• 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

Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

W

wennykindham

Guest
Although Clear Channel owns what was once Jackson's prime radio real estate they continue to struggle in both ratings and sales despite continuous attempts to compete. It is patently obvious from local managements failure to develop a marketable Urban product that there is a problem at the top locally. Perhaps there are some personal racist tendencies that prevent the necessary growth that CC has to have to profit in this market. After all over 43% of the market is black. It must take a humble man to take back all the bad things they've said to advertisers regarding the Urban market when suddenly you have to sell it. In the latest trends, which I'm sure someone will post on this board, WHLH drops from second to third with WJMI and WKXI taking one and two with WMSI pushed to fourth. Perhaps more ominously for WHLH, WOAD-Jackson's heritage black gospel has climbed to number five in the market with trends pointing to even further growth at WHLH's expense. In the meantime CC's big sticks WSTZ and WQJQ continue to bleed ratings points. As for Halleluah it would appear that even when given a winning format, one that continues to perform well in other markets, Clear Channel's local management can neither maintain ratings or sell any product that isn't general market. What's worse, Clear Channel continues to ignore these management problems, which are not just bad for CC, they're bad for the listening public, which is underserved, and bad for the business. Add to that their little "Less Is More" rate shellgame where they offer the client one thing and give them another,leaving advertisers distrustful of the entire concept of radio and you've got what amounts to radio malparactice. There isn't a lot of regulation dealing with that yet but give it time.....That said I hope Clear Channel makes no changes in local management- It would require some causal thought to keep up with them if they decided to actually play radio with the rest of us instead of reading those liner cards and quoting the company bible!
CC for KW EMPS: By the way- I hear the purple kool-aid tastes the best....)
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> Although Clear Channel owns what was once Jackson's prime
> radio real estate they continue to struggle in both ratings
> and sales despite continuous attempts to compete. It is
> patently obvious from local managements failure to develop a
> marketable Urban product that there is a problem at the top
> locally. Perhaps there are some personal racist tendencies
> that prevent the necessary growth that CC has to have to
> profit in this market. After all over 43% of the market is
> black. It must take a humble man to take back all the bad
> things they've said to advertisers regarding the Urban
> market when suddenly you have to sell it. In the latest
> trends, which I'm sure someone will post on this board, WHLH
> drops from second to third with WJMI and WKXI taking one and
> two with WMSI pushed to fourth. Perhaps more ominously for
> WHLH, WOAD-Jackson's heritage black gospel has climbed to
> number five in the market with trends pointing to even
> further growth at WHLH's expense. In the meantime CC's big
> sticks WSTZ and WQJQ continue to bleed ratings points. As
> for Halleluah it would appear that even when given a winning
> format, one that continues to perform well in other markets,
> Clear Channel's local management can neither maintain
> ratings or sell any product that isn't general market.
> What's worse, Clear Channel continues to ignore these
> management problems, which are not just bad for CC, they're
> bad for the listening public, which is underserved, and bad
> for the business. Add to that their little "Less Is More"
> rate shellgame where they offer the client one thing and
> give them another,leaving advertisers distrustful of the
> entire concept of radio and you've got what amounts to radio
> malparactice. There isn't a lot of regulation dealing with
> that yet but give it time.....That said I hope Clear Channel
> makes no changes in local management- It would require some
> causal thought to keep up with them if they decided to
> actually play radio with the rest of us instead of reading
> those liner cards and quoting the company bible!
> CC for KW EMPS: By the way- I hear the purple kool-aid
> tastes the best....)
>
Once again, we've got Wenny Kindham leading us all to the promise land. Give it a break man, Jeez. Thanks to the professional moderators that keep the slander off this board. Your "bridging the races" makes me a bit skeptical.
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > Although Clear Channel owns what was once Jackson's prime
> > radio real estate they continue to struggle in both
> ratings
> > and sales despite continuous attempts to compete. It is
> > patently obvious from local managements failure to develop
> a
> > marketable Urban product that there is a problem at the
> top
> > locally. Perhaps there are some personal racist tendencies
>
> > that prevent the necessary growth that CC has to have to
> > profit in this market. After all over 43% of the market is
>
> > black. It must take a humble man to take back all the bad
> > things they've said to advertisers regarding the Urban
> > market when suddenly you have to sell it. In the latest
> > trends, which I'm sure someone will post on this board,
> WHLH
> > drops from second to third with WJMI and WKXI taking one
> and
> > two with WMSI pushed to fourth. Perhaps more ominously for
>
> > WHLH, WOAD-Jackson's heritage black gospel has climbed to
> > number five in the market with trends pointing to even
> > further growth at WHLH's expense. In the meantime CC's big
>
> > sticks WSTZ and WQJQ continue to bleed ratings points. As
> > for Halleluah it would appear that even when given a
> winning
> > format, one that continues to perform well in other
> markets,
> > Clear Channel's local management can neither maintain
> > ratings or sell any product that isn't general market.
> > What's worse, Clear Channel continues to ignore these
> > management problems, which are not just bad for CC,
> they're
> > bad for the listening public, which is underserved, and
> bad
> > for the business. Add to that their little "Less Is More"
> > rate shellgame where they offer the client one thing and
> > give them another,leaving advertisers distrustful of the
> > entire concept of radio and you've got what amounts to
> radio
> > malparactice. There isn't a lot of regulation dealing with
>
> > that yet but give it time.....That said I hope Clear
> Channel
> > makes no changes in local management- It would require
> some
> > causal thought to keep up with them if they decided to
> > actually play radio with the rest of us instead of reading
>
> > those liner cards and quoting the company bible!
> > CC for KW EMPS: By the way- I hear the purple kool-aid
> > tastes the best....)
> >
> Once again, we've got Wenny Kindham leading us all to the
> promise land. Give it a break man, Jeez. Thanks to the
> professional moderators that keep the slander off this
> board. Your "bridging the races" makes me a bit skeptical.
>

I know I shouldn't bother with a reply but Acer4 has perhaps misunderstood and certainly mischaracterized my post- So, with all due respect to my fellow radio professional- Who, by the way only seems to respond to my posts regarding Clear Channel - to you I say this...

Facts is facts, Jack. Also, please don't attribute quotes to me that I didn't make- Lord knows I say enough that you could have grabbed onto a real one to use. But I do like the concept of "Bridging the races"- it sounds sweet. Oh yeah- I looked into what constitutes slander and here's what the legal types say:

"If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred. Slander and libel are two forms of defamation."

or more specifically:
Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation

I felt a lot better after reading that because:

A. There's no oral here- (There maybe, if you believe some previous posts!)
B. I've only opined as to where and what the problem might be. General musings and speculations don't constitute affirmative statements of fact.
C. Some people already have low reputations. It's hard to get between a snake and the ground.

So stop being an apologist for bad radio "Ace". Just because the truth makes some people uncomfortable doesn't mean it can't be spoken and I'm sick and tired of CC toadies and sycophants always appealing to and praising the moderators for keeping this board "free of slander" when what they really want is for it to be dull and uninformative. Well I've got news for you- I know it drives management crazy to have their weaknesses or plans highlighted, much less subjected to public comment. That's why I'll continue to post the inside dope- so at least the people in the back of the building will know what the people in the front are doing- especially since they all know better than to dare talk among themselves.
So if these missives have doth offended, think but this and all is mended. I didn't mean to thus inflame, I just think your game is lame....
With nuthin' but love for ya!
WK
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> I know I shouldn't bother with a reply but Acer4 has perhaps
> misunderstood and certainly mischaracterized my post- So,
> with all due respect to my fellow radio professional- Who,
> by the way only seems to respond to my posts regarding Clear
> Channel - to you I say this...
>
> Facts is facts, Jack. Also, please don't attribute quotes to
> me that I didn't make- Lord knows I say enough that you
> could have grabbed onto a real one to use. But I do like the
> concept of "Bridging the races"- it sounds sweet. Oh yeah- I
> looked into what constitutes slander and here's what the
> legal types say:
>
> "If a person or the news media says or writes something
> about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or
> that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has
> occurred. Slander and libel are two forms of defamation."
>
> or more specifically:
> Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious
> to a person's reputation
>
> I felt a lot better after reading that because:
>
> A. There's no oral here- (There maybe, if you believe some
> previous posts!)
> B. I've only opined as to where and what the problem might
> be. General musings and speculations don't constitute
> affirmative statements of fact.
> C. Some people already have low reputations. It's hard to
> get between a snake and the ground.
>
> So stop being an apologist for bad radio "Ace". Just because
> the truth makes some people uncomfortable doesn't mean it
> can't be spoken and I'm sick and tired of CC toadies and
> sycophants always appealing to and praising the moderators
> for keeping this board "free of slander" when what they
> really want is for it to be dull and uninformative. Well
> I've got news for you- I know it drives management crazy to
> have their weaknesses or plans highlighted, much less
> subjected to public comment. That's why I'll continue to
> post the inside dope- so at least the people in the back of
> the building will know what the people in the front are
> doing- especially since they all know better than to dare
> talk among themselves.
> So if these missives have doth offended, think but this and
> all is mended. I didn't mean to thus inflame, I just think
> your game is lame....
> With nuthin' but love for ya!
> WK
>


