On Mar 23, 12:02*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 22 Mrz., 23:21, "David Eduardo" wrote:

I studied, on my own, calculus and other areas of math. My interest was
enhanced when I saw what I could do with the knowledge and the excitement
of
building things that I had designed.

If you'd gone on to study additional areas of mathematics, I'm sure
you'd have been even more impressed.

I might have been. However, at the distance and degree of isolation I was
from the US, I had little further opportunity since the areas that
contributed to my livelihood had been covered and I could build and maintain
my installations quite handily.

Well, if you hadn't allowed considerations of distance and isolation
to be decisive and had gone on to learn more about mathematics, you'd
have been very impressed indeed.

David Eduardo wrote:

"m II" wrote in message
news:N0mFj.120040$w57.94356@edtnps90...
dxAcehole, AKA Steve Lare, pathological liar, racist and common drunk,
SUPCOMUCOMM (Supreme Commander,
United Counties of Michigan Militia)
Michigan
USA

during his fifth annual Farewell Forever tour, said:


And, if you don't belive that I make the calls, ask Mr. Bryant! He'll
'verie' that I indeed make the calls.



I remember it well. You called his past and present employers and
pretended to be from homeland security in order to get him fired. You
are a lying prick with a severe alcohol abuse problem.

That is good to know. I will immediately tell our HR department that I have
acquired a troll, and give them Steve's name and address and phone; they are
used to such occurrences as most of our talent acquires trolls at some time
or another.

'HR department'? In your case that must mean Hispanic Retard department.
Probably a very busy place!

Have 'em ring me up.

David Frackelton Gleason, Univisions retard boy who poses as 'Eduardo' wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Right, and that's another lie. You infer from data you supposedly use
professionally to dictate what signal levels I get, which according to
you are so weak nobody will listen to them but the truth is otherwise.
Since you fabricate the whole thing what does it matter, right?

We have been over this before, but here it is again.

We take indivisual stations, and we use Arbitron's MapMaker(tm) program and
have it plot the diary mentions (mention is the term of the trade for a
single entry indicating listening to a station in a single diary
representing one person) for at work and at home listening. Car listening,
which is the lesser of the three locations, is not identifiable by location
and excluded. This can be done in the Arbitron software down to the ZIP Code
level. We then superimpose over the map a set of contours... let's say 25
mV/m, and then 20, 15., 10, 5, 2.5 and 1 mV/M per FCC data, for the station.

We see within which of the contours there is listening, and between which of
them the listening ceases to be significant. We do this over for every AM in
a market. Then we do it for previous ratings periods, with special attention
to daytime vs. night by season

After we have done this for multiple significant stations in a number of
different stations, we see that in the daytime, anywhere from 90% to 95% of
listening on average occurs inside the 10 mV/m contour of AMs. At night, we
have to realize some stations have very high interference, so we have to
look at the interference free contour of some stations. In addition, AM's
have such low listening, as a class, at night, that very often there is
little data in any contour for a station... but it appears that an even
stronger signal is needed to garner listenership at night than by day.

Since such a project covers many formats in many markets on all kinds of
technical facilities. When the result is so uniformly indicitive of the
statement, "there is essentially no local listening outside the 10 mV/M
contour of any AM that we can conclude that this is a fact for in home and
at work AM listening.

The contours come right out of FCC data, taking into account ground
condutivity, etc. There is no presumption, just FCC data that is the basis
for each station's licenced operation.


Another lie. Plenty of stations have very good signal levels outside the
made up contours you come up with. I gave you a list of stations 11 or
13 long but that does not matter. Your lies or errors trump any
objective evidence.

Yes, but they do not have 10 mV/m signals in the ZIP you gave me, and,
coincidentally, have no listening either.

Your standard for "good signal level" is not the one 99% or more of
listeners use. Quite simply, the statoins you mentioned do not have the
necessary signal level to be listenable based on hundereds of thousands of
diaries over the last 10 years. Listenability requires a set signal
threshold... listening requires both signal strength and desirable
programming. For this reason, many stations over many years over many
markets were analyzed.

Again, those ones outside a certain coverage are are not getting
listening no matter where you go in the US. So there is nearly no
lost listening.

That's right make up more lies to frame the argument.

If the data over 10 years and over 15 sample markets, including peripheral
markets as well, shows that there is essentially no listening outside the 10
mv/m contour today, then there is no lost listening in fringe areas and
there is no lie in this as such listening does not exist.

What sounds perfectly fine to you has been show to be vastly beyond
the signal intensity where normal people with everyday radios will
listen.

See more lies. I look at this as objectively as possible but it makes no
difference to you Mr. Lier.

If you have hundreds of AM stations in many markets in over a decade of
audience ratings in over 40 surveys and you find essentially no listening
outside a particular contour, and all the listening inside it, then you can
say that there is essentially no listening outside the 10 mV/m contour. This
is irrespective if the signal is there at a lesser level, because millions
of listeners have indicated that such a level is not appealing since the
don't listen.

This is sort of like a batter who consistently hits just inside the
outfield, sometimes hits in the middle of the outfield and never hits into
the far outfield. Saying, then, that for all practical purposes, this batter
will essentially never hit a home run is verified by analyzing all his
previous hits; a homer would be a freak occurrence. Similarly, any AM
listening by metro area station outside the 10 is abnormal and statistically
not predictable since usually all the listening happens inside the contour.

All your talk comes from within the contours of your ass.

David Eduardo wrote:

No, the amusement is in seeing how a racist like dxAss can convince all of
you that truth is suddenly a lie,

What's the problem? It even works both ways. W/Cheney/Powell convinced
us that lies were the truth...

....unfortunately, there was no 'amusement' in that.

wrote:


There is no reason to be bored in HS, period.

Well, that's a pretty broad and indefensible statement, isn't it? There
could be many reasons you are bored in HS; just a few that come to mind a

a) poor teacher(s)
b) an average student in a class full of dummies or hooligans
c) a particularly bright student in a class full of average students

So, there are three of many reasons why someone -could- be bored in HS,
period.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Yeah, but what is the point of generating this Web page and Usenet
fabrication? What does he have to gain by doing this? There has to be a
payoff somewhere.


There is no fabrication. dxAss claims to have proven lies, and all he can
come up with is questioning if I went to Mexico in March or April of 1963...
as I said, no fabrication.

Didn't you 'claim' to have 'moved' to Mexico at the age of 13? That woould be
1959 or 1960.

You are a liar and fabricator of the highest degree, oh faux one!

dxAce wrote:

David Frackelton Gleason, Univisions retard boy who poses as 'Eduardo' wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Right, and that's another lie. You infer from data you supposedly use
professionally to dictate what signal levels I get, which according to
you are so weak nobody will listen to them but the truth is otherwise.
Since you fabricate the whole thing what does it matter, right?
We have been over this before, but here it is again.

We take indivisual stations, and we use Arbitron's MapMaker(tm) program and
have it plot the diary mentions (mention is the term of the trade for a
single entry indicating listening to a station in a single diary
representing one person) for at work and at home listening. Car listening,
which is the lesser of the three locations, is not identifiable by location
and excluded. This can be done in the Arbitron software down to the ZIP Code
level. We then superimpose over the map a set of contours... let's say 25
mV/m, and then 20, 15., 10, 5, 2.5 and 1 mV/M per FCC data, for the station.

We see within which of the contours there is listening, and between which of
them the listening ceases to be significant. We do this over for every AM in
a market. Then we do it for previous ratings periods, with special attention
to daytime vs. night by season

After we have done this for multiple significant stations in a number of
different stations, we see that in the daytime, anywhere from 90% to 95% of
listening on average occurs inside the 10 mV/m contour of AMs. At night, we
have to realize some stations have very high interference, so we have to
look at the interference free contour of some stations. In addition, AM's
have such low listening, as a class, at night, that very often there is
little data in any contour for a station... but it appears that an even
stronger signal is needed to garner listenership at night than by day.

