Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

dxAce, full time Bozo, wrote:

Pure pedant.

You really should learn the usage of nouns. The correct form of the word
in this case is 'pedantry', making it 'Pure pedantry'.

Another correct variation of your attempted slur is:

'purely pedantic'


A 'pedant' is a person, so your attempt at literacy, 'pure pedant',
actually means 'saintly male teacher'.



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/

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even KnowAM Radio Exists
 

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau can
not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all data is
based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE legal, this is
not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless,
then proceed to throw out your statistics.
Equally meaningless, no doubt.

Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals
there are, you can't know how many legals there are.

That he quotes a figure for legals requires that he knows how many
are illegal. Since he openly admits he doesn't report illegal immigrants
in this country to INS, he's an accessory to a number of crimes.

Calling his claims and credibility into question, by exposing an
openly admitted lack of integrity.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

m II wrote:

dxAce, full time Bozo, wrote:

Pure pedant.

You really should learn the usage of nouns. The correct form of the word
in this case is 'pedantry', making it 'Pure pedantry'.

Another correct variation of your attempted slur is:

'purely pedantic'

A 'pedant' is a person, so your attempt at literacy, 'pure pedant',
actually means 'saintly male teacher'.

Thanks, now all you need to do is take that and your shine box on the road and
you might just accomplish something.

d'Eduardo : So your 'Answer' is that +20% of All Adult Radio
 

On Jun 6, 12:30*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message

...
On Jun 6, 4:50 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:



It's much simpler... if a radio station programming does not attract
listeners that advertisers want to reach, it either is sold to someone
else
or it changes programming.

So Corporate Media's Excuse to Radio Listeners over the
Age of 55 and Age 49 for Hispanic Radio Listeners is :
IT THE ADVERTISERS FAULT !

It is not anyone's "fault" but simply the way advertiser supported media
works.

- The government in the US does not intervene and
- has not for about 40 years, in licensee decisions
- about program formats.

We are NOT talking about Programming Formats
We Are Talking About Discriminating Against the
+20% of the Adult Poplutation Over the Age of 55.

55+ listens to radio just as much as 45-54, for example. It's just that
there are no formats specifically designed for over-55, since they would not
survive.

d'Eduardo - Still Sounds Like and Overt Case
of 55+ Age Discrimination to me. ~ RHF

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even KnowAM Radio Exists
 

On Jun 6, 11:01*am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin *

And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau can
not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all data is
based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE legal, this is
not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless,
then proceed to throw out your statistics.
Equally meaningless, no doubt.

- Well, stop and think about it.
- If you can't know how many illegals there are,
- you can't know how many legals there are.

there are, -because- There Are. -unless- THERE AIN'T !

* *That he quotes a figure for legals requires that he knows how many
are illegal. Since he openly admits he doesn't report illegal immigrants
in this country to INS, he's an accessory to a number of crimes.

* *Calling his claims and credibility into question, by exposing an
openly admitted lack of integrity.

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even KnowAM Radio Exists
 

On Jun 6, 12:37*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin
And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau
can not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all
data is based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE
legal, this is not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless, then
proceed to throw out your statistics. Equally meaningless, no doubt.

* Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals there
are, you can't know how many legals there are.

- You can know the national number,
- but not the specifics for any jusrisdiction.

d'Eduardo - That's Another Burger King Answer. ~ RHF

- Every major source of demographics, public and private,
- has an estimate based on crossings less repatriations,
- but nobody has exact data on individual metros

d'Eduardo - You are becoming entertaining . . .

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even Know AMRadio Exists
 

RHF wrote:

On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin
And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau
can not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all
data is based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE
legal, this is not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless, then
proceed to throw out your statistics. Equally meaningless, no doubt.

Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals there
are, you can't know how many legals there are.

- You can know the national number,
- but not the specifics for any jusrisdiction.

d'Eduardo - That's Another Burger King Answer. ~ RHF

- Every major source of demographics, public and private,
- has an estimate based on crossings less repatriations,
- but nobody has exact data on individual metros

d'Eduardo - You are becoming entertaining . . .

Pure pedantry = pure entertainment

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

dxAce wrote:

m II wrote:

dxAce, full time Bozo, wrote:

Pure pedant.
You really should learn the usage of nouns. The correct form of the word
in this case is 'pedantry', making it 'Pure pedantry'.

Another correct variation of your attempted slur is:

'purely pedantic'

A 'pedant' is a person, so your attempt at literacy, 'pure pedant',
actually means 'saintly male teacher'.

Thanks, now all you need to do is take that and your shine box on the road and
you might just accomplish something.




Actually, 'pedant' is defined as:


n., A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and
rules, or with displaying academic learning.



Given his academic credentials, I'd say David is definitely
overcompensating for some perceived defiency.

"That's our Eduardo!"

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even KnowAM Radio Exists
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin
And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau
can not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all
data is based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE
legal, this is not a major issue.
First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless, then
proceed to throw out your statistics. Equally meaningless, no doubt.
Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals there
are, you can't know how many legals there are.

You can know the national number, but not the specifics for any
jusrisdiction.

Every major source of demographics, public and private, has an estimate
based on crossings less repatriations, but nobody has exact data on
individual metros




Then don't be arguing numbers.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

On Jun 6, 1:00*pm, dxAce wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 04:11:50 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

The first source of info is TV for most of the two
youngest generations of Americans.

You mean that pile of debris on the floor over there
that used to be the 'big screen'?

At the risk of getting back somewhere close to on topic,
My E1 will likely survive a hell of a lot more abuse
than the TV will, and still come on and play KNX. g

- - Any quake big enough to reach that point will
- - probably fell the KNX tower, which is on a
- - liquefaction zone, or kill the STL infrastructure.

- 'Eduardo', your brain is a liquefaction zone.

That would be the Ice Chest at . . .
most Amateur Radio Field Days.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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


"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Thu,
5 Jun 2008 14:24:32 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

Most of SD county does not receive a listenable signal from KNX
based on what signal level is required to get ratings.

I get them just fine, maybe you're thinking of the Anza Borrego
desert communities

No, I am thinking of the fact, verified by dozens of ratings
periods in many, many markets that shows that AMs get over 95% of
their in home and at work listening (70% lof the total listening
on average is in home or at work where ZIPs are tracable) is in
areas where the signal is 10 mv/m or greater. Since only a tiny
amount of shoreline has that intensity from KNX, there is pretty
much nowhere that the signal is usable by the average,
non-hobbyist, listener. Which is part of why they have essentially
no in home or at work listening at all in SD County (the county is
the metro for Arbitron).

SNIP

You are so full of crap. You don't know what you are talking about
at all.

Yeah, you are right and the measured behaviour of millions of persons
over the period of a decade or more is wrong.

San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal
strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey
periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries.

You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from
it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect
extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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


"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
The only 'metric' of any significance to this newsgroup is the
ability to be received, and KNX well qualifies in San Diego.

Don't bother to try arguing with Eduardo. He lives in the same
ivory tower as all sales types do, which has little or no
connection to real life.

Actually, I am a programmer who was for many years a chief
engineer as well.

SNIP

You sure could not tell that from the crap you post.


There is a Spanish saying about one not being able to cover the sky
with the palm of one's hand. You can deny all you want... there are
no facts other than your opinion to support your state of denial

You are full of crap Eduardo and you can repeat your nonsense all you
want but it does not make any of it true. You are not convincing anyone
but yourself.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 12:35:26 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin


Any quake big enough to reach that point will probably fell the KNX tower,
which is on a liquefaction zone, or kill the STL infrastructure.


If a quake hits San Diego hard enough to fell the KNX tower,
I won't be around to give a **** what happened.

A quake in SD is not likely to affect the KNX tower, which is in Torrance...
very far from SD County.

Now if one hits LA that
hard and we feel it (most likely) here, I'll scan through the amateur
repeaters to see if any survived up there, otherwise I'll wait until
some local station gets their chopper up to the scene and reports.

I don't think any SD radio station has a chopper.

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even Know AM Radio Exists
 

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 12:36:29 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin


"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau
can
not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all data
is
based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE legal, this
is
not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless,
then proceed to throw out your statistics.
Equally meaningless, no doubt.


The overall estimates are based on border crossings less returns.

You think they go through the turnstile counters at San Ysidro
so it can be determined how many are one way only?

There are all kinds of other estimates, based on a projection of the volume
indicated by tracks in all border areas, etc.

...and there are no turnstiles on any of the Otay Mesa smuggler trails
nor does anyone care enough to count any returning expatriates.

ICE gives an accurate count of repatriations.

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even Know AM Radio Exists
 

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 12:37:51 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin
And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau
can not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so
all
data is based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE
legal, this is not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless, then
proceed to throw out your statistics. Equally meaningless, no doubt.

Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals
there
are, you can't know how many legals there are.

You can know the national number, but not the specifics for any
jusrisdiction.

Every major source of demographics, public and private, has an estimate
based on crossings less repatriations, but nobody has exact data on
individual metros


You can, but you can't?
Sounds like the type paradox that your mental state is in.

We have national numbers, but not to the city or ZIP code levels.

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even Know AM Radio Exists
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


RHF wrote:

On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in
...

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on
Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin
And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census
Bureau
can not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so
all
data is based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE
legal, this is not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless, then
proceed to throw out your statistics. Equally meaningless, no doubt.

Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals
there
are, you can't know how many legals there are.

- You can know the national number,
- but not the specifics for any jusrisdiction.

d'Eduardo - That's Another Burger King Answer. ~ RHF

- Every major source of demographics, public and private,
- has an estimate based on crossings less repatriations,
- but nobody has exact data on individual metros

d'Eduardo - You are becoming entertaining . . .

Pure pedantry = pure entertainment

No, it is actually data available from the Census, Claritas, and other
demographers.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal
strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey
periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries.

You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from
it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect
extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down.

The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10
years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on
MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are laid
over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create multiple
contours.

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even Know AMRadio Exists
 

David Frackelton Gleason, who poses as 'Eduardo', blew the refried beans out his
ass when he wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


RHF wrote:

On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in
...

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on
Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin
And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census
Bureau
can not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so
all
data is based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE
legal, this is not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless, then
proceed to throw out your statistics. Equally meaningless, no doubt.

Well, stop and think about it. If you can't know how many illegals
there
are, you can't know how many legals there are.

- You can know the national number,
- but not the specifics for any jusrisdiction.

d'Eduardo - That's Another Burger King Answer. ~ RHF

- Every major source of demographics, public and private,
- has an estimate based on crossings less repatriations,
- but nobody has exact data on individual metros

d'Eduardo - You are becoming entertaining . . .

Pure pedantry = pure entertainment

No, it is actually data available from the Census, Claritas, and other
demographers.

Our data indicates that humanity would be better served if you were in the
fields picking lettuce.

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even KnowAM Radio Exists
 

On Jun 6, 11:34*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message

...





In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 12:36:29 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri,
6 Jun 2008 05:42:09 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

And there is no way to quantify illegal aliens; even the Census Bureau
can
not perform an exact ennumeration. They do not self-declare, so all data
is
based on estimates, not counts. Since 80% of Hispanics ARE legal, this
is
not a major issue.

First you disqualify any statistical reference as meaningless,
then proceed to throw out your statistics.
Equally meaningless, no doubt.

The overall estimates are based on border crossings less returns.

You think they go through the turnstile counters at San Ysidro
so it can be determined how many are one way only?

There are all kinds of other estimates, based on a projection of the volume
indicated by tracks in all border areas, etc.

...and there are no turnstiles on any of the Otay Mesa smuggler trails
nor does anyone care enough to count any returning expatriates.

- ICE gives an accurate count of repatriations.

d'Eduardo,

D'Oh ! - More 'go home' to Mexico on they own to Stay
or for a Visit/Vacation then are processed by ICE.

~ RHF

d'Eduardo -proclaims- Much of the Population Does Not Even Know AMRadio Exists
 

Bart Bailey wrote:

In posted on Sat, 07 Jun
2008 06:22:00 -0400, dxAce wrote: Begin


Our data indicates that humanity would be better served if you were in the
fields picking lettuce.

puhleeze
we already have enough infectious outbreaks from the ones there now
picking produce with their doodoo encrusted manos g

You certainly have a point there.

d'Eduardo : We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs . . .
 

On Jun 7, 8:41*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message

...

In posted on Sat, 07 Jun
2008 01:47:18 -0700, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin

KNDC
KNSD
*correction before he throws a hissy

- Who cares?

d'eduardo, d'Eduardo. d'EDUADO !

The majority of the Readers on this Newsgroup 'care' -cause-
Call Letters are Part of the Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL)
and the AM/MW Radio DXing and Listening (BCL) Hobby.
-ps- Remember this is the "Rec.Radio.Shortwave" Newsgroup.

D'Oh ! -A Radio Broadcaster should 'know' his Listeners.
-and- a Newsgroup Poster should 'know' his Readers.
-ps- You are showing and 'insensitivity' to your Readers.

- We were not discussing TV and

We are 'discussing' What We Are Discussing.
{ it is -what- It Is }

- most people don't identify electronic media by call letters anyway

D'Oh ! d'Eduardo,

Maybe that is 'true' for that Half of the US Population who are
Under-the-Age of 35 -but- For Us'ems who are 55+ Years Old :
We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs !
{ We Know How To Think In Call Letters and a lot more. }

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGO-AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCBS-AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSFO

Hell FM Radio Got-it-Right they put KQED-FM 88.5 MHz on the
Left-Side of the Dial with all the 'other' Public Non-Profit
Stations.
-but- As to 'why' KPFA is to the Right of KQED ? - I Don't Know !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KQED-FM

Now it is "True" that most TV Watchers Identify their TV Channels
by TV Channel Numbers and 'not' the Call Letters of the TV Station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tv_channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...on_frequencies

yes - i said "the left-side of the dial"
i b suffering from 'pre-digital' thinking ~ RHF

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal
strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey
periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries.

You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from
it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect
extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down.

The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10
years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on
MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are laid
over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create multiple
contours.

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Frackelton Gleason, whilst posing as 'Eduardo', spit out some more
pedantic BS when he wrote:

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Sat, 07 Jun
2008 01:47:18 -0700, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin

KNDC
KNSD
*correction before he throws a hissy

Who cares? We were not discussing TV and most people don't identify
electronic media by call letters anyway-

Except for hobbyists, of which you are not one.

Of which DX clubs were you a founder or member of the board?

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Sat, 7
Jun 2008 08:34:11 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin


"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 23:42:49 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings.

Yep,
as accurate as whomever with free time to participate in the survey
faithfully keeps their diary.

You obviously don 't know that there are studies that show that
no-participants have essentially the same behabiour as participants?


Never mind the spelling flame,
just try and focus on the illogic of your comment.
hint - how is a non-participant studied?

Non-participants are often studied for all kinds of research. In a separate
study, a refuser or non-participant will be recontacted in a different
manner, often with a much higher incentive, to discuss non-participation.
This often concludes with a measure of the original behaviour originally
solicited. Usually, an explanation that "we are studying what kind of
dishwasher liquid people who normally don't participate in studies use, and
we are willing to send you a $100 gift card if you will just ask a few
questions" will get nearly full participation.

The study of nonregular participants as a verification of the willing
participants shows the behaviours to be pretty much the same.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 23:42:49 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings.
Yep,
as accurate as whomever with free time to participate in the survey
faithfully keeps their diary.

You obviously don 't know that there are studies that show that
no-participants have essentially the same behabiour as participants?
If the diary methodology was so accurate, there would be no need to
encumber broadcasters with PPM.


The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle to
measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly results
10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the PPM today are
less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Sat, 7
Jun 2008 08:36:39 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

In any case, tv copters would not be of any use
at night, and on a weekend it would likely take 90 minutes to become
airboren.


Even if it took til dawn's early light to get "airboren"
the scene would still be there and new worthy

II am sure that, to a turd like you, dyslexia is amazingly funny.

On that line, what is "new worth?" See, this is why spell flames are so
infantile.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal
strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey
periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries.

You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from
it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect
extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down.

The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10
years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on
MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are
laid
over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create
multiple
contours.

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for
home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to
determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for
home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to
determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.


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.

d'Eduardo : We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs . . .
 

"RHF" wrote in message
...

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.

Only about 10% of the population even use those stations.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for
home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to
determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.


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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

d'Eduardo : We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs . . .
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"RHF" wrote in message
...

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.

Only about 10% of the population even use those stations.

Less than 0.1% believe what you post.

You are the only one that believes in the crap you post.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"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.

d'Eduardo : We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs . . .
 

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

"RHF" wrote in message
...

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.

Only about 10% of the population even use those stations.

Less than 0.1% believe what you post.

You are the only one that believes in the crap you post.

It's really very simple. Ask anyone with access to ratings data to do a run
on 12+ cume share for a combo created out of the three mentioned AMs in SF.
They reach about 1 in ten persons, no more.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 23:42:49 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings.
Yep,
as accurate as whomever with free time to participate in the survey
faithfully keeps their diary.
You obviously don 't know that there are studies that show that
no-participants have essentially the same behabiour as participants?
If the diary methodology was so accurate, there would be no need to
encumber broadcasters with PPM.


The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle to
measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly results
10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the PPM today are
less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.






So, you'll sacrifice precision for expediency. Anyone wonder why we
find so much of what you say to be questionable?

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle to
measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly
results 10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the PPM
today are less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.
So, you'll sacrifice precision for expediency. Anyone wonder why we find
so much of what you say to be questionable?

No, advertisers will sacrifice the one for the other.

I am on record as recently as yesterday when I told Owen Charlebois and
Steve Morris in New York I did not think PPM is ready to go currency in any
other markets yet.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle to
measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly
results 10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the PPM
today are less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.
So, you'll sacrifice precision for expediency. Anyone wonder why we find
so much of what you say to be questionable?

No, advertisers will sacrifice the one for the other.

I am on record as recently as yesterday when I told Owen Charlebois and
Steve Morris in New York I did not think PPM is ready to go currency in any
other markets yet.





The question still stands.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle
to measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly
results 10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the
PPM today are less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.
So, you'll sacrifice precision for expediency. Anyone wonder why we
find so much of what you say to be questionable?

No, advertisers will sacrifice the one for the other.

I am on record as recently as yesterday when I told Owen Charlebois and
Steve Morris in New York I did not think PPM is ready to go currency in
any other markets yet.



The question still stands.

As I said, I do not believe the less accurate, at present, PPM, is ready for
rollout (only one market is even accredited and only two are running).

The ad industry really is the one responsible for what measurement system
radio or TV uses, not the medium itself. It will be up to them in the end
to determine the usefulness of the PPM data they asked for.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle
to measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly
results 10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the
PPM today are less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.
So, you'll sacrifice precision for expediency. Anyone wonder why we
find so much of what you say to be questionable?
No, advertisers will sacrifice the one for the other.

I am on record as recently as yesterday when I told Owen Charlebois and
Steve Morris in New York I did not think PPM is ready to go currency in
any other markets yet.


The question still stands.

As I said, I do not believe the less accurate, at present, PPM, is ready for
rollout (only one market is even accredited and only two are running).

The ad industry really is the one responsible for what measurement system
radio or TV uses, not the medium itself. It will be up to them in the end
to determine the usefulness of the PPM data they asked for.



As I said, the question still stands.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle
to measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers
weekly results 10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results
of the PPM today are less accurate than the diary, but they are
faster.
So, you'll sacrifice precision for expediency. Anyone wonder why we
find so much of what you say to be questionable?
No, advertisers will sacrifice the one for the other.

I am on record as recently as yesterday when I told Owen Charlebois and
Steve Morris in New York I did not think PPM is ready to go currency in
any other markets yet.


The question still stands.

As I said, I do not believe the less accurate, at present, PPM, is ready
for rollout (only one market is even accredited and only two are
running).

The ad industry really is the one responsible for what measurement system
radio or TV uses, not the medium itself. It will be up to them in the
end to determine the usefulness of the PPM data they asked for.

As I said, the question still stands.

No, it does not. I have expressed my opinion to the Arbitron leadership, and
it is contrary to what you say about accepting expedience over accuracy

d'Eduardo : We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs . . .
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"RHF" wrote in message
...

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.

Only about 10% of the population even use those stations.



10% is a very significant number..