KZLA Was Doomed For Failure

[davideduardo]

Re: the government is always right, sometimes.

So what? I wouldn't invest a nickle in any corporate broadcaster, not with people like you running them.

That's kinda' funny. Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation, when it merged (no debt created) had no debt and several hundred million in cash on hand.

It is a well established fact that Wall Street, the FCC, and MainStreet investors all considered the radio industry to be overburdened with acquisition debt for the last decade. The big companies are working out of the pile of IOUs, to their business-acumen credit. And they are doing that by firing people, screwing the listeners, cutting costs, programming for th elowest common denomintaor, to their real-world detriment.

Radio is in the doldrums because it is not considered a mature industry, with slow or flat growth.

Since you do not understand, obviously, the term "equity financing" here is the simple version: You buy something. You give the previous owner a part of your company in return. No cash, no debt, and the seller can take the stock and hold or sell at will.

Trying to run a lean business is a model every company follows. Were it not so, we would still have operators at the transmitter, board ops, manual accounting in ledgers, and do commercial logs on erasable sheets of plastic.

For you to argue otherwise just shows what a corporate shill you are.

Actually, since you hav eNOT looked at the debt to equity ratios, you are pretty much spitting into the wind.

But go ahead and believe the FCC report. Once you digest it fully, I would like you to see the Warren Report, the one that showed no WMDs in Iraq and a few other examples of how the government is right.

 

[zumahans]

Re: the government is always right, sometimes.

----->>>Radio is in the doldrums because it is not considered a mature industry, with slow or flat growth.

To borrow a phrase from Buckeye, what in the wide world of sports is THAT convoluted syntax supposed to mean?

(1) Radio is in the doldruns, check.

(2) because it is not considered a mature industry, huh?

(3) with slow or fat growth. Wuh?


---->Since you do not understand, obviously, the term "equity financing" here is the simple version: You buy something. You give the previous owner a part of your company in return. No cash, no debt, and the seller can take the stock and hold or sell at will.

Yeah, I notice you denigrate XMSR for the same thing.

----->Trying to run a lean business is a model every company follows. Were it not so, we would still have operators at the transmitter, board ops, manual accounting in ledgers, and do commercial logs on erasable sheets of plastic.

And local news, and local DJs, and local interaction, and a manager in the community, and all thaqt baggage....

---->Actually, since you hav eNOT looked at the debt to equity ratios, you are pretty much spitting into the wind.


Actually, I eDID. I looked it up on the eCOMPUTER, which runs on eLECTRICTY. Numerous posts say you are in Eerror.


------> I would like you to see the Warren Report, the one that showed no WMDs in Iraq and a few other examples of how the government is right.

I could be wrong here, but wasn't the Warren report on the JFK assassination? Or were WMDs involved in Dallas? Holy crap, Capt. Dyslexia may be on to something here!

 

[davideduardo]

Re: the government is always right, sometimes.

----->>>Radio is in the doldrums because it is not considered a mature industry, with slow or flat growth.

Typo: Should be "Radio is in the doldrums because it is now considered a mature industry, with slow or flat growth." You coul have figured that out.

To borrow a phrase from Buckeye, what in the wide world of sports is THAT convoluted syntax supposed to mean?

(1) Radio is in the doldruns, check.

(2) because it is not considered a mature industry, huh?

(3) with slow or fat growth. Wuh?

NOT is replaces "now" as you could figure from context. I did not say "fat." I said "flat." Flat means no growth.

Yeah, I notice you denigrate XMSR for the same thing.

XM and Sirius have no cash flow. I believe all the publicly traded radio companies do. There is a big difference in having negative cash flows and having positive ones. Satellite has hit a subscriber wall (Lehman Bros. report) and has no profits.

----->Trying to run a lean business is a model every company follows. Were it not so, we would still have operators at the transmitter, board ops, manual accounting in ledgers, and do commercial logs on erasable sheets of plastic.

And local news, and local DJs, and local interaction, and a manager in the community, and all thaqt baggage....

I don't know of any stations without local GMs. I know of plenty, now and int he past, that preferred network (now often called syndicated) shows instead of local ones. Just like TV has. When you face off between local and entertaining, entertaining wins, no matter where it is from, if the local show is not compelling.

---->Actually, since you hav eNOT looked at the debt to equity ratios, you are pretty much spitting into the wind.


Actually, I eDID. I looked it up on the eCOMPUTER, which runs on eLECTRICTY. Numerous posts say you are in Eerror.

No, you have not. Other than being picky over a transposed space ("have NOT looked") there is no unfavorable comparison between the debt to equity ratios of the significant radio companies and leaders in other industries.

CCU debt to equity ratio is 1.03. GE is 3.6. Honeywell is .52. Dord is 11.07. GM is 3.8. Alcoa is .6, Boening is 1.1. So CCU is right in the range of good companies, tied with Boeing which is no slouch of a company. Caterpillar, one of the most successful comeback companies in America, has a 3.6 ratio... so CCU is at the low end, nearer the natural resorce companies like Alcoa wich has a 0.6 ratio.

Cox radio has a 0.338 ratio, which is very good. Even Emmis, int he middle of a TV sell off, has a 1.7... twice as good as GE and CAT.

------> I would like you to see the Warren Report, the one that showed no WMDs in Iraq, and a few other examples of how the government is right.

I could be wrong here, but wasn't the Warren report on the JFK assassination? Or were WMDs involved in Dallas? Holy crap, Capt. Dyslexia may be on to something here!

1. Warren Report
2. WMD report
3. Other examples.

That was a list. You are trying to be clever, and not particularly good at it.

P.S. I don't really care if my English bites; I do not make any income off my English skills. So go ahead and poke fun at me on that, but it is not relevant and you use it as a distraction when you can not combat an arguement.

 

[zumahans]

Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacke, etc etc etc.

------> I don't really care if my English bites; I do not make any income off my English skills.
So go ahead and poke fun at me on that, but it is not relevant ..

Stop it right there. Another attempt to rewrite recent history.

Dave, you attack people all the time for making mistakes in Spanish. Rosarito. Gringo. Tiajuana. A few of many examples!

You also routinely, habitually denigrate people who disagree with you on matters of English usage.

Once again, you pull out the "I don't speak English so good" card. Any hour now, we'll see you pull the "I have dyslexia" card. After that comes the "you must disagree with me because I am hispanic, therefore you must be an angry gringo" card. Again.

You already played your "you want me to leave America" card, and that blew up in your face.

Don't try to paint a black cow white, Dave.

Your record is out there for all to see. And I've decided to call you on your errors, past and present, every single time you pull this crud on this forum.

 

[zumahans]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

------> I don't really care if my English bites; I do not make any income off my English skills.
So go ahead and poke fun at me on that, but it is not relevant ..

Stop it right there. Another attempt to rewrite recent history.

Dave, you attack people all the time for making mistakes in Spanish. Rosarito. Gringo. Tiajuana. A few of many examples!

Recuerdo, Davey?

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

------> I don't really care if my English bites; I do not make any income off my English skills.
So go ahead and poke fun at me on that, but it is not relevant ..

Stop it right there. Another attempt to rewrite recent history.

Dave, you attack people all the time for making mistakes in Spanish. Rosarito. Gringo. Tiajuana. A few of many examples!

Recuerdo, Davey?

Recuerdo is my 13 station network. Yes, I "recuerdo."

And my corrections were regarding place names and interpretation of meaning, not inverted vowels and consonants taht ewe liik two finnd.

How petty can you be?

 

[zumahans]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

------> I don't really care if my English bites; I do not make any income off my English skills.
So go ahead and poke fun at me on that, but it is not relevant ..

Stop it right there. Another attempt to rewrite recent history.

Dave, you attack people all the time for making mistakes in Spanish. Rosarito. Gringo. Tiajuana. A few of many examples!

Recuerdo, Davey?

Recuerdo is my 13 station network. Yes, I "recuerdo."

And my corrections were regarding place names and interpretation of meaning, not inverted vowels and consonants taht ewe liik two finnd.

How petty can you be?

No, you do not recuerdo, Davey. But I do.

You did not "correct," you insulted, you belittled, you were your normal insufferable self. You used a minor gaffe in spelling to challenge another writers points about cross-border radio.

As usual, your ability to "recuerdo" is highly selective.

 

[romer979fm]

any chance you two might give this up?
probably not: egos won't allow it
(I'll wait while one of you quotes how many views this bickering is getting)

here's an idea: go back and look at the volume of childish bickering you both
have flooded the site with...pretty lame...
and while I can't (and don't pretend to) speak for anyone else...this is ridiculous.

now I'll 'anxiously' await your insightful replies...
and don't forget to remind me how I could go somewhere else: I was just
thinking the same thing

 

[zumahans]

Nope. DE has been monopolizing this board for too long, I've had enough.

 

[zumahans]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

How petty can I get? Not this petty, from the Dallas board:

ZumaHans: Which brings me back to your last post of a Supreme Court ruling from the 1940s.

David: 1942, to be exact

ZumaHans: Oh, thank you for correcting that, the world can sleep better now that "the 1940s" has been corrected to 1942.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

How petty can I get? Not this petty, from the Dallas board:

ZumaHans: Which brings me back to your last post of a Supreme Court ruling from the 1940s.

David: 1942, to be exact

ZumaHans: Oh, thank you for correcting that, the world can sleep better now that "the 1940s" has been corrected to 1942.

Showing how your tendency take things out of context destroys the meaning.

The discussion was, before you disrupted it, about when CBS became profitable. Another poster has evidence that supprts CBS losing money through 1945. I have fond reports of profitability starting in 1930. So the issue is "wehn" and the difference between "the 40's" and "1942" is considerable and not petty.

 

[zumahans]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

How petty can I get? Not this petty, from the Dallas board:

ZumaHans: Which brings me back to your last post of a Supreme Court ruling from the 1940s.

David: 1942, to be exact

ZumaHans: Oh, thank you for correcting that, the world can sleep better now that "the 1940s" has been corrected to 1942.

Showing how your tendency take things out of context destroys the meaning.

The discussion was, before you disrupted it, about when CBS became profitable. Another poster has evidence that supprts CBS losing money through 1945. I have fond reports of profitability starting in 1930. So the issue is "wehn" and the difference between "the 40's" and "1942" is considerable and not petty.

And I have evidence that impeaches your argument, and proves that you made a hypocritical, two-faced crybaby argument and called people names when they nailed your kidney-spot blemished hide to the barn wall.

You misstate the subject of my post: I noted your argument in the Dallas thread was based on government documents. That came on the same day that you said in the Los Angeles thread that you don't believe the government.

I impeached and discredited you. Damn, it was a virtual Perry Mason moment. J-accuse!

[EDIT]

Notice all your supporters rushing to your defense in Dallas! Whoops, only one.

You were caught redhanded, El Pluperfecto, denigrating and insulting a person who used a government report to back his case in one thread, while you were relying on the vdery same same government in another to make your case in another thread.

Your pathetic, trivial posts about whether CBS Radio made money in 1942, versus the 1940s, is so laughably inane that one can only shake his head.

Caught you again, Davey.

You cannot have it both ways, and you resort to changing the subject when you get caught lying, using hypocritical arguments, or twisting statistics.


[EDIT=ad hominem comments]

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

You misstate the subject of my post: I noted your argument in the Dallas thread was based on government documents. That came on the same day that you said in the Los Angeles thread that you don't believe the government.

My argument about CBS' profitability was based on severa radio trade magazines' news reports, Fortune Magazine and the CBS annual reports to shareholders. I used an EXHIBIT at a trial to further show that CBS itself demonstrated profitability in the 30's and early 40's, despite the poster's claims that such was not ture.

I never said I did not believe the government. You slander me by saying that, since I did not say it. I stated that I question many government findings, particularly those of agencies and committees when they get into areas they are not experts in. The cited example was the FCC trying to use EBITDA to blame debt service for bad service by radio... which is as dumb and ignorant as a statement can be.

I impeached and discredited you. Damn, it was a virtual Perry Mason moment. J-accuse!

You did no such thing. If you believe that by misquoting me and then disecting something I said is a victory, you are ill.

[EDIT]

You were caught redhanded, El Pluperfecto, denigrating and insulting a person who used a government report to back his case in one thread, while you were relying on the vdery same same government in another to make your case in another thread.