'Nuff said!<P ID="signature">______________
Note to MRS Ventures: GET THE HELL OUT OF RADIO!!! 94 BAD-FM jamz!!!!</P>
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious
> to a person's reputation
>
> I felt a lot better after reading that because:
>
> A. There's no oral here- (There maybe, if you believe some
> previous posts!)
> B. I've only opined as to where and what the problem might
> be. General musings and speculations don't constitute
> affirmative statements of fact.
> C. Some people already have low reputations. It's hard to
> get between a snake and the ground.

See? Here's one of those times that we get a good illustration of the important fact that non-lawyers should not discuss the law.

OK, Wenny is right that Slander USUALLY is spoken. But, that's not always the case. There is -- we'll call it -- a subset of defamation called Slander Per Se. This type of defamation does not have to be spoken, and -- here's the cool part -- damages are presumed without proof of actual damages.

Now, this is a fairly narrow animal. It only applies in 4 particular circumstances, one of which is a statment that tends to injure a party in his trade, profession or business. Uh-oh. Careful, Wenny.

"General musings and speculations don't constitute affirmative statements of fact." Careful, again, Wenny. There is a fine line here, but yes, musings can be defamatory, and actionable. Many also think that one can insulate things by calling them opinion. Again, wrong. Further, if someone says something defamatory, and you repeat it, even saying that another party had said it, you are still open to suit.

This country in the past several years has become shrill and combative. We don't just see this in politics; we see this in everyday conversation, like here. It's is important that we try to maintain a level of civility, even when we have a degree of anonymity. And, BTW, you're not that anonymous here. It would take a plaintiff's lawyer a day or two to get an injunction to get the Records of who is on here, and track it back.

So, let's all chill just a bit, eh?

DE
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious
>
> > to a person's reputation
> >
> > I felt a lot better after reading that because:
> >
> > A. There's no oral here- (There maybe, if you believe
> some
> > previous posts!)
> > B. I've only opined as to where and what the problem
> might
> > be. General musings and speculations don't constitute
> > affirmative statements of fact.
> > C. Some people already have low reputations. It's hard
> to
> > get between a snake and the ground.
>
> See? Here's one of those times that we get a good
> illustration of the important fact that non-lawyers should
> not discuss the law.
>
> OK, Wenny is right that Slander USUALLY is spoken. But,
> that's not always the case. There is -- we'll call it -- a
> subset of defamation called Slander Per Se. This type of
> defamation does not have to be spoken, and -- here's the
> cool part -- damages are presumed without proof of actual
> damages.
>
> Now, this is a fairly narrow animal. It only applies in 4
> particular circumstances, one of which is a statment that
> tends to injure a party in his trade, profession or
> business. Uh-oh. Careful, Wenny.
>
> "General musings and speculations don't constitute
> affirmative statements of fact." Careful, again, Wenny.
> There is a fine line here, but yes, musings can be
> defamatory, and actionable. Many also think that one can
> insulate things by calling them opinion. Again, wrong.
> Further, if someone says something defamatory, and you
> repeat it, even saying that another party had said it, you
> are still open to suit.
>
> This country in the past several years has become shrill and
> combative. We don't just see this in politics; we see this
> in everyday conversation, like here. It's is important that
> we try to maintain a level of civility, even when we have a
> degree of anonymity. And, BTW, you're not that anonymous
> here. It would take a plaintiff's lawyer a day or two to
> get an injunction to get the Records of who is on here, and
> track it back.
>
> So, let's all chill just a bit, eh?
>
> DE

> So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham with "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another party to file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the distance? Ya know,not directing this to anyone specifically,but one thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals that can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior we are in comparison to them, and to inform us of how great their underarms smell. This type of discourse only reinforces my glee that I decided against law school. What a boring life it must be, to dissect and trivialize every comment someone else makes. As someone who actually pays
$ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast lawyers(they hate that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and as someone who has endured derogatory comments by some nuts on this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his opinion. Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he be singled out?
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious
>
> > to a person's reputation
> >
> > I felt a lot better after reading that because:
> >
> > A. There's no oral here- (There maybe, if you believe
> some
> > previous posts!)
> > B. I've only opined as to where and what the problem
> might
> > be. General musings and speculations don't constitute
> > affirmative statements of fact.
> > C. Some people already have low reputations. It's hard
> to
> > get between a snake and the ground.
>
> See? Here's one of those times that we get a good
> illustration of the important fact that non-lawyers should
> not discuss the law.
>
> OK, Wenny is right that Slander USUALLY is spoken. But,
> that's not always the case. There is -- we'll call it -- a
> subset of defamation called Slander Per Se. This type of
> defamation does not have to be spoken, and -- here's the
> cool part -- damages are presumed without proof of actual
> damages.
>
> Now, this is a fairly narrow animal. It only applies in 4
> particular circumstances, one of which is a statment that
> tends to injure a party in his trade, profession or
> business. Uh-oh. Careful, Wenny.
>
> "General musings and speculations don't constitute
> affirmative statements of fact." Careful, again, Wenny.
> There is a fine line here, but yes, musings can be
> defamatory, and actionable. Many also think that one can
> insulate things by calling them opinion. Again, wrong.
> Further, if someone says something defamatory, and you
> repeat it, even saying that another party had said it, you
> are still open to suit.
>
> This country in the past several years has become shrill and
> combative. We don't just see this in politics; we see this
> in everyday conversation, like here. It's is important that
> we try to maintain a level of civility, even when we have a
> degree of anonymity. And, BTW, you're not that anonymous
> here. It would take a plaintiff's lawyer a day or two to
> get an injunction to get the Records of who is on here, and
> track it back.
>
> So, let's all chill just a bit, eh?
>
> DE
>

Thanks DE- I had a feeling you'd check in to straighten me out on matters of law- I take your chiding in the spirit it was given. Maybe you can illuminate the gray area around the "Truth as a defense in libel." The "anonymous" referred to the fact that I didn't call any names and I wasn't really referring to any one individual, despite what some people seem to think. Why they think that may say something in and of itself. If someone pops into mind what fault is it of the speaker? Is saying "lawyers are a crooked bunch" slanderous? If so, clear the dockets cause we've got a class action to beat them all!
I would be interested to know why a candid discussion of the issues revolving around the troubles of a division of a publically traded company has to be labeled "Slanderous", "Libelous", or just plain uncivil? Maybe I've got money or a career invested in something that I feel is being frittered away by mismanagement and I don't like it. But if the consensus is that I'm way out of line I will respect the members of this forum and attempt to comport myself in the manner expected- Look- I even apologized in my last post!
Chillin' like a villain,
WK
"Got my hater blockers on......."
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> "Truth as a defense in libel."

Truth is a complete defense in defamation, since falsity is an essential element of the claim. Now, if one publishes a true statement about someone that is damaging (e.g., that "Bob" has a dread disease) there may be a claim for Invasion of Privacy. Those are tough to win, though.

> Is saying "lawyers are a crooked bunch" slanderous?

No. See above. :)

In all seriousness, there are people who are slander-proof. It would hard, for instance, to slander Saddam Hussein. His public image is so bad, it is nearly impossible to damage him.

