In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

He has written some weird stuff like he has people around him looking
over his shoulder laughing at peoples critical responses to his posts on
Usenet as an attempt to bully the people critical of him. Very strange
he would need this imaginary support.

I have noted the deception and misdirection. It's madding.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

At one time it seemed to me you thought he is for real. You still think
that way?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.

You are full of it. The development was announced and then news about it
went to zero. That's not a good sign.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

This shows you are a sham. You don't know what reception is like around
here AM or FM. You are full of it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving
you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.

You are full of it. The development was announced and then news about it
went to zero. That's not a good sign.

We are aware of what is going on. That's all that matters; the idea is to
keep expanding the station count so more and more manufacturers will buy the
new chips and get the radios out in the stores.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are
universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

This shows you are a sham. You don't know what reception is like around
here AM or FM. You are full of it.

How does the fact that listeners measured by the ratings services show no
interest in skywave reception at all related to whether I know what
reception is like of not? They DON'T listen to distant signals, so there is
no need to protect distant signals.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving
you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.

You are full of it. The development was announced and then news about it
went to zero. That's not a good sign.

We are aware of what is going on. That's all that matters; the idea is to
keep expanding the station count so more and more manufacturers will buy the
new chips and get the radios out in the stores.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are
universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

This shows you are a sham. You don't know what reception is like around
here AM or FM. You are full of it.

How does the fact that listeners measured by the ratings services show no
interest in skywave reception at all related to whether I know what
reception is like of not? They DON'T listen to distant signals, so there is
no need to protect distant signals.

The point you do not understand since you do not live around here is AM
does better day or night than FM. Even the low rolling hills on the
coast let alone the larger mountains inland make for very poor FM
reception so your arguments that FM sounds better is bogus. AM is
superior over FM around here at least. I'll bet you have never driven
route 1 along the coast in Ventura or LA counties. FM really sucks on
that road that runs along the ocean.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The point you do not understand since you do not live around here is AM
does better day or night than FM. Even the low rolling hills on the
coast let alone the larger mountains inland make for very poor FM
reception so your arguments that FM sounds better is bogus. AM is
superior over FM around here at least. I'll bet you have never driven
route 1 along the coast in Ventura or LA counties. FM really sucks on
that road that runs along the ocean.

I have only driven that route a few dozen times. The local FMs (the ones
with decent in market signals) sound fine.

There are spots where there is multipath, but HD will reduce or eliminate
that.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The point you do not understand since you do not live around here is AM
does better day or night than FM. Even the low rolling hills on the
coast let alone the larger mountains inland make for very poor FM
reception so your arguments that FM sounds better is bogus. AM is
superior over FM around here at least. I'll bet you have never driven
route 1 along the coast in Ventura or LA counties. FM really sucks on
that road that runs along the ocean.

I have only driven that route a few dozen times. The local FMs (the ones
with decent in market signals) sound fine.

There are spots where there is multipath, but HD will reduce or eliminate
that.

Try driving it again. Ocean on one side and high cliffs on the other
such that FM is pretty much dead. You will not pick up anything from the
LA area just a few stations from up or down the coast. Must be a magic
radio in your car or you have never driven that road. Every post you
make, makes you look less real to me.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sep 30, 1:47 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.



Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

And of course, if what you say is true, listeners would be perfectly
content listening to static so long as they can heard it in HD
quality.

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

He has written some weird stuff like he has people around him looking
over his shoulder laughing at peoples critical responses to his posts on
Usenet as an attempt to bully the people critical of him. Very strange
he would need this imaginary support.

I have noted the deception and misdirection. It's madding.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

At one time it seemed to me you thought he is for real. You still think
that way?



Yeah, I do. But, over the last few weeks, I've noticed some serious
inconsistencies in his positions. And, I've watched him, when pressed,
back away from his arguments. Now, sometimes we say things in the heat
of a moment, or when time is short, that may require some clarification.
But, I've noticed a consistent pattern of argumentation, and when
pressed for specifics, a termination of the discussion, so he can move
on to other things. Direct questions asked, but never addressed.
Specifics requested but never supplied. Your link request that was never
provided. And now, twice, in front of the group, he's promised to get
his engineers out here to take signal strength measurements at my
location to determine why I can't hear a local 50kw station, but
immediately dropped all conversation about it.

