I'm trying to set straight the record when you post muddled or factually incorrect information, which has been your habit.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
I'm trying to set straight the record when you post muddled or factually incorrect information, which has been your habit.
So continuation out of spite it is, then. Okay.
What you accuse me of hasn't happened, you just don't like the things I've posted. Which is fine, but if you don't like what I have to say, don't respond to it. Seems simple enough.
What you accuse me of hasn't happened, you just don't like the things I've posted. Which is fine, but if you don't like what I have to say, don't respond to it. Seems simple enough.
Again, a simple example or two demonstrate that you are not dealing with facts and that you continuously post inaccurate information as "fact".
You said, and I paraphrase, that Power 96 tanked after eliminating freestyle in 1999. The facts: Power increased above 1999 levels in 2000 and 2001.
Or your absurd claim that a couple of thousand dollars spent on lobby decorations at the new iHeart offices in New York motivated a change in corporate name by Clear Channel.
Or your inability to see that an AM on 1510, 90 kHz away from the ITU definition of shortwave, is "almost" a shortwave station.
Or the astonishing idea that when insiders buy a company stock, the stock is about to crash.
And on and on and on.
What apparently you do not like is that your errors of fact have been corrected.
U
Unregistered
Guest
cbs radio disney freq
David always is B'n about something and maybe time for him to retire
David always is B'n about something and maybe time for him to retire
Is this thread still going on? David's still wrong? Why am I not surprised?
I even made a "short" list of your more memorable errors and gaffes and you still persist. Why?
And you got all of them -- not just your answers to them, but the very assertions you claim I made -- wrong. Why?
One example: you stated WPOW tanked after they removed freestyle music in 1999. The fact is, they increased by about 15%.
And there is no explanation for your statement that "buys" by insiders indicate that a company is in trouble; the exact opposite is true and there are even newsletters that track insider trading as trends in either buying and selling by insiders tends to indicate potential increases or decreases in stock prices.
Nice try at obfuscation, though.
Haha! You can't even get your facts straight on what I said, let alone prove me wrong! I never stated that they removed freestyle music 1999, I stated that they removed current dance music from their playlist -- which they did -- and their ratings began slipping at that point because they decided to take on 99 Jamz directly rather than the rhythmic approach that they were so successful with. It started off slowly, but as time went by, it got worse, and they still have never fully recovered.
As for the stocks, you know full well that I was talking about a specific situation under a specific set of circumstances, especially related to broadcasting. And -- oh my! Guess what? What I predicted about that particular move is proving to be the case right in front of our very eyes! Imagine that!
It's long past time you figured this out, David, You're never going to prove me wrong, because when I speak on a topic, I'm speaking about something I know about. I don't talk out of my rear end, I get my facts straight first, then I form my opinion. No obfuscation necessary, just reality.
As for the stocks, you know full well that I was talking about a specific situation under a specific set of circumstances, especially related to broadcasting. And -- oh my! Guess what? What I predicted about that particular move is proving to be the case right in front of our very eyes! Imagine that!
It's long past time you figured this out, David, You're never going to prove me wrong, because when I speak on a topic, I'm speaking about something I know about. I don't talk out of my rear end, I get my facts straight first, then I form my opinion. No obfuscation necessary, just reality.
OK, so it was mostly freestyle with a bit of trance, booty, etc. Big deal, splitting hairs, nit picking, etc.
The fact is that after they removed "Freestyle and Ian Van Dahl" from play in 1999, the ratings went up, not down. This is highly verifiable information.
It proved no such thing. The buys by the Dickey family look entirely like their taking advantage of a low point. The amount of shares purchased was so little that it could not be to prop up the share price, as there was not enough momentum to achieve that. Just look at any of the trading momentum charts you can subscribe to for the periods before and after the transactions.
Well, here is proof in two cases that you got your facts totally wrong. Verifiable by looking at momentum charts and Arbitron data, not my opinion.
Oh, so now getting facts correct is "splitting hairs?" Anything to deny you were wrong, huh, David? Up in the short term, down in the long run. That's highly verifiable, and I watched it happen. You're not fooling anyone.
And if you think the small amount of stock isn't part of a bigger picture, you don't know the Dickeys. They don't just do things to take advantage of the market's current situation, there is always a long-term plan at play.
When you can put together a valid case, David, then we'll talk. Until then, take this lesson and learn from it.
And if you think the small amount of stock isn't part of a bigger picture, you don't know the Dickeys. They don't just do things to take advantage of the market's current situation, there is always a long-term plan at play.
When you can put together a valid case, David, then we'll talk. Until then, take this lesson and learn from it.
Did you or did you not say that after Power 96 removed the dance (using whatever term you like) it went down in the ratings?
Did Power in fact go down in the ratings following that change?
Today the trades confirmed that this was an even trade based on billings.
David, if you can't even bring yourself to use the proper terminology, you have no case to make. You're wrong. Get over it.
- Status