C
cabradio
Guest
Tried emailing you. It bounced. Not good....<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
</P>
-
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
N
neanderpol
Guest
> Tried emailing you. It bounced. Not good....
>
Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
Could this finally be the beginning of having to register, and actually have identities?
>
Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
Could this finally be the beginning of having to register, and actually have identities?
> > Tried emailing you. It bounced. Not good....
> >
> Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
>
> Could this finally be the beginning of having to register,
> and actually have identities?
>
Gee I hope not; you would have to drop neanderpol and go with your real name.
Then again, I think that Tom A. Irwin should use a real name when doing talk radio instead of TAI. It gives him a greater sense of credibility. You were still very good on with Scott Allen Miller the other morning.
> >
> Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
>
> Could this finally be the beginning of having to register,
> and actually have identities?
>
Gee I hope not; you would have to drop neanderpol and go with your real name.
Then again, I think that Tom A. Irwin should use a real name when doing talk radio instead of TAI. It gives him a greater sense of credibility. You were still very good on with Scott Allen Miller the other morning.
N
neanderpol
Guest
> > > Tried emailing you. It bounced. Not good....
> > >
> > Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
> >
> > Could this finally be the beginning of having to register,
>
> > and actually have identities?
> >
> Gee I hope not; you would have to drop neanderpol and go
> with your real name.
> Then again, I think that Tom A. Irwin should use a real name
> when doing talk radio instead of TAI. It gives him a greater
> sense of credibility. You were still very good on with Scott
> Allen Miller the other morning.
Thanks for the love.
The unfortunate part of using screen names is that it allows for some people to hide behind them to slander and harass. Whereas it's pretty well-known who I am. A lot of people have been badgered to identify themselves. I can see why anonymity can be advantageous, but it also does allow for some to use it to cloak their hatred.
If you listened the other day, you know I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. I believe that if you're strong enough in your convictions, you should be strong enough to state them under your name.
But again...It's my choice to identify myself in this public forum, and I have to deal with the ramifications of my statements. I wouldn't ask anyone to have to conform to my thinking.
If the moderators change the registration parameters of this forum, I would suspect that some might be less likely to exchange information. And that's never a good thing.
But...it would reduce the flaming a bit. Which would be nice.
> > >
> > Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
> >
> > Could this finally be the beginning of having to register,
>
> > and actually have identities?
> >
> Gee I hope not; you would have to drop neanderpol and go
> with your real name.
> Then again, I think that Tom A. Irwin should use a real name
> when doing talk radio instead of TAI. It gives him a greater
> sense of credibility. You were still very good on with Scott
> Allen Miller the other morning.
Thanks for the love.
The unfortunate part of using screen names is that it allows for some people to hide behind them to slander and harass. Whereas it's pretty well-known who I am. A lot of people have been badgered to identify themselves. I can see why anonymity can be advantageous, but it also does allow for some to use it to cloak their hatred.
If you listened the other day, you know I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. I believe that if you're strong enough in your convictions, you should be strong enough to state them under your name.
But again...It's my choice to identify myself in this public forum, and I have to deal with the ramifications of my statements. I wouldn't ask anyone to have to conform to my thinking.
If the moderators change the registration parameters of this forum, I would suspect that some might be less likely to exchange information. And that's never a good thing.
But...it would reduce the flaming a bit. Which would be nice.
It probably wouldn't stop me from posting if I had to use my name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an outsider it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal since I came out of talk radio.
I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers. Most, if not all have come out of the sales department and know how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a clue about the on-air product but think they are experts.
They are not.
> > > > Tried emailing you. It bounced. Not good....
> > > >
> > > Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
> > >
> > > Could this finally be the beginning of having to
> register,
> >
> > > and actually have identities?
> > >
> > Gee I hope not; you would have to drop neanderpol and go
> > with your real name.
> > Then again, I think that Tom A. Irwin should use a real
> name
> > when doing talk radio instead of TAI. It gives him a
> greater
> > sense of credibility. You were still very good on with
> Scott
> > Allen Miller the other morning.
>
> Thanks for the love.
>
> The unfortunate part of using screen names is that it allows
> for some people to hide behind them to slander and harass.
> Whereas it's pretty well-known who I am. A lot of people
> have been badgered to identify themselves. I can see why
> anonymity can be advantageous, but it also does allow for
> some to use it to cloak their hatred.
>
> If you listened the other day, you know I'm a big believer
> in personal responsibility. I believe that if you're strong
> enough in your convictions, you should be strong enough to
> state them under your name.
>
> But again...It's my choice to identify myself in this public
> forum, and I have to deal with the ramifications of my
> statements. I wouldn't ask anyone to have to conform to my
> thinking.
>
> If the moderators change the registration parameters of this
> forum, I would suspect that some might be less likely to
> exchange information. And that's never a good thing.
>
> But...it would reduce the flaming a bit. Which would be
> nice.