To date the only one who's bothered to investigate my reception
issues, is me.

Again, not terribly surprising. Not any of it. Most broadcasters, in
fact, most people in any profession are particularly good at spouting a
company line, but woefully inadequate at following through. Or directly
addressing matters that they feel are inconsequential to them, beneath
them, or in the most insidious cases, may threaten their position. A
lot of people I know are like this. You probably know some, too.

But, here of late, I've seen more of it than in months past. And I've
seen more attempts at abject dismissal, in lieu of substantive
conversation. Which I have seen more out of consultants, than actual
working frontline broadcasters. And some blatant inconsistencies in his
claims about agencies/sales. And his experience. These things make me
suspect that, though, he's still the David we've all come to know and
love, that he's getting low on the calm, educational patience he's
showed a year ago, and is now running out of both patience, and
appreciation of the intercourse.

Like the parent who, when set with a barrage of questions he/she no
longer wants to deal with, because he/she can't make a compelling case,
retreats into 'because I said so.'

He speaks a corporate line. He speaks a policy statement. He
speaks...well, he speaks like he's reading out of a textbook. But he
doesn't speak with a level of personal intimacy that someone with his
experience would employ. You and I, for instance, barely know each
other. And have only corresponded once or twice within the group. But,
here, you've asked a direct question based on existing conversation, but
with a level of personal interaction that David does not employ. You ask
me about what I think and whether or not it's changed. And you phrased
it in a very personal way. Two people exchanging ideas....one to the other.

But when David speaks, he speaks like a policy statement. There's
only a level of personal interaction after it's been brought to his
attention that there is none. Hell, even Eric Richards, with whom I
share no personal cordiality, will address a post as though he's talking
TO me, but not AT me. David doesn't do that. He speaks AT his opponent.
Overwhelming with statistics, where a conversational sentence will do.
Jumping into conversations with material that brings nothing to the
topic at hand, but definitely puts his expertise and policy positions on
display.

Like a textbook. Very much like a textbook. General practices,
expectations and limitatons. But no personal experiential variations on
the textbook case. And everyone, EVERYONE, has personal experiences
where the textbook doesn't tell the story.

Then there was the issue of his ham credentials. When pressed he
gave a credible story about corruption in the testing process in
Ecuador. Nothing out of the ordinary, actually. Nothing outside the
realm of possibility. Certainly, something we'd all believe based on the
politics of the region. But when pressed, he gave no clarification, with
any personal experiential content. Just something that sounds a likely
story.

Which is all, really, that he needs to present. If that. But all of
his stories sound like that. Textbook, obvious and not unexpected likely
stories, without any personal variations, or counterintuitive wrinkles.

Somewhere you'd expect some.

Colleagues, whether vocational or avocational, don't address each
other like that. He claims to be a DXer, but disdains DXers. He claims
to be an SWL, but contributes almost nothing to SW related
conversations. He keeps his content almost entirely on BC related
matters, and, again speaks not TO, but AT the topic. Like we're not
here. Or beneath him. Ignorant USENet savages, who could not be informed
if we could BUY a clue.

As I said, I've known people in the Radio business like that. But
then don't rise to the level of corporate oversight, or management. And
they are certainly not leaders. Usually they're middle manglement. And
consultants.

So, yeah, to answer your question, I think he's for real. I just
think he's not as good at keeping it real as he wants to believe.

D Peter Maus wrote:


Hell, even Eric Richards, with whom I
share no personal cordiality,

Laf.

That's YOUR choice, Peter, not mine. And, FWIW, it inspired some
interesting email from former participants in this group.

will address a post as though he's talking
TO me, but not AT me. David doesn't do that. He speaks AT his opponent.
Overwhelming with statistics, where a conversational sentence will do.

Actually, I disagree. He overwhemlms with statistical buzzwords
rather than statistics. It's easy to talk about normal distributions
if you have read about statistics, but what if you don't know where a
normal distribution simply doesn't apply?

Jumping into conversations with material that brings nothing to the
topic at hand, but definitely puts his expertise and policy positions on
display.

Just an ego trip. "Let me show you how much I know." Only it doesn't
work.

Generally a post I would agree with. It doesn't take a radio insider
to see it, though.


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser