"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.

On Jan 8, 11:25*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

....



And again I'm not talking about weak signals. Strong signals that are
picked up with no background noise on a PORTABLE RADIO with its INTERNAL
antenna. The table top radios were just used as a reference because it
has a signal strength meter.

The fact is that they may seem strong to you, *but they are not considered
listenable by nearly everyone else or there would be vastly more listening
nationally outside the named contours and there is not.



The fact that you can hear a station does not mean any local listeners
will
tune to it. That is because what may be easy for you to tune, and of
acceptable strength, is not for nearly everyone else. Whether it is New
York
or Florida or Texas or Puerto Rico, carefully tabulated diary returns
show
where listening takes place, and it is almost entirely inside the named
contours.

I don't much time listening to weak signals. I don't care for putting up
with noise.

Yep, that is what the listeners say via their behaviour... signals below the
strength I mentioned are more subject to noise, harder to tune, etc. So they
don't listen.

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
The fact is that they may seem strong to you, but they are not
considered
listenable by nearly everyone else or there would be vastly more
listening
nationally outside the named contours and there is not.

The signals are strong. Anyone but you would agree that they are strong
signals except for you.

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.


Yep, that is what the listeners say via their behaviour... signals below
the
strength I mentioned are more subject to noise, harder to tune, etc. So
they
don't listen.

No I disagree. It must be content not the ability to get a noise free
signal. So it looks like you never made it up here.

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.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
The fact is that they may seem strong to you, but they are not
considered listenable by nearly everyone else or there would be
vastly more listening nationally outside the named contours and
there is not.

The signals are strong. Anyone but you would agree that they are
strong signals except for you.

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.


Yep, that is what the listeners say via their behaviour... signals
below the strength I mentioned are more subject to noise, harder
to tune, etc. So they don't listen.

No I disagree. It must be content not the ability to get a noise
free signal. So it looks like you never made it up here.

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Yep, that is what the listeners say via their behaviour... signals below the
strength I mentioned are more subject to noise, harder to tune, etc. So they
don't listen.


No I disagree. It must be content not the ability to get a noise free
signal. So it looks like you never made it up here.

Of course they listen to whatever station has the content they want but
it must also have a good signal. If either criteria is lacking, they
find another outlet or give up. That's the behavior of the vast majority
of AM listeners. They are the ones that create the ratings which are
reflected in the diaries. The fact that MW Dx'ers don't like this
reality, including myself, is unfortunately irrelevant.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'?