Sitcoms - Best and Wurst
Michael Riehle
first, even if I did hate the show. But it's interesting the response.
What I find realy fascinating is how some sitcoms have had an actual
influence on our culture. Even more interesting is that the ones that
did so. The ones that pop to mind for me are:
The Honeymooners
I Love Lucy
All In The Family
M.A.S.H.
Seinfeld
The Simpsons
Runner's up would be:
Sanford and Son
Taxi
Rosanne
Home Improvement
Married With Children
One of the things I notice immediately about both lists is that I really
couldn't stand the majority of these shows. I always felt like they set
out to capitalize on fundamental character-flaws in their protagonists
and a complete lack of effort on the part of said protagonists in the
area of self-improvement.
The ones I liked tended to be about politics at some fundamental level.
Both M.A.S.H. and All In the Family spent a great deal of time dealing
with politics and they didn't always try to be funny about it. Both
could deal with real human issues without making light of them. At the
same time, they didn't take themselves so seriously that every show was
a downer.
One notable exception: Married With Children. I actually did enjoy the
first couple of seasons. It quickly wore out its welcome as the jokes
became repetitive and redundant (and they were the same all the time,
too), but early on it was hard to see it as anything more than a
cartoon. The characters were such scumbags and almost always got what
they so richly deserved that it was easy to see it as glorified
slapstick.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Riehle Send mail to mcr at the mriehle.com
San Jose, CA domain.
http://www.mriehle.com/live.dressed.girls
#include <std.disclaimer>
--------------------------------------------------------
Americans for Non-smokers Rights http://www.no-smoke.org
Smokescreen Action Network http://www.smokescreen.org
Bay Area Secondhand Smoke Hotline (408)999-0500
--------------------------------------------------------
Mystic Zen Biker Twigboy
] The ones I liked tended to be about politics at some fundamental level.
] Both M.A.S.H. and All In the Family spent a great deal of time dealing
] with politics and they didn't always try to be funny about it. Both
] could deal with real human issues without making light of them. At the
] same time, they didn't take themselves so seriously that every show was
] a downer.
Interesting you should make this comment..... I actually first started
watching M*A*S*H in England, and really liked it. It had serious moments,
and it had humor, and the humor was usually warped and wacky, not the
typical sitcom cheap innuendo and pie-in-the-face-grade slapstick.
Then I moved to the US, and picked it up again.... and it was totally
different. It was ruined. Because in the US, it was broadcast with a
laugh track.
"HEY!! All you mouth-breathers out there in the audience! We just made a
JOKE! You're supposed to LAUGH now!! ...OK, that's enough. Stop
laughing. We said STOP!! Yes, you! Hey!! You in the La-Z-Boy! Outa
the pool, NOW!"
(It didn't help that the people who cued the laugh track evidently had
pretty sophomoric senses of humor themselves, and often missed subtle
jokes, or cued laughter in spots that were really too painful to be at
all funny.)
Am I the only one who thinks that a laugh track is an insult to the
viewer's intelligence?
--
,-- phil stracchino --- the renaissance man --- lone geek biker --.
\ "I know a cat named Easter, he says, Will you ever learn / You're /
\ just an empty cage girl, if you kill the bird..." -- Tori Amos /
`-- '91 Camaro Z28 -- '86 VF500F Interceptor -- '91 VFR750F3 -'
Bob R. Kenyon
Zen Biker Twigboy) wrote:
> Interesting you should make this comment..... I actually first started
> watching M*A*S*H in England, and really liked it. It had serious moments,
> and it had humor, and the humor was usually warped and wacky, not the
> typical sitcom cheap innuendo and pie-in-the-face-grade slapstick.
>
> Then I moved to the US, and picked it up again.... and it was totally
> different. It was ruined. Because in the US, it was broadcast with a
> laugh track.
If I remember correctly, the show originally was broadcast here without a
laugh track as well. It wasn't until later that some higher ups added it
against the creative talent's wishes.
> Am I the only one who thinks that a laugh track is an insult to the
> viewer's intelligence?
Yep, but that was TV in the 60's and 70's.
--
Bob R. Kenyon | If you want to reply to me
Beautiful Downtown San Jose | don't change a thing,
<http://www.bobrk.com/> | especially the subject.
Michael Riehle
: Then I moved to the US, and picked it up again.... and it was totally
: different. It was ruined. Because in the US, it was broadcast with a
: laugh track.
I think, like a lot of people, I've gotten to where I don't even hear
the laugh track. This is actually more common than the hollywood
muckety-mucks would like to think. But it works for sophomoric sitcoms
which are often watched by people who haven't learned how to tune it
out, so they'll try it anywhere. <sigh>
: (It didn't help that the people who cued the laugh track evidently had
: pretty sophomoric senses of humor themselves, and often missed subtle
: jokes, or cued laughter in spots that were really too painful to be at
: all funny.)
Which is the only reason I ever did notice the laugh track on M.A.S.H.
and, yes, I resented it when I did.
: Am I the only one who thinks that a laugh track is an insult to the
: viewer's intelligence?
No.
People aren't as stupid as corporate Hollywood wants to believe. The
fact that Howard The Duck was a complete flop is all the proof you need.
I mean - *geeez!* - Howard was >CUTE<. Howard The Duck is a low-life,
wife-beating, crude, insensitive, cowardly, vicious, selfish boor who
just happens to save the entire universe on a regular basis. A PC -
*cute* - Howard was hard to take. And this is only one example of
Hollywood dumbing down a story for The Masses and having it flop.
Hipsters
right. Slowly I go, step by step, and admit to the world [as I know it] with
very great enthusiasm that
I just LOVE LUCY. Always did and always will.
and Emily
LOVES Lucy, too.
and Rickeeeee
Loves Lucy, too
Karen O'Mara <who laughs in the face of danger>
Bob R. Kenyon
Hipsters <hips...@aol.com> wrote:
>Cautious at first, then courageously I glance to my left... and then to my
>right. Slowly I go, step by step, and admit to the world [as I know it] with
>very great enthusiasm that
>
>I just LOVE LUCY. Always did and always will.
I always hated that show. Now the Dick Van Dyke Show--that was a
classic.
"Oooooh, Raaahhb!"
--
Bob R. Kenyon, Beautiful Downtown San Jose, CA | no despamming of address
<http://www.bobrk.com/> | required for reply
Ken Smith
Bob R. Kenyon <c.c...@25.usenet.us.com> wrote:
[....]
>I always hated that show. Now the Dick Van Dyke Show--that was a
>classic.
Dick Van Dyke was years ahead of its time. I think it was the first TV
show to have a woman come out of the closet on a river of walnuts.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Stan Rothwell
stimulation as well as entertainment quality,
for the most part TV is a waste of time. I have NEVER owned a TV set, and
see no reason to do so.
The sound of TV is like an unwanted guest to me, and all it does is offer a
conduit for the popular "butthead"
culture to invade my domicile.
There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
even bother???
Stan Rothwell
JUSTICE164
>for the most part TV is a waste of time. I have NEVER owned a TV set, and
>see no reason to do so.
I am glad it works for you. These days I myself don't get any time to sit and
watch tv. But I would not go that far to say that it is waste of time. After a
real tough day it is very realxing to turn on TV and see the familiar faces of
TV (sitcom) people. It is like meeting old friends for me. With really
overfilled life, you still can get some relief from TV. It is a matter of
balancing your life, and not let external things such as TV take over your
life.
"tv doesn't waste peoples time, people do".
>The sound of TV is like an unwanted guest to me, and all it does is offer a
>conduit for the popular "butthead"
>culture to invade my domicile.
Again the my previous argument holds. If you know the difference between TV
and real life, then the "butthead culture" will not invade your home.
>There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
>even bother???
Yes, I have my work, kids, hobbies, many sets of friends, family and I still
find TV interesting at times. I am sure many other people are in the same
situation.
Pratibha
Mystic Zen Biker Twigboy
] There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
] even bother???
Because if you take the trouble to look, there's gems in amongst all the
crap. You just have to look for them.
Cindy Brown
TV has the same uses.
--
Cindy Brown
Cross-stitcher, quilter, designer
http://mypage.ihost.com/ClassicsInTheMaking
"My candle burns at both ends.
It will not last the night.
But ah, my foes and oh, my friends,
It gives a lovely light!"
- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Ciccio
> I have NEVER owned a TV set, and see no reason to do so.
> The sound of TV is like an unwanted guest to me, and all it does is offer a
> conduit for the popular "butthead"
> culture to invade my domicile.
> There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
> even bother???
You can say that about any activity, there are always "other things" to
do besides what one is doing. DUH!
Think about it, people could have a sentiment like yours about posting
to ba.singles or usenet generally. Indeed, many people assert that the
Net is nothing but a depraved time sink. In essence, if you don't like a
pastime, just shrug and move on. The way people do who realize:
"different strokes for different folks." You admit that you have NEVER
owned a tv and you avoid tv. That's like somebody who shuns computers
giving an opinion about the Net. In essence, such an opinion is of
little value. Not to mention, it makes one sound like some Birkenstock
wearing, whining member of the intelligentsia.
Ciccio
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>While ther have been sitcoms that actually had offered some intellectual
>stimulation as well as entertainment quality,
Indeed.
I was browsing thru the pre-holiday stack-o-catalogs and was intrigued to
find out that "Hill Street Blues" was now available on video. Ensemble
dramas are common now (from what I hear, I've turned on my teeny-tiny TV
about five times in as many years for non video-watching purposes) but
that was something new at the time.
>for the most part TV is a waste of time. I have NEVER owned a TV set, and
>see no reason to do so.
>The sound of TV is like an unwanted guest to me, and all it does is offer a
>conduit for the popular "butthead"
>culture to invade my domicile.
>
>There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
>even bother???
Ya know, one of these days I'm going to bite the bullet and put a text
search for "you people" in my killfile.
With VERY rare humorous exceptions, I've found posts containing that
phrase to be just so much self-righteous windbagging.
Stan, your post is not one of the humorous ones. Just remember that not
everyone has the same tastes you do. Half the people I know who have TVs
on mostly use it for background noise while they do something else.
CLB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea
Bob O`Brien
>for the most part TV is a waste of time. I have NEVER owned a TV set, and
>see no reason to do so.
It would be a lot easier for me to respect the opinion of someone
who said "my TV hasn't even been turned on in years."
...But at least you admit that you don't really know
what you're babbling about.
Bob O`Bob
--
+ email replies without this line will be discarded bk7mb85r (expires 21dec98) +
"On the internet, *everyone* will have their own fifteen minutes of blame."
Stan Rothwell
> Stan, do you watch movies?
No... most movies bore the shit out of me... Good natural science and
historical documentaries are OK.
> Read fiction?
Not much... I get annoyed by having do deal with sheltered "writers"
(with no real life experience) who feel compelled to push their social
commentary on others... probably the same reason I don't watch movies...
> Read non-fiction?
Lotsa non-fiction, especially history and science/technology stuff. I'm
teaching myself historical geology (a subject I was always interested
in, but never had the chance to take a class in school - busy taking
prerequisites)... I have made already made a fewfossil-hunting trips,
and found some neat stuff (roundworms, stomatolites... no dinosaurs
yet).
Finished reading an excellent book "Skunk Works", written by Ben Rich
(an engineer who worked for Lockheed at the famous Skunk Works in
Burbank). It's an interesting narrative on their various projects, such
as the U-2 spy plane, the SR-71, and the Stealth aircraft. Being ex-Air
Force and having had an interest in planes (and trains, cars, ships, and
everything else that moves), I found it to be a great historical
perspective on some of the issues they faced, as well as providing some
insight on how politics get involved with (or interfere) technological
development. I'm also doing some research for my various web pages,
including my "Military Aircraft Boneyard" that I updated last night...
http://stan.web2010.com/AvCorner/DavisMonthan.html
I occasionally peruse high-quality photographic works by individuals
such as Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen and others in an
effort to push up my own photographic standard little by little. I also
have an interest in Japanese woodcuts (esp Utamoro) as well as the Dutch
and Flemish master painters (Vermeer, Hals, Bosch, the Brueghels) so
books with high-quality reproductions (plates) catch my interest as
well. This area of interest was rekindled by the opportunity to visit
the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam earlier this year, as well as the Musee
Cinquecentenaire and the Museum vor Grote Kunst in Brussel.
I have been reading quite a bit on American history and current
events/social commentary as well... so far this year I have finished
"Radical Son" by David Horowitz, "the End of Racism" by Dinesh D'Souza,
"The Dark Side of Camelot" by Seymour Hersh, "Paved with Good
Intentions" by Jared Taylor, "Race and Culture" and "The Vision of the
Annointed" by Thomas Sowell, and another 15 or 20 book on similar
subject matter.
In addition, I have been trying to brush up on some language skills (use
it or lose it!). I have been improving my Spanish fluency, as well as
trying to resurrect my German (I was a bit rusty a few months ago when I
drove through Thuringen and Sachsen back in April - and I realized that
I had lost quite a bit). I have been also working a bit on my (Vlaams)
Dutch, but this is more of a reading comprehension issue as trying to
practice spoken language w/o a native speaker is futile.
I occasionally brush up on my (very elementary) Japanese as well (at
least we have enough Japanese speakers at work to actually have the
opportunity to practice).
> TV has the same uses.
Don't think so...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> SThink about it, people could have a sentiment like yours about posting
> to ba.singles or usenet generally. Indeed, many people assert that the
> Net is nothing but a depraved time sink. In essence, if you don't like a
> pastime, just shrug and move on. The way people do who realize:
> "different strokes for different folks." You admit that you have NEVER
> owned a tv and you avoid tv. That's like somebody who shuns computers
> giving an opinion about the Net. In essence, such an opinion is of
> little value. Not to mention, it makes one sound like some Birkenstock
> wearing, whining member of the intelligentsia.
No, it's more like I have enough to keep me occupied/entertained w/o TV.In
addition, simce I don't own a TV, I would have to go BUY one, and I can
always think of better ways to spend the money (CDs, power tools, camera gear).
Besides, I typically travel about 6 months out of the year with my job. When
I'm stateside, I have plenty to do. About the only time I DO watch any TV is
when I travel, perhaps a documentary or news channel while I'm at the hotel
cleaning up or checking my e-mail. If I'm in Europe or Japan, I certainly don't
spend my spare time (evenings or weekends) in a hotel room watching the tube
(same goes for Mexico)!!!
When I'm at home, there's plenty to keep me busy... I go online and check
out NG's for an hour or two, then work on my web site (stan.web2010.com)
which needs a lot of work!!! I work on my photography and have plenty of work
to do in editing/organizing my collection (about 20,000 original images taken
over
the last 18 years). On the weekends, I take my camera gear, sleeping bag, and a
cooler full of Gatorade, film, and beer, and head to the mountains or the desert.
If I'm not feeling especially energetic (or merely want to watch the cash flow),
I play
a computer game (I like strategy games like Sim City) or read a book (got a
couple
of hundred of those). I used to be into model planes and trains heavily when I
was
younger; I figure if I retire and need to keep myself occupied, I'll build a
model railroad
in the garage, or build scale model planes and hang them from the ceiling...
I enjoy all those activities because they offer at least SOME mental
stimulation...
I avoid TV for the same reason I tend to avoid going to a lot of social functions
with boring relatives or most of the office weenies at work... I get annoyed when
I have to listen to people who waste their lives away complaining about how they
are bored (and it's usually because they won't get off their fat asses and do
SOMETHING with their lives).
The day that I HAVE to watch TV for entertainment is the day I'll die...
That's NO way to live a life...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <364DD518...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
> >even bother???
>
> Ya know, one of these days I'm going to bite the bullet and put a text
> search for "you people" in my killfile.
>
> With VERY rare humorous exceptions, I've found posts containing that
> phrase to be just so much self-righteous windbagging.
>
> Stan, your post is not one of the humorous ones. Just remember that not
> everyone has the same tastes you do. Half the people I know who have TVs
> on mostly use it for background noise while they do something else.
BACKGROUND NOISE??? That's what I hate the MOST about TV!!!
Why do you NEED noise in the background? Why not put on a CD instead?
Maybe some Parliament/Funkadelic would do da trick... ;o)
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >for the most part TV is a waste of time. I have NEVER owned a TV set, and
> >see no reason to do so.
>
> It would be a lot easier for me to respect the opinion of someone
> who said "my TV hasn't even been turned on in years."
>
> ...But at least you admit that you don't really know
> what you're babbling about.
As I said truthfully, I have never owned a TV... I do watch SOME TV (about 2-3 hours
per month), typically in a hotel room when I'm traveling... However, it's usually
just while I'm logging on to check my e-mail or brushing my teeth, packing, or some
other menial task. Sometimes the bellman turn the TV on and places the remote on
the bedstand (in addition to turning on the AC, putting the bags in the closet, and
putting the water/drinks in the wet bar refrigerator) because he thinks that's part
of the service to get a decent tip (so I tip him and don't insult him - he means
well)... Sort of interesting though... I guess that's a common stereotype that most
Americans want to watch TV in their rooms when they travel...
Is that what you guys usually do when you travel (I don't mean to sound insulting,
just asking)??? :o)
No offense intended...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <72ig8n$onl$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> Bob R. Kenyon <c.c...@25.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
> >I always hated that show. Now the Dick Van Dyke Show--that was a
> >classic.
>
> Dick Van Dyke was years ahead of its time. I think it was the first TV
> show to have a woman come out of the closet on a river of walnuts.
Now it's just nuts coming out of the closet as women... :o|
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ] There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
> ] even bother???
>
> Because if you take the trouble to look, there's gems in amongst all the
> crap. You just have to look for them.
Got better things to do...
Stan
Karen O'Mara
(Or if something good is hap'nen on Oprah.) Something about the sound of
a TV in the background is ok with me now and then.
I think I need to talk about getting cable at our next office meeting.
Karen
Most of the time I listen to the radio. Or a CD. Or sometimes just
nothing.
justi...@my-dejanews.com
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> No, it's more like I have enough to keep me occupied/entertained w/o TV.In
> addition, simce I don't own a TV, I would have to go BUY one, and I can
> always think of better ways to spend the money (CDs, power tools, camera
gear).
Not better, different ways.
> I avoid TV for the same reason I tend to avoid going to a lot of social
functions
> with boring relatives or most of the office weenies at work... I get annoyed
when
> I have to listen to people who waste their lives away complaining about how
they
> are bored (and it's usually because they won't get off their fat asses and do
> SOMETHING with their lives).
Gee, you seem to be surrounded by a lot of losers. And I thought the birds of
a feather fly together. Kind of makes you wonder.
Pratibha
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Drew Lawson
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Why do you NEED noise in the background? Why not put on a CD instead?
>Maybe some Parliament/Funkadelic would do da trick... ;o)
To borrow on your own phrasing, the day that I CHOOSE to listen to
Funkadelic is the day I die.
--
|Drew Lawson | If you're not part of the solution |
|dr...@furrfu.com | you're part of the precipitate. |
|http://www.furrfu.com | |
Bob O`Brien
Drew Lawson <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote:
>In article <364F5B15...@ix.netcom.com>
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>Why do you NEED noise in the background? Why not put on a CD instead?
>>Maybe some Parliament/Funkadelic would do da trick... ;o)
>
>To borrow on your own phrasing, the day that I CHOOSE to listen to
>Funkadelic is the day I die.
Sorry to hear that.
What if your only alternative to listening to George Clinton
was listening to Bill Clinton?
Ciccio
> Lotsa non-fiction, especially history and science/technology stuff. I'm
> teaching myself historical geology (a subject I was always interested
Lots and lots of programs regarding those topics on TV now days.
> Finished reading an excellent book "Skunk Works", written by Ben Rich
Geezus, between the History Channel, The Learning Channel, and A&E, I've
learned so much about "Skunk Works" and the Stealth aircraft, that I
could probably build one.
> and having had an interest in planes (and trains, cars, ships, and
> everything else that moves),
The History Channel has programs and series, which are very extensive,
on things that move. Man, oodles on cars and trains. What I find ironic
is, that you have a keen interest in objects of motion, yet you shun a
medium which depicts them in motion.
> I occasionally peruse high-quality photographic works by individuals
> such as Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen and others in an
> effort to push up my own photographic standard little by little.