I can think of many in Congress in the same position, but, I digress!

DE
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious
>
> > to a person's reputation
> >
> > I felt a lot better after reading that because:
> >
> > A. There's no oral here- (There maybe, if you believe
> some
> > previous posts!)
> > B. I've only opined as to where and what the problem
> might
> > be. General musings and speculations don't constitute
> > affirmative statements of fact.
> > C. Some people already have low reputations. It's hard
> to
> > get between a snake and the ground.
>
> See? Here's one of those times that we get a good
> illustration of the important fact that non-lawyers should
> not discuss the law.
>
> OK, Wenny is right that Slander USUALLY is spoken. But,
> that's not always the case. There is -- we'll call it -- a
> subset of defamation called Slander Per Se. This type of
> defamation does not have to be spoken, and -- here's the
> cool part -- damages are presumed without proof of actual
> damages.
>
> Now, this is a fairly narrow animal. It only applies in 4
> particular circumstances, one of which is a statment that
> tends to injure a party in his trade, profession or
> business. Uh-oh. Careful, Wenny.
>
> "General musings and speculations don't constitute
> affirmative statements of fact." Careful, again, Wenny.
> There is a fine line here, but yes, musings can be
> defamatory, and actionable. Many also think that one can
> insulate things by calling them opinion. Again, wrong.
> Further, if someone says something defamatory, and you
> repeat it, even saying that another party had said it, you
> are still open to suit.
>
> This country in the past several years has become shrill and
> combative. We don't just see this in politics; we see this
> in everyday conversation, like here. It's is important that
> we try to maintain a level of civility, even when we have a
> degree of anonymity. And, BTW, you're not that anonymous
> here. It would take a plaintiff's lawyer a day or two to
> get an injunction to get the Records of who is on here, and
> track it back.
>
> So, let's all chill just a bit, eh?
>
> DE
>
Hey Elvis wenny better watch out. He's talking bad about a Texas based company and under the current prez that is just un-american and probably violates the patriot act some way. Next time we hear from ol Kindham he may be in Gitmo using the koran as tp. He sounds like the kind of insensitive brute who would do such a thing!!
Just kiddin-give em heck wenny!! But DE is right -that was a pretty rough evaluation....
Rich
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham with
> "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another party to
> file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the distance?
> Ya know,not directing this to anyone specifically,but one
> thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals that
> can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior we are in
> comparison to them, and to inform us of how great their
> underarms smell. This type of discourse only reinforces my
> glee that I decided against law school. What a boring life
> it must be, to dissect and trivialize every comment someone
> else makes. As someone who actually pays
> $ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast lawyers(they hate
> that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and as
> someone who has endured derogatory comments by some nuts on
> this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his opinion.
> Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he be singled
> out?
>

Dead Elvis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment to the original post was non-threatening... just making not only Wenny, but the rest of us aware that we need to be careful what we say. Message board of not, the law is still the law and if someone got a half way decent lawyer, he could probably at least give Saddam a hard time... Any way, lets move on from here guys and talk about radio --- not law.

I will agree that WQJQ, in my opinion, is a waste of a 100K stick though. <P ID="signature">______________

Deep In The Heart of Dixie
Alabama/East TN/Kentucky/Mississippi</P>
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > > So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham with
> > "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another party to
> > file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the
> distance?
> > Ya know,not directing this to anyone specifically,but one
> > thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals that
> > can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior we are in
>
> > comparison to them, and to inform us of how great their
> > underarms smell. This type of discourse only reinforces my
>
> > glee that I decided against law school. What a boring life
>
> > it must be, to dissect and trivialize every comment
> someone
> > else makes. As someone who actually pays
> > $ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast lawyers(they
> hate
> > that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and as
> > someone who has endured derogatory comments by some nuts
> on
> > this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his
> opinion.
> > Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he be
> singled
> > out?
> >
>
> Dead Elvis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment to the
> original post was non-threatening... just making not only
> Wenny, but the rest of us aware that we need to be careful
> what we say. Message board of not, the law is still the law
> and if someone got a half way decent lawyer, he could
> probably at least give Saddam a hard time... Any way, lets
> move on from here guys and talk about radio --- not law.
>
> I will agree that WQJQ, in my opinion, is a waste of a 100K
> stick though.
>
Thanks gooberj!