Except that in the Dallas thread I used no government report.

Your pathetic, trivial posts about whether CBS Radio made money in 1942, versus the 1940s, is so laughably inane that one can only shake his head.

If the discussion is about whether CBS made money "in the 40's" vs. "after the war" or in "1940" the distinction is very important, as we have three ranges... the 40's are a ten year spread, "before the War would be ANY time prior to late 1941, and "after the war" would be the last 5 years of the decade, approximately. That would be very critical.

Caught you again, Davey.

In your dreams.


[EDIT=ad hominem comments]

 

[zumahans]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

---->My argument about CBS' profitability was based on severa radio trade magazines' news reports, Fortune Magazine and the CBS annual reports to shareholders. I used an EXHIBIT at a trial to further show that CBS itself demonstrated profitability in the 30's and early 40's, despite the poster's claims that such was not ture.

You used a government finding, a court opinion.

---->I never said I did not believe the government. You slander me by saying that, since I did not say it.

Yes, you did say that, you compared the FCC report I posted to the Warren Commission Report (which you somehow have confused with the Iraq War). You clearly expressed contempt for any and all government findings. It's there for all to see.


---> If you believe that by misquoting me and then disecting something I said is a victory, you are ill.


No, feeling quite well, thank you.

[EDIT]

----->If the discussion is about whether CBS made money "in the 40's" vs. "after the war" or in "1940" the distinction is very important, as we have three ranges... the 40's are a ten year spread, "before the War would be ANY time prior to late 1941, and "after the war" would be the last 5 years of the decade, approximately. That would be very critical.


Critical? Irrelevant. The point is not what the government finding said, but the fact you rely on government findings on the Dallas board while ridiculing anyone who would rely on government findings at the same time on the Los Angeles board.

[EDIT]

[EDIT=ad hominem comments]

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Dave Gleason's record of lies, twisted facts, race-based attacks, etc etc et

---->My argument about CBS' profitability was based on severa radio trade magazines' news reports, Fortune Magazine and the CBS annual reports to shareholders. I used an EXHIBIT at a trial to further show that CBS itself demonstrated profitability in the 30's and early 40's, despite the poster's claims that such was not ture.

You used a government finding, a court opinion.

No, I used the data in an exhibit presented TO the court BY CBS. Not the same.

---->I never said I did not believe the government. You slander me by saying that, since I did not say it.

Yes, you did say that, you compared the FCC report I posted to the Warrent Commission Report (which you somehow have confused with the Iraq War). You clearly expressed contempt for any and all government findings. It's there for all to see.

And, as usual, you misread it. I said that the Warren Report, the report on WMDs in Iraq and one other item were examples of questionable government reports. I believe it is every citizens' duty ina republic to question everything the government does. It does not always do things as well as it could, and only by public scruitiny are the public servants compelled to do better.

[EDIT]

----->If the discussion is about whether CBS made money "in the 40's" vs. "after the war" or in "1940" the distinction is very important, as we have three ranges... the 40's are a ten year spread, "before the War would be ANY time prior to late 1941, and "after the war" would be the last 5 years of the decade, approximately. That would be very critical.


Critical? Irrelevant. The point is not what the government finding said, but [b[the fact you rely on government findings[/b] on the Dallas board while ridiculing anyone who would rely on government findings at the same time on the Los Angeles board.

No such thing. See above. I used a piece of data placed in evidence by CBS (indicating they must have believed it true and that it would not purjure them) in a corut case to show CBS was profitable far before the late 40's. I did not use any government data at all in that argument.


[EDIT=ad hominem comments]

 

[zumahans]

Your point is clear, and my nailing of your hide to the barn wall is clear, too.

They're on to you in Dallas.

They've seen your tactics in Phoenix.

And now you have been splayed out for all the world to see here in LA.

The readers can judge for themselves.

Sadly, I am turning into a carbon copy of you, boring the good reader to tears by stepping down to your lvel, countering every single post with a counterpost.

Darn you to heck, Davey Pluperfecto! You are turning me into you! Curse you!

As regards your compliment on the shoes: In the words of Homer Simpson: "I'm flattered, and more than a little bit curious. But I am not that kind of a guy!"