I hope the "others" includes Edward Weston [genuflects]. Though I long
ago mastered the "Zone System", I found a documentary on Minor White,
which was on TV, quite interesting.
> have an interest in Japanese woodcuts (esp Utamoro) as well as the Dutch
[Snip] Can't comment, I change the channel when that stuff comes on.
> I have been reading quite a bit on American history and current
> events/social commentary as well... so far this year I have finished
> "Radical Son" by David Horowitz,
A whole book that does nothing but confirm the ol' saw: "If you're not
liberal by 20, you don't have a heart; if you're not a conservative by
30, you don't have a brain." ;-)
[Books on racism, snipped]
Scores and scores of programs on TV about the history of racism, the
etiology of racism, racism in America, racism around the world, etc.
Most are very informative and well done.
> to practice spoken language w/o a native speaker is futile.
I've only run across 2 learning language programs on tv. Of course, for
spanish, there are, at least, 2 channels totally spanish. Broadcast
Ch.26 has programs in various foreign languages. BRAVO has various
foreign language films which helps. Of course, for practice, you can
just download Netmeeting for free and snag all sorts of native speakers.
I also find it fun helping them with english and I've made a few friends
that way.
> Don't think so...
Of course, I love to go to live events. Yet at times, it sure is nice to
stoke the espresso maker, sit back in my cushy recliner, watch an opera
on TV through surround sound, and enjoy! I go to a live football game
about every two weeks. Yet, I still relish the Monday Night ritual of
gathering around the tube with everybody criticizing the commentators
and kibitzing. Can one do such with books? Don't think so...
TV is not a substitute for reading or live events. Likewise, reading and
live events are not substitutes for TV. They all, however, often enhance
one another. I believe you are allowing snobbery to short change you.
Which if you just plain don't like TV, that's cool. In my art I prefer
to work with a *full* range of tones. Ditto my pursuits in life.
Ciccio
Karen O'Mara
>
> TV is not a substitute for reading or live events. Likewise, reading and
> live events are not substitutes for TV.
How true, Ciccio! <insert smiley>
btw, LOL'ing is not a substitute for laughing out loud.
E ya,
Karen O'Hipsters
Bill Gervasi
You believe that filling your life with nothing but intellectual pursuits is
the only way that people should live, and then you take time to criticize the
wonderful people in this group for enjoying something called "entertainment".
There are many people far more intelligent than you that find television a
useful part of their lives. I read anthropology books for fun but I still
laugh at episodes of South Park... I'll bet most everyone has their sinful
pleasures that don't revolve around purely intellectual stimulation.
I'm guessing that you are one of those hyper-analytical elitists that consider
the funding of art as non-essential waste, or sex an interruption of your busy
fossil hunting lifestyle.
Have a cold, hard Christmas, Scrooge.
craig snarr
Reminds me of a cartoon, where one walks up to the other (watching TV)
"while you've been wasting the day watching TV, i've been reading a BOOK"
"well i've been watching about how they discovered the atom, space exploration,
and recent discoveries on DNA, what have you been reading?"
"uh, The Hardy Boys"
craig "it's not the medium, it's the content that's important"
Stan Rothwell
Gee, I've heard less over people advocating violence or racial strife than what
I'm
getting (did I hit a nerve or what?)))
Bill Gervasi wrote:
> Stan you are a pretentious ass!
>
> You believe that filling your life with nothing but intellectual pursuits is
> the only way that people should live, and then you take time to criticize the
> wonderful people in this group for enjoying something called "entertainment".
Actually, what I do IS more entertaining (at least to me) than watching TV.And
while many people have called me an ass, I've never had anyone accuse me of being
pretentious before...
(what's with you hypersensitive couch potatoes)???
> There are many people far more intelligent than you that find television a
> useful part of their lives.
And I'm sure you will submit your name at the top of the list... BTW, what IS
"South Park"???
> I read anthropology books for fun but I still
> laugh at episodes of South Park... I'll bet most everyone has their sinful
> pleasures that don't revolve around purely intellectual stimulation.
I think what I do is fun...
> I'm guessing that you are one of those hyper-analytical elitists that consider
> the funding of art as non-essential waste,
I think that public funding of arts (as well as welfare recipients, and businesses
that can't hack it in the free market as well) IS a waste... so there
> or sex an interruption of your busy fossil hunting lifestyle.
Actually, camping in the desert and checking out the rocks is a lot more
pleasurable to me than having to deal with some of my former girlfriends (who
wanted to talk about "relationships")...
> Have a cold, hard Christmas, Scrooge.
Gee, ya almost sound as whiny as the liberals... :o|
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> In article <364F5A6C...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it's more like I have enough to keep me occupied/entertained w/o TV.In
> > addition, simce I don't own a TV, I would have to go BUY one, and I can
> > always think of better ways to spend the money (CDs, power tools, camera
> gear).
>
> Not better, different ways.
In your value/preference system, different. In mine, better...(Not necessarily
trashing yours, just advocating that own preferences, that's all)
> > I avoid TV for the same reason I tend to avoid going to a lot of social
> functions
> > with boring relatives or most of the office weenies at work... I get annoyed
> when
> > I have to listen to people who waste their lives away complaining about how
> they
> > are bored (and it's usually because they won't get off their fat asses and do
> > SOMETHING with their lives).
>
> Gee, you seem to be surrounded by a lot of losers. And I thought the birds of
> a feather fly together. Kind of makes you wonder.
>
> Pratibha
So I'm a loser, huh... And I suppose all you couch potatoes have made such a
wonderful contribution to societysitting on yer asses watching the tube, huh???
Typical Bay Area hypocrisy... "oh yeah, lets talk about diversity if it means
wearing goofy nose rings or colored hair or advocate wacko political positions...
but GOD FORBID that someone shouldn't like to sit around watching TV"....
Sorry, but since I was very young, I have always been extremely restless if I'm not
preoccupied with something that keeps me occupied. My mother (if you knew her)
would tell you stories about how I could build treehouses or Lincoln Log forts and
be kept occupied for hours on end, but how I couldn't sit still and watch TV or a
movie. She would mention that I could keep myself entertained and out of trouble by
myself, but I would get restless when relatives came over and decided it was time
for 'everyone' to watch TV...
I get absorbed in projects, and enjoy learning... to me it's entertainment. That's
probably why I'm good at my job
(an R&D engineer in the memory disk industry)
BTW, Miss "Pass judgement on others" Prahtiba, what brand of hard drive do you have
in your computer?
It's probably very likely that the substrate in your drive was manufactured using a
process that I developed.
In addition, I am working on alternative substrate (dilithium silicate crystalline
glass) surface finish methods for
new substrates that you will see in your systems in the next two years.
Our company recently released a new disk polishing machine especially designed for
alternate substrates, and the two largest drive manufacturers in the world think it
will render their old equipment obsolete... Guess who did the process
work to establish the design criteria for the machine???
Maybe that does't mean jack shit to you, or anyone else in the world, but it means
something to ME..
I'm good at that type of stuff because I enjoy doing it... I'd rather be putting
around my lab working on projects than watching TV any day.... DOES THAT MAKE ME A
LOSER???
Now you tell me what makes YOU so special, Miss. Prahtiba, that you are so
emniently qualified to assess others as
losers (you don't have to respond right away... you can contemplate your answer
while you watch TV)...
I have been reading your posts for quite a while on this NG, and I thought you
might be halfway ok...that assessment has been retracted...
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <72pt6i$mmv$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>,
> Drew Lawson <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote:
> >In article <364F5B15...@ix.netcom.com>
> > Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >>Why do you NEED noise in the background? Why not put on a CD instead?
> >>Maybe some Parliament/Funkadelic would do da trick... ;o)
> >
> >To borrow on your own phrasing, the day that I CHOOSE to listen to
> >Funkadelic is the day I die.
>
> Sorry to hear that.
>
> What if your only alternative to listening to George Clinton
> was listening to Bill Clinton?
I swear that the last name recognition was the way he got the urban vote... ;o)
Stan
JUSTICE164
>So I'm a loser, huh... And I suppose all you couch
< whining snipped >
I did not call you a loser.
>BTW, Miss "Pass judgement on others" Prahtiba, what
I usually do not pass judgements on people. [1]
>Now you tell me what makes YOU so special, Miss. Prahtiba, that you are so
>emniently qualified to assess others
see [1]
>I have been reading your posts for quite a while on this NG, and I thought
>you
>might be halfway ok...that assessment has been retracted..
Are you passing a judgement now?
Anyway, I have no arguments with your choice of activities. What I was trying
to point out is that you are saying that your way is better than the others.
In my value system, people are always ahead of any "thing", and insluting
people for no reason, is not nice.
Well, goodbye now.
Ciccio
> So I'm a loser, huh... And I suppose all you couch potatoes have made such a
[Stan's great accomplishments that saved the world...snipped]
Hmmm. Stan, you made a big deal about people's vehement responses. You
know, "hit a nerve", etc. implying some over sensitivity. Now, somebody
merely says loser and you take off with a tirade, including your life
history. Does that mean she hit a nerve on you? Are you oversensitive
about being a loser? You can't have it both ways.
Anyhow, come on, you can't jump all over somebody who came to that
conclusion. Geez, you say you find your coworkers boring, your relatives
boring, you ridicule them. You state you find being out in the middle of
the dessert alone better than a relationship. Geezus, even your web site
is replete with photos of broken toys in desolate places. Talk about
symbolism! Anyhow, what's tragic is you don't realize how much of a
social loser you present yourself to be. Indeed, even when somebody hits
you over the head with a social blunder, you totally ignore it or
rationalize it. I mean, you actually think the pejorative responses are
a result of your criticism of TV and not your presentation. Let's see if
I can't help you a bit.
First, when you have a beef with somebody, direct it to the individual.
You have a bad habit of directing your disagreements or insults to "you
[fill in the blank plural.]" If you have a problem with a group, fine.
Most likely, however, the person you are attacking is not a spokesperson
for that group. Whether, it's couch potatoes, liberals or whatever.
Moreover, such statements typically constitute errors in inductive and
deductive reasoning. At the very least, such arguments are ad hominem
and don't go to the merits.
Second, you must realize that nobody died and made you king. Aesthetics
are relative. What you find appealing, others may find repulsive. What
you find repulsive, others may find appealing. There is no right or
wrong about it. You can pout, beat your chest and piss on the campfire
all you want, but that ain't going change the fact that your aesthetics
are not universal criteria.
I don't want to give too much to at once. Just work on those few tips
for now. Oh, and the bonus is that, not only will you improve your
social skills, it will make you start sounding as intelligent as you
claim you are.
> Maybe that does't mean jack shit to you, or anyone else in the world, but it means
> something to ME..
Sigh.
Ciccio
Bill Gervasi
> for now. Oh, and the bonus is that, not only will you improve your
> social skills, it will make you start sounding as intelligent as you
> claim you are.
Hmmmm... is there some way we can get this antisocial loser Stan to take David
O into the desert with him and both get lost???
Drew Lawson
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>So I don't like TV... is that such a goddamn problem with some of you people?
What I see is the typical Usenet pattern:
-- Group discussed what they like/dislike abouty Foo
-- Person butts in to say "I don't know much about Foo, and you're
all lower lifeforms for wasting your time with it."
-- People respond that they find Foo a reasonable use of their time.
-- Person says, "Get off my back and quit persecuiting me for
not doing Foo."
If I didn't recognize your name, Stan, I would have assumed that
the original intrusion was nothing but a troll.
If you don't like TV, why are you posting judgements in a thread
on TV programs?
Now why don't you go off and compare notes with Mattison on how we
all are detached from real life.
--
|Drew Lawson | Of all the things I've lost |
|dr...@furrfu.com | I miss my mind the most |
|http://www.furrfu.com | |
Drew Lawson
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>justi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> In article <364F5A6C...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > I can
>> > always think of better ways to spend the money (CDs, power tools, camera
>> gear).
>>
>> Not better, different ways.
>
>In your value/preference system, different. In mine, better...(Not necessarily
>trashing yours, just advocating that own preferences, that's all)
[snip]
>BTW, Miss "Pass judgement on others" Prahtiba,
Gee, Stan, nice to see that you aren't passing judgement on our
inferior lifestyle choices. You're better and we suck, but that
isn't judging, nah.
Stan Rothwell
> Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> > So I'm a loser, huh... And I suppose all you couch potatoes have made such a
>
> [Stan's great accomplishments that saved the world...snipped]
>
> Hmmm. Stan, you made a big deal about people's vehement responses. You
> know, "hit a nerve", etc. implying some over sensitivity. Now, somebody
> merely says loser and you take off with a tirade, including your life
> history. Does that mean she hit a nerve on you? Are you oversensitive
> about being a loser? You can't have it both ways.
>
> Anyhow, come on, you can't jump all over somebody who came to that
> conclusion. Geez, you say you find your coworkers boring, your relatives
> boring, you ridicule them. You state you find being out in the middle of
> the dessert alone better than a relationship. Geezus, even your web site
> is replete with photos of broken toys in desolate places. Talk about
> symbolism!
Oh, now you're psychoanalyzing my Web page for hidden meanings... sheesh!!!Here's the
hidden meaning, should you want to know a secret... I LIKE AIRPLANES,
even old ones.... and I HAPPEN to like taking pictures of them a lot mre than watching
TV......
> Anyhow, what's tragic is you don't realize how much of a
> social loser you present yourself to be. Indeed, even when somebody hits
> you over the head with a social blunder, you totally ignore it or
> rationalize it.
Yeah, I'm missing a whole lot by not hanging with the the TV crowd....I guess I miss out
on all the great lunchroom conversation, like
"did you see ______ lanst night?"... I guess I'm SO much poorer for
it, too... :o(
> I mean, you actually think the pejorative responses are
> a result of your criticism of TV and not your presentation. Let's see if
> I can't help you a bit.
>
> First, when you have a beef with somebody, direct it to the individual.
> You have a bad habit of directing your disagreements or insults to "you
> [fill in the blank plural.]" If you have a problem with a group, fine.
> Most likely, however, the person you are attacking is not a spokesperson
> for that group. Whether, it's couch potatoes, liberals or whatever.
> Moreover, such statements typically constitute errors in inductive and
> deductive reasoning. At the very least, such arguments are ad hominem
> and don't go to the merits.
Ok, Ciccio, pick a subject and we'll debate it on it's merits...
> Second, you must realize that nobody died and made you king.
Did I say that??? Guess I wasn't mousy enough in prefacing my opinions"wellll geee,
IIII feeellll likkeeeee...." sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way?
> Aesthetics
> are relative. What you find appealing, others may find repulsive. What
> you find repulsive, others may find appealing. There is no right or
> wrong about it.
And I DID qualify it in those therms to Prahtiba in a previous post...
> You can pout, beat your chest and piss on the campfire
> all you want, but that ain't going change the fact that your aesthetics
> are not universal criteria.
Fine with me... I'd hate to have a bunch of people in my way anyway... :o)
> I don't want to give too much to at once. Just work on those few tips
> for now. Oh, and the bonus is that, not only will you improve your
> social skills, it will make you start sounding as intelligent as you
> claim you are.
My social skills are quite fine for dealing with those who have something to talk about
other than TV...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> > I don't want to give too much to at once. Just work on those few tips
> > for now. Oh, and the bonus is that, not only will you improve your
> > social skills, it will make you start sounding as intelligent as you
> > claim you are.
>
> Hmmmm... is there some way we can get this antisocial loser Stan to take David
> O into the desert with him and both get lost???
Gee whiz... "sociable" is now defined by the couch potatoes as those who take
aliking to TV.... I'm glad that you are SOOOO knowledgeable about who I am
and what I do to claim that I'm antisocial.... :o)
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> Gee, Stan, nice to see that you aren't passing judgement on our
> inferior lifestyle choices. You're better and we suck, but that
> isn't judging, nah.
Killfile me if you don't like what I have to say... make it quick before the
commercial ends too... :o)
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> In article <364F5B15...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe some Parliament/Funkadelic would do da trick... ;o)
>
> Oh, are YOU my next door neighbor who likes playing his stereo at
> window-rattling volume??? :-) You should know that my beloved used to
> do sound for rock n roll bands and likes to sleep late in the mornings.
Believe it or not, even though I have been categorized as an antisocial loser, I
DO keep the volume moderate in consideration
for my neighbors (I think I have neighbors, but I never see or hear from them -
those are the best kind as far as I am concerned)...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> In article <3651B1D8...@transmeta.com>,
> Bill Gervasi <bi...@transmeta.com> wrote:
> >> I don't want to give too much to at once. Just work on those few tips
> >> for now. Oh, and the bonus is that, not only will you improve your
> >> social skills, it will make you start sounding as intelligent as you
> >> claim you are.
> >
> >Hmmmm... is there some way we can get this antisocial loser Stan to take David
> >O into the desert with him and both get lost???
>
> Keep the Stan lose a David.
Thanx for the vote of confidence (hopefully the couch 'taters don't killfile you).
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> Believe it or not, even though I have been categorized as an antisocial loser, I
> DO keep the volume moderate in consideration
> for my neighbors (I think I have neighbors, but I never see or hear from them -
> those are the best kind as far as I am concerned)...
>
And NOBODY ever complains about my TV, either (except in this NG)...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> Geezus, even your web site is replete with photos of broken toys in desolate places.
> Talk about
> symbolism! Anyhow, what's tragic is you don't realize how much of a social loser you
> present yourself to be.
>
Can I quote you on that???. I'm thinking of using that as a META tag to describe my D-M
page (it's so profound)...
Stan
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>
>> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >There are plenty of other things besides watching TV... why do you people
>> >even bother???
>> Stan, your post is not one of the humorous ones. Just remember that not
>> everyone has the same tastes you do. Half the people I know who have TVs
>> on mostly use it for background noise while they do something else.
>
>BACKGROUND NOISE??? That's what I hate the MOST about TV!!!
Obviously you are not one of those people.
>Why do you NEED noise in the background?
Whatever you are doing instead of watching TV has not improved your
reading comprehension. I didn't say I did it. I even said I didn't
watch much TV at all myself. Get off your high horse before you get
an owie.
(Personally I have my radios tuned to KQED-FM most of the time. It gives
me something to listen to while I am cleaning, cooking, or sewing, and I
have radios in all the major rooms. I turn it off if some program turns
into the Whiny White Guy hour and enjoy silence or the cat purring or get
out one of my CDs if I want to listen to something else.)
>Why not put on a CD instead?
Why not accept that different people do things different ways? Your way
is the way for you, but not for everyone. This was my original point,
which has apparently whizzed right over your head (the omega effect, not
even in one ear and out the other).
Personally, I didn't own a CD player of any kind till about four years
ago, so it would have been tough. But the problem I have with CDs is
not only do I need to futz around with the stereo system, it's not audible
in all the rooms in my house, and they need to be changed every 40 mins or
so.)
It's easier in my car, which has a six-CD player instead of the little
Discman I have at home (and I can change from CD to radio with a touch).
>Maybe some Parliament/Funkadelic would do da trick... ;o)
Oh, are YOU my next door neighbor who likes playing his stereo at
window-rattling volume??? :-) You should know that my beloved used to
do sound for rock n roll bands and likes to sleep late in the mornings.
(Yeah, like I could get anything productive done around the house when
listening to Brudda George.)
C"dance break!"LB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea
Ken Smith
Bill Gervasi <bi...@transmeta.com> wrote:
>> I don't want to give too much to at once. Just work on those few tips
>> for now. Oh, and the bonus is that, not only will you improve your
>> social skills, it will make you start sounding as intelligent as you
>> claim you are.
>
>Hmmmm... is there some way we can get this antisocial loser Stan to take David
>O into the desert with him and both get lost???
Keep the Stan lose a David.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Ken Smith
Charlotte L. Blackmer <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
>(Personally I have my radios tuned to KQED-FM most of the time. It gives
>me something to listen to while I am cleaning, cooking, or sewing, and I
>have radios in all the major rooms.
It also has the advantage that you get to hear a fairly accurate news show
or two along the way, so you have some idea what's going on in the world.
> I turn it off if some program turns
>into the Whiny White Guy hour
I assume this is the nongendered use of "Guy". The worst is .. um.. that
woman...um....ah...I can't remember her name, but she introduces speakers
talking about the arts. She really grates on me.
Ciccio
> Oh, now you're psychoanalyzing my Web page for hidden meanings...
Nothing hidden about it. It's very plain.
> Yeah, I'm missing a whole lot by not hanging with the the TV crowd....I guess I miss out
> on all the great lunchroom conversation, like
> "did you see ______ lanst night?"... I guess I'm SO much poorer for
> it, too... :o(
Stan, you are using TV as an excuse for being disliked. Stan, people
dislike you because of you, not TV. Many social losers rationalize that
way. "They don't like me because: I'm tall OR I'm fat OR I'm smarter
than they are OR I'm a different ethnicity OR I'm a different religion
OR I'm a [fill in the blank occupation] OR I'm not a TV watcher." Mean
while, many people who share similar traits are not social misfits.
Stan, look at the numbers... family, friends, coworkers, neighbors,
people on the Net. Get Real!
> Ok, Ciccio, pick a subject and we'll debate it on it's merits...
Resolved:
Whether Stan's opinions are the Universal Criteria Upon Which Everybody
Should Live.
> Did I say that??? Guess I wasn't mousy enough in prefacing my opinions"wellll geee,
> IIII feeellll likkeeeee...." sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way?
Geez, what a surprise. Stan thinks being polite or civil is being mousy.
> My social skills are quite fine for dealing with those who have something to talk about
> other than TV...
Sure, sure, sure. Just all sorts of people talking about TV exclusively.
And they're the only ones with whom Stan fails socially.
Ciccio
Drew Lawson
You're making a great case for how not owning a TV builds your
ability to communicate rationally.
Michael Riehle
: Believe it or not, even though I have been categorized as an antisocial loser, I
: DO keep the volume moderate in consideration
: for my neighbors (I think I have neighbors, but I never see or hear from them -
: those are the best kind as far as I am concerned)...
Okay, so it's pick-on-Stan week at ba.singles.
Wow, do I disagree. One of my irritations with city life is not knowing
my neighbors. I spent part of my childhood in a neighborhood where I
knew every permanent resident by name. Everywhere I live I try to get
to know at least a few of my neighbors. This isn't entirely
sociability, some of it is practical self-interest.
Why?
One night, some kids were looking in my car windows trying to determine
if there was a stereo to be stolen. My neighbor, who I've made friends
with, chased them away and came to tell me about it. Because she knew
it was my car and she considers me a friend.
We have assigned parking in my condo complex. Each person gets a garage
and one parking space. My garage gets used for band practice. I have
two vehicles. My other neighbor, who I've made friends with (amazing
how far a $35 bottle of wine will go...), let's me use her spot since
she has one car that she parks in her garage.
Over the years I've collected a number of such incidents just because I
make an effort to be friends with my neighbors.
My favorite, though, were my old neighbors at the house I used to live
in. On hot summer nights we used to stand around by their fence (cooler
outside) drink beer and chat about anything and everything. We'd solve
the worlds problems over a brew or two and then go inside when it got
dark. Good times, those.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Riehle Send mail to mcr at the mriehle.com
San Jose, CA domain.
http://www.mriehle.com/live.dressed.girls
#include <std.disclaimer>
--------------------------------------------------------
Americans for Non-smokers Rights http://www.no-smoke.org
Smokescreen Action Network http://www.smokescreen.org
Bay Area Secondhand Smoke Hotline (408)999-0500
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob R. Kenyon
Ken Smith <kens...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <72tbfp$dg$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
>Charlotte L. Blackmer <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>[....]
>>(Personally I have my radios tuned to KQED-FM most of the time. It gives
>>me something to listen to while I am cleaning, cooking, or sewing, and I
>>have radios in all the major rooms.
>
>It also has the advantage that you get to hear a fairly accurate news show
>or two along the way, so you have some idea what's going on in the world.
Unfortunately, if you listen to it ALL day, they repeat everything
over again. It is interesting to see how they rephrase the hourly
news, though.
>> I turn it off if some program turns
>>into the Whiny White Guy hour
>
>I assume this is the nongendered use of "Guy". The worst is .. um.. that
>woman...um....ah...I can't remember her name, but she introduces speakers
>talking about the arts. She really grates on me.
You're not talking about Terry Gross on "Fresh Air" are you? I find
her show usually interesting.
--
Bob R. Kenyon, Beautiful Downtown San Jose, CA | no despamming of address
<http://www.bobrk.com/> | required for reply
Stuart O. Bronstein
>Bill Gervasi wrote:
>
>>Hmmmm... is there some way we can get this antisocial loser Stan to take
>>David O into the desert with him and both get lost???
>
>take aliking to TV.... I'm glad that you are SOOOO knowledgeable about
>who I am and what I do to claim that I'm antisocial.... :o)
As I recall, what happened was that your indication that you don't watch
television was phrased in such a way as to lead others here to believe
that you considered anyone who doesn't agree with you to be an idiot. My
guess is that you didn't actually mean it that way, since it would be
inconsistent with what I've seen from you here in the past.
But it did come across that way.
--
Stu (delete * from email address)
"If ignorance ever goes to $40 a barrel, I want drillin'
rights on that man's head."
--Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower
discussing President George Bush's policies
Karen O'Mara
How do your neighbors feel about that? When do you practice?
Yeah, neighbors are great. I've enjoyed getting to know neighbors
throughout the years. Some have become friends.
Although, sometimes there are people that live nearby who make it very
clear that they wish no exchange, friendship, neighborliness (is that a
word?) or anything. Never eye contact when outside, or a "good morning"
when passing each other by, or greeting of any sort when recognized in
the grocery store. They make it clear that they keep all neighbors, not
just me, at a very big distance, and I respect that.
I'm probably the extreme opposite of that, however, and I think many of
my neighbors know me more than any of the other ones. if that makes
sense...
Karen
--
Tout passe, tout casse, tout lasse.
justi...@my-dejanews.com
Bob R. Kenyon <c.c...@67.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> In article <72tm0e$283$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> Ken Smith <kens...@rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> >It also has the advantage that you get to hear a fairly accurate news show
> >or two along the way, so you have some idea what's going on in the world.
>
> Unfortunately, if you listen to it ALL day, they repeat everything
> over again. It is interesting to see how they rephrase the hourly
> news, though.
>
Actually, they (some radio stations) do not bother to rephrase the news. So
you hear the prerecorded news for a few hours. My commute sometimes has
breaks in it, so I end up listening news on the hour sometimes. I have heard
exactly same broadcast over and over again.
Pratibha
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bob O`Brien
>Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Gee whiz... "sociable" is now defined by the couch potatoes as those who
>>take aliking to TV.... I'm glad that you are SOOOO knowledgeable about
>>who I am and what I do to claim that I'm antisocial.... :o)
>
>As I recall, what happened was that your indication that you don't watch
>television was phrased in such a way as to lead others here to believe
>that you considered anyone who doesn't agree with you to be an idiot. My
>guess is that you didn't actually mean it that way, since it would be
>inconsistent with what I've seen from you here in the past.
