"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I'm sure he can recite a number of Arbitron statistics to prove that
assertion.

See the problem with Eduardo is that all arguments begin and end with
Arbitron since he supposedly has access to that data and we don't so he
can't loose.

Nearly 100% of the viable radio stations in rated markets has access to the
data. However, Arbitron only releases the data on 12+ listeners in one
daypart,, which is 6 AM to midnight. The rest of the data is copyright and
protected for only sales and programming purposes.

Well I just re-ran the Usenet reader stats and Eduardo came out on the
bottom of believability contour of all posters. The number of people
that believe him is below 10% in the 25 to 54 age group or in other
words his bombast signal level is not high enough for most to put up
with. People will just tune out in favor of a more rational poster on
Usenet.

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.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I'm sure he can recite a number of Arbitron statistics to prove that
assertion.

See the problem with Eduardo is that all arguments begin and end with
Arbitron since he supposedly has access to that data and we don't so he
can't loose.

Nearly 100% of the viable radio stations in rated markets has access to the
data. However, Arbitron only releases the data on 12+ listeners in one
daypart,, which is 6 AM to midnight. The rest of the data is copyright and
protected for only sales and programming purposes.

Hilarious! This is just to funny.

Well I just re-ran the Usenet reader stats and Eduardo came out on the
bottom of believability contour of all posters. The number of people
that believe him is below 10% in the 25 to 54 age group or in other
words his bombast signal level is not high enough for most to put up
with. People will just tune out in favor of a more rational poster on
Usenet.

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!

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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!

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

...

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

...
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.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Telamon wrote:

He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

Yes, we have seen that Telemons has no facts other than his own anecdotes,
is fake and hides behind an egocentric screen name.

On Oct 6, 10:21 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...



Telamon wrote:

He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

Yes, we have seen that Telemons has no facts other than his own anecdotes,
is fake and hides behind an egocentric screen name.

Well at least he doesn't bore us with the certificate of completion he
received upon finishing kindergarden.

You're not fooling anyone, Tardo. If he were fake he wouldn't be so
successful at getting your panties in a bunch.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Telamon wrote:

He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

Yes, we have seen that Telemons has no facts other than his own anecdotes,
is fake and hides behind an egocentric screen name.

Interesting you make the same mistakes as another individual.

I got your profile down buddy. It's to bad for you it is not
complementary.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California