• 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

The LA Teapot

Double standard alert

> "Rosarita" is a name used out of ignorance, not out of
> problems with spelling (I, for one, have never been able to
> master English spelling... it is to convoluted).

I get it - you get a pass for being dyslexic and having to deal with a convoluted language ...

And we yanquis get called -ignorant- for confusing a common Spanish female name with an unusual place name...

Nice demonstration, David.
 
Re: Double standard alert

> > "Rosarita" is a name used out of ignorance, not out of
> > problems with spelling (I, for one, have never been able
> to
> > master English spelling... it is to convoluted).
>
> I get it - you get a pass for being dyslexic and having to
> deal with a convoluted language ...
>
> And we yanquis get called -ignorant- for confusing a common
> Spanish female name with an unusual place name...

This would be a good example if true.

Rosarita is not a common female name (I think I have know one Rosarita in 40 years) while there are Rosaritos in a number of Latin American nations.
 
Re: is this consistent?

> > Maybe some here think as Robert did because in replying to
>
> > Robert elsewhere on this thread, David stated:
> >
> > ---The other day, while chatting in the checkout lane,
> > someone in the supermarket said to me, "You won't get a
> good
> > job unless you speak English." Was that you? There are
> still
> > some people who don't understand the changes in the US and
>
> > in LA.
> ..................>
> ............................................................
>
> >
> > So while others are admonished for making personal
> attacks,
> > David was not.
> > I don't think KM Richards condones a statement like this,
> > even if made by David, but others might feel that way.
> Just
> > an observation after catching up on this long thread.
>
> I'll be happy to explain my point of view.
>
> For whatever reason, perhaps the old "prophet without honor
> in his own backyard" cliche, David appears to be a
> convenient target for attack, as am I. However, many who
> choose to attack David's opinion do so by downplaying the
> impact of ethnic radio in this market ... likely because he
> is well-known to be an executive of one of the large
> Hispanic radio groups.
>
> In that context, a mild counterattack like the one quoted
> above is acceptable, compared to the original attack.
>
> That is my bias, and I believe it is just as valid a bias as
> that of those who condemn ethnic radio in the face of the
> realities of this changing market.
>
> I should point out that, as a moderator, I have tried to not
> put my metaphysical foot down until a thread has devolved
> beyond a rational discussion of a radio-related topic.
> Unfortunately, most here only see that I have taken a
> position as a moderator and not the length of time I have
> shown restraint.
>


Please Mr. Richards, your excuse is nonsense. David was commenting on the English speaking KEDG FM. That is why my replies were about. You steped in, due to your own bias for sure as well as your personal friendship with David. It is disgraceful that you allow our judgement to be colored in that way and allow Davids remarks to go by. It's clear to me that I should not expect an honset review by you.
 
Re: is this consistent?

> Please Mr. Richards, your excuse is nonsense. David was
> commenting on the English speaking KEDG FM. That is why my
> replies were about. You steped in, due to your own bias for
> sure as well as your personal friendship with David. It is
> disgraceful that you allow our judgement to be colored in
> that way and allow Davids remarks to go by. It's clear to
> me that I should not expect an honset review by you.

I don't make you read the board or post on it, Robert.

My statements are consistent with what the owners expect from me, and I answer to them, not to you.

I have allowed you some leeway on board rule #5 (which happens to be the rule that most often triggers the owners banning people) because I was trying to clear the air. It is now obvious that it will not be possible to do so where you are concerned, so I am now dropping the subject and requesting that you do the same and honor rule #5.

<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom