David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


I'll get to my local library tomorrow and try and obtain those back issues
of
the Plain Dealer!

You will find it below the fold in the Monday, 4/23 edition of the Plain
Dealer.

Front page.

1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


I'll get to my local library tomorrow and try and obtain those back
issues
of
the Plain Dealer!

You will find it below the fold in the Monday, 4/23 edition of the Plain
Dealer.

Front page.

1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.


Or check with Tom Vail, the editor of the paper at the time and her stepson.

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Tue,
8 Jul 2008 14:49:39 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin


DX reception. The DXer is not a protected class.

Only the elite with money to spend on whatever they see or hear
advertised have any cachet to a capitalist ******* like D'uardo

Actually, radio is a mass medium, and the biggest interest is in people who
buy mass market goods. No station targets the elite.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


I'll get to my local library tomorrow and try and obtain those back
issues
of
the Plain Dealer!

You will find it below the fold in the Monday, 4/23 edition of the Plain
Dealer.

Front page.

1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.


Or check with Tom Vail, the editor of the paper at the time and her stepson.

Interesting though that 4/23/1997 is a Wednesday (which you say is a Monday),
whilst the obit that you show was published on Monday 4/21/1997 on what is
obviously an interior page.

Why would a paper publish an obit on Monday, and then return and publish it
again on the 'front page' two days later.

Ref: http://www.davidgleason.com/1946_Family.htm

On Jul 7, 6:44 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:35:06 -0700, David Eduardo wrote:

All the CC stations in the LA market make lots of money. None of the CC
stations is run at a loss on purpose, although some of them lose money
due to sharper competitors or bad signals.

They ran Indie 103.1 at a loss until the FCC stopped them.

They did no such thing. Indie was run by Entravision with a JSA (joint sales
agreement) with Clear Channel so they would not have to have a separate
sales department for a station (actually, combo) that only covers about 20%
of the market.

In any case, that was years ago... and the FCC only stopped them indirectly.
Clear ceased to hold the JSA because the FCC redefined the method used to
determine what a "radio market" is, causing quite a few changes across the
country to a number of broadcasters.

Eduardo – Your view of life is distorted by your greed. You, and
people like you, are the problem. Your arguments are both bogus and
biased and always self-serving. This is detected by the comments you
make.

There are millions of analog receivers that work perfectly and all but
a few deluded radio insiders are perfectly happy with analog radio.
There are thousands of local AM and FM stations that serve their areas
well and they are still in business and hopefully will be for a long
time.

But your type, which is controlled by greed and convinced of their
superiority, both technical and intellectual, would put them out of
business in a microsecond if you could. You read statistics and
numbers looking for ways to exploit regardless of consequences and you
gloat when you think you’re proven right. But so many times you’re
wrong. You are pathetic.

Businesses are full of people like you. Superficial individuals who
convince themselves they’re doing good but the reality is they are
just serving themselves. I know people like you. You connive behind
closed doors and convince yourself of things and then pretend that the
world would be better off with what you just convinced yourself of.
But they are foolish and reckless and so are you.

No doubt you are sitting there snickering but inside you’re
uncomfortable because you are a victim of your selfishness and
shallowness.

dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


I'll get to my local library tomorrow and try and obtain those back
issues
of
the Plain Dealer!

You will find it below the fold in the Monday, 4/23 edition of the Plain
Dealer.

Front page.

1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.


Or check with Tom Vail, the editor of the paper at the time and her stepson.

Interesting though that 4/23/1997 is a Wednesday (which you say is a Monday),
whilst the obit that you show was published on Monday 4/21/1997 on what is
obviously an interior page.

Why would a paper publish an obit on Monday, and then return and publish it
again on the 'front page' two days later.

And, if they did, why do you not show the 'front page' version on your website?
And, why did you direct us to the obviously interior page obit, whilst claiming
that her obit was on the front page?

Lot's of questions (as usual) 'Eduardo'.



Ref: http://www.davidgleason.com/1946_Family.htm

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.


Or check with Tom Vail, the editor of the paper at the time and her
stepson.

Interesting though that 4/23/1997 is a Wednesday (which you say is a
Monday),
whilst the obit that you show was published on Monday 4/21/1997 on what is
obviously an interior page.

I can not read the date, and I do not have the source article at work with
me, as I actually don't carry everything around with me for 24/7 access. If
you say it says the 21st, then you have better eysight than me... it looks
like a 23 to me.


Why would a paper publish an obit on Monday, and then return and publish
it
again on the 'front page' two days later.

Whatever the case, whether it is the 21st or the 23rd, there was a "briefer"
front page news story that day, with a fuller obituary inside. That is
common practice when a notable person dies... it is both news and the reason
for an obit.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Why would a paper publish an obit on Monday, and then return and publish
it
again on the 'front page' two days later.

They published both on the same day.

And, if they did, why do you not show the 'front page' version on your
website?
And, why did you direct us to the obviously interior page obit, whilst
claiming
that her obit was on the front page?

One is a news article, the other is a much more biographical obituary.
Common with notable persons in a community.

Lot's of questions (as usual) 'Eduardo'.


None at all.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.


Or check with Tom Vail, the editor of the paper at the time and her
stepson.

Interesting though that 4/23/1997 is a Wednesday (which you say is a
Monday),
whilst the obit that you show was published on Monday 4/21/1997 on what is
obviously an interior page.

I can not read the date, and I do not have the source article at work with
me, as I actually don't carry everything around with me for 24/7 access. If
you say it says the 21st, then you have better eysight than me... it looks
like a 23 to me.


Why would a paper publish an obit on Monday, and then return and publish
it
again on the 'front page' two days later.

Whatever the case, whether it is the 21st or the 23rd, there was a "briefer"
front page news story that day, with a fuller obituary inside. That is
common practice when a notable person dies... it is both news and the reason
for an obit.

So then what you posted http://www.davidgleason.com/1946_Family.htm is not the
front page article as you claimed.

Shame on you, you worthless little faux Hispanic!

Caught again, 'Eduardo', you are a f00kin liar.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
1997, right? I'll be certain to check it out.


Or check with Tom Vail, the editor of the paper at the time and her
stepson.

Interesting though that 4/23/1997 is a Wednesday (which you say is a
Monday),
whilst the obit that you show was published on Monday 4/21/1997 on what is
obviously an interior page.

I can not read the date, and I do not have the source article at work with
me, as I actually don't carry everything around with me for 24/7 access. If
you say it says the 21st, then you have better eysight than me... it looks
like a 23 to me.

Ah, you're making excuses again... as usual!