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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that
guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is
talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.


You still don't get it, do you.

SNIP

The BS meter is reading 40 over S9.

Believe me I get it Eduardo. I get that you are the BS master of this
news group.

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals can
be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you
how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market and prove
this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the very
intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no urban area
listening.

Yet you deny the facts.

The database for this consists of a sample size several thousand times that
of the typical political poll, and has been proven over and over.

And you deny the facts.

The prices for hundred-million dollar radio stations are in part determined
by the number of people in the "listenable signal" contours.

But you deny it.

And your only defense is to call a basic rule of the radio industry BS.

On Jul 10, 6:00*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that
guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is
talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.

You still don't get it, do you.

SNIP

The BS meter is reading 40 over S9.

Believe me I get it Eduardo. I get that you are the BS master of this
news group.

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals can
be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one.

- Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you how we can
- compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
- and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Drive to Glendale and the "BS" Meter will be Pegged at S9 +60dB.


Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the very
intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no urban area
listening.

Yet you deny the facts.

The database for this consists of a sample size several thousand times that
of the typical political poll, and has been proven over and over.

And you deny the facts.

The prices for hundred-million dollar radio stations are in part determined
by the number of people in the "listenable signal" contours.

But you deny it.

And your only defense is to call a basic rule of the radio industry BS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"RHF" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can
be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one.

- Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you how we can
- compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
- and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Drive to Glendale and the "BS" Meter will be Pegged at S9 +60dB.

Actually, what you will find is the home of the #1, #2 and #6 stations in
25-54 audience in the 87 station LA market, a feat achieved by knowing and
reacting to facts like the ones I cited. In fact, two of those stations have
been in the top couple of stations in the market going back a decade.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show
you how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market and
prove this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the
very intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no
urban area listening.

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours. It really doesn't matter that you say 95% of all listening happens
within those contours.. if you do the math, that still means that 15 MILLION
people do not listen inside those contours. That is NOT an insignificant
number, as you and the rest of your increasingly irrelevant industry seem to
believe.

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.

I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.

A Brown wrote:
Yet you deny the facts.

No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.

I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.


The key word is 'ridiculous.' Which negates your claim to be 'real
world.'


"Argument based in the absurd is not incumbent upon Reality to comply."

--Lt. Cmdr D. L. Mandron.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Yet you deny the facts.

No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.

I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.


The key word is 'ridiculous.' Which negates your claim to be 'real
world.'

I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Yet you deny the facts.

No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.
I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.

The key word is 'ridiculous.' Which negates your claim to be 'real
world.'

I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.

No one was claiming protection to infinity. Which was my point. There
is no place in the real world for his argument. It was ridiculous in its
premise. On two fronts. There is no practical protection to infinity.
And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

He's negated his own point.

I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.

No one was claiming protection to infinity.

Then to what point then?

Just enough so you can DX the stations you want?

The FCC has already decided to what point stations deserve protection....

And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

Again, taking your "iboc interference" argument to it's ilogical confusion.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show
you how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the
very intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no
urban area listening.

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours. It really doesn't matter that you say 95% of all listening
happens within those contours.. if you do the math, that still means that
15 MILLION people do not listen inside those contours. That is NOT an
insignificant number, as you and the rest of your increasingly irrelevant
industry seem to believe.

In metro areas, the remaining 5% is generally inside the market, but outside
the 64 dbu or 10 mv/m signals of inferior technical facilities.