David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
I do not believe in illegal immigration, and believe there should be
controls as well as enforcement. However, those here with no criminal
record should have a path to residency, particularly if they have
children born or naturalized here.

So, you believe in amnesty for illegal immigration. Thanks for clearing
that up.

I believe in a path to legal residence, not amnesty. Those with a criminal
record (criminal, not misdemeanors) should not be eligible. All others
should be considered, perhaps made to pay a fine and some costs, but if they
have family and children here, allowed to become a resident and, eventually,
a citizen.


So, they can **** their way into the US.


In other words, pretty much the plan of the Democrats and that of
organizations such as the NCLR.


Uh huh. Hold me up. That's too much a shocker for this late in the
evening.

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.

When you don't have a valid argument, you always resort to threats. You have
done this several times before.

And when you don't have a valid argument, you resort to evasion,
change of subject, semantics, and/or pedantry. You do this alot.

There. Feel better, now?


The fact is that I do not condone illegal immigration, but do believe in a
program to convert long term illegal residents into legal ones.

So, the ones who have been illegal the longest, should be rewarded
with citizenship?

Got it.

I also
believe that new regulations and enforcement should be put in place for the
future.

And what would you like to see embraced by those regulations and
enforcements.....


In other jobs, the restrictions from union work rules has made
competitiveness, innovation and technical advancement suffer. I have seen
the same in many US industries, which have fled out of necessity to other
nations.

And there we have change-of-suject. What's the matter, uncomfortable
admitting that Steve may actually have paid into the programs he claims?

Or do you just get bored easily, and decide to take the discussion to
a different subject where your ready rants are drop-in fits.


As to Mr. Lare, his comments to others and to me convinces me that he is a
subsistence level misanthrope who tries to divert attention from himself by
insulting others. And that's without analyzing his overt homophobia, which
surely masks an even darker side to his personality.

I've been in this group as long as Steve Lare. Perhaps longer. What
I've not seen is him diverting attention by resorting to insults. He
resorts to insults in response to insults.

Historically, you and the others on Steve's ****list had been more
than graciously insulting before he fired his first response.

You can't claim the high ground in the insult game. You've been more
than insulting, not only to Steve, but to all of us, since your first
appearance. You can't cry foul when your argument is 'He hit me back first."

As for Steve's homophobia....well, I'm reasonably certain that he's
not afraid of anything. Let along homosexuals. Not believing in their
lifestyle is not a phobia. Not liking them as individuals is not a phobia.

Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. They respect me. I respect them. The
ones I have a problem with, and frankly, they themselves have a problem with the
'shove it in your face' folks.

I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly enough, they
themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who tend to step out of line.

Heard it last week.

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.
When you don't have a valid argument, you always resort to threats. You have
done this several times before.
And when you don't have a valid argument, you resort to evasion,
change of subject, semantics, and/or pedantry. You do this alot.

There. Feel better, now?

The fact is that I do not condone illegal immigration, but do believe in a
program to convert long term illegal residents into legal ones.
So, the ones who have been illegal the longest, should be rewarded
with citizenship?

Got it.

I also
believe that new regulations and enforcement should be put in place for the
future.
And what would you like to see embraced by those regulations and
enforcements.....

In other jobs, the restrictions from union work rules has made
competitiveness, innovation and technical advancement suffer. I have seen
the same in many US industries, which have fled out of necessity to other
nations.
And there we have change-of-suject. What's the matter, uncomfortable
admitting that Steve may actually have paid into the programs he claims?

Or do you just get bored easily, and decide to take the discussion to
a different subject where your ready rants are drop-in fits.

As to Mr. Lare, his comments to others and to me convinces me that he is a
subsistence level misanthrope who tries to divert attention from himself by
insulting others. And that's without analyzing his overt homophobia, which
surely masks an even darker side to his personality.
I've been in this group as long as Steve Lare. Perhaps longer. What
I've not seen is him diverting attention by resorting to insults. He
resorts to insults in response to insults.

Historically, you and the others on Steve's ****list had been more
than graciously insulting before he fired his first response.

You can't claim the high ground in the insult game. You've been more
than insulting, not only to Steve, but to all of us, since your first
appearance. You can't cry foul when your argument is 'He hit me back first."

As for Steve's homophobia....well, I'm reasonably certain that he's
not afraid of anything. Let along homosexuals. Not believing in their
lifestyle is not a phobia. Not liking them as individuals is not a phobia.

Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. They respect me. I respect them. The
ones I have a problem with, and frankly, they themselves have a problem with the
'shove it in your face' folks.

I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly enough, they
themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who tend to step out of line.

Heard it last week.



