On Sep 15, 11:39 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



Well, I suppose there's no COMMERCIAL service of any kind unless
there's profit made. Come to think of it, this is precisely the lesson
AM HD broadcasters are about to learn....the hard way.

Since there are literally only a handful of non-commercial AMs, this
discussion has to be about commercial radio.

This is incorrect. The fact that there are currently only a handful of
non-commercial AMs does not entail that there could not be a greater
number of non-commercial AMs. To discuss not only what AM is but the
ways in which it could change in the future is perfectly legitimate.
This is precisely the problem with you and the other proponents of AM
HD: instead of looking to the future, you instead look to the past.


By the way, while you were posting here, more of your listeners
expired. Guess the colloidal silver didn't reach 'em in time.

"My" listeners have a median age of about 33. None of them are expiring from
old age.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "median".

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 15, 11:39 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



Well, I suppose there's no COMMERCIAL service of any kind unless
there's profit made. Come to think of it, this is precisely the lesson
AM HD broadcasters are about to learn....the hard way.

Since there are literally only a handful of non-commercial AMs, this
discussion has to be about commercial radio.

This is incorrect. The fact that there are currently only a handful of
non-commercial AMs does not entail that there could not be a greater
number of non-commercial AMs. To discuss not only what AM is but the
ways in which it could change in the future is perfectly legitimate.
This is precisely the problem with you and the other proponents of AM
HD: instead of looking to the future, you instead look to the past.


By the way, while you were posting here, more of your listeners
expired. Guess the colloidal silver didn't reach 'em in time.

"My" listeners have a median age of about 33. None of them are expiring
from
old age.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "median".


Half are under the median, half are over. Practically none are over 55.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 15, 11:39 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



Well, I suppose there's no COMMERCIAL service of any kind unless
there's profit made. Come to think of it, this is precisely the lesson
AM HD broadcasters are about to learn....the hard way.

Since there are literally only a handful of non-commercial AMs, this
discussion has to be about commercial radio.

This is incorrect. The fact that there are currently only a handful of
non-commercial AMs does not entail that there could not be a greater
number of non-commercial AMs. To discuss not only what AM is but the
ways in which it could change in the future is perfectly legitimate.
This is precisely the problem with you and the other proponents of AM
HD: instead of looking to the future, you instead look to the past.


By the way, while you were posting here, more of your listeners
expired. Guess the colloidal silver didn't reach 'em in time.

"My" listeners have a median age of about 33. None of them are expiring
from
old age.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "median".


Half are under the median, half are over. Practically none are over 55.

Hmmmmm... 55... isn't that the approximate age you became the Chifako,
'Eduardo'?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:30:11 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Half are under the median, half are over. Practically none are over 55.

In other words, they are dullards.

On Sep 15, 1:30 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Sep 15, 11:39 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

groups.com...

Well, I suppose there's no COMMERCIAL service of any kind unless
there's profit made. Come to think of it, this is precisely the lesson
AM HD broadcasters are about to learn....the hard way.

Since there are literally only a handful of non-commercial AMs, this
discussion has to be about commercial radio.

This is incorrect. The fact that there are currently only a handful of
non-commercial AMs does not entail that there could not be a greater
number of non-commercial AMs. To discuss not only what AM is but the
ways in which it could change in the future is perfectly legitimate.
This is precisely the problem with you and the other proponents of AM
HD: instead of looking to the future, you instead look to the past.

By the way, while you were posting here, more of your listeners
expired. Guess the colloidal silver didn't reach 'em in time.

"My" listeners have a median age of about 33. None of them are expiring
from
old age.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "median".

Half are under the median, half are over. Practically none are over 55.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even if that is true, it in no way entails that none of them expired
while you were making your last post. You may understand the
dictionary definition of "median" (we know how fond you are of your
dictionaries), but you've obviously not mastered the logic of the
term.

Steve wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:30 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Sep 15, 11:39 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

groups.com...

Well, I suppose there's no COMMERCIAL service of any kind unless
there's profit made. Come to think of it, this is precisely the lesson
AM HD broadcasters are about to learn....the hard way.

Since there are literally only a handful of non-commercial AMs, this
discussion has to be about commercial radio.

This is incorrect. The fact that there are currently only a handful of
non-commercial AMs does not entail that there could not be a greater
number of non-commercial AMs. To discuss not only what AM is but the
ways in which it could change in the future is perfectly legitimate.
This is precisely the problem with you and the other proponents of AM
HD: instead of looking to the future, you instead look to the past.

By the way, while you were posting here, more of your listeners
expired. Guess the colloidal silver didn't reach 'em in time.

"My" listeners have a median age of about 33. None of them are expiring
from
old age.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "median".

Half are under the median, half are over. Practically none are over 55.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even if that is true, it in no way entails that none of them expired
while you were making your last post. You may understand the
dictionary definition of "median" (we know how fond you are of your
dictionaries), but you've obviously not mastered the logic of the
term.

He's certainly not mastered the logic of Mexican being a nationality rather than a race.

On Sep 15, 3:51 pm, dxAce wrote:
Steve wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:30 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Sep 15, 11:39 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

groups.com...

Well, I suppose there's no COMMERCIAL service of any kind unless
there's profit made. Come to think of it, this is precisely the lesson
AM HD broadcasters are about to learn....the hard way.

Since there are literally only a handful of non-commercial AMs, this
discussion has to be about commercial radio.

This is incorrect. The fact that there are currently only a handful of
non-commercial AMs does not entail that there could not be a greater
number of non-commercial AMs. To discuss not only what AM is but the
ways in which it could change in the future is perfectly legitimate.
This is precisely the problem with you and the other proponents of AM
HD: instead of looking to the future, you instead look to the past.

By the way, while you were posting here, more of your listeners
expired. Guess the colloidal silver didn't reach 'em in time.

"My" listeners have a median age of about 33. None of them are expiring
from
old age.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "median".

Half are under the median, half are over. Practically none are over 55.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even if that is true, it in no way entails that none of them expired
while you were making your last post. You may understand the
dictionary definition of "median" (we know how fond you are of your
dictionaries), but you've obviously not mastered the logic of the
term.

He's certainly not mastered the logic of Mexican being a nationality rather than a race.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Logic is Tardo's arch enemy.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


He's certainly not mastered the logic of Mexican being a nationality
rather than a race.

And you do not understand that many words have either various meanings or
shades of meaning. In fact, usage defines meaning.... "human race" is
technically incorrect... humans are a species, but contemporary usage has
made this acceptable.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


He's certainly not mastered the logic of Mexican being a nationality
rather than a race.

And you do not understand that many words have either various meanings or
shades of meaning. In fact, usage defines meaning.... "human race" is
technically incorrect... humans are a species, but contemporary usage has
made this acceptable.

The term Chifako will soon become acceptable! It of course describes a jackass
who tries to pass himself off as being Hispanic and was of course born in the
USA.

On Sep 15, 4:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...

He's certainly not mastered the logic of Mexican being a nationality
rather than a race.

And you do not understand that many words have either various meanings or
shades of meaning. In fact, usage defines meaning.... "human race" is
technically incorrect... humans are a species, but contemporary usage has
made this acceptable.

And you do not understand that there is such a thing as the incorrect
use of an expression, including the widespread misuse of expressions.

Also, previously you were arguing that it's proper to speak of 'race'
whenever people share some property in common. Well, surely being
human is something that all human beings have in common. So, by your
own standards, the human race is precisely that.