For some reason Mr. "Kindham" has this belief I work or would work for Clear Channel. Sorry to disappoint. I do wonder why someone fixates on the business practices of one man or one group of radio stations. As if no other broadcaster has done things he or she later regrets. Again, Wenny....let it go and write Mr. Windham personally...better yet just show up at 1375 Beasley Road and let 'r rip. Maybe then you'll feel better.
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > > > So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham with
> > > "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another party to
>
> > > file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the
> > distance?
> > > Ya know,not directing this to anyone specifically,but
> one
> > > thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals that
> > > can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior we are
> in
> >
> > > comparison to them, and to inform us of how great their
> > > underarms smell. This type of discourse only reinforces
> my
> >
> > > glee that I decided against law school. What a boring
> life
> >
> > > it must be, to dissect and trivialize every comment
> > someone
> > > else makes. As someone who actually pays
> > > $ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast lawyers(they
> > hate
> > > that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and as
> > > someone who has endured derogatory comments by some nuts
>
> > on
> > > this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his
> > opinion.
> > > Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he be
> > singled
> > > out?
> > >
> >
> > Dead Elvis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment to
> the
> > original post was non-threatening... just making not only
> > Wenny, but the rest of us aware that we need to be careful
>
> > what we say. Message board of not, the law is still the
> law
> > and if someone got a half way decent lawyer, he could
> > probably at least give Saddam a hard time... Any way,
> lets
> > move on from here guys and talk about radio --- not law.
> >
> > I will agree that WQJQ, in my opinion, is a waste of a
> 100K
> > stick though.
> >
> Thanks gooberj!
>
> For some reason Mr. "Kindham" has this belief I work or
> would work for Clear Channel. Sorry to disappoint. I do
> wonder why someone fixates on the business practices of one
> man or one group of radio stations. As if no other
> broadcaster has done things he or she later regrets. Again,
> Wenny....let it go and write Mr. Windham personally...better
> yet just show up at 1375 Beasley Road and let 'r rip. Maybe
> then you'll feel better.

> Once again sticking my nose into someone's else's argument, but I'm curious of Mr.Ace's address "fixation". Is there some exotic allure I'm missing when you refer to "1375 Beasley Road" in almost all of your posts? Is there some determined desire to let others know that you know the physical street address of the ClearChannel stations in Jackson? Why not mention calling 982-1068, or dropping a note to P.O.Box 2171? Do you have an old pen that belonged to Howard Lett,or an old Miss-103 car tag? It's like watching PBS.
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > > > > So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham with
> > > > "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another party
> to
> >
> > > > file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the
> > > distance?
> > > > Ya know,not directing this to anyone specifically,but
> > one
> > > > thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals
> that
> > > > can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior we
> are
> > in
> > >
> > > > comparison to them, and to inform us of how great
> their
> > > > underarms smell. This type of discourse only
> reinforces
> > my
> > >
> > > > glee that I decided against law school. What a boring
> > life
> > >
> > > > it must be, to dissect and trivialize every comment
> > > someone
> > > > else makes. As someone who actually pays
> > > > $ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast lawyers(they
>
> > > hate
> > > > that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and as
> > > > someone who has endured derogatory comments by some
> nuts
> >
> > > on
> > > > this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his
> > > opinion.
> > > > Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he be
> > > singled
> > > > out?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dead Elvis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment to
>
> > the
> > > original post was non-threatening... just making not
> only
> > > Wenny, but the rest of us aware that we need to be
> careful
> >
> > > what we say. Message board of not, the law is still the
>
> > law
> > > and if someone got a half way decent lawyer, he could
> > > probably at least give Saddam a hard time... Any way,
> > lets
> > > move on from here guys and talk about radio --- not law.
>
> > >
> > > I will agree that WQJQ, in my opinion, is a waste of a
> > 100K
> > > stick though.
> > >
> > Thanks gooberj!
> >
> > For some reason Mr. "Kindham" has this belief I work or
> > would work for Clear Channel. Sorry to disappoint. I do
> > wonder why someone fixates on the business practices of
> one
> > man or one group of radio stations. As if no other
> > broadcaster has done things he or she later regrets.
> Again,
> > Wenny....let it go and write Mr. Windham
> personally...better
> > yet just show up at 1375 Beasley Road and let 'r rip.
> Maybe
> > then you'll feel better.
>
> > Once again sticking my nose into someone's else's
> argument, but I'm curious of Mr.Ace's address "fixation". Is
> there some exotic allure I'm missing when you refer to "1375
> Beasley Road" in almost all of your posts? Is there some
> determined desire to let others know that you know the
> physical street address of the ClearChannel stations in
> Jackson? Why not mention calling 982-1068, or dropping a
> note to P.O.Box 2171? Do you have an old pen that belonged
> to Howard Lett,or an old Miss-103 car tag? It's like
> watching PBS.
>
L.D.,

