My curiousity got the best of me so I decided to check up on where this troll hangs out.

Turns out if you go back and look at his posting history, he spends about 80% of his time trolling in Mac's Clubhouse, Afternoon Saloon and White Sox section.

For someone that hates Mac so much, he sure spends a lot of time going out of his way to be around him. Almost every post Mac responds to, Gloopan is there. In my estimation, well over half of the posts and threads that Gloopan responds to, starts, comments on or participates in have some type of negative remark regarding Mac, Harry, Jurko, North.

Seems like an awful lot of wasted time and energy to spend on someone you don't even like.

Or, maybe just maybe it's like when we were in 2nd grade and liked a girl we just punched her and said she's ugly because it wasn't cool to like girls at that age. Maybe that's it. Do you have a crush on Mac, Gloopan? I think you do. Is it wrong? Not at all....

_________________
Does your cat make too much noise? Try KITTEN MITTENS!


Charlie: Oh shit. Look at that door dude. See that door right there? That door marked 'Pirate'? You think a pirate lives in there?
Dennis: I see a door marked 'Private.'

I would bet ya Dave that if you did the same detective work on Score is Doomed you would find the same results. Nice job their Sherlock.

And I bet you that you wouldn't see two posts from them at the same time - hmmmmm...

_________________
Does your cat make too much noise? Try KITTEN MITTENS!


Charlie: Oh shit. Look at that door dude. See that door right there? That door marked 'Pirate'? You think a pirate lives in there?
Dennis: I see a door marked 'Private.'

That's the thing about addiction. You're powerless over your actions

_________________

My opinions never need be hidden by another name. I will stand by everyone of mine, only cowards hide behind several names.

I ask Bigfan to verify I am NOT Gloopan, even thought he is right most of the time. Just because people choose not to be members of your ALS doesn't mean they are the same person.
I know you buttlickers think everyone is, but there are several who don't think Mac walks on water.
Stu, I understand he is a friend of yours, so I do excuse you being a member, but these other halfwits, with shallow, empty lives who think that a good buttlicking makes them someone special, are pretty fucking funny.
Yes Degenerate, I do mention you, COF, RPB, RFDC,Doug, Frank and a few others, as being complete losers for being such asslickers. Little wonder you all seem to be poverty stricken moochers hoping for something for free as payment for your asslicking.

Who really gives a shit anyway? Sid, many of the the guys you mention there are friends that Mac has made because of being on the air, because of remotes and because of this message board. I doubt that they think he walks on water as he's a guy that has good and bad days just like the rest of us. I just don't understand your mission in wanting to bring him down.

I sense a bit of jealousy in your tone. Were you snubbed by Mac or did you have a bad encounter with him?

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"

So you think the board should only be for the ALS?

Too bad, it is ONLY a message board. If you wish to kiss ass on it, good for you. If I wish to rip on a pompous, lazy blowhard, good for me.
Mac comes here to get his butt kissed, it's good for his ego. Each his own.


Some sound like a bunch of groupies, whatever the great Mac says is gospel, guess what, it isn't.

Jealous, not a bit. I do hate seeing talent wasted, and Mac is wasting his.

You mean by doing radio shows and having a cadre of groupies from his remotes?

Radio is in an interesting spot right now, both with the current economy and the plethora of other delivery medium/packaging.

I'm not trying to call you out, I'd just like a forward-looking discussion (and this seems like a good chance for one)... what directions do you think a mythical "voice talent" (may or may not be Mac specifically) go in?

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

That is a very interesting question. You are correct about the changes in radio going on. Let me think about it and will be back to discuss it with you.

Beebo, can I get back to you over the weekend? I have to leave for a while.

It sure is, but it's not gonna die as quickly as newspapers will. At some point the FM dial will be nothing but computers spitting out songs, like the premise of a Granddaddy album. Of course the iPod, iPhone, Internetz and all the other new mediums will contribute to its death, but it will largely be the fault of media consolidation and Program Directors and Music Directors pandering to the lowest common denominator.

