Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

SFTV_troy wrote:
I don't really understand why people are upset about the loss of
DX'ing over AM (only temporarily; it will be restored when AM goes
pure digital). You can still do DX'ing via using services like
shoutcast.com. Just yesterday at work I was listening to an
Australian station. Another favorite of mine is located in England.
DX'ing is still alive and well on the internet.
Uh... that's NOT DX'ing.

It may well become the DXing of the 21st Century.
Edwina, you're an idiot.

It just looks that way to us DxAce because you and I don't share the
level of self delusion that Eduardo has attained.



I honestly believe this is not delusion. I honestly believe he
believes this noise.

His comments blaming DXers for abandoning broadcasters, while
delineating precisely how broadcasters have developed their disdain for
DXers is evidence that he's really looking at snapshots of this party,
but not attending the party, itself. Taking the Broadcaster/Dxer enmity
out of chronological order, as he did, suggests that he's seeing what he
needs to focus on in order to justify his position, but not seeing a
good deal of the out-of-frame that gives the snapshot context. This is
common among manglement in Radio.

It's what used to be called not seeing the forest for the trees.

It's what pilots call flying instruments in VFR conditions: Paying so
much attention to the minutiae that they fail to look up and actually
see how the plane is being flown.

One of my mentors in the Physics department at UMSL used to say, as
the textbook he taught from explained, formulae and numbers are only
shorthand for English sentences. If you can't explain your case without
resorting to formulae and numbers, you can't explain your case.

Corporately, that is the equivalent of: If you can't convince someone
without quoting a policy, you're hiding behind a firewall because you
actually can't function amongst your clients/customers.

And if you notice, he doesn't really answer your questions,
Telamon...but like Johnny Cochran, he gives you the answer he would like
you to hear, whether it addresses your question or not.

Has he posted the link you've asked for yet?

There are several inconsistencies in our most recent discussion about
demographics and agencies. The kind of inconsistencies that someone with
major market experience in both sales and Manglement wouldn't have made.

And in these last discussions, about DXers and this thread about HD,
he's begun speaking openly out of both sides of his mouth, not only
contradicting himself but doing it with a kind of indignation that's
also inconsistent with someone of his knowledge and experience.

Someone made the statement, here, that a person of his stature and
position doesn't need the ego piece that is his website.

Perhaps, that's true. Although I know people in the business who are
still trying to prove something after 30 years in the big city. But when
you read it, and as Ace has pointed out several times that the content
of his website has changed more than once when his credentials were
called into question, it does give one reason to wonder not so much what
it is that's false, but what it is that may be true.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Perhaps, that's true. Although I know people in the business who are
still trying to prove something after 30 years in the big city. But when
you read it, and as Ace has pointed out several times that the content of
his website has changed more than once when his credentials were called
into question, it does give one reason to wonder not so much what it is
that's false, but what it is that may be true.

You called me an SOB, so it is my turn to call you one. The only thing on my
website that has changed in the last 4 years is the addition of a bunch of
old Radex, Whites and Stevenson's magazines. The bio / history is
essentially unchanged from when I cut and pasted it from my resume, about
year 2000. It's even got the same spelling errors.

Your knowledge of radio sales is dated, stilted and inaccurate; what a
significant Chicago station can do at a local agency does not in any way
affect the fact that agencies seldom enough to say "never" buy 55+ and
getting a buy's demo changed is as close to impossible as getting a tortoise
to fly.

On Sep 30, 12:05 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...



Perhaps, that's true. Although I know people in the business who are
still trying to prove something after 30 years in the big city. But when
you read it, and as Ace has pointed out several times that the content of
his website has changed more than once when his credentials were called
into question, it does give one reason to wonder not so much what it is
that's false, but what it is that may be true.

You called me an SOB, so it is my turn to call you one. The only thing on my
website that has changed in the last 4 years is the addition of a bunch of
old Radex, Whites and Stevenson's magazines. The bio / history is
essentially unchanged from when I cut and pasted it from my resume, about
year 2000. It's even got the same spelling errors.

Your knowledge of radio sales is dated, stilted and inaccurate; what a
significant Chicago station can do at a local agency does not in any way
affect the fact that agencies seldom enough to say "never" buy 55+ and
getting a buy's demo changed is as close to impossible as getting a tortoise
to fly.

