Billy Burpelson wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?

How does one get confronted *at gunpoint*, then is conveniently released to go
about his/her business for 24 hours pulling a *Catch 22* on some f00kin hunta,
then is picked up later on to be brought to the airport *at gunpoint*?

Lots of questions.

If of course it were all real.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Billy Burpelson wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?


Similarly, it's difficult to be defender of democracy, risking life
and property, when one has been removed, does it not?

Which was my point.

If one insists on claiming rights to risk of life and limb, as keeper
of the flame, one must remain in order both keep the flame and face the
risk.

The issue is not whether he left or was removed. The issue is
whether, by not being there, he can't claim great risk as defender of
democracy.

Billy Burpelson wrote:

dxAce wrote:

It all makes for an interesting story, with little or no paper trail.

As a disinterested observer and without taking sides in this Great
Debate, just how much 'paper trail' should be expected from something that:

a) happened around -40- years ago
b) in a foreign country
c) and occurred during a turbulent government take-over

Do you speak/read Spanish?

Do you have access to the 40 year old foreign newspapers? If so, have
you researched them?

No?

Well then, how do you know there -isn't- a 'paper trail'?

Because I long ago discovered that David 'Eduardo' was a pathological liar.

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
They are not strong enough based on the field strength and the
criteria that millions of diarykeepers for the ratings have shown us.
It does not matter what you think. What matters is whether local
listeners use those signals, and they do not.

The way I look at it is that is does not matter what you think. Your
data or thinking is flawed.

The data is not flawed. In fact, a number of reserchers as well as Arbitron
itself have done studies to determine the concentration of listenership in
areas of different signal strenght. I participated with Arbitron and
DataWorld in an overlay study of singnal contours vs. diary returns with
follow up personal contact with diarykeepers to determine the ascription of
listening entries in areas of a market served by many overlapping
simulcasts. The premise of 95% of listening in the 64 dbu FM countour and in
the 10 mV/m for AM was confirmed, and is the standard for that market which
has over a dozen simulcast operations in it.


There is considerable workplace listening to LA stations by commuters
who live in Ventura county and work closer to the LA stations. The
fact that they listen where the signal is stronger and not where it
is not pretty conclusively shows that what you consider a "strong"
signal is not.

Yeah, I live and work in Ventura and I listen to those LA stations so I
know and you continue to speculate. I don't listen in the workplace
because it is not appropriate. I do listen at home in the car and in
parks with a portable radio.

You are one of very few. In fact, ZIP code and diary analysis shows that
listening to LA stations by residents of Ventura County occurs either while
working in LA County or in areas where signal intensities are adequate. For
AM, that mostly means within a mile or two of the coast; farther inland
there is nearly no listening save to KFI.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



Didn't you say in the past that after going back to the US and/or
Puerto
Rico
(after getting tossed) that you were still trying to sell your stations
in
Ecuador?

No, I said that in '69, thinking I could sell, I worked briefly with Art
Keller as a manager at EZ Communications and had a deal to buy 25% for
$100
k, but when I got back to Ecuador things were so bad that foreign
currency
transactions were frozen and I could not do any deal. About then, I put
the
talk AM on and made the mistake of speaking out against the government.

They did have airplanes back then, and I could come and go.

Now, in one rapid 24 hour period, you are telling us that you
*transferred* it
all to some employee cooperative, before you got tossed?

Did you do that at gunpoint as well?

No, I signed some documents with my lawyers, and they filed them within
hours. A socialist government could not go against a worker's
cooperative, a
day old or a century old. I lost the stations, but not to the government.
I
still grin when I imagine the faces of the military junta guys when they
realized they had a Catch 22 on their hands.

What an interesting tale.

And totally verifiable if you care to check. Just ask the AER (ecuadorian
Association of Broadcasters) and they will tell you of the cooperative which
operated for about 30 years or so.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 11:51 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...
On Jan 8, 10:46 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:





"Steve" wrote in message

...

No, I signed some documents with my lawyers, and they filed them
within
hours. A socialist government could not go against a worker's
cooperative,
a
day old or a century old. I lost the stations, but not to the
government.
I
still grin when I imagine the faces of the military junta guys when
they
realized they had a Catch 22 on their hands.

The government went against the cooperative. So much for that story.

Nope, not so. Cooperative operated 590 and 810 for about 30 years.
Foolishly, they abandoned the FM simulcast licenses and when AM started
to
die in the larger cities of Ecuador, the stations went silent.

It was merely called the "cooperative". It was the government.

It was cooperative president Ulpiano Orozco. Write the Ecuadorian
Association of Broadcasters and ask.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did.

I doubt it. Considering they don't have an office, just a mailing address,
there is no way you could have an answer so soon.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 11:56 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...

And you think you can solve all these problems with your colloidal
silver?

You really need to work on some new material

Why don't you tell me about the totally non-existent HD interference to
WADO
and WCAA again. That was rather amusing.

You amuse very easily in that case.

There is no interference inside the protected contours of any NY station. An
FM is worth $150 to $300 million, and an AM from about $20 million to
perhaps $175 million, and no owner is going to let any portion of the
protected contour be subject to interference.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

I did.

Ya know, it would really seem as though there would have been better
remedies out
there to ensure the preservation of his investment.


Again, you are judging by US standards the things that go on in nations that
do not have, or for a period, do not have rule of law. A government like
that can nationalize anything they want.

In Cuba, American mining, refining, hotel and package goods companies had
all their assets nationalized in 1960. None have been recovered.

In Mexico, Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized foreign oil, rail and mining
companies in the early 30's. None of these assets has been recovered to this
day, over 70 years later.

And look at Bolivia's nationalization of the tin mines. Or Ecuador's
nationalization of petroleum resources. The list is endless. And there has
been no recovery. Venezuela has just nationalized the majority share of the
petroleum industry. Several US companies did not want to work with the
government, and abandoned their remaining interest and received nothing.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
This is a particularly lame part of your story, Cornholio. How hard
would it be for the govt to claim that it had to intervene due to
financial wrongdoing within the cooperative--or for one of a thousand
other convenient reasons? Trumping up these kinds of excuses is second
nature to small, conniving minds, as you know perhaps better than
anyone. Juntas aren't typically sticklers for due process. You just
weren't in much of a position to see all of this, being on your knees
most of the time.

As I said, and you did not read, the Ecuadorian junta was modeled after the
Peruvian one commanded by Gral. Velasco. It was not a rightist military
movement, but of the extreme left. The whole idea of giving the stations
away before they were nationalized was that a leftist "peoples" government
would never, ever, in Latin America, do anything against a union,
cooperative or leftist organization. Such a move would have caused the
entire labor, farm workers and cooperative movements to have risen in
protest. And that was why I did it.

"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and fight"
if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be difficult to
stay when you have been removed, does it not?

And, more to the point, there was no "fight." There was opposition in the
press and the political parties, but much of that was silenced by a good
beating, a convenient disappearance or imprisonment.