AM radio is mostly a land of computers at this point. Look at WLS-AM, at one time just about the most respected station in America. Now, you get very little local programming and mostly syndicated talk. You can hear Hannity and Mark Levin on a 5 hour delay, in this day and age when you can get breaking news and opinions every second, that wont last long. The huge contracts Rush and Hannity just signed, in a couple years will look like the money Stern got from Sirius, something that bankrupted the medium. In ten years, I doubt terrestrial radio will still be around.

But local radio will. You wont get it from what we now know as radio, but stations like WGN and WSCR will survive. That’s why signing Mac makes sense. He’ll take a pay cut, a big one. Radio will no longer give out seven-figure contracts, but they’ll still be able to make money, good money. That is, if the people at the top aren’t as greedy, that includes on-air talent.

SID, before you squirt your panties, let me say, I hated MJH, all of them. Jurko was the only tolerable one on the show, and I could handle him for about five minutes. But I liked the HFC when I was a kid and Mac is really honest and often compelling when he posts here. That’s why I’d like to hear him do a podcast, just Mac, no co-host. I wouldn’t expect him to continue it if the Score signed him, but I would download it.

I never would have thought of it until Adam Carolla started doing a podcast. Carolla was really enjoyable when I was growing up, on The Man Show and Loveline, but his radio show sucked. His co-hosts and his old PD Jack Silver ruined it. But his podcsts have been pretty damn good. It’s already the top podcast on iTunes, take a look at the list, it’s NPR and Bill Maher at the top, not Mancow or Bob and Tom. Carolla hasn’t put ads on the show yet, but he will, and probably on his website as well. People need to make a living. None of that bothers me if I can get some decent programming, which is tough to find on the FM or AM dial these days.

Well done R&B. I can't disagree with much you wrote here. I did like MJH most of the time, but HFC was better...by far.

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"

Love it.....

_________________

I think R and B nailed it on the head. I do not even know what the local radio stations are here (mainly b/c we have none...no we do get some from Harrisburg and by some, I mean 3) but I have Sirius-XM for music or listening to Chicago sports live) and I listen to the Adam Carolla or Bill Simmons podcast (when he has a good guest or is not talking exclusively about Boston sports). I then check in with B and B in the afternoon (I used to alternate between MJH and B and B but that has become pointless...and no I'm not a member of the MALS).

_________________

Gloopan is Not Score Is Doomed.

And with the exception of a couple of guys on the air, I think most normal people don't HATE any on air people.

Do I hate Mike North because he hasn't done anything new and original in 10 years now? No, but I will ridicule him for it.

Do I hate Ed Farmer for dropping a name in every on air conversation and needing to remind everyone he played baseball, nope, I just don't listen to him.

Do I hate Ranger because he has to promote the Sox all day? Nope.

When Mac McSlezaks his wirtings, he was called on it. Maybe a public quartering is what we need?

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

I will let Carol know she has morphed into verb form. "McSlezaks" his columns... good one, BF.

GLOOPAN KURATZ is spot on in his observations about mac,he's exposing him for what he is an egomaniac,braggart, ex-high school football star....ahem...but most of all unemployed.as for degenerate dave i'm surprised you can call anyone a troll considering you are always trolling under mac's nut sack....... GLOOPAN keep up the good work

or DB him.

So, I'll start. One, I got DSL running over my phone line. Could've been cable, but they didn't have their act together at the time and in many cases still don't. In reality, the broadband can come over the electric line, and bring telephone with it...

If someone could bring cell phone quality up to the level of land lines, I wouldn't laugh as much, but frankly we have a generation too in love with walkee-talkees and Star Trek to not realize the quality of what they're using would not be tolerated, quality-wise, in the 1960s. The idiot techie in the Verizon ads amuses me greatly.

So what do we got? A podcast generation followed by an iPhone/Google Android computer/cellphone/live media player.

1. The separation of voice-only programming from voice-images programming is gone. In the past we were talking restrictions on broadcast frequencies for the separation of TV from radio. No more. The difference now is the amount of throughput over the internet.

2. Call in shows morphs to email shows, morphs to Twitter shows. Impose the message at the bottom of the screen, and you don't have to deal with someone READING the contributor's message. Is it a call-in show? Well, it's some sort of "interaction" show.