I've also noticed this. As soon as someone begins pressing him on one
part of his resume, it suddenly begins changing. Sad that a man his
age would engage in such antics.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Perhaps, that's true. Although I know people in the business who are
still trying to prove something after 30 years in the big city. But when
you read it, and as Ace has pointed out several times that the content of
his website has changed more than once when his credentials were called
into question, it does give one reason to wonder not so much what it is
that's false, but what it is that may be true.

You called me an SOB, so it is my turn to call you one.


You're right. I did. Because you are precisely that. You argue out
of context, and you don't address anything said by your opponents. You
remain oblique, and diffuse. And you speak in shorthand. You obfuscate.
Without actually making a case.

But when you blamed DXers for broadcasters' disdain, you truly
showed your intent. It's not about fact with you. It's about the debate.

And the truth doesn't require debate tactics. As someone here
pointed out some months ago.




The only thing on my
website that has changed in the last 4 years is the addition of a bunch of
old Radex, Whites and Stevenson's magazines. The bio / history is
essentially unchanged from when I cut and pasted it from my resume, about
year 2000. It's even got the same spelling errors.


Actually, Steve pointed out that wasn't true about a year ago.



Your knowledge of radio sales is dated, stilted and inaccurate;



I was wondering when that would finally come out.

At least my knowledge is based on 45 years of active experience.

There are questions about whether or not yours is.


Have a good evening, David. You've proven, by your own words, your
own obfuscations that just about everything said by Steve is true.

And to me, you're just another arrogant S.O.B who can't look beyond
his office to realize that everyone around him is thinking the same thing:


Methinks he doth protest too much.


Your time will come.





David Peter Maus.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...


The only thing on my
website that has changed in the last 4 years is the addition of a bunch
of old Radex, Whites and Stevenson's magazines. The bio / history is
essentially unchanged from when I cut and pasted it from my resume, about
year 2000. It's even got the same spelling errors.


Actually, Steve pointed out that wasn't true about a year ago.

Steve is probably certifiably crazy. I take anything he says as being
automatically untrue; he has, as I recall, never posted anything of
substance and even mis-identifies the formats on his local Boise stations.



Your knowledge of radio sales is dated, stilted and inaccurate;



I was wondering when that would finally come out.

At least my knowledge is based on 45 years of active experience.

Mine on 48. And the last agency I visited was Friday, and its accounts
include McDonalds, among others.

Have a good evening, David. You've proven, by your own words, your own
obfuscations that just about everything said by Steve is true.

And to me, you're just another arrogant S.O.B who can't look beyond his
office to realize that everyone around him is thinking the same thing:

No, only the nutjobs like dxAss and Telamon and Steve refuse to realize how
radio is used today, and the changes the industry has to make to survive...
and that said survival will likely not include AM in the long run.

The fact is, I speak with real listeners every week, and have a pretty good
idea what they want today, based on tens of thousands of yearly interviews.
Here, there are some who seem to have an intimate relationship with their
TenTec and have no idea what real people do, and how stations today have to
serve them.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Snip

And to me, you're just another arrogant S.O.B who can't look beyond his
office to realize that everyone around him is thinking the same thing:

No, only the nutjobs like dxAss and Telamon and Steve refuse to realize how
radio is used today, and the changes the industry has to make to survive...
and that said survival will likely not include AM in the long run.

Oh I see I'm a nut job and not a listener. You don't get much right do
you. How do you expect to survive when you are so confused.

The fact is, I speak with real listeners every week, and have a pretty good
idea what they want today, based on tens of thousands of yearly interviews.
Here, there are some who seem to have an intimate relationship with their
TenTec and have no idea what real people do, and how stations today have to
serve them.

You seem to have a real problem with the fact that I have an RX340.
Sounds like jealousy to me.

And I'm not a real listener. Funny man.

Well Bozo. I am a listener and I know what I want and it's not a serving
of your BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-

No, only the nutjobs like dxAss and Telamon and Steve refuse to realize
how
radio is used today, and the changes the industry has to make to
survive...
and that said survival will likely not include AM in the long run.

Oh I see I'm a nut job and not a listener. You don't get much right do
you. How do you expect to survive when you are so confused.

You are not a "typical" listener by any means. The term "broad" in
broadcasting is there for a reason, and radio can not nor has it ever been
able to serve very tiny niche listener groups.

But I think you are off the deep end because of your denial of ratings,
inability to see that if there is no listening of conseuence beyond a
certain signal intensity, there must be a truth there, and your idea that
knowing wave and propagation theory is somehow necessary to understanding
that listeners don't tune to weak signals.

