In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

t
...
You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.
Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!
No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing
level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen
to the stations you can hear.
I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.
He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

I agree.



I got a thought, here.

During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about
IBOC chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a
manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to
verify his claim.

To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his
own defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it
would contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable.

But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if
the information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating
it, why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet?

And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial
espionage such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such
a thing on the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house
without some intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be
forbidden to speak of the subject at all.


When Mercury Marine was preparing for the introduction of Verado, I
had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I was ever permitted to
sit behind a microphone. Before I was ever permitted to see even a
script in development. I had to read it in the presence of the agency
rep, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and I had to verbally agree
that nothing I was about to see, hear, read, or encounter would leave
the studio. Hell, I wasn't even allowed to receive a copy of the spots
and presentation for my own demo. And despite the fact that Verado has
been on the market, now, for some years, and I've been the voice of
Mercury for more than half a decade, I'm still not permitted to include
the spots on my demo.

I wasn't permitted even to tell my closest friends anything more
than to go to the Miami Boat Show. I couldn't even tell them to see the
Mercury display.

Why? Because no one wanted to see Yamaha, OMC, or even Honda upstage
the release of the all-new Verado with similar technology of their own.

This is true of a number of projects I've worked on, and a number of
sponsors I've worked with.

If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary
information, why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement?
If they did, why is he talking about it in a world wide public space?
And if he's talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not
able to post your link?

Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of
some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate, where
confidentiality is an essential tool of success.

Mr. Eduardo has all kinds of interesting anomalies in his posting style
that make me wonder just what it is I'm dealing with. He has made quite
a few mistakes that people Trolling Usenet usually make. He fits that
profile of one pretty well.

Eduardo claims technical expertise but does not understand the
difference between symbols that are multipliers and an electrical unit
that define the measurement of field strength at the epicenter of most
of his arguments. He seems to have no interest in the terminology other
than to use them as terms to beat people about head with. Once you
challenge him on an assertion he made he always retreats to information
that is only accessible to him.

He is wrong on semiconductor technology, wrong about the business of
semiconductors, wrong about the traffic and topology of southern
California that he supposedly lives in, wrong about radio reception, and
he has been wrong about the rollout of HD radios even though he has this
insider information we don't share in.

The arguments on radio station reception have been the most amusing for
me as he continued to retreat to less and less tenuous position. The
ignorance he has expressed seems to know no bounds.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California