Since you're "fixated" on the stations phone number...give them a call yourself.
But then again, I'm the only one on here that's refered to Clear Channel's street address....right

You moron
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > > > > > So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham with
>
> > > > > "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another
> party
> > to
> > >
> > > > > file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the
> > > > distance?
> > > > > Ya know,not directing this to anyone
> specifically,but
> > > one
> > > > > thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals
> > that
> > > > > can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior we
> > are
> > > in
> > > >
> > > > > comparison to them, and to inform us of how great
> > their
> > > > > underarms smell. This type of discourse only
> > reinforces
> > > my
> > > >
> > > > > glee that I decided against law school. What a
> boring
> > > life
> > > >
> > > > > it must be, to dissect and trivialize every comment
> > > > someone
> > > > > else makes. As someone who actually pays
> > > > > $ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast
> lawyers(they
> >
> > > > hate
> > > > > that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and
> as
> > > > > someone who has endured derogatory comments by some
> > nuts
> > >
> > > > on
> > > > > this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his
> > > > opinion.
> > > > > Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he be
> > > > singled
> > > > > out?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dead Elvis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment
> to
> >
> > > the
> > > > original post was non-threatening... just making not
> > only
> > > > Wenny, but the rest of us aware that we need to be
> > careful
> > >
> > > > what we say. Message board of not, the law is still
> the
> >
> > > law
> > > > and if someone got a half way decent lawyer, he could
> > > > probably at least give Saddam a hard time... Any way,
>
> > > lets
> > > > move on from here guys and talk about radio --- not
> law.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I will agree that WQJQ, in my opinion, is a waste of a
>
> > > 100K
> > > > stick though.
> > > >
> > > Thanks gooberj!
> > >
> > > For some reason Mr. "Kindham" has this belief I work or
> > > would work for Clear Channel. Sorry to disappoint. I do
> > > wonder why someone fixates on the business practices of
> > one
> > > man or one group of radio stations. As if no other
> > > broadcaster has done things he or she later regrets.
> > Again,
> > > Wenny....let it go and write Mr. Windham
> > personally...better
> > > yet just show up at 1375 Beasley Road and let 'r rip.
> > Maybe
> > > then you'll feel better.
> >
> > > Once again sticking my nose into someone's else's
> > argument, but I'm curious of Mr.Ace's address "fixation".
> Is
> > there some exotic allure I'm missing when you refer to
> "1375
> > Beasley Road" in almost all of your posts? Is there some
> > determined desire to let others know that you know the
> > physical street address of the ClearChannel stations in
> > Jackson? Why not mention calling 982-1068, or dropping a
> > note to P.O.Box 2171? Do you have an old pen that belonged
>
> > to Howard Lett,or an old Miss-103 car tag? It's like
> > watching PBS.
> >
> L.D.,
>
> Since you're "fixated" on the stations phone number...give
> them a call yourself.
> But then again, I'm the only one on here that's refered to
> Clear Channel's street address....right
>
> You moron


> Well,golly gee,Gomer,didn't mean to get your name-calling index activated.My sincere apology is offered to Mr.Ace. Guess I'll just have to keep my curiousity to myself.(Oh,and Landecker is one word,not two.)
 
