dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!



Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD
to take off for all its promise.

And there are those, even members of the group--like Pancho
himself--who believe not only that SW is dead, but it's actively
standing in the way of more revolutionary technical developments.

So, guys like this are no surprise.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context
to absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it
takes someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the
statement isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven
flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.






Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.


....and apparently you are!

Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.

A Brown wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context
to absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it
takes someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the
statement isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven
flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.
...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.





Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.


...and apparently you are!



LOL!

A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.




Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.


Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

They don't care about the technology that brings them the content they want.

Only radio geeks care about the technology.

A Brown wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.
Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.


Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

They don't care about the technology that brings them the content they want.

Only radio geeks care about the technology.





Which is precisely the point. So far, only the technology has been
promoted. And the diverse 'out of the box' programming offerings have
not materialized as promised.

The public is not interested in the technology. And so far, HD has
only been about the technology.


Sales figures show no public interest. Both Radio Shaft and Best Buy
have pulled most of their HD offerings off the shelves.

There's no interest in the product.

Now, Radio being Radio, and iBiquity having have made the enormous
investment in HD hardware and licensing fees, it's not like HD will
simply go away. After all, AM stereo had a more publicly interested pre
launch. But, as discussed here, delays due to legal wrangling and FCC's
mishandling of the technology and implementation allowed public interest
to wane before a practical launch. Even so, it took more than 20 years
for AM Stereo to die. With some 100 or so stations still using their
C-Quam encoders, despite the fact that there hasn't been a new AM Stereo
receiver built in the last 5 years and AM Stereo came off the standard
equipment list of GM And Chrysler almost a decade ago.

There is no reason to believe Radio will be any quicker to give up HD.

But, right now, as it stands, HD is a solution in search of a problem.

On Jul 14, 3:19*pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
* Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
* Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
* No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.

* Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
* *So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

* *Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

* *Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

* *But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

* *Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

* *Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!

* *Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

* *Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD
to take off for all its promise.

-*And there are those, even members of the group--like
- Pancho himself--who believe not only that SW is dead,
- but it's actively standing in the way of more revolutionary
- technical developments.
-
- * *So, guys like this are no surprise.

Revolutionary Technical Developments . . .
The Sound of Silence on the AM Radio Band as the
last AM Radio Broadcaster goes off the Air. ~ RHF

On Jul 14, 4:06*pm, "A Brown" wrote:
* Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

* Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

- The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.

"Geeks" is more of an 'Internetish' slang term and
the Internet came long after Radio as a Hobby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

Back in the Days of Radio being a 'cool' Hobby
the slang term would have been "Nerd"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

spastically yours ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic

RHF wrote:

"Geeks" is more of an 'Internetish' slang term and
the Internet came long after Radio as a Hobby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

Back in the Days of Radio being a 'cool' Hobby
the slang term would have been "Nerd"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

Nerd? 'Squares' is more like it. With pocket protectors...and six inch
Sun-Hemmi bamboo slide rules.



mike

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

http://improve-usenet.org/