[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 6, 2:00 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



I'm sure he can recite a number of Arbitron statistics to prove that
assertion.

See the problem with Eduardo is that all arguments begin and end with
Arbitron since he supposedly has access to that data and we don't so he
can't loose.

Nearly 100% of the viable radio stations in rated markets has access to the
data. However, Arbitron only releases the data on 12+ listeners in one
daypart,, which is 6 AM to midnight. The rest of the data is copyright and
protected for only sales and programming purposes.


Sure it is....sure....




Well I just re-ran the Usenet reader stats and Eduardo came out on the
bottom of believability contour of all posters. The number of people
that believe him is below 10% in the 25 to 54 age group or in other
words his bombast signal level is not high enough for most to put up
with. People will just tune out in favor of a more rational poster on
Usenet.

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of
listening,

What? And risk running afoul of your cherished Encarta dictionary?
Lol....

of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about anything
you don't agree with.

Umm...maybe if "the messenger" wouldn't insist on spamming the group
with off-topic posts, people wouldn't shoot him for recreation.

[David Eduardo]

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of
listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way
radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and
this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about
anything
you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you
can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to
pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray
you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you
do not listen to the stations you can hear.

[Robert Orban]

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
lid says...


In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
lid says...


In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
news:telamon_spamshield-
...

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no
way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your
head.

Bob didn't test all the different model radios.


He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm
guessing
you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and
the term
Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who
reinvented audio
processing.

Yep, that where you got stuck somehow.

Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again.

Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake
vigorously

Looking good.

This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I
am only one
member) was done very carefully. See http://www.nrscstandards.org/
and click
"AM Bandwidth Study."

Telamon
Ventura, California

By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are
implying
that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope that you
would at
least back up your accusation by letting us know your real name and
what
evidence you have that the study was flawed.

The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your
reading
comprehension. The handle is Telamon.

I don't care what your handle is. I care what your real-world identity is.
I have posted under mine.

If you choose to slander the work of the NRSC AM Bandwidth Working
Group while hiding your identity, then welcome to my killfile.

Bob Orban

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 6, 5:14 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of
listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way
radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and
this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about
anything
you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you
can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to
pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray
you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you
do not listen to the stations you can hear.

You're busted, Tardo. Busted.

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 6, 5:36 pm, Robert Orban wrote:
In article telamon_spamshield-
,
says...







In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
says...

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
news:telamon_spamshield-
...

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no
way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your
head.

Bob didn't test all the different model radios.

He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm
guessing
you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and
the term
Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who
reinvented audio
processing.

Yep, that where you got stuck somehow.

Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again.

Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake
vigorously

Looking good.

This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I
am only one
member) was done very carefully. Seehttp://www.nrscstandards.org/
and click
"AM Bandwidth Study."

Telamon
Ventura, California

By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are
implying
that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope that you
would at
least back up your accusation by letting us know your real name and
what
evidence you have that the study was flawed.

The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your
reading
comprehension. The handle is Telamon.

I don't care what your handle is. I care what your real-world identity is.
I have posted under mine.

If you choose to slander the work of the NRSC AM Bandwidth Working
Group while hiding your identity, then welcome to my killfile.

Bob Orban- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't give a **** who you are. Kindly keep your crap out of
rec.radio.shortwave.

[David Eduardo]

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you choose to slander the work of the NRSC AM Bandwidth Working
Group while hiding your identity, then welcome to my killfile.

Bob Orban- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't give a **** who you are. Kindly keep your crap out of
rec.radio.shortwave.


Yeah, the Luddite tortoises there might have heart attacks upon being
confronted with reality.

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 6, 6:19 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



If you choose to slander the work of the NRSC AM Bandwidth Working
Group while hiding your identity, then welcome to my killfile.

Bob Orban- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't give a **** who you are. Kindly keep your crap out of
rec.radio.shortwave.

Yeah, the Luddite tortoises there might have heart attacks upon being
confronted with reality.

We'll never know so long as they're forced to entertain your bull****.

[RHF]

On Oct 6, 5:13 am, Steve wrote:
On Oct 5, 3:54 am, RHF wrote:





On Oct 4, 10:45 pm, Telamon

wrote:
In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
says...

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
...

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head.

Bob didn't test all the different model radios.

He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing
you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term
Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio
processing.

Yep, that where you got stuck somehow.

Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again.

Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Looking good.

This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I am only one
member) was done very carefully. Seehttp://www.nrscstandards.org/andclick
"AM Bandwidth Study."

Telamon
Ventura, California

By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are implying
that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope that you would at
least back up your accusation by letting us know your real name and what
evidence you have that the study was flawed.

The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your reading
comprehension. The handle is Telamon.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now be nice Telamon,

Mister Orban has posted under his own name
and has asked you to reply to him : in kind.

FWIW - Robert {Bob} Orban
* A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United
States
-by- Robert Orban, San Francisco, CAhttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htmhttp://www.261.gr/roberthistory.html
* Optimod "Ask Bob" - Orban/CRL Systems, Inc.http://www.orban.com/support/orban/a...gr/robert.html
* Orban Audio Codec - "Opticodec Line"http://www.orban.com/products/codec/

it's nice to be nice ! RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact is, it's pretty well impossible to know when someone is
posting under "their own name" on the internet. The only thing you can
really conclude is that someone is posting under a name which they
intend for you to believe is their own!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

FWIW - With the above Information you could Post Directly
to Him via his Business Website and Know-For-Sure. ~ RHF

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 6, 7:21 pm, RHF wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:13 am, Steve wrote:





On Oct 5, 3:54 am, RHF wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:45 pm, Telamon

wrote:
In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
says...

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
...

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head.

Bob didn't test all the different model radios.

He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing
you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term
Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio
processing.

Yep, that where you got stuck somehow.

Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again.

Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Looking good.

This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I am only one
member) was done very carefully. Seehttp://www.nrscstandards.org/andclick
"AM Bandwidth Study."

Telamon
Ventura, California

By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are implying
that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope that you would at
least back up your accusation by letting us know your real name and what
evidence you have that the study was flawed.

The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your reading
comprehension. The handle is Telamon.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now be nice Telamon,

Mister Orban has posted under his own name
and has asked you to reply to him : in kind.

FWIW - Robert {Bob} Orban
* A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United
States
-by- Robert Orban, San Francisco, CAhttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htmhttp://www.261.gr/roberthistory.html
* Optimod "Ask Bob" - Orban/CRL Systems, Inc.http://www.orban.com/support/orban/a...gr/robert.html
* Orban Audio Codec - "Opticodec Line"http://www.orban.com/products/codec/

it's nice to be nice ! RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact is, it's pretty well impossible to know when someone is
posting under "their own name" on the internet. The only thing you can
really conclude is that someone is posting under a name which they
intend for you to believe is their own!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

FWIW - With the above Information you could Post Directly
to Him via his Business Website and Know-For-Sure. ~ RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It makes little difference to me so long as he stops spamming
rec.radio.shortwave.

[Telamon]

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of
listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way
radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and
this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about
anything
you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you
can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to
pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray
you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you
do not listen to the stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[dxAce]

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of
listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way
radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and
this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about
anything
you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you
can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to
pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray
you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you
do not listen to the stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong.

He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

[RHF]

On Oct 6, 10:40 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article om,





Steve wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:48 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 5, 3:54 am, RHF wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:45 pm, Telamon

wrote:
In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
says...

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
news:telamon_spamshield-
...

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said
no way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your
head.

Bob didn't test all the different model radios.

He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm
guessing
you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the
term
Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who
reinvented
audio
processing.

Yep, that where you got stuck somehow.

Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again.

Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Looking good.

This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I am
only one
member) was done very carefully.
Seehttp://www.nrscstandards.org/andclick
"AM Bandwidth Study."

Telamon
Ventura, California

By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are
implying
that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope that you
would at
least back up your accusation by letting us know your real name and
what
evidence you have that the study was flawed.

The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your
reading
comprehension. The handle is Telamon.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now be nice Telamon,

Mister Orban has posted under his own name
and has asked you to reply to him : in kind.

FWIW - Robert {Bob} Orban
* A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United
States
-by- Robert Orban, San Francisco,
CAhttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htmhttp://www.261.gr/roberthistory.html
* Optimod "Ask Bob" - Orban/CRL Systems,
Inc.http://www.orban.com/support/orban/a...1.gr/robert.ht
ml
* Orban Audio Codec - "Opticodec
Line"http://www.orban.com/products/codec/

it's nice to be nice ! RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact is, it's pretty well impossible to know when someone is
posting under "their own name" on the internet. The only thing you can
really conclude is that someone is posting under a name which they
intend for you to believe is their own!

When it comes to content, nobody can duplicate one of Bob Orban's posts.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

I'm sure he can recite a number of Arbitron statistics to prove that
assertion.

See the problem with Eduardo is that all arguments begin and end with
Arbitron since he supposedly has access to that data and we don't so he
can't loose.

Well I just re-ran the Usenet reader stats and Eduardo came out on the
bottom of believability contour of all posters. The number of people
that believe him is below 10% in the 25 to 54 age group or in other
words his bombast signal level is not high enough for most to put up
with. People will just tune out in favor of a more rational poster on
Usenet.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

d'Eduardo -aka- "El Arbitronaireo" the SuperHero of Mucho Numbers;
Mágico Market Share and the El Estupendo {Factoid} Percentage !

and all i have is gut 'feeling' based on what i hear on the radio ~
RHF
.

[Telamon]

In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
lid says...


In article ,
Robert Orban wrote:

In article telamon_spamshield-
,
lid says...


In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
news:telamon_spamshield-
...

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he
said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off
the top of your head.

Bob didn't test all the different model radios.


He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use.
I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might
google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit
about the man who reinvented audio processing.

Yep, that where you got stuck somehow.

Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously

Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again.

Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake
vigorously

Looking good.

This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I
am only one member) was done very carefully. See
http://www.nrscstandards.org/ and click "AM Bandwidth Study."

Telamon Ventura, California

By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are
implying that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope
that you would at least back up your accusation by letting us know
your real name and what evidence you have that the study was
flawed.

The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your
reading comprehension. The handle is Telamon.

I don't care what your handle is. I care what your real-world
identity is. I have posted under mine.

If you choose to slander the work of the NRSC AM Bandwidth Working
Group while hiding your identity, then welcome to my killfile.

What part of the thread do you think belongs to you before you butted
in? My comments strictly pertained to Eduardo until you decided to be
part of the thread. My comments on statistics pertain to the marketing
drivel he continually posts.

That's a big chip on your shoulder Bob.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Telamon]

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

...

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing
level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen
to the stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.

He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

I agree.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[David Eduardo]

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition
of
listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way
radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up,
and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and
this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about
anything
you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it"
you
can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability
to
pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts
betray
you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around
you
do not listen to the stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong.

It's all about what you think, not about what the other hundreds of
thousands of people in your radio market do. You have done no research on
the rest of them, and they out number you. In otherwords, your research
method was looking in a mirror at yourself. BS.

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 6, 10:20 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition
of
listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way
radio
is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up,
and
you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and
this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about
anything
you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it"
you
can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability
to
pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts
betray
you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around
you
do not listen to the stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong.

It's all about what you think, not about what the other hundreds of
thousands of people in your radio market do. You have done no research on
the rest of them, and they out number you. In otherwords, your research
method was looking in a mirror at yourself. BS

It can't all be BS. If it were, you wouldn't keep coming back, and you
certainly wouldn't be posting 30 times a day.

[D Peter Maus]

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

...
You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.
Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!
No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing
level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen
to the stations you can hear.
I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.
He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

I agree.



I got a thought, here.

During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about
IBOC chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a
manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to
verify his claim.

To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his
own defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it
would contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable.

But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if
the information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating
it, why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet?

And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial
espionage such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such
a thing on the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house
without some intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be
forbidden to speak of the subject at all.


When Mercury Marine was preparing for the introduction of Verado, I
had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I was ever permitted to
sit behind a microphone. Before I was ever permitted to see even a
script in development. I had to read it in the presence of the agency
rep, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and I had to verbally agree
that nothing I was about to see, hear, read, or encounter would leave
the studio. Hell, I wasn't even allowed to receive a copy of the spots
and presentation for my own demo. And despite the fact that Verado has
been on the market, now, for some years, and I've been the voice of
Mercury for more than half a decade, I'm still not permitted to include
the spots on my demo.

I wasn't permitted even to tell my closest friends anything more
than to go to the Miami Boat Show. I couldn't even tell them to see the
Mercury display.

Why? Because no one wanted to see Yamaha, OMC, or even Honda upstage
the release of the all-new Verado with similar technology of their own.

This is true of a number of projects I've worked on, and a number of
sponsors I've worked with.

If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary
information, why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement?
If they did, why is he talking about it in a world wide public space?
And if he's talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not
able to post your link?

Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of
some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate, where
confidentiality is an essential tool of success.

[Alan[_2_]]

In article Telamon writes:
I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real credentials.

Alan

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

[Randy Yates]

Steve writes:

On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

Replace "extraordinary" with "verifiable and accountable" and you may
dimly begin to see the point.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 7, 8:13 am, Randy Yates wrote:
Steve writes:
On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

Replace "extraordinary" with "verifiable and accountable" and you may
dimly begin to see the point.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah yes, I see it now. Quite a pathetic and uninteresting point. Hmmm.

[Telamon]

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level
is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the
stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.

It's all about what you think, not about what the other hundreds of
thousands of people in your radio market do. You have done no
research on the rest of them, and they out number you. In otherwords,
your research method was looking in a mirror at yourself. BS.

Nope. It's all about you Eduardo and that's a fact jack.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Telamon]

In article , Randy Yates
wrote:

Steve writes:

On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article

Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real
credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

Replace "extraordinary" with "verifiable and accountable" and you may
dimly begin to see the point.

Oh yeah, we defer to you since you are apparently an expert on "dim."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Telamon]

In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

t
...
You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.
Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!
No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing
level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen
to the stations you can hear.
I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.
He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

I agree.



I got a thought, here.

During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about
IBOC chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a
manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to
verify his claim.

To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his
own defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it
would contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable.

But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if
the information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating
it, why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet?

And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial
espionage such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such
a thing on the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house
without some intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be
forbidden to speak of the subject at all.


When Mercury Marine was preparing for the introduction of Verado, I
had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I was ever permitted to
sit behind a microphone. Before I was ever permitted to see even a
script in development. I had to read it in the presence of the agency
rep, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and I had to verbally agree
that nothing I was about to see, hear, read, or encounter would leave
the studio. Hell, I wasn't even allowed to receive a copy of the spots
and presentation for my own demo. And despite the fact that Verado has
been on the market, now, for some years, and I've been the voice of
Mercury for more than half a decade, I'm still not permitted to include
the spots on my demo.

I wasn't permitted even to tell my closest friends anything more
than to go to the Miami Boat Show. I couldn't even tell them to see the
Mercury display.

Why? Because no one wanted to see Yamaha, OMC, or even Honda upstage
the release of the all-new Verado with similar technology of their own.

This is true of a number of projects I've worked on, and a number of
sponsors I've worked with.

If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary
information, why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement?
If they did, why is he talking about it in a world wide public space?
And if he's talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not
able to post your link?

Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of
some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate, where
confidentiality is an essential tool of success.

Mr. Eduardo has all kinds of interesting anomalies in his posting style
that make me wonder just what it is I'm dealing with. He has made quite
a few mistakes that people Trolling Usenet usually make. He fits that
profile of one pretty well.

Eduardo claims technical expertise but does not understand the
difference between symbols that are multipliers and an electrical unit
that define the measurement of field strength at the epicenter of most
of his arguments. He seems to have no interest in the terminology other
than to use them as terms to beat people about head with. Once you
challenge him on an assertion he made he always retreats to information
that is only accessible to him.

He is wrong on semiconductor technology, wrong about the business of
semiconductors, wrong about the traffic and topology of southern
California that he supposedly lives in, wrong about radio reception, and
he has been wrong about the rollout of HD radios even though he has this
insider information we don't share in.

The arguments on radio station reception have been the most amusing for
me as he continued to retreat to less and less tenuous position. The
ignorance he has expressed seems to know no bounds.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[SFTV_troy]

Robert Orban wrote:
In article .com,
says...



Steven wrote:

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier
version may have IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)


You have it backwards. It used to be PAC, derived from MP3.

Early testing showed it didn't work very well, so the codec was
switched to MPEG4 AAC+SBR.

No, it wasn't. The codec was changed to something iBiquity calls "HDC."
It is known to use the Coding Technologies' Spectral Band Replication
technology (as does MPEG HE-AAC) but its technical details are otherwise
held secret by iBiquity. This secrecy has caused considerable
controversy in the broadcast industry.



It shouldn't be too diifficult to determine - just use a little
reverse engineering. If it's using SBR, well that's all that really
matters. SBR extends the high-frequency components from ~8 to 16
kilohertz, so that even an MP3 + SBR sounds good.

[Telamon]

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Robert Orban wrote:
In article .com,
says...



Steven wrote:

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier
version may have IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)


You have it backwards. It used to be PAC, derived from MP3.

Early testing showed it didn't work very well, so the codec was
switched to MPEG4 AAC+SBR.

No, it wasn't. The codec was changed to something iBiquity calls "HDC."
It is known to use the Coding Technologies' Spectral Band Replication
technology (as does MPEG HE-AAC) but its technical details are otherwise
held secret by iBiquity. This secrecy has caused considerable
controversy in the broadcast industry.



It shouldn't be too diifficult to determine - just use a little
reverse engineering. If it's using SBR, well that's all that really
matters. SBR extends the high-frequency components from ~8 to 16
kilohertz, so that even an MP3 + SBR sounds good.

You never finnish your sentences. You mean sounds good to tin ears.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[RHF]

On Sep 29, 1:09 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

A REMINDER TO ALL -WRT- "HD" RADIO

There Is a "HD Radio" NewsGroup
HD RADIO = http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/
Description: This is a Group for discussing HD Radio, it's
viability in the market place, HD Radios & Receivers and
Technology, Programming, Reception, and in general
anything concerning HD Radio that shouldn't be clogging
up other NewsGroups, like Rec.Radio.Shortwave.

For anyone who is looking for an "HD" Radio Group that
is Moderated -or- Simply NOT Rec.Radio.Shortwave

Here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "HD" Radio News and Information.
HD RADIO = http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=HD+Radio
* HDRadio
* HD-Radio
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Accurian HD Radio {RadioShack}
* High Defination Radio

Plus here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "IBOC" {HD Radio} News and Information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=IBOC
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Sangean HDT1 "HD" Radio Tuner
* NO2IBOC = Just Say "NO" To IBOC !
* DRM IBOC HDRadio = DRM and HD Radio Forum
* AMStereoOnly = AM Stereo Only ! - Where Digital Is Dead !

FWIW - Here is another HD Radio Forum {NewsGroup}
AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154
Some Good Info Here and It is Free for the Reading )

And Once Again The Aforementioned "HDRadio" NewsGroup
HDRADIO=http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/

hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF

[Randy Yates]

RHF writes:

A REMINDER TO ALL -WRT- "HD" RADIO

There Is a "HD Radio" NewsGroup
HD RADIO = http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/
Description: This is a Group for discussing HD Radio, it's
viability in the market place, HD Radios & Receivers and
Technology, Programming, Reception, and in general
anything concerning HD Radio that shouldn't be clogging
up other NewsGroups, like Rec.Radio.Shortwave.

For anyone who is looking for an "HD" Radio Group that
is Moderated -or- Simply NOT Rec.Radio.Shortwave

Here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "HD" Radio News and Information.
HD RADIO = http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=HD+Radio
* HDRadio
* HD-Radio
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Accurian HD Radio {RadioShack}
* High Defination Radio

Plus here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "IBOC" {HD Radio} News and Information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=IBOC
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Sangean HDT1 "HD" Radio Tuner
* NO2IBOC = Just Say "NO" To IBOC !
* DRM IBOC HDRadio = DRM and HD Radio Forum
* AMStereoOnly = AM Stereo Only ! - Where Digital Is Dead !

FWIW - Here is another HD Radio Forum {NewsGroup}
AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154
Some Good Info Here and It is Free for the Reading )

And Once Again The Aforementioned "HDRadio" NewsGroup
HDRADIO=http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/

hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF

It may seem pedantic, but please don't refer to these as "newsgroups"
unless they are true usenet newsgroups. There are no "hd-*" newsgroups
on my supernews server (one of the largest in the world), so they
probably don't exist.

A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not a usenet newsgroup
make.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[David Eduardo]

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Eduardo claims technical expertise but does not understand the
difference between symbols that are multipliers and an electrical unit
that define the measurement of field strength at the epicenter of most
of his arguments. He seems to have no interest in the terminology other
than to use them as terms to beat people about head with. Once you
challenge him on an assertion he made he always retreats to information
that is only accessible to him.

You have long tried to obfuscate the fact... the amazingly simple fact...
that the farther you go from a station's transmitter, the fewer are the
people who listen to it. In studies of millions of ZIP Code specific
listening incidents, it can be seen that metro area AMs get few incidents
outside of the area where the measured field strenght is 10 mV/m or better.
Outside that area, there is little if any listening.

I am not a student of propagation theory. I am a student and practitioner of
radio programming. Knowing where a station may successfully get listening is
a key to any programming endeavor. Wasting time where the signal is not good
enough for the average listener to enjoy listening is counterproductive. The
listener cares not how the signal gets to the radio but cares in extreme
whether the osund is clear, free from interference and enjoyable to listen
to.

The rest of your technobabble is irrelevant to me and the listener.

He is wrong on semiconductor technology, wrong about the business of
semiconductors, wrong about the traffic and topology of southern
California that he supposedly lives in, wrong about radio reception, and
he has been wrong about the rollout of HD radios even though he has this
insider information we don't share in.

The rollout of HD is pretty much on schedule, from the iBiquity point of
view. The ad campaign by the HD Alliance sucks, but many HD broadcasters are
not members of that group and so have no influence.

The only thing any of us in radio stations needs to know is that less
costly, low power chips are coming in 2008. That has been stated and
confirmed. There are no news articles or bona fied reports to the contrary.
Your opinions, since you are not in boradcasting, are pretty much valueless
in this instance.

The single fact you have posted on "topography" involves one road,
connecting the LA market with the Ventura market, which has a tiny amount of
traffic compared to all the roads in LA and Orange Counies (the LA metro)
and is thus irrelevant. Your remark did prove you did not know that all
listening irrespective of where it takes place goes to the metro where the
listener lives, not where they travel. So you were making conclusions based
on fauty understanding of ratings and the business of radio... the very
business you cricize so vehemently.

The arguments on radio station reception have been the most amusing for
me as he continued to retreat to less and less tenuous position. The
ignorance he has expressed seems to know no bounds.

My evidence is based on where and when and for how long actual people
listen, all over the US. Your comments are based on what you can get on your
radio in your car or home.

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 7, 3:01 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
RHF writes:
A REMINDER TO ALL -WRT- "HD" RADIO

There Is a "HD Radio" NewsGroup
HD RADIO =http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/
Description: This is a Group for discussing HD Radio, it's
viability in the market place, HD Radios & Receivers and
Technology, Programming, Reception, and in general
anything concerning HD Radio that shouldn't be clogging
up other NewsGroups, like Rec.Radio.Shortwave.

For anyone who is looking for an "HD" Radio Group that
is Moderated -or- Simply NOT Rec.Radio.Shortwave

Here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "HD" Radio News and Information.
HD RADIO =http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=HD+Radio
* HDRadio
* HD-Radio
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Accurian HD Radio {RadioShack}
* High Defination Radio

Plus here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "IBOC" {HD Radio} News and Information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=IBOC
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Sangean HDT1 "HD" Radio Tuner
* NO2IBOC = Just Say "NO" To IBOC !
* DRM IBOC HDRadio = DRM and HD Radio Forum
* AMStereoOnly = AM Stereo Only ! - Where Digital Is Dead !

