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.

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.



Yes, I do get it. It's sport. You don't actually discuss. You don't
actually discuss, because you don't actually listen. You don't actually
respond to someone else's comment.

You declare. You don't discuss.


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.


And you would be in direct contradiction with yourself. You've stated
repeatedly how the disinterest in DX reports predates even the days of
CKLW.

Broadcasters had disdain for DXers long before DXers had disdain for
Broadcasters.



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.


Wow. That's some debate style.

You must have been a student of Bryant.

Or Algore.


Have a good evening, David.

In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.



Yes, I do get it. It's sport. You don't actually discuss. You don't
actually discuss, because you don't actually listen. You don't actually
respond to someone else's comment.

You declare. You don't discuss.

SNIP

He just posts crap for the hell of it. He thinks it is fun to trash the
news group.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

He just posts crap for the hell of it. He thinks it is fun to trash the
news group.


I find it entertaining to see how groundless are the assumptions of a group
that hates commercial radio,

On 22 Mrz., 16:15, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



He just posts crap for the hell of it. He thinks it is fun to trash the
news group.

I find it entertaining to see how groundless are the assumptions of a group
that hates commercial radio,

Not many people like being ripped off. Do you?

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

He just posts crap for the hell of it. He thinks it is fun to trash the
news group.


I find it entertaining to see how groundless are the assumptions of a group
that hates commercial radio,

What I find entertaining is how you just make stuff up out of thin air.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"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.

SNIP

To bad for anyone reading your posts that it is all just BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Mar 21, 10:27�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

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 inHD Radioto 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.

"News/Talk/Sports:Radio's Last Bastion"

"Music FMs of any flavor are utterly screwed... Right now -- while FMs
are losing the music audience to new media -- satellite radio is
offering more News/Talk/Sports programming than we can fit on AM
radio..."

http://ftp.media.radcity.net/ZMST/daily/IS031005.htm

"Sean Hannity's warning for music-oriented Radio"

"In five years when every car has an iPod connection and you can
listen to anything you want, what is music radio going to do? Sean is
dead right on this point. Within five years we'll see diminishing
ratings on sound-alike music-oriented FM's. And radio will enter a new
age of non-music programming. Not necessarily talk. But not
particularly music... The AM radio style of political talk is only one
facet of what will fast become a burgeoning trend towards non-music."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/12/sean-hannitys-w.html

"The Last Days of AM Radio?"

"Sports, all-news and talk programming continue to draw large
audiences to the AM band in most big cities..."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfi..._am_radio.html

"News/Talk/Sports Tops Radio Formats, Interep Analysis Reveals"

"The latest share numbers place the News/Talk/Sports format at the
top, pulling in an average of 17 percent of listenership among persons
age 12-plus, based on Arbitron figures for total radio listening in 92
continuously measured metros. That share number is even higher than
levels seen last spring, when the war in Iraq began. According to
Interep, more stations than ever are programming News/Talk."

http://www.thenewsletterplace.com/05...9/article4.htm

It's the music-oriented FMs that are screwed.