Since such a project covers many formats in many markets on all kinds of
technical facilities. When the result is so uniformly indicitive of the
statement, "there is essentially no local listening outside the 10 mV/M
contour of any AM that we can conclude that this is a fact for in home and
at work AM listening.

The contours come right out of FCC data, taking into account ground
condutivity, etc. There is no presumption, just FCC data that is the basis
for each station's licenced operation.

Another lie. Plenty of stations have very good signal levels outside the
made up contours you come up with. I gave you a list of stations 11 or
13 long but that does not matter. Your lies or errors trump any
objective evidence.
Yes, but they do not have 10 mV/m signals in the ZIP you gave me, and,
coincidentally, have no listening either.

Your standard for "good signal level" is not the one 99% or more of
listeners use. Quite simply, the statoins you mentioned do not have the
necessary signal level to be listenable based on hundereds of thousands of
diaries over the last 10 years. Listenability requires a set signal
threshold... listening requires both signal strength and desirable
programming. For this reason, many stations over many years over many
markets were analyzed.
Again, those ones outside a certain coverage are are not getting
listening no matter where you go in the US. So there is nearly no
lost listening.
That's right make up more lies to frame the argument.
If the data over 10 years and over 15 sample markets, including peripheral
markets as well, shows that there is essentially no listening outside the 10
mv/m contour today, then there is no lost listening in fringe areas and
there is no lie in this as such listening does not exist.
What sounds perfectly fine to you has been show to be vastly beyond
the signal intensity where normal people with everyday radios will
listen.
See more lies. I look at this as objectively as possible but it makes no
difference to you Mr. Lier.
If you have hundreds of AM stations in many markets in over a decade of
audience ratings in over 40 surveys and you find essentially no listening
outside a particular contour, and all the listening inside it, then you can
say that there is essentially no listening outside the 10 mV/m contour. This
is irrespective if the signal is there at a lesser level, because millions
of listeners have indicated that such a level is not appealing since the
don't listen.

This is sort of like a batter who consistently hits just inside the
outfield, sometimes hits in the middle of the outfield and never hits into
the far outfield. Saying, then, that for all practical purposes, this batter
will essentially never hit a home run is verified by analyzing all his
previous hits; a homer would be a freak occurrence. Similarly, any AM
listening by metro area station outside the 10 is abnormal and statistically
not predictable since usually all the listening happens inside the contour.

All your talk comes from within the contours of your ass.




And he wonders why DXers don't like him.

Broadcasters fired the first shot, in dismissing DXers.

Even demonstrating this thinking in a previous post by saying:


Interest in DX reports waned as the importance of
non-local coverage waned, while at the same time most non-Metro stations
used outside contract engineers who were not paid to answer reception
reports. Today, nearly nobody at a station will know what DX even is.

Again, DXers are fans. Fans don't turn on you. You have to run them off.

Broadcasters fired the first shot, here.

And the repeating of the corporate line, as clinical number above,
only reinforces this.

I don't believe he's so stupid as to not see this. But I do believe
he's so invested in his position that he can't acknowledge it.

Which only underscores the accusation made some months ago that he's
a shill.

wrote:

If you'd gone on to study additional areas of mathematics, I'm sure
you'd have been even more impressed.



So, Ron..do you prefer the Tampa area internet providers or the German
ones?



mike

mommy was a dumbass II wrote:

wrote:

If you'd gone on to study additional areas of mathematics, I'm sure
you'd have been even more impressed.

So, Ron..do you prefer the Tampa area internet providers or the German
ones?

Either would certainly be preferable to those in CanaDuh.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


That is good to know. I will immediately tell our HR department that I
have
acquired a troll, and give them Steve's name and address and phone; they
are
used to such occurrences as most of our talent acquires trolls at some
time
or another.

'HR department'? In your case that must mean Hispanic Retard department.
Probably a very busy place!

Another racist comment from dxAss about people he does not know. Of course
our HR department deals mostly with Hispanics... we are a large company
serving the Hispanic population of the US... but you demean the company and
its constituency just because you hate, as often shown, Hispanics.