Re: Inner City Broadcasting Continues to Frustrate Clear Channel Jackson's Ratings Hopes

> > > > > > > So, Mr. Dead, are you threatening Mr. Kindham
> with
> >
> > > > > > "exposing" his identity? Or encouraging another
> > party
> > > to
> > > >
> > > > > > file a slander suit? Do I hear an ambulance in the
>
> > > > > distance?
> > > > > > Ya know,not directing this to anyone
> > specifically,but
> > > > one
> > > > > > thing I abhor is over-educated,pompous individuals
>
> > > that
> > > > > > can't wait to remind us "low-lifes" how inferior
> we
> > > are
> > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > > comparison to them, and to inform us of how great
> > > their
> > > > > > underarms smell. This type of discourse only
> > > reinforces
> > > > my
> > > > >
> > > > > > glee that I decided against law school. What a
> > boring
> > > > life
> > > > >
> > > > > > it must be, to dissect and trivialize every
> comment
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > else makes. As someone who actually pays
> > > > > > $ 300.00+ per hour to the anal broadcast
> > lawyers(they
> > >
> > > > > hate
> > > > > > that word,"lawyers",don't they?) of this world,and
>
> > as
> > > > > > someone who has endured derogatory comments by
> some
> > > nuts
> > > >
> > > > > on
> > > > > > this board,I'm very comfortable with WK giving his
>
> > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > Others have here,with no impunity. Why should he
> be
> > > > > singled
> > > > > > out?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dead Elvis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your
> comment
> > to
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > > original post was non-threatening... just making not
>
> > > only
> > > > > Wenny, but the rest of us aware that we need to be
> > > careful
> > > >
> > > > > what we say. Message board of not, the law is still
>
> > the
> > >
> > > > law
> > > > > and if someone got a half way decent lawyer, he
> could
> > > > > probably at least give Saddam a hard time... Any
> way,
> >
> > > > lets
> > > > > move on from here guys and talk about radio --- not
> > law.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I will agree that WQJQ, in my opinion, is a waste of
> a
> >
> > > > 100K
> > > > > stick though.
> > > > >
> > > > Thanks gooberj!
> > > >
> > > > For some reason Mr. "Kindham" has this belief I work
> or
> > > > would work for Clear Channel. Sorry to disappoint. I
> do
> > > > wonder why someone fixates on the business practices
> of
> > > one
> > > > man or one group of radio stations. As if no other
> > > > broadcaster has done things he or she later regrets.
> > > Again,
> > > > Wenny....let it go and write Mr. Windham
> > > personally...better
> > > > yet just show up at 1375 Beasley Road and let 'r rip.
> > > Maybe
> > > > then you'll feel better.
> > >
> > > > Once again sticking my nose into someone's else's
> > > argument, but I'm curious of Mr.Ace's address
> "fixation".
> > Is
> > > there some exotic allure I'm missing when you refer to
> > "1375
> > > Beasley Road" in almost all of your posts? Is there some
>
> > > determined desire to let others know that you know the
> > > physical street address of the ClearChannel stations in
> > > Jackson? Why not mention calling 982-1068, or dropping
> a
> > > note to P.O.Box 2171? Do you have an old pen that
> belonged
> >
> > > to Howard Lett,or an old Miss-103 car tag? It's like
> > > watching PBS.
> > >
> > L.D.,
> >
> > Since you're "fixated" on the stations phone number...give
>
> > them a call yourself.
> > But then again, I'm the only one on here that's refered to
>
> > Clear Channel's street address....right
> >
> > You moron
>
>
> > Well,golly gee,Gomer,didn't mean to get your name-calling
> index activated.My sincere apology is offered to Mr.Ace.
> Guess I'll just have to keep my curiousity to myself.(Oh,and
> Landecker is one word,not two.)
>


Looks like ol Landecker touched a frayed nerve with the Ace guy. Was hoping to watch that new "1375 Beasley Road" sitcom, myself. Guess I'm a moron,too!<P ID="signature">______________
"ain't gonna let 'em catch the Midnight Rider..."</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom