🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<5CYNi.645957$p47.336423@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
 D Peter Maus <DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Telamon wrote:
> > In article <47081BCD.718D80DE@milestones.com>,
> >  dxAce <dxAce@milestones.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Telamon wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <7VSNi.11511$JD.1433@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>>  "David Eduardo" <david@davideduardo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Telamon" <telamon_spamshield@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>> news:telamon_spamshield-355B68.11071206102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.ne
> >>>> 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