Being somewhat a wrestling fan, I'm interested in these "internet radio" shows. High tech, done by seasoned radio pros? Oh, hell no. Goofs like you and me. A little akin to Community-Access TV days. Nonetheless, easy entry costs, ubiquitous, its success is predicated on how well you can sell advertising for it.
(But with accurate download/hit counts, a better media buy to me than anything current broadcast can do -- there's too much I have to accept on faith with that)

Let's take a step sideways. Amazon is selling a $350 "Kindle" device. You download books into it, and read them. Its wireless. Yeah, so we're not talking about "downloading" in the sense of you downloading songs from iTunes and putting it onto your player. No, no, it downloads whatever books you subscribed to. Or, hell, "newspapers." You know; every day, a new "package" arrives on your Kindle so you can read it on the train. Then you can read your steamy bondage story the rest of the day...

So forget the sports columnists. Consider them as they've been morphed on CLTV, except, perhaps coming in on a Kindle, or perhaps coming in on your phone/computer/player. After all, what's a Kindle but a single-use packaging of the same technology?

The successful columnists are those who can emote on a broadcast. Although I don't necessarily think the standards are going to require outright performers. Look at all those people on Facebook: regular kids. The standards will morph, away from outright characters (like an in-his-prime Coppock.)

I was looking at that North Wildfire show with interest. Not so much that it was North (and maybe that skewed what I could observe,) but because that was a daily show that didn't require the high start up costs of a radio network station, was a daily program, and seemed to have a single sponsor - the restaurant. Single-sponsor shows are something you saw up to the 1950s (and a bit of the early 60s), where TV and radio shows were produced in conjunction with the sponsor (indeed the sponsor might've also done the production), and the show was broadcast over a station/network, effectively acting as a service bureau.

Had this worked (and maybe it didn't fail), then you're getting away from CBS or ESPN as sole producers of "product", and hell, getting away from them as disseminators of "product." I want to see more of this to see how it evolves (and what it evolves into.)

Imagine, for instance, an iTunes 'network' of downloadable, or streaming, thingies, several of which may be sports talk shows? Or a contraversy-driven segment of 30 minutes, followed by a Phil Rogers expounding on the AL projected ratings, followed by a Slezac text piece (who might prefer writing to narrating her views), followed by a fans-talking-to-fans segment...

Your turn...

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

Beebo, I agree callers have morphed to e-mailers. Quality of callers has diminshed dramatically in last 10 years. One of the resolutions I take to next gig is to solicit AND READ more emails and texts.

Agree technology rapidly is changing and puts terrestrial radio in a position where it must improve to keep ears from going to podcasts and all the other stuff.

Do not buy all those who forecast doom for traditional over-the-air radio product. It always will be there. Even in 10 years when technology has gone even farther. Or is it further? That one always vexed me.

It doesn't matter how people get the product, just that they consume it. Over the air, podcast, mobile, webcast, satellite, etc.... makes no difference HOW they'll get the next show... just that it's heard. I actually kind of like where it's all going, despite this groundswell of radio naysayers. The increasing volume of options will weed out the many "pretenders" on the air, and I don't mean the fine late '70s, early '80s act. Those who produce the best stuff will be the ones who survive the changing times.

Does one consider himself unemployed if the station is still paying him and will not allow him to seek employment untill non-compete runs out ??

I have not seen any rumblings about Mac finding work in the papers or on the board which I find odd as Brandmier and Kevin Mathews names seem to be popping up for a few vancancys around town. I don't see any fits at WGN and I don't see Mac doing a morning gig but you would of thought the Score would be throwing his name around and I've heard nothing .

Where ya going Dan?

_________________
"lET ME , Worry about Luca Brasi"

I can't go anywhere until May, WS. I've had talks with several outfits, traditional and non-traditional. More talks to follow. How much influence I get picking the band will be a big factor in my decision. Don't discount mornings. It wouldn't have been possible a long time ago, but my lifestyle isn't so wild these days that I couldn't make adjustments.

I'm eager to see how everything all plays out with other deals that are up before mine. Brandmeier. Bernstein. Afternoons on 'GN with a much different approach now being taken there. I'm in the mix with several possibilities.. comfortably lyin' in the weeds.

"Farther" I think.

Several things,

1) Terrestrial radio may morph into something where we're not talking AM or FM radio bands. The current internet technologies are not too concerned about voice-only versus voice/picture, except in terms of required throughput. No matter what, there's going to be times when you can listen to a show, and times where you can watch a show.

2) I don't believe that you'll be fighting podcasts and stuff; I believe you might become podcasts and stuff. Insodoing, the question is, will the CBSs and ESPNs of the world be the suppliers of said, or will the continue to try to leverage their existing broadcast investments? Well, more the CBSs of the world, given as how ESPN created their TV product for cable/satellite delivery from the get-go.

3) I've heard that some people are canceling their cable in the current economic environment. I want to see how that plays out. In my world, say, a year ago, I'd ask myself why anyone TV station would swap their heavy investments in broadcast antennaes to swap out the analog transmitter for digital (or HD for that matter.), instead offering selves as a Chicago-local programming source to Cable and Satellite providers.
Why keep investing in terrestrial broadcast over FCC-controlled frequencies?

But it *isn't* a year ago, and this thing that's been pushing itself as a "utility" all these years is actually being perceived by some as a luxury item (cable.) It bears watching.

4) Whoever moves into the "winning" technology mix is he who has the better investor backing. Sounds
silly, but with companies having day-to-day cash flow problems, it bears saying. So if I were trying to maintain my terrestrial presence while moving in some "new" direction, I might be too strapped to move fast enough, or in an manner that influences my competitors to pursue the same "new" direction as I. Nothing like a "betamax versus vhs" battle...

5) No matter what, somebody's going to do terrestrial. But maybe, as a simulcast? I honestly don't know...

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

You're right about simulcasting. Radio is webstreamed already. With so many big operations downsizing and cutting costs, there will be more syndicated programming -- if it's good enough to play in multiple markets. And if contracting means a downgrade in the quality of local shows, more people might be more inclined to consumer programming that isn't locally produced. I'm optimistic the next show also will be webcast in video form. Preparing for that. Preparing to be more involved with podcasts and other media.

All I know is, I can pick up some nice repo'd servers, and pull together a hosting solution for them under $4K a month. Saw some completely appropriate server iron, sub-$200 each. Compare this to buying and/or maintaining existing broadcast facilities, ... assume the cost of the studio is the same, for sanity's sake.

Dave Baum does a show over at the same facilities North used for his Wildfire show. How do you suppose the show might do, if it were available from an "obvious" location on the web, and he had facilities for selling sponsorships/ads? I wonder how it does now, on a bottom-line basis, without these advantages?

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

farther has to do with physical properties and distance. You go farther down the street. You run farther than someone else.

Further has to do with advancing to greater degree or time. You further your education. You can't go further in a relationship. You get futher behind in a schedule.

Ah. Such a hard language for the native speakers; even harder in writing.

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

From Dictionary.com:

far⋅ther
   /ˈfɑrðər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fahr-ther] Show IPA
–adverb, compar. of far with farthest as superl.
1. at or to a greater distance: He went farther down the road.
2. at or to a more advanced point: They are going no farther in their studies.
3. at or to a greater degree or extent: The application of the law was extended farther.

–adjective, compar. of far with farthest as superl.
4. more distant or remote than something or some place nearer: the farther side of the mountain.
5. extending or tending to a greater distance: He made a still farther trip.
6. Nonstandard. further (defs. 5, 6).

fur⋅ther
   /ˈfɜrðər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fur-ther] Show IPA compar. adv. and adj. of far with superl. fur⋅thest, verb
–adverb
1. at or to a greater distance; farther: I'm too tired to go further.
2. at or to a more advanced point; to a greater extent: Let's not discuss it further.
3. in addition; moreover: Further, he should be here any minute.

–adjective
4. more distant or remote; farther: The map shows it to be further than I thought.
5. more extended: Does this mean a further delay?
6. additional; more: Further meetings seem pointless.

–verb (used with object)
7. to help forward (a work, undertaking, cause, etc.); promote; advance; forward: You can always count on him to further his own interests.

If you do a search, though, you'll find differences in opinion on usage, some with only further being used for non-physical distance and to mean "more."

Whee.

some people grow up never knowing their farthers.