The fact is, I speak with real listeners every week, and have a pretty
good
idea what they want today, based on tens of thousands of yearly
interviews.
Here, there are some who seem to have an intimate relationship with their
TenTec and have no idea what real people do, and how stations today have
to
serve them.

You seem to have a real problem with the fact that I have an RX340.
Sounds like jealousy to me.

No, I think anything over the price of a Drake or AOR is the equivalent of
buying a Bentley. Nice if you can afford it, but not worth the extra $200 k
over a BMW or Benz. I am not saying it is a waste of money if you are very
rich, but I sure would not buy one.

My real point is that even in the DX community such a radio is rare. Among
listeners to commercial stations, so rare as to be freaky.

And I'm not a real listener. Funny man.

No, you are not. You are way to into the subject, albeit woefully
misinformed, to be a "real" listener. Real listeners seldom remember call
letters (unless they are over 50) and round dial positions and don't know
station locations or slogans half the time. Radio is an accompanyment to
other activities, and used like a utility.

Well Bozo. I am a listener and I know what I want and it's not a serving
of your BS.

You might as well give up, as you are not getting what you want from
terrestrial radio. I'm surprised you even engage in off air reception,
anyway.

Ratings wise, radio geeks are like contest pigs... very noisy, but they
contribute nothing to ratings or our livelihood.

On Sep 30, 3:16 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

news:telamon_spamshield-



No, only the nutjobs like dxAss and Telamon and Steve refuse to realize
how
radio is used today, and the changes the industry has to make to
survive...
and that said survival will likely not include AM in the long run.

Oh I see I'm a nut job and not a listener. You don't get much right do
you. How do you expect to survive when you are so confused.

You are not a "typical" listener by any means. The term "broad" in
broadcasting is there for a reason, and radio can not nor has it ever been
able to serve very tiny niche listener groups.

But I think you are off the deep end because of your denial of ratings,
inability to see that if there is no listening of conseuence beyond a
certain signal intensity, there must be a truth there, and your idea that
knowing wave and propagation theory is somehow necessary to understanding
that listeners don't tune to weak signals.



The fact is, I speak with real listeners every week, and have a pretty
good
idea what they want today, based on tens of thousands of yearly
interviews.
Here, there are some who seem to have an intimate relationship with their
TenTec and have no idea what real people do, and how stations today have
to
serve them.

You seem to have a real problem with the fact that I have an RX340.
Sounds like jealousy to me.

No, I think anything over the price of a Drake or AOR is the equivalent of
buying a Bentley. Nice if you can afford it, but not worth the extra $200 k
over a BMW or Benz. I am not saying it is a waste of money if you are very
rich, but I sure would not buy one.

My real point is that even in the DX community such a radio is rare. Among
listeners to commercial stations, so rare as to be freaky.



And I'm not a real listener. Funny man.

No, you are not. You are way to into the subject, albeit woefully
misinformed, to be a "real" listener. Real listeners seldom remember call
letters (unless they are over 50) and round dial positions and don't know
station locations or slogans half the time. Radio is an accompanyment to
other activities, and used like a utility.



Well Bozo. I am a listener and I know what I want and it's not a serving
of your BS.

You might as well give up, as you are not getting what you want from
terrestrial radio. I'm surprised you even engage in off air reception,
anyway.

Ratings wise, radio geeks are like contest pigs... very noisy, but they
contribute nothing to ratings or our livelihood.

The only thing that would demonstrate that anyone in this group is off
the deep end is their having even the slightest inclination to believe
you.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
No, only the nutjobs like dxAss and Telamon and Steve refuse to realize
how radio is used today, and the changes the industry has to make to
survive... and that said survival will likely not include AM in the long
run.


Your vision of "radio" is not radio. It's a low power digital 'local'
service that forces everyone to buy new hardware to even make use of it.
Anyone can listen to "radio" on the same equipment they listened to it on
almost 90 years ago.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
No, only the nutjobs like dxAss and Telamon and Steve refuse to realize
how radio is used today, and the changes the industry has to make to
survive... and that said survival will likely not include AM in the long
run.


Your vision of "radio" is not radio. It's a low power digital 'local'
service that forces everyone to buy new hardware to even make use of it.
Anyone can listen to "radio" on the same equipment they listened to it on
almost 90 years ago.

Nobody has to change any equipment unless they want to.

FM stereo is a success... yet it took 4 years to get the first 100 stations
on the air. Today, we have 1501 HD stations on or building.