To Review, Or Not To Review

Don said Daniel does '..not have stats or reports to back up (his) comments, whereas Greg has provided data'. And he's concerned about misrepresentations..! How representative is Greg's 'data', and aren't you also concerned about people planning seasons and marketing on such a small sample of 'facts'? It would be folly to assume that the majority of your audience budgets for a night out the same way Greg does, regardless of how accurate his stats are. You may be able to afford plane tickets to an expensive show, in which case smaller budgetary outlays might not concern you...or on the other hand, you might have pinched every penny to make that one show, and so smaller budgeting is crucial. My point is that no one can say either way, from the evidence you've given. Your 'data', like Greg's, is essentially meaningless, except to be interpreted here and now in the context of what you're saying. It doesn't prove a point, it doesn't represent the situation, and so I take issue with you using it to refute what Daniel has argued. And then there's also the small detail that your post is a complete non-sequitur to Daniel's point, which was about the value of anonymously posting. You've picked up on his sentence referring to Greg's budgeting, but his point was that it was a red herring and not relevant to this argument. Your continuation of that line of thought therefore becomes increasingly irrelevant. And then I was simply confused by your statement that you were influenced to see a show because of positive comments, but othertimes ignore the critics because you know they're not always right... As these two points of view effectively cancel each other out, what exactly was your point?? Craig ~<8>-/====\---------