I worked with a guy at CBS, who was quite 'in your face,' about it.
It got pretty old. At the same time, both the continuity director and
the PD at one station in the group were both gay. Neither of them tried
to hide it. But they didn't put up billboards on Michigan Avenue, either.

Well, one day this kid was going on and on and on....and got right up
in my face about it....and did this at an appearance. And I said
something really tasteless. That he found mortifyingly embarrassing.

Of course there was a 'meeting' about it on Monday morning, and this
kid was on about homophobia-this and gay-bashing-that...and he ended his
diatribe with 'now how the hell do you expect me to work in such a
personally hostile environment as that.

The PD was there, of course, and he asked a few questions. I never
had a problem working with either he, or the continuity director, and in
fact, I was the one responsible for the continuity director being hired.
I recommended he be hired from the station I'd previously worked at in
Louisiana...where I'd worked with him for a couple of years. So, this
case wasn't really going to go anywhere.

I was asked to make my own statement....and I looked right at this
kid and asked him if he knew who I was sleeping with. He said, 'no.'

I asked if he knew who the afternoon guy was sleeping with. Again, 'no.'

The overnighter? 'no.' The weekenders?

Hmmmm...

He saw where this was going.

I said, "If I'm not sleeping with you, I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. It's nobody's business. If you're gay, who cares?
Nobody here. The only one who seems to be making this an issue is YOU."

That didn't sit real well.

"Nobody's saying you need to keep this under wraps. Neither the PD,
or the continuity director do. No closets here. But if you don't want
it to BE and issue, don't MAKE IT an issue. I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. That doesn't rise to the level of a phobia."

Pretty much ended the meeting.

Gay-Lib has been real effective at getting 'homophobia' dropped into
the vernacular. Trouble is that a phobia is an extreme and irrational
reaction. There's very little about the Gay struggle that's based in
phobia.

Not needing to know who someone is sleeping with is neither extreme,
nor is it irrational.

D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.
When you don't have a valid argument, you always resort to threats. You have
done this several times before.
And when you don't have a valid argument, you resort to evasion,
change of subject, semantics, and/or pedantry. You do this alot.

There. Feel better, now?

The fact is that I do not condone illegal immigration, but do believe in a
program to convert long term illegal residents into legal ones.
So, the ones who have been illegal the longest, should be rewarded
with citizenship?

Got it.

I also
believe that new regulations and enforcement should be put in place for the
future.
And what would you like to see embraced by those regulations and
enforcements.....

In other jobs, the restrictions from union work rules has made
competitiveness, innovation and technical advancement suffer. I have seen
the same in many US industries, which have fled out of necessity to other
nations.
And there we have change-of-suject. What's the matter, uncomfortable
admitting that Steve may actually have paid into the programs he claims?

Or do you just get bored easily, and decide to take the discussion to
a different subject where your ready rants are drop-in fits.

As to Mr. Lare, his comments to others and to me convinces me that he is a
subsistence level misanthrope who tries to divert attention from himself by
insulting others. And that's without analyzing his overt homophobia, which
surely masks an even darker side to his personality.
I've been in this group as long as Steve Lare. Perhaps longer. What
I've not seen is him diverting attention by resorting to insults. He
resorts to insults in response to insults.

Historically, you and the others on Steve's ****list had been more
than graciously insulting before he fired his first response.

You can't claim the high ground in the insult game. You've been more
than insulting, not only to Steve, but to all of us, since your first
appearance. You can't cry foul when your argument is 'He hit me back first."

As for Steve's homophobia....well, I'm reasonably certain that he's
not afraid of anything. Let along homosexuals. Not believing in their
lifestyle is not a phobia. Not liking them as individuals is not a phobia.

Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. They respect me. I respect them. The
ones I have a problem with, and frankly, they themselves have a problem with the
'shove it in your face' folks.

I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly enough, they
themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who tend to step out of line.

Heard it last week.



I worked with a guy at CBS, who was quite 'in your face,' about it.
It got pretty old. At the same time, both the continuity director and
the PD at one station in the group were both gay. Neither of them tried
to hide it. But they didn't put up billboards on Michigan Avenue, either.

Well, one day this kid was going on and on and on....and got right up
in my face about it....and did this at an appearance. And I said
something really tasteless. That he found mortifyingly embarrassing.

Of course there was a 'meeting' about it on Monday morning, and this
kid was on about homophobia-this and gay-bashing-that...and he ended his
diatribe with 'now how the hell do you expect me to work in such a
personally hostile environment as that.

