"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.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

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?

There are press releases on the chips so far announced. Confirming that
everything to now is on track, per iBiquity, is not a violation of any code
or covenant. In fact, there are no non-disclosure agreements... simply, the
data provided by iBiquity on such things is intended for internal guidance.
On the other hand, press releases are issued for things like the Ford
deal... the capacity of the press to use releases like ones about chips is
limited in any case

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.

Investor information is simply not all put in press releases, not
necessarily being protected by non-disclosures. By proprietary, I use the
same meaning of the term as used in the context of Arbitron data which is
also proprietary... usable freely in some contexts, but highly protected in
others.


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?

Again, follow the Arbitron example. We are free to use the data for sales
but can not release specific details to the press or public, although we
actually may make much more public use than is first apparent.

Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of
some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate,

I don't work for a multinational media conglomerate. You got that all wrong.

where confidentiality is an essential tool of success.

Confirming that a couple of chips are, as said in the press release, going
to be cheaper and smaller and more energy efficient is hardly revealing a
secret. In fact, it is something that should be divulged..

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.

You have long tried to obfuscate the fact... the amazingly simple fact...
that the farther you go from a station's transmitter, the fewer are the
people who listen to it. In studies of millions of ZIP Code specific
listening incidents, it can be seen that metro area AMs get few incidents
outside of the area where the measured field strenght is 10 mV/m or better.
Outside that area, there is little if any listening.

I am not a student of propagation theory. I am a student and practitioner of
radio programming. Knowing where a station may successfully get listening is
a key to any programming endeavor. Wasting time where the signal is not good
enough for the average listener to enjoy listening is counterproductive. The
listener cares not how the signal gets to the radio but cares in extreme
whether the osund is clear, free from interference and enjoyable to listen
to.

The rest of your technobabble is irrelevant to me and the listener.

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 rollout of HD is pretty much on schedule, from the iBiquity point of
view. The ad campaign by the HD Alliance sucks, but many HD broadcasters are
not members of that group and so have no influence.

The only thing any of us in radio stations needs to know is that less
costly, low power chips are coming in 2008. That has been stated and
confirmed. There are no news articles or bona fied reports to the contrary.
Your opinions, since you are not in boradcasting, are pretty much valueless
in this instance.

The single fact you have posted on "topography" involves one road,
connecting the LA market with the Ventura market, which has a tiny amount of
traffic compared to all the roads in LA and Orange Counies (the LA metro)
and is thus irrelevant. Your remark did prove you did not know that all
listening irrespective of where it takes place goes to the metro where the
listener lives, not where they travel. So you were making conclusions based
on fauty understanding of ratings and the business of radio... the very
business you cricize so vehemently.

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.

My evidence is based on where and when and for how long actual people
listen, all over the US. Your comments are based on what you can get on your
radio in your car or home.

"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.