It's back to business as usual for Mr. Krooger.
I'd like to know where John gets off saying that the
RIAA stats are not what
the RIAA clearly says they are.
Snottiness noted.
Well, I remember reading this in Stereophile...several
years ago! From what I've heard, the RIAA has made a
better effort in logging those other sales in the last
couple of years.
Mystery solved.
So, you're giving Atkinson a pass for posting
out-of-date information?
Not at all. But the RIAA statistics are notoriously slow
in coming,
Hmmm
so JA may be withholding the appropriate addendum until the facts are in.
So Marc, you're saying that is reasonble to to provide an addendum that is
totally wrong and misleading for the currently posted statistics (2005), and
is 100% speculative for the next set of statistics, which can't possibly
come out for several months (2006)?
I'm saying that despite the RIAA's claim that their statistics are more
accurate than before, the jury is still out as to whether or not
they're succeeding yet.
Boon
|