The PD was there, of course, and he asked a few questions. I never
had a problem working with either he, or the continuity director, and in
fact, I was the one responsible for the continuity director being hired.
I recommended he be hired from the station I'd previously worked at in
Louisiana...where I'd worked with him for a couple of years. So, this
case wasn't really going to go anywhere.

I was asked to make my own statement....and I looked right at this
kid and asked him if he knew who I was sleeping with. He said, 'no.'

I asked if he knew who the afternoon guy was sleeping with. Again, 'no.'

The overnighter? 'no.' The weekenders?

Hmmmm...

He saw where this was going.

I said, "If I'm not sleeping with you, I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. It's nobody's business. If you're gay, who cares?
Nobody here. The only one who seems to be making this an issue is YOU."

That didn't sit real well.

"Nobody's saying you need to keep this under wraps. Neither the PD,
or the continuity director do. No closets here. But if you don't want
it to BE and issue, don't MAKE IT an issue. I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. That doesn't rise to the level of a phobia."

Pretty much ended the meeting.

Gay-Lib has been real effective at getting 'homophobia' dropped into
the vernacular. Trouble is that a phobia is an extreme and irrational
reaction. There's very little about the Gay struggle that's based in
phobia.

Not needing to know who someone is sleeping with is neither extreme,
nor is it irrational.

Amen.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Such studies of listening areas are done by broadcasters to determine
where
to do promotional activities. That includes van hits, street events,
location of billboards, In the case of an LA radio station, budgets for
this
type of promotion might be in the millions of dollars a year.

That's why it is important to plot where the listening occurs, and in the
case of forward-looking growth situations, where there is a potential for
growth.

A key issue in all of this is "where can I expect to pick up listening?"
as
opposed to areas where it would be next to impossible to do so. As part
of
this, we study how much signal is needed to support efforts to increase
listening. If nearly nobody will listen below a certain signal level,
chances are that we could throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a low
signal area and get no listening from it.

That is why all broadcasters look at the useful coverage areas (about 10
mv/m or greater on AM for metros and 64 dbu for FM) and don't attempt to
get
listeners outside such areas as it is not going to happen.

Contrary to what YOU believe, about every broadcaster in the US uses the
same criteria.

The issue here is what YOU believe as opposed to reality.

I'm pointing out to YOU that YOU are the only only one that believes
what YOU spew.

I don't buy YOUR spin and neither does ANYONE else.

So go ahead and post YOUR crap again as none believe YOU faker.

Everyone in the radio industry not only believes this, but uses it to guide
promotional and marketing and even sales activities.

I that explains why things are not working so well in radio these days.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
RHF wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

- Pensions are a product of company policies and
- union demands and threats.

Those are not 'company' programs. They're directly administered by the
Union for workers in good standing. They do not apply to members who have
declared 'financial core.'

I think that is why RHF distinguised between company pensions and union
ones. Many company pensions, such as those in the auto industry, are being
moved to the unions as the auto companies and related suppliers can not pay
them. They were created in the days when autos were so profitable (and fell
apart in 3 years or less) and so immune from foreign competion that the car
companies promised anything to avoid strikes. Wow, nobody can pay for any of
it.


And they're in addition to any programs by the company, and/or SS.

Pensions can be part employee financed, or totally enployer financed. SS is
an entitlement, and is based on, if I recall, the earned and taxed income
from the last 15 years of work prior to retirement.

Someone working for/with the larger companies, especially in a state
like California, would know all this.

California has few unionized workers by comparison to rust belt areas, and
is a right to work state. That's why unions often have to fund their own
pensions from dues, such as AFTRA and related film and entertainment unions
do.

That's some whacky world you live in. Are you wrong about most things?
The law of chance would give you 50% but you seem off base much more
often than that.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

D Peter Maus wrote:

Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.


Like the time Lare pretended to be from homeland security when he was
trying to get Mike fired from the university?

You are really disgusting.



mike

--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

m II wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.

Like the time Lare pretended to be from homeland security when he was
trying to get Mike fired from the university?

I never pretended to be from homeland security. I called, identified myself, and
stated why I was calling...

David Eduardo wrote:

As a citizen, I have a right to that opinion, and I have the right to
suspect that Steve Lare is somehow scamming the government and me, as a
taxpayer.


Don't forget the insurance settlements over the years. Last time he
claimed there was nothing wrong with him that 30+ thousand dollars
wouldn't fix. Sure sounds like a scam to me.


mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

m II wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

As a citizen, I have a right to that opinion, and I have the right to
suspect that Steve Lare is somehow scamming the government and me, as a
taxpayer.


Don't forget the insurance settlements over the years. Last time he
claimed there was nothing wrong with him that 30+ thousand dollars
wouldn't fix. Sure sounds like a scam to me.

You don't listen well.