Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radios willsave it!
 

On Jan 9, 8:08*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"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.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radios willsave it!
 

On Jan 9, 8:20*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"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."

Yeah, because you didn't start one. You were too busy exercising your
tonsils on the Junta bosses.

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.

All of which you conveniently escaped, probably because you were an
informer.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radioswill save it!
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


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.

With absolutely no proof.

What you have done is trumped up insignificant issues and used them to
support your claim. For example, the NAB's error of incorrectly printing my
title in the program for a convention seminar was seen by you to be evidence
of lying about my title. Despite demonstrating to you how the error occured
and how the title, in fact, did not exist, you laid claim to your belief
that there was some kind of chicanery or deceipt involved.

Even more amusing was the insistence that I could not have editied my high
school´s paper since I was but a Sophomore when I became editior... yet the
totally verifiable fact that in that year, there was no Junior or Senior
class fell on your deaf ears. My class was the first to "extend" the school
from 1st to 9th grade to 1st to 12th grade, meaning that for that first
year, the "High School" had only one grade. You could verify that with an
e-mail, but didn't. You preferred to trump that realtive triviality into a
case to demonstrate your claim I had lied... which is not so.

And on and on with the same sort of thing, none of which proved anything.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radioswillsave it!
 

On Jan 9, 8:23*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







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*?

I was confronted and told I had to leave; as I have said for the period up
to the next flight, I was escorted by my new buddies with rifles. As I also
said, my colleague at El Tiempo was disappeared, the producer of a major TV
station imprisoned (he escaped with the help of a tractor), etc., etc. A
month or so after I left, the son of Quito's largest department store, Jaime
Briz, my neighbor, was kidnapped... his head was thrown into the family's
patio a few days later. Those were not nice times.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You got out alive by informing on others, who quite likely did not
survive, by bribing officials and by doing "favors". You aren't
fooling anyone.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radios willsave it!
 

On Jan 9, 8:24*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

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.

* 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.

I took the risk by speaking out while there. The effect of doing so was the
loss of everything I had, including the right to live where I wanted to
live.

I don't think being a stool pigeon counts as "speaking out", Tardo.
Even though the effect of doing so was getting out alive.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radioswill save it!
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

You got out alive by informing on others, who quite likely did not
survive, by bribing officials and by doing "favors". You aren't
fooling anyone.
}
That is funnier than your usual crazed stuff about all NYC radio stations
being interfered with (men in black, anyone?)

How could one who was in opposition to the government inform on anyone?
Since the "opposition" was printed every day in the paper and broadcast on
radio and TV, there were no secrets as to who was in the opposition and thus
nobody to inform on.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radioswillsave it!
 

On Jan 9, 8:30*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







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.

With absolutely no proof.

What you have done is trumped up insignificant issues and used them to
support your claim. For example, the NAB's error of incorrectly printing my
title in the program for a convention seminar was seen by you to be evidence
of lying about my title. Despite demonstrating to you how the error occured
and how the title, in fact, did not exist, you laid claim to your belief
that there was some kind of chicanery or deceipt involved.

Even more amusing was the insistence that I could not have editied my high
school´s paper since I was but a Sophomore when I became editior... yet the
totally verifiable fact that in that year, there was no Junior or Senior
class fell on your deaf ears. My class was the first to "extend" the school
from 1st to 9th grade to 1st to 12th grade, meaning that for that first
year, the "High School" had only one grade. You could verify that with an
e-mail, but didn't. You preferred to trump that realtive triviality into a
case to demonstrate your claim I had lied... which is not so.

And on and on with the same sort of thing, none of which proved anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lol. Face it Tardo, you were caught in your lies. I know being caught
was traumatic for you, but look on the bright side: no one else has
given it much thought since it happened. The only person worked up
into a lather is you.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radios will save it!
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"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.

I understand the theory as its pretty straight forward and simple.

So you have a plausible theory and some empirical data that appears to
validate it but something has gone wrong. Might be a problem with the
data collection process.


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.

So I live in an area that is anomalous to what might be described as a
general rule.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radios will save it!
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

So I live in an area that is anomalous to what might be described as a
general rule.


No, the anomaly is in the way you listen to radio.

Yea Eadurdo, radio is a growth-industry and crappy HD radioswillsave it!
 

On Jan 9, 8:51*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...

You got out alive by informing on others, who quite likely did not
survive, by bribing officials and by doing "favors". You aren't
fooling anyone.}

That is funnier than your usual crazed stuff about all NYC radio stations
being interfered with (men in black, anyone?)

Is that the color of the month at iNiquity?


How could one who was in opposition to the government inform on anyone?

By informing on others who were truly in opposition to the government.
By informing on others in order to save your own hide. Next question.

Since the "opposition" was printed every day in the paper and broadcast on
radio and TV, there were no secrets as to who was in the opposition and thus
nobody to inform on.

Or at any rate, there were no secrets for the junta bosses you
reported do. But there were secrets for the people you were informing
on.