>
I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers. Most, if not all have come out of the sales department and know how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a clue about the on-air product but think they are experts.
They are not.
> > > > Tried emailing you. It bounced. Not good....
> > > >
> > > Sounds like someone's getting banned soon.
> > >
> > > Could this finally be the beginning of having to
> register,
> >
> > > and actually have identities?
> > >
> > Gee I hope not; you would have to drop neanderpol and go
> > with your real name.
> > Then again, I think that Tom A. Irwin should use a real
> name
> > when doing talk radio instead of TAI. It gives him a
> greater
> > sense of credibility. You were still very good on with
> Scott
> > Allen Miller the other morning.
>
> Thanks for the love.
>
> The unfortunate part of using screen names is that it allows
> for some people to hide behind them to slander and harass.
> Whereas it's pretty well-known who I am. A lot of people
> have been badgered to identify themselves. I can see why
> anonymity can be advantageous, but it also does allow for
> some to use it to cloak their hatred.
>
> If you listened the other day, you know I'm a big believer
> in personal responsibility. I believe that if you're strong
> enough in your convictions, you should be strong enough to
> state them under your name.
>
> But again...It's my choice to identify myself in this public
> forum, and I have to deal with the ramifications of my
> statements. I wouldn't ask anyone to have to conform to my
> thinking.
>
> If the moderators change the registration parameters of this
> forum, I would suspect that some might be less likely to
> exchange information. And that's never a good thing.
>
> But...it would reduce the flaming a bit. Which would be
> nice.
>
N
neanderpol
Guest
> It probably wouldn't stop me from posting if I had to use my
> name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an outsider
> it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal
> since I came out of talk radio.
>
> I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers. Most,
> if not all have come out of the sales department and know
> how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a clue
> about the on-air product but think they are experts.
> They are not.
>
I would agree. There are a great deal of alleged programming genius' who have less than a clue about how their audience lives/consumes music. The unfotunate fact is that they control they majority of the industry.
But, back to the point. If moderators wanted people to actually have to identify themselves, I contend that a great deal of the personal bashing would disappear.
> name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an outsider
> it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal
> since I came out of talk radio.
>
> I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers. Most,
> if not all have come out of the sales department and know
> how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a clue
> about the on-air product but think they are experts.
> They are not.
>
I would agree. There are a great deal of alleged programming genius' who have less than a clue about how their audience lives/consumes music. The unfotunate fact is that they control they majority of the industry.
But, back to the point. If moderators wanted people to actually have to identify themselves, I contend that a great deal of the personal bashing would disappear.
L
Les
Guest
Actually, you DID
> Could this finally be the beginning of having to register,
> and actually have identities?
Though many have forgotten, in order to post on these
boards every user had to first register. Part of the
process was to include a working e-mail address. Screen
names were and are supported. In fact, you don't even
have to use your REAL name when registering. But you
had to provide an e-mail address, allowing administrators
to contact you directly. You also are allowed to post
a "fake" username which is what's displayed to all users
except moderators/administrators who are responsible for
making only proper use of your "real" e-mail address.
Some users subsequently changed their registered address
or may have moved to a new ISP or something similar and
it's no longer possible to reach them. I don't believe
anyone is seeking to reveal identities across the board;
rather the need is to allow admins/mods to make direct
access.
You couldn't register without a valid e-mail address.
What might be on the horizon is a mechanism which
periodically "tests" registered addresses and closes
out the registrations of those whose addies no longer
work. They could still read but couldn't post. Very
similar to being banned but easily overcome by
registering again and providing a current address.
<P ID="signature">______________
God save us from those who would save us from ourselves! P-l-e-a-s-e!!!!!</P>
> Could this finally be the beginning of having to register,
> and actually have identities?
Though many have forgotten, in order to post on these
boards every user had to first register. Part of the
process was to include a working e-mail address. Screen
names were and are supported. In fact, you don't even
have to use your REAL name when registering. But you
had to provide an e-mail address, allowing administrators
to contact you directly. You also are allowed to post
a "fake" username which is what's displayed to all users
except moderators/administrators who are responsible for
making only proper use of your "real" e-mail address.
Some users subsequently changed their registered address
or may have moved to a new ISP or something similar and
it's no longer possible to reach them. I don't believe
anyone is seeking to reveal identities across the board;
rather the need is to allow admins/mods to make direct
access.
You couldn't register without a valid e-mail address.
What might be on the horizon is a mechanism which
periodically "tests" registered addresses and closes
out the registrations of those whose addies no longer
work. They could still read but couldn't post. Very
similar to being banned but easily overcome by
registering again and providing a current address.
<P ID="signature">______________
God save us from those who would save us from ourselves! P-l-e-a-s-e!!!!!</P>
My two cents: anyone who says NESN should be sued for showing Red Sox players using chewing tobacco likely has nothing constructive to add here. Again just my two cents.
> > It probably wouldn't stop me from posting if I had to use
> my
> > name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an
> outsider
> > it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal
> > since I came out of talk radio.
> >
> > I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers.
> Most,
> > if not all have come out of the sales department and know
> > how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a clue
> > about the on-air product but think they are experts.
> > They are not.
> >
>
> I would agree. There are a great deal of alleged programming
> genius' who have less than a clue about how their audience
> lives/consumes music. The unfotunate fact is that they
> control they majority of the industry.
>
> But, back to the point. If moderators wanted people to
> actually have to identify themselves, I contend that a great
> deal of the personal bashing would disappear.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
-TheGuy...InTheRadio</P>
> > It probably wouldn't stop me from posting if I had to use
> my
> > name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an
> outsider
> > it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal
> > since I came out of talk radio.
> >
> > I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers.
> Most,
> > if not all have come out of the sales department and know
> > how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a clue
> > about the on-air product but think they are experts.
> > They are not.
> >
>
> I would agree. There are a great deal of alleged programming
> genius' who have less than a clue about how their audience
> lives/consumes music. The unfotunate fact is that they
> control they majority of the industry.
>
> But, back to the point. If moderators wanted people to
> actually have to identify themselves, I contend that a great
> deal of the personal bashing would disappear.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
-TheGuy...InTheRadio</P>
Thought Police ?
Please take a remedial reading class or two. What was said was 'do not be surprised if some enterprising lawyer doesn't bring a law suit based on the fact that sporting events and television coverage thereof is promoting smoking and it subsequent health risks.' That is a far cry from what you think was written nor does it even necessarily reflect the opinion of the poster. It was conjecture in light of many other seemingly frivolous lawsuits that have been awarded heavy damages.
What you really seem to want to promote here is a Thought Police.
> My two cents: anyone who says NESN should be sued for
> showing Red Sox players using chewing tobacco likely has
> nothing constructive to add here. Again just my two cents.
>
>
> > > It probably wouldn't stop me from posting if I had to
> use
> > my
> > > name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an
> > outsider
> > > it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal
> > > since I came out of talk radio.
> > >
> > > I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers.
> > Most,
> > > if not all have come out of the sales department and
> know
> > > how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a
> clue
> > > about the on-air product but think they are experts.
> > > They are not.
> > >
> >
> > I would agree. There are a great deal of alleged
> programming
> > genius' who have less than a clue about how their audience
>
> > lives/consumes music. The unfotunate fact is that they
> > control they majority of the industry.
> >
> > But, back to the point. If moderators wanted people to
> > actually have to identify themselves, I contend that a
> great
> > deal of the personal bashing would disappear.
> >
>
Please take a remedial reading class or two. What was said was 'do not be surprised if some enterprising lawyer doesn't bring a law suit based on the fact that sporting events and television coverage thereof is promoting smoking and it subsequent health risks.' That is a far cry from what you think was written nor does it even necessarily reflect the opinion of the poster. It was conjecture in light of many other seemingly frivolous lawsuits that have been awarded heavy damages.
What you really seem to want to promote here is a Thought Police.
> My two cents: anyone who says NESN should be sued for
> showing Red Sox players using chewing tobacco likely has
> nothing constructive to add here. Again just my two cents.
>
>
> > > It probably wouldn't stop me from posting if I had to
> use
> > my
> > > name but since I am not in broadcasting now and an
> > outsider
> > > it shouldn't matter. Not sure I would be any less vocal
> > > since I came out of talk radio.
> > >
> > > I just have a jaundiced eye about broadcast managers.
> > Most,
> > > if not all have come out of the sales department and
> know
> > > how to sell beer and bufferin but most haven't got a
> clue
> > > about the on-air product but think they are experts.
> > > They are not.
> > >
> >
> > I would agree. There are a great deal of alleged
> programming
> > genius' who have less than a clue about how their audience
>
> > lives/consumes music. The unfotunate fact is that they
> > control they majority of the industry.
> >
> > But, back to the point. If moderators wanted people to
> > actually have to identify themselves, I contend that a
> great
> > deal of the personal bashing would disappear.
> >
>
C
cabradio
Guest
Re: Thought Police ?
Needless to say here, but for those worry mongers, parklane got in touch with me. And all is well in the Boston Radio-Info.com - land.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Needless to say here, but for those worry mongers, parklane got in touch with me. And all is well in the Boston Radio-Info.com - land.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
L
Les
Guest
Signature alone says it all.
no text; just signature below.
<P ID="signature">______________
God save us from those who would save us from ourselves! P-l-e-a-s-e!!!!!</P>
no text; just signature below.
<P ID="signature">______________
God save us from those who would save us from ourselves! P-l-e-a-s-e!!!!!</P>
W
wattagecottage
Guest
The Dream Police
The Dream Police, they live inside of my head.......
The Dream Police, they live inside of my head.......
- Status