'06 Mustang Colors, Part II

Zombywoof > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:17:34 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>
>>"John C." > wrote in newsPEGf.1605$Tb.1223@trndny01:
>>
>>>
>>> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system
>>>> >IMO. Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>>>> >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD
>>>> >itself and the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a
>>>> >no-brainer. BTW, most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at
>>>> >192 or higher, so the fidelity is still right there.
>>>> >
>>>> Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to
>>>> be to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying
>>>> the appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
>>>> themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
>>>> problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released
>>>> for all to enjoy.
>>>
>>> I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the
>>> material on *any* form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the
>>> mp3 without a trace of guilt. I'm certainly not going to pay (again)
>>> for a digitally remastered disc of previously purchased material. If
>>> it's new material, and I like it, I buy the disc. Ripping HQ mp3s
>>> from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag the post.
>>> --
>>> John C.
>>> '03 Cobra Convt.
>>
>>At this point I'm not concerned about the "illegality" of dl'ing stuff
>>from USENET. It's my personal way of thumbing my nose at the
>>recording industry.
>>
> I'm really not either. More of a personal thing.
>
>>If companies want to charge me ridiculous amounts of money to purchase
>>a CD, I will simply circumvent the whole thing and get it for nothing
>>from USENET. When the price of a CD comes down to something
>>reasonable, I will gladly purchase it.
>>
>>Most artists make their money from concerts and tours - not CD sales.
>>The recording/distribution companies are the ones profiting from
>>selling CDs, which is simply another reason to avoid supporting their
>>ripoff tactics.
>>
> I know, I know. A band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties
> for each full-priced ($16.98) CD sold through normal retail channels.
> Which I'm here to tell you don't happen all that often. Sometime when
> you are bored read http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html to get
> a real good idea on what's what in % points.
>
>>Even though the mp3 -> CD process is a bit tedious, I enjoy it as I
>>"tweak" the recordings with my wave editor to improve the sound to my
>>liking. A lot of the older recordings (i.e., classic rock) need a bit
>>of "spice" to compete with today's sound, so I will add a bit of high
>>and low end, maybe a bit of compression, etc. It's a personal thing,
>>but my CDs sound awesome.
>>
> Ahh a budding re-producer

A throwback to my first life as a musician. It never leaves you.

"Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
...
>
> The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy to
> have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay
> radio.".
> But you also have to slam anyone who does subscribe to satellite radio: "I
> suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes
> too?",
> and "...suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people ...". Fine, it has no
> value to you - that's your choice. So why aren't we allowed to our choice
> without having to be insulted by you? I don't agree with your choice
> either, but you don't see me insulting you for your choice - because
> you're
> entitled to it, same as I am.
>
> "351CJ" > wrote in message
> news:YxgGf.29096$%i3.16851@trnddc02...
>>

I'm happy with my choice, I'm not happy with yours. I guess it's because
you may not realize that your "choices" help cost us all in loss of choice
and quality if not eventually cash.
Try this angle,

I like to take my dogs places, I follow all of the leash laws and other dog
control related rules I make sure my dogs do not scare or bother others.
When I come across other (Pick your description) careless, rude, selfish,
out of control, inconsiderate, dog owners that are not being considerate, I
say something to them, because their so called "choice" directly contributes
to the loss of places that allow all responsible people to bring their dogs.

Your choice to pay for radio is no less harmful to free radio listeners than
your choice to pay for "extended warranties" is to consumers who still
believe a manufacture should stand behind their product. If nobody paid for
radio and simply demanded what they wanted over the free air waves, it would
work in the same way as if nobody ever bought another extended warranty, and
demanded that manufacture still stand behind their product. We would all
get what we want at no additional cost.

The more people that choose to pay for radio, the smaller the pool of people
and options available for those that don't choose to pay for radio.

Look at the big picture.

Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost
to us all...

"351CJ" > wrote in message
news:InQGf.30879$xs4.6451@trnddc01...
>
> "Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy to
> > have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay
> > radio.".
> > But you also have to slam anyone who does subscribe to satellite radio:
"I
> > suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes
> > too?",
> > and "...suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people ...". Fine, it has
no
> > value to you - that's your choice. So why aren't we allowed to our
choice
> > without having to be insulted by you? I don't agree with your choice
> > either, but you don't see me insulting you for your choice - because
> > you're
> > entitled to it, same as I am.
> >
> > "351CJ" > wrote in message
> > news:YxgGf.29096$%i3.16851@trnddc02...
> >>
>
> I'm happy with my choice, I'm not happy with yours. I guess it's because
> you may not realize that your "choices" help cost us all in loss of choice
> and quality if not eventually cash.
> Try this angle,
>
> I like to take my dogs places, I follow all of the leash laws and other
dog
> control related rules I make sure my dogs do not scare or bother others.
> When I come across other (Pick your description) careless, rude, selfish,
> out of control, inconsiderate, dog owners that are not being considerate,
I
> say something to them, because their so called "choice" directly
contributes
> to the loss of places that allow all responsible people to bring their
dogs.
>

Except that, contrary to your assertion, my choice doesn't have any effect
on your options. If anything, it improves your options. Satellite radio,
at least for me, has far and away better quality (sound as well as content)
than AM/FM. It's worth it to me to pay for it. If you don't want to,
that's up to you. As far as the "loss" regarding AM/FM, I'm noticing that
the quality of the few AM/FM stations that I listen to is improving - they
know that they have to improve to keep from losing more customers.

Another reason that your above analogy doesn't make any sense is that, the
actions you speak of are ILLEGAL. I'm not doing anything illegal, and what
I'm doing does not directly contribute to any decline of AM/FM at all. In
fact, as I asserted above, I think that AM/FM radio is improving becuase of
it.

And again, my other problem with you is that, once again, you turn to direct
insults. You describe me (per your analogy) as careless, rude, selfish, out
of control, etc. Where do you get off describing me that way? We've never
met, and we've never even conversed at all before this thread. Have you
ever heard of common decency, or treating others with a semblance of
respect? I disagree with you just as much as you do I, but I haven't called
you one name yet. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it. It
would be nice if you thought the same and treated me with some sense of
common decency.

> Your choice to pay for radio is no less harmful to free radio listeners
than
> your choice to pay for "extended warranties" is to consumers who still
> believe a manufacture should stand behind their product. If nobody paid
for
> radio and simply demanded what they wanted over the free air waves, it
would
> work in the same way as if nobody ever bought another extended warranty,
and
> demanded that manufacture still stand behind their product. We would all
> get what we want at no additional cost.

This is a democracy, and it's called free enterprise. If the AM/FM stations
were putting out programming with the quality of satellite radio, there
wouldn't be any problem. You want analogies, OK, I've got one for you. How
about slide rules and calculators (I'm showing my age now). When
calculators first hit the market in the '70's, who needed a slide rule
anymore? Yeah, calculators cost more than slide rules, but it was worth it,
as they were much more accurate, and a lot faster. Were the people who went
out and got calculators "rude, selfish, etc." for doing that? No, because
it was an improved product and worth the extra cost. If you want to stick
with your "slide rule", that's fine - it's your choice. But if the "slide
rule" business suffers becuase of improved quality, that's not my fault for
buying a "calculator".

Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's.
Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of
fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I
hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated to
these shows on XM.

Should we have stuck with radio because TV sets were so much more expensive
than radio? Or maybe we should've stuck with horse drawn carriages, since
they were a lot less expensive than automobiles.

As far as your comments about "if nobody paid for radio", that's just not
true. Satellite radio only started about five years ago. People have been
demanding that AM/FM radio improve for decades now. Despite that, the
content of AM/FM radio has been declining since the '40's.

>
> The more people that choose to pay for radio, the smaller the pool of
people
> and options available for those that don't choose to pay for radio.

And the better chance that free radio will improve its content, in an
attempt to compete with satellite radio. Without this competition, why
would they have any incentive to do so?

>
> Look at the big picture.

I am looking at the big picture. Your version of the big picture seems to
be that you like free radio, and want everyone else to conform to your
standards in order to retain the status quo for your benefit. In other
words, from what I can tell, to you, the big picture seems to be you. If
you prefer save some money and listen to mediocre programming, that's your
choice, and I support that. Just don't expect the rest of us to conform to
your standards in order to retain your status quo. And don't blame us for
the poor quality of free radio - it's been declining for a long time - long
before satellite radio was even close to a reality.

>
> Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost
> to us all...
>

It's not costing you anything at all. The AM/FM stations put themselves in
this position, with the poor quality of programming and the glut of ads.

>
>
>

In article <oPEGf.1605$Tb.1223@trndny01>, John C. > wrote:
>
>I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material on *any*
>form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without a trace of guilt.
>I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a digitally remastered disc of
>previously purchased material. If it's new material, and I like it, I buy the
>disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag
>the post.

Use CDEx - fast, simple, and practically automatic. All you have to do is
put in the disc and hit 2 buttons. It will organize your ripped files
any way you want, and it has better legal standing(fair use) than
d/l from the internet. I did my whole CD collection over the course
of a week while I was working on other stuff at the computer.

"Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "351CJ" > wrote in message
> news:InQGf.30879$xs4.6451@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy
>> > to
>> > have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay
>> > radio.".
>> > But you also have to slam anyone who does subscribe to satellite radio:
> "I
>> > suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes
>> > too?",
>> > and "...suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people ...". Fine, it has
> no
>> > value to you - that's your choice. So why aren't we allowed to our
> choice
>> > without having to be insulted by you? I don't agree with your choice
>> > either, but you don't see me insulting you for your choice - because
>> > you're
>> > entitled to it, same as I am.
>> >
>> > "351CJ" > wrote in message
>> > news:YxgGf.29096$%i3.16851@trnddc02...
>> >>
>>
>> I'm happy with my choice, I'm not happy with yours. I guess it's because
>> you may not realize that your "choices" help cost us all in loss of
>> choice
>> and quality if not eventually cash.
>> Try this angle,
>>
>> I like to take my dogs places, I follow all of the leash laws and other
> dog
>> control related rules I make sure my dogs do not scare or bother others.
>> When I come across other (Pick your description) careless, rude, selfish,
>> out of control, inconsiderate, dog owners that are not being considerate,
> I
>> say something to them, because their so called "choice" directly
> contributes
>> to the loss of places that allow all responsible people to bring their
> dogs.
>>
>
> Except that, contrary to your assertion, my choice doesn't have any effect
> on your options. If anything, it improves your options. Satellite radio,
> at least for me, has far and away better quality (sound as well as
> content)
> than AM/FM. It's worth it to me to pay for it. If you don't want to,
> that's up to you. As far as the "loss" regarding AM/FM, I'm noticing that
> the quality of the few AM/FM stations that I listen to is improving - they
> know that they have to improve to keep from losing more customers.
>
> Another reason that your above analogy doesn't make any sense is that, the
> actions you speak of are ILLEGAL. I'm not doing anything illegal, and
> what
> I'm doing does not directly contribute to any decline of AM/FM at all. In
> fact, as I asserted above, I think that AM/FM radio is improving becuase
> of
> it.
>
> And again, my other problem with you is that, once again, you turn to
> direct
> insults. You describe me (per your analogy) as careless, rude, selfish,
> out
> of control, etc. Where do you get off describing me that way?


Read it again, I described inconsiderate dog owners that way. Are you one
of them too???





>We've never
> met, and we've never even conversed at all before this thread. Have you
> ever heard of common decency, or treating others with a semblance of
> respect? I disagree with you just as much as you do I, but I haven't
> called
> you one name yet. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it. It
> would be nice if you thought the same and treated me with some sense of
> common decency.
>
>> Your choice to pay for radio is no less harmful to free radio listeners
> than
>> your choice to pay for "extended warranties" is to consumers who still
>> believe a manufacture should stand behind their product. If nobody paid
> for
>> radio and simply demanded what they wanted over the free air waves, it
> would
>> work in the same way as if nobody ever bought another extended warranty,
> and
>> demanded that manufacture still stand behind their product. We would all
>> get what we want at no additional cost.
>
> This is a democracy, and it's called free enterprise. If the AM/FM
> stations
> were putting out programming with the quality of satellite radio, there
> wouldn't be any problem. You want analogies, OK, I've got one for you.
> How
> about slide rules and calculators (I'm showing my age now). When
> calculators first hit the market in the '70's, who needed a slide rule
> anymore? Yeah, calculators cost more than slide rules, but it was worth
> it,
> as they were much more accurate, and a lot faster. Were the people who
> went
> out and got calculators "rude, selfish, etc." for doing that? No, because
> it was an improved product and worth the extra cost. If you want to stick
> with your "slide rule", that's fine - it's your choice. But if the "slide
> rule" business suffers becuase of improved quality, that's not my fault
> for
> buying a "calculator".


You are comparing an improved product (calculator VS slide rule) with an
entire change in corporate revenue generation schemes (non listener pay
verses pay to listen), They are not the same thing.

I have no problem with the product improvement, if indeed it is that, my
problem is with the revised corporate revenue generation schemes being
swallowed hook line and sinker by so many consumers.



>
> Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's.
> Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of
> fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I
> hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated
> to
> these shows on XM.
>
> Should we have stuck with radio because TV sets were so much more
> expensive
> than radio? Or maybe we should've stuck with horse drawn carriages, since
> they were a lot less expensive than automobiles.

The progression from FREE radio to FREE TV was not a problem. Just a the
progression from FREE standard TV to FREE HDTV is not a problem.
Again, it's the revised corporate revenue generation schemes, not the
product.


>
> As far as your comments about "if nobody paid for radio", that's just not
> true. Satellite radio only started about five years ago. People have
> been
> demanding that AM/FM radio improve for decades now. Despite that, the
> content of AM/FM radio has been declining since the '40's.
>
>>
>> The more people that choose to pay for radio, the smaller the pool of
> people
>> and options available for those that don't choose to pay for radio.
>
> And the better chance that free radio will improve its content, in an
> attempt to compete with satellite radio. Without this competition, why
> would they have any incentive to do so?
>
>>
>> Look at the big picture.
>
> I am looking at the big picture. Your version of the big picture seems to
> be that you like free radio, and want everyone else to conform to your
> standards in order to retain the status quo for your benefit. In other
> words, from what I can tell, to you, the big picture seems to be you. If
> you prefer save some money and listen to mediocre programming, that's your
> choice, and I support that. Just don't expect the rest of us to conform
> to
> your standards in order to retain your status quo. And don't blame us for
> the poor quality of free radio - it's been declining for a long time -
> long
> before satellite radio was even close to a reality.
>
>>
>> Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in
>> cost
>> to us all...
>>
>
> It's not costing you anything at all. The AM/FM stations put themselves
> in
> this position, with the poor quality of programming and the glut of ads.

My issue is not with your choice of what you perceive as a better product,
or even that product on it's face, it is with your total willingness to
accept this revised corporate revenue generation scheme and any other that
comes down the pike in the name of getting a better product...

Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost
to us all, in the way directly changes how American pay for and receive
their products...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:01:04 -0600, "Ken Zwyers"
> wrote:

<snip>
>Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's.
>Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of
>fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I
>hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated to
>these shows on XM.
>
They have a channel on XM dedicated to the old serial shows of the 30'
& 40's like the Dark Shadow? If so I now have a reason to get XM.

Oh and know I am not showing my age, but if you've never heard the
intro to the Dark Shadow you don't know what you are missing.

"Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men...." the Shadow do!
--

December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous
US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked
the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda
in Afghanistan.

The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)

"351CJ" > wrote in message news:iz6Hf.679$lo3.296@trnddc07...
>
> "Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "351CJ" > wrote in message
> > news:InQGf.30879$xs4.6451@trnddc01...
> >>
> >> "Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy
> >> > to
> >> > have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay
> >> > radio.".
> >> > But you also have to slam anyone who does subscribe to satellite
radio:
> > "I
> >> > suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes
> >> > too?",
> >> > and "...suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people ...". Fine, it
has
> > no
> >> > value to you - that's your choice. So why aren't we allowed to our
> > choice
> >> > without having to be insulted by you? I don't agree with your choice
> >> > either, but you don't see me insulting you for your choice - because
> >> > you're
> >> > entitled to it, same as I am.
> >> >
> >> > "351CJ" > wrote in message
> >> > news:YxgGf.29096$%i3.16851@trnddc02...
> >> >>
> >>
> >> I'm happy with my choice, I'm not happy with yours. I guess it's
because
> >> you may not realize that your "choices" help cost us all in loss of
> >> choice
> >> and quality if not eventually cash.
> >> Try this angle,
> >>
> >> I like to take my dogs places, I follow all of the leash laws and other
> > dog
> >> control related rules I make sure my dogs do not scare or bother
others.
> >> When I come across other (Pick your description) careless, rude,
selfish,
> >> out of control, inconsiderate, dog owners that are not being
considerate,
> > I
> >> say something to them, because their so called "choice" directly
> > contributes
> >> to the loss of places that allow all responsible people to bring their
> > dogs.
> >>
> >
> > Except that, contrary to your assertion, my choice doesn't have any
effect
> > on your options. If anything, it improves your options. Satellite
radio,
> > at least for me, has far and away better quality (sound as well as
> > content)
> > than AM/FM. It's worth it to me to pay for it. If you don't want to,
> > that's up to you. As far as the "loss" regarding AM/FM, I'm noticing
that
> > the quality of the few AM/FM stations that I listen to is improving -
they
> > know that they have to improve to keep from losing more customers.
> >
> > Another reason that your above analogy doesn't make any sense is that,
the
> > actions you speak of are ILLEGAL. I'm not doing anything illegal, and
> > what
> > I'm doing does not directly contribute to any decline of AM/FM at all.
In
> > fact, as I asserted above, I think that AM/FM radio is improving becuase
> > of
> > it.
> >
> > And again, my other problem with you is that, once again, you turn to
> > direct
> > insults. You describe me (per your analogy) as careless, rude, selfish,
> > out
> > of control, etc. Where do you get off describing me that way?
>
>
> Read it again, I described inconsiderate dog owners that way. Are you one
> of them too???
>

As I mentioned in my last response, you're making a direct analogy that
people who buy satellite radio are just like inconsiderate dog owners. That
means that your opinion of them is analogous to your opinion of us. And
that was not necessary. It was rude and uncalled for, as you could make
your point just as well without the name calling.

>
>
>
>
> >We've never
> > met, and we've never even conversed at all before this thread. Have you
> > ever heard of common decency, or treating others with a semblance of
> > respect? I disagree with you just as much as you do I, but I haven't
> > called
> > you one name yet. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.
It
> > would be nice if you thought the same and treated me with some sense of
> > common decency.
> >
> >> Your choice to pay for radio is no less harmful to free radio listeners
> > than
> >> your choice to pay for "extended warranties" is to consumers who still
> >> believe a manufacture should stand behind their product. If nobody
paid
> > for
> >> radio and simply demanded what they wanted over the free air waves, it
> > would
> >> work in the same way as if nobody ever bought another extended
warranty,
> > and
> >> demanded that manufacture still stand behind their product. We would
all
> >> get what we want at no additional cost.
> >
> > This is a democracy, and it's called free enterprise. If the AM/FM
> > stations
> > were putting out programming with the quality of satellite radio, there
> > wouldn't be any problem. You want analogies, OK, I've got one for you.
> > How
> > about slide rules and calculators (I'm showing my age now). When
> > calculators first hit the market in the '70's, who needed a slide rule
> > anymore? Yeah, calculators cost more than slide rules, but it was worth
> > it,
> > as they were much more accurate, and a lot faster. Were the people who
> > went
> > out and got calculators "rude, selfish, etc." for doing that? No,
because
> > it was an improved product and worth the extra cost. If you want to
stick
> > with your "slide rule", that's fine - it's your choice. But if the
"slide
> > rule" business suffers becuase of improved quality, that's not my fault
> > for
> > buying a "calculator".
>
>
> You are comparing an improved product (calculator VS slide rule) with an
> entire change in corporate revenue generation schemes (non listener pay
> verses pay to listen), They are not the same thing.
>

That's the point, it is an improved product. And, since it's improved, it
costs more. As such, it's everyone's choice as to whether the additional
price is worth the benefit. To some, it's not, and that's just fine. But,
conversely, to some it is worth the added expense, and there's nothing wrong
with that, either.

> I have no problem with the product improvement, if indeed it is that, my
> problem is with the revised corporate revenue generation schemes being
> swallowed hook line and sinker by so many consumers.
>

You're making it sound so revolutionary, when in fact, it's very simple.
Free radio can only produce so much quality (and I use the term "quality"
loosely). For improved quality, it's going to cost money to do it. If
you're satisfied with free radio, great, more power to you. But, just the
same, I have the right to decide to pay for better quality radio, without
having all the problems of free radio blamed on me. The quality of free
radio has been declining steadily since the late 40's, 50 years before
satellite radio ever came along.

>
>
> >
> > Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's.
> > Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter
of
> > fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I
> > hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated
> > to
> > these shows on XM.
> >
> > Should we have stuck with radio because TV sets were so much more
> > expensive
> > than radio? Or maybe we should've stuck with horse drawn carriages,
since
> > they were a lot less expensive than automobiles.
>
> The progression from FREE radio to FREE TV was not a problem. Just a the
> progression from FREE standard TV to FREE HDTV is not a problem.
> Again, it's the revised corporate revenue generation schemes, not the
> product.
>

Do you think that the work to create these advances comes at no cost? Like
anything else in our society, if you want better quality, it's going to
cost. There's nothing wrong with the fact that I choose to pay for better
quality. If you don't want to, that's fine as well, as we both are entitled
to our choice, not just you.

>
> >
> > As far as your comments about "if nobody paid for radio", that's just
not
> > true. Satellite radio only started about five years ago. People have
> > been
> > demanding that AM/FM radio improve for decades now. Despite that, the
> > content of AM/FM radio has been declining since the '40's.
> >
> >>
> >> The more people that choose to pay for radio, the smaller the pool of
> > people
> >> and options available for those that don't choose to pay for radio.
> >
> > And the better chance that free radio will improve its content, in an
> > attempt to compete with satellite radio. Without this competition, why
> > would they have any incentive to do so?
> >
> >>
> >> Look at the big picture.
> >
> > I am looking at the big picture. Your version of the big picture seems
to
> > be that you like free radio, and want everyone else to conform to your
> > standards in order to retain the status quo for your benefit. In other
> > words, from what I can tell, to you, the big picture seems to be you.
If
> > you prefer save some money and listen to mediocre programming, that's
your
> > choice, and I support that. Just don't expect the rest of us to conform
> > to
> > your standards in order to retain your status quo. And don't blame us
for
> > the poor quality of free radio - it's been declining for a long time -
> > long
> > before satellite radio was even close to a reality.
> >
> >>
> >> Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in
> >> cost
> >> to us all...
> >>
> >
> > It's not costing you anything at all. The AM/FM stations put themselves
> > in
> > this position, with the poor quality of programming and the glut of ads.
>
> My issue is not with your choice of what you perceive as a better product,
> or even that product on it's face, it is with your total willingness to
> accept this revised corporate revenue generation scheme and any other that
> comes down the pike in the name of getting a better product...
>
> Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost
> to us all, in the way directly changes how American pay for and receive
> their products...
>

First of all, you make it sound like free radio is going to be gone in two
weeks. There's no sign of any type of crisis in the free radio realm. And,
if there were, it's called progress. There's one constant in our world, and
that's change. Yeah, I'd like it a lot if we went back to a time where
there weren't elaborate touchdown (and sack) celebrations, where gas cost
$0.27, and where people didn't feel like they had to be accessible via a
cell phone 24x7. But you know what, those days are long gone. Get over it.
You want to live in the past, that's your choice. Just quit pretending that
change is everyone else's fault. Maybe the problem is that you're too
inflexible to even budge on what you want. Nah, it's not your fault - it's
everyone else's, right?

I'm tired of wasting my time on this. I doubt that you're going to consider
anything that I have to say on the subject, and that's a shame. Please be
assured that I did listen to what you had to say, and considered it before
responding. And for whatever it's worth, at least I know MY shortcomings.
So I'm going to killfilter you, so I won't be tempted to continue to
respond. I hope that you eventually have the ability to expand your
horizons, at least to the point that you don't feel the need to blame others
because the world around you is changing.
>
>
>

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:01:04 -0600, "Ken Zwyers"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's.
> >Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter
of
> >fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I
> >hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated
to
> >these shows on XM.
> >
> They have a channel on XM dedicated to the old serial shows of the 30'
> & 40's like the Dark Shadow? If so I now have a reason to get XM.

Yeah, it's my in-laws' favorite channel - channel 164.

I'm too young for the original shows of The Shadow, but I've certainly heard
the opening. Don't know about the younger generation, but I don't know how
anyone my age (45) or older could have not heard it!

>
> Oh and know I am not showing my age, but if you've never heard the
> intro to the Dark Shadow you don't know what you are missing.
>
> "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men...." the Shadow do!
> --
>
> December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous
> US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked
> the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda
> in Afghanistan.
>
> The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)