>>214288562
Objectively wrong.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/ST%20Nielsen%20Top%2010.jpg/

>>213941080
Far from it.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/ST%20Nielsen%20Top%2010.jpg/
inb4 "waah waah jpg for ants": The 4plebs link brings up full-resolution images with text you can read.

>>213701298
Don't make me tap the sign.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/ST%20Nielsen%20Top%2010.jpg/

>>213660043
Then you have failed utterly.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/ST%20Nielsen%20Top%2010.jpg/
Plus, you're having a meltie. Time for a lie down, a fluffy cat, a warm blanket, and a hot bowl of soup.

The ratings for nuTrek are off the hook, amirite?
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/ST%20Nielsen%20Top%2010.jpg/

>>213431903
What standard are you applying? Looks to me like nutrek is doing well.

>>213099850
No need to get creative when the oldtrek grandpas seethe over the same old thing. Like how well nuTrek is doing in the Nielsen ratings.

>>213014407
What's your source for that assertion? Did you survey everyone in your room in your mommy's house where you grew up? Nielsen shows nuTrek doing very well.

>>213005615
>noooo stop exposing my spam