FWIW - Here is another HD Radio Forum {NewsGroup}
AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO =http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154
Some Good Info Here and It is Free for the Reading )

And Once Again The Aforementioned "HDRadio" NewsGroup
HDRADIO=http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/

hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF

It may seem pedantic, but please don't refer to these as "newsgroups"
unless they are true usenet newsgroups. There are no "hd-*" newsgroups
on my supernews server (one of the largest in the world), so they
probably don't exist.

A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not a usenet newsgroup
make.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestrahttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer to true
usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks.

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 7, 3:26 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

Eduardo claims technical expertise but does not understand the
difference between symbols that are multipliers and an electrical unit
that define the measurement of field strength at the epicenter of most
of his arguments. He seems to have no interest in the terminology other
than to use them as terms to beat people about head with. Once you
challenge him on an assertion he made he always retreats to information
that is only accessible to him.

You have long tried to obfuscate the fact... the amazingly simple fact...
that the farther you go from a station's transmitter, the fewer are the
people who listen to it. In studies of millions of ZIP Code specific
listening incidents, it can be seen that metro area AMs get few incidents
outside of the area where the measured field strenght is 10 mV/m or better.
Outside that area, there is little if any listening.

I am not a student of propagation theory. I am a student and practitioner of
radio programming. Knowing where a station may successfully get listening is
a key to any programming endeavor. Wasting time where the signal is not good
enough for the average listener to enjoy listening is counterproductive. The
listener cares not how the signal gets to the radio but cares in extreme
whether the osund is clear, free from interference and enjoyable to listen
to.

The rest of your technobabble is irrelevant to me and the listener.



He is wrong on semiconductor technology, wrong about the business of
semiconductors, wrong about the traffic and topology of southern
California that he supposedly lives in, wrong about radio reception, and
he has been wrong about the rollout of HD radios even though he has this
insider information we don't share in.

The rollout of HD is pretty much on schedule, from the iBiquity point of
view. The ad campaign by the HD Alliance sucks, but many HD broadcasters are
not members of that group and so have no influence.

The only thing any of us in radio stations needs to know is that less
costly, low power chips are coming in 2008. That has been stated and
confirmed. There are no news articles or bona fied reports to the contrary.
Your opinions, since you are not in boradcasting, are pretty much valueless
in this instance.

The single fact you have posted on "topography" involves one road,
connecting the LA market with the Ventura market, which has a tiny amount of
traffic compared to all the roads in LA and Orange Counies (the LA metro)
and is thus irrelevant. Your remark did prove you did not know that all
listening irrespective of where it takes place goes to the metro where the
listener lives, not where they travel. So you were making conclusions based
on fauty understanding of ratings and the business of radio... the very
business you cricize so vehemently.



The arguments on radio station reception have been the most amusing for
me as he continued to retreat to less and less tenuous position. The
ignorance he has expressed seems to know no bounds.

My evidence is based on where and when and for how long actual people
listen, all over the US. Your comments are based on what you can get on your
radio in your car or home.

You have no evidence. You don't care about evidence. You care about
money, about doing the bidding of your masters, and about saying
anything it takes to make the money roll in. Period.

[Randy Yates]

Steve writes:
[...]
Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer to true
usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks.

This is what they are called in the very header of a usenet message
according to the specification of usenet:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html (see e.g. section 2)

So I'll stick with the terminology defined in the standard, thanks.
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Telamon]

In article , Randy Yates
wrote:

RHF writes:

A REMINDER TO ALL -WRT- "HD" RADIO

There Is a "HD Radio" NewsGroup
HD RADIO = http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/
Description: This is a Group for discussing HD Radio, it's
viability in the market place, HD Radios & Receivers and
Technology, Programming, Reception, and in general
anything concerning HD Radio that shouldn't be clogging
up other NewsGroups, like Rec.Radio.Shortwave.

For anyone who is looking for an "HD" Radio Group that
is Moderated -or- Simply NOT Rec.Radio.Shortwave

Here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "HD" Radio News and Information.
HD RADIO = http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=HD+Radio
* HDRadio
* HD-Radio
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Accurian HD Radio {RadioShack}
* High Defination Radio

Plus here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "IBOC" {HD Radio} News and Information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=IBOC
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Sangean HDT1 "HD" Radio Tuner
* NO2IBOC = Just Say "NO" To IBOC !
* DRM IBOC HDRadio = DRM and HD Radio Forum
* AMStereoOnly = AM Stereo Only ! - Where Digital Is Dead !

FWIW - Here is another HD Radio Forum {NewsGroup}
AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154
Some Good Info Here and It is Free for the Reading )

And Once Again The Aforementioned "HDRadio" NewsGroup
HDRADIO=http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/

hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF

It may seem pedantic,

Snip

First "dim" and now "pedantic", yes I would say you are on track.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 7, 4:55 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
Steve writes:
[...]
Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer to true
usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks.

This is what they are called in the very header of a usenet message
according to the specification of usenet:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html(see e.g. section 2)

So I'll stick with the terminology defined in the standard, thanks.
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

I know. Embarrassing isn't it?

[RHF]

On Oct 7, 2:21 pm, Steve wrote:
On Oct 7, 4:55 pm, Randy Yates wrote:





Steve writes:
[...]
Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer to true
usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks.

This is what they are called in the very header of a usenet message
according to the specification of usenet:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html(seee.g. section 2)

So I'll stick with the terminology defined in the standard, thanks.
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

I know. Embarrassing isn't it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


OK so can we all get back to Counting the Number
of Angels on the Head of a Pin . . . . . . . . . ~ RHF

[Randy Yates]

RHF writes:
[...]
OK so can we all get back to Counting the Number
of Angels on the Head of a Pin . . . . . . . . . ~ RHF

It's a little more relevent than that.

Some of us use real usenet newsreader clients (instead of the Google
web interface), so the Google and Yahoo groups aren't accessible using
these applications. There are lots of other political and practical
reasons why Yahoo/Google "groups" are significantly different than
usenet newsgroups.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[RHF]

On Oct 7, 3:13 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
RHF writes:
[...]
OK so can we all get back to Counting the Number
of Angels on the Head of a Pin . . . . . . . . . ~ RHF

It's a little more relevent than that.

Some of us use real usenet newsreader clients (instead of the Google
web interface), so the Google and Yahoo groups aren't accessible using
these applications. There are lots of other political and practical
reasons why Yahoo/Google "groups" are significantly different than
usenet newsgroups.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

RY - Not to a "Pin Head" like Me. ;-} ~ RHF

[Steve[_12_]]

On Oct 7, 6:13 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
RHF writes:
[...]
OK so can we all get back to Counting the Number
of Angels on the Head of a Pin . . . . . . . . . ~ RHF

It's a little more relevent than that.

Some of us use real usenet newsreader clients (instead of the Google
web interface), so the Google and Yahoo groups aren't accessible using
these applications. There are lots of other political and practical
reasons why Yahoo/Google "groups" are significantly different than
usenet newsgroups.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

This might seem pedantic, but please avoid the term "newsgroups".

[Justa Lurker]

Steve wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:13 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
RHF writes:
[...]
OK so can we all get back to Counting the Number
of Angels on the Head of a Pin . . . . . . . . . ~ RHF
It's a little more relevent than that.

Some of us use real usenet newsreader clients (instead of the Google
web interface), so the Google and Yahoo groups aren't accessible using
these applications. There are lots of other political and practical
reasons why Yahoo/Google "groups" are significantly different than
usenet newsgroups.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

This might seem pedantic, but please avoid the term "newsgroups".


A rose by any other name......oh, never mind.

[Randy Yates]

Steve writes:
[...]
This might seem pedantic, but please avoid the term "newsgroups".

Go play with your gee-haw whimmy diddle.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com