Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

You specifically called names to anyone who thought HD was a good idea. Quote: “And all arguments to contrary are, false, misleading, deserving no reply.” Your words. Your accusation. If I believe, ergo, I am a liar.

Perhaps you amuse some with your drivel, but I was always taught that clarity of _expression_ was to be desired over intentional efforts to impress with assumed erudition.

Your sidestep into HMOs and such is bizarre, to say the least. Irrelevant.

Returning to radio, you do nothing to debate (which you say you cherish) the issues of compatibility with existing radios and infrastructure and the need for analog radio to reinvent itself. 95% of all Americans listen to terrestrial radio each week. It is not about content in this context. It is about using a delivery system that is perceived as not being antiquated. Analog is perceived as antiquated by the consumer.

Clinging to old systems and models is not an option. That is my opinion, and that of most leaders in the industry.

From: Milspec390@xxxxxxx [mailto:Milspec390@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 2:14 PM
To: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dxflorida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

You wish to place words into my mouth? Consider well kind counsel. Do so gingerly, best not at all.

Neither undersigned nor professionals in review note any such allegations made against you. My writings reflect concerns and terms used by broadcasters upset by HD's deleterious effects & Team IBOC's callous dismissal of same - as you well know.

Those in review do note your publication of private information, including characterizing undersigned as somehow at odds with government. Puzzling to local officials, with whom undersigned enjoys good rapport. As surely you know, such false descriptions can prove troublesome for those so portrayed, given today's political climate and spirit of malice and malingering with which they were drawn.

Having earlier decided against apprising you, am so doing now, in light of your actions, in hope you may act for the good.

Your apparent dislike of others' exercise of First Ammendment Rights seems curious in light of your occupation.

As published writer and radio personality, many note I relish honest debaters, brook no quarter to those disingenuous; steadfastly seeing thru to completion that which others may unwisely initiate.

I've been grifted by the world's orchids, to quote an old friend. Twenty million dollars stolen by 90's cabal of lawyers, crooked HMO, smarmy day-care center for rich brat's kids, and usual gang of long-lost & suddenly found "relatives".

So, you're offering to do what, precisely?

Whenever concerns are published about 'relatives' - anonymous group of couple hundred people - same two individuals long seen as complicit - tediously, predictably, object. Why?

What are they telling us about themselves?

With all due respect, they're hard act to follow, given forgeries, obfuscation, two known murders, all committed to satisfy appetite. Yes, that's my name atop building seen by those negotiating Thurber's Avenue curve, I-95, Providence, RI.

Not name of whom HMO claims it to be.

Those seen as complicit behave much as those denying stinky little noise problems.

You say there's no masking? Really?

Listening to it presently. Wipes out three adjacent stations, all considered local.

How interesting.

=Z.=

Paul Vincent Zecchino

Manasota Key, FL