David Frackelton Gleason, still posing as 'Eduardo' wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 11:05 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Scooter" wrote in message

.. .

Terrestrial radio's biggest problem is retaining advertising revenues
as
more ad dollars are siphoned by the internet. In 2007 total ad dollars
for
radio fell to where they were in 2003. That point to an industry going
backwards, not forward, Cramer said.
The average market cap of terrestrial radio companies has declined by a
staggering 80% over the last five years. But the bottom isn't even in
yet,
as far as Cramer can tell
Either way, the bottom line remains the same. Cramer expects the
terrestrial
radio companies to go down harder than almost anything else and he
would
not
own any of them under any condition right now.

Of course, Cramer is barely right half the time. His advice is more
entertaining screaming and diatribe than useful.

Hey NAMBLA dude, where have you been hiding?

A rather simple inspection of the message headers will show that the "dude"
in question is an imposter.

But, what the hell, you seem to believe it so I do have a reasonable idea of
your perceptive abilities and IQ.

Your "IQ" is just something else you made up, right, Gleason?

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Your "IQ" is just something else you made up, right, Gleason?



Started your weekend drinking binge, I see.

David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Your "IQ" is just something else you made up, right, Gleason?



Started your weekend drinking binge, I see.




Which raises the question....why would you waste your time?

You dismiss him as irrelevant. You dismiss him as alcoholic.

And yet...you're the one who engages him.


Hmmmmm...



Kinda raises another question. Doesn't it.


Given your stated disdain for DXers, it is quite the curiosity that
you spend so much time arguing with them.

Like Steve...you dismiss them as irrelevant. You blame them for the
deterioration of their relationship with broadcasters...and yet you
regularly engage them.



Hmmmmmm...



A person in your position would seem to have better uses for his
time. Unless, like another poster here, who faded away about the time of
your appearance, your bickering here is fodder for some discussions
outside of the group.

Which then raises more significant questions.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Which raises the question....why would you waste your time?

You dismiss him as irrelevant. You dismiss him as alcoholic.

And yet...you're the one who engages him.

If you had been on a high school or college debate team, you would
understand.

Given your stated disdain for DXers, it is quite the curiosity that you
spend so much time arguing with them.

I have a disdain for DXers who have a disdain for broadcasters. Big
difference.

Like Steve...you dismiss them as irrelevant. You blame them for the
deterioration of their relationship with broadcasters...and yet you
regularly engage them.

.... because it is fun.

A person in your position would seem to have better uses for his time.

I find this a rather entertaining diversion from that very same position.

Unless, like another poster here, who faded away about the time of your
appearance, your bickering here is fodder for some discussions outside of
the group.

How nice to be able to foment conversation.

Which then raises more significant questions.

Nothing on a news group is truly significant. It's backyard gossip over a
(fire) wall.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Which raises the question....why would you waste your time?

You dismiss him as irrelevant. You dismiss him as alcoholic.

And yet...you're the one who engages him.

If you had been on a high school or college debate team, you would
understand.

SNIP

Most people shun debaters. You would think you would have learned that
by now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

Which raises the question....why would you waste your time?

You dismiss him as irrelevant. You dismiss him as alcoholic.

And yet...you're the one who engages him.

If you had been on a high school or college debate team, you would
understand.

SNIP

Most people shun debaters. You would think you would have learned that
by now.

This is documented where? In your rigid inflexible mind?

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Which raises the question....why would you waste your time?

You dismiss him as irrelevant. You dismiss him as alcoholic.

And yet...you're the one who engages him.

If you had been on a high school or college debate team, you would
understand.


So, this just sport for you. You're not arguing to purpose, you're
simply arguing. Got it.

I was in the Writer's Club, actually.


Given your stated disdain for DXers, it is quite the curiosity that you
spend so much time arguing with them.

I have a disdain for DXers who have a disdain for broadcasters. Big
difference.


What you conveniently ignore, is that fans don't turn on the
object of their fanaticism....they have to be run off.

Broadcasters were long disdainful of DXers before DXers were
turned off.

So, you have disdain for Dxers who have disdain for you because
you had disdain for them.

Yes, it's a big difference of no difference. The very persons for
whom you have disdain are the ones you spend so much time aguing with.

Yes, I see the distinction.




Like Steve...you dismiss them as irrelevant. You blame them for the
deterioration of their relationship with broadcasters...and yet you
regularly engage them.

... because it is fun.

A person in your position would seem to have better uses for his time.

I find this a rather entertaining diversion from that very same position.

Unless, like another poster here, who faded away about the time of your
appearance, your bickering here is fodder for some discussions outside of
the group.

How nice to be able to foment conversation.

As usual, you miss my point.


Which then raises more significant questions.

Nothing on a news group is truly significant. It's backyard gossip over a
(fire) wall.



Uh huh...which, again, raises questions.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Which raises the question....why would you waste your time?

You dismiss him as irrelevant. You dismiss him as alcoholic.

And yet...you're the one who engages him.

If you had been on a high school or college debate team, you would
understand.


So, this just sport for you. You're not arguing to purpose, you're
simply arguing. Got it.

No, you do not get it. Debate, going back to the Greeks, was as much about
the enjoyment of the discussion as the content being discussed. There are
two parts... holding a point of view and enjoying the challenge of defending
it.

I have a disdain for DXers who have a disdain for broadcasters. Big
difference.


What you conveniently ignore, is that fans don't turn on the object
of their fanaticism....they have to be run off.

This "hatred" has to origins...

One is based in the decline of AM whereby most "DX hours" programming is
networked and there is little variety to hear among domestics.

The second is based on AM looking for a saviour, and placing some faith in
HD Radio to improve its declining fortunes.

The first makes late-night DX boring. The second makes it impossible. Both
are reasonable business decisions by AM stations, but DXers see them as
attacks.

Broadcasters were long disdainful of DXers before DXers were turned
off.

I would not say that. 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.


Unless, like another poster here, who faded away about the time of your
appearance, your bickering here is fodder for some discussions outside
of the group.

How nice to be able to foment conversation.

As usual, you miss my point.

You have no point.