>
>But it did come across that way.
It still does. He composed this subject line.
The use of "You People" draws a clear line between him and the proles.
The topic at hand could have been absolutely anything, and
he'd still have deserved every new orifice that's been ripped.
Bob O`Bob
--
+ email replies without this line will be discarded le4m5tvt (expires 28dec98) +
"On the internet, *everyone* will have their own fifteen minutes of blame."
Michael Riehle
: >>My garage gets used for band practice. <<
: How do your neighbors feel about that? When do you practice?
We use electronic drums for practice and practice *very* quietly. My
neighbors don't mind. The few who can hear us actually seem to like
it.
: Yeah, neighbors are great. I've enjoyed getting to know neighbors
: throughout the years. Some have become friends.
: Although, sometimes there are people that live nearby who make it very
: clear that they wish no exchange, friendship, neighborliness (is that a
: word?) or anything. Never eye contact when outside, or a "good morning"
: when passing each other by, or greeting of any sort when recognized in
: the grocery store. They make it clear that they keep all neighbors, not
: just me, at a very big distance, and I respect that.
I respect it, but I don't have to like it. And I don't.
: I'm probably the extreme opposite of that, however, and I think many of
: my neighbors know me more than any of the other ones. if that makes
: sense...
--
Karen O'Mara
>
> Actually, they (some radio stations) do not bother to rephrase the news. So
> you hear the prerecorded news for a few hours. My commute sometimes has
> breaks in it, so I end up listening news on the hour sometimes. I have heard
> exactly same broadcast over and over again.
Perhaps it should be called newnews, semi-newnews, nearlyoldnews,
oldnews, etc..? Definitely shouldn't call it news.
What station[s] do you listen to? I gave up KGO Radio when Dr. Laura
became a part of their line-up. I wonder what is Ronn Owens up to
lately?..
Karen O'Mara
>
> The few who can hear us actually seem to like
> it.
I believe it!!
Stan Rothwell
> Stuart O. Bronstein <sab@*idiom.com> wrote:
> >Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Gee whiz... "sociable" is now defined by the couch potatoes as those who
> >>take aliking to TV.... I'm glad that you are SOOOO knowledgeable about
> >>who I am and what I do to claim that I'm antisocial.... :o)
> >
> >As I recall, what happened was that your indication that you don't watch
> >television was phrased in such a way as to lead others here to believe
> >that you considered anyone who doesn't agree with you to be an idiot. My
> >guess is that you didn't actually mean it that way, since it would be
> >inconsistent with what I've seen from you here in the past.
> >
> >But it did come across that way.
>
> It still does. He composed this subject line.
>
> The use of "You People" draws a clear line between him and the proles.
> The topic at hand could have been absolutely anything, and
> he'd still have deserved every new orifice that's been ripped.
Killfile me and go back to watching sitcoms...
Does it make a difference either way??? Whatever makes you happy and content...
:o)
Stan
Stan Rothwell
But obviously it's more interesting than watching sitcoms....
Hugs and Kisses from the Antisocial Loser :oX
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> In article <36522AA5...@ix.netcom.com>
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >Drew Lawson wrote:
> >
> >> Gee, Stan, nice to see that you aren't passing judgement on our
> >> inferior lifestyle choices. You're better and we suck, but that
> >> isn't judging, nah.
> >
> >Killfile me if you don't like what I have to say... make it quick before the
> >commercial ends too... :o)
>
> You're making a great case for how not owning a TV builds your
> ability to communicate rationally.
Fine...
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> In article <36525E01...@ix.netcom.com> on Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:41:21 -0700 Stan Rothwell (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Believe it or not, even though I have been categorized as an antisocial loser, I
> : DO keep the volume moderate in consideration
> : for my neighbors (I think I have neighbors, but I never see or hear from them -
> : those are the best kind as far as I am concerned)...
>
> Okay, so it's pick-on-Stan week at ba.singles.
Fine with me... :o)
> Wow, do I disagree. One of my irritations with city life is not knowing
> my neighbors. I spent part of my childhood in a neighborhood where I
> knew every permanent resident by name. Everywhere I live I try to get
> to know at least a few of my neighbors. This isn't entirely
> sociability, some of it is practical self-interest.
>
> Why?
>
> One night, some kids were looking in my car windows trying to determine
> if there was a stereo to be stolen. My neighbor, who I've made friends
> with, chased them away and came to tell me about it. Because she knew
> it was my car and she considers me a friend.
Last time I tried to point out an individual who was committing crimes to my neighbors, they didn't want to hear about it.Nobody
wanted to confront the individual and ask him to leave, or talk to the cops...
I decided from then I would cover my own ass, and the hell with them...
Stan
Ken Smith
>Unfortunately, if you listen to it ALL day, they repeat everything
>over again. It is interesting to see how they rephrase the hourly
>news, though.
I seldom get to listen long enough to here the same thing more than twice.
CNN repeats things too. The only difference is that the things CNN
reports are often wrong.
>You're not talking about Terry Gross on "Fresh Air" are you? I find
>her show usually interesting.
No not her. I think the name I was looking for was Linda Hunt. Fresh air
is often interesting. As with such shows it depends a great deal on who
they get on the show.
Ken Smith
Karen O'Mara <ka...@randomgraphics.com> wrote:
[....]
>How do your neighbors feel about that? When do you practice?
A few years back, while doing yard work at my house in Milpitas I could
hear a band practicing. It was sort of interesting to listen to. They
were obviously adding a new song to the play list. I'd hear:
Voice: About this fast, Bop a ba, bop a ba
Drum: Bop a ba, bop a ba .. etc ...
Other stuff joins in.
Voice: And we don't want the ... etc ..
....
Voice: No, $#$@, my mistake
Voice: Ok
Drum: Bop a ba, bop a ba ... etc ..
Other stuf joins in
Voice: And we don't want the ... etc ...
... more of the tune ....
Voice: Sam were did you go.
Voice: Ok
Drum: Bop a ba, bop a ba ... etc ..
Gradually the errors disappeared and by the end of the day it started to
sound like something I knew.
Charlotte L. Blackmer
<justi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <72v1a8$a58$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> Bob R. Kenyon <c.c...@67.usenet.us.com> wrote:
[We're talking about KQED-FM]
>> >It also has the advantage that you get to hear a fairly accurate news show
>> >or two along the way, so you have some idea what's going on in the world.
>>
>> Unfortunately, if you listen to it ALL day, they repeat everything
>> over again. It is interesting to see how they rephrase the hourly
>> news, though.
>>
>Actually, they (some radio stations) do not bother to rephrase the news.
>So you hear the prerecorded news for a few hours.
Hasn't particularly been the case with KQED-FM in my experience.
Sometimes the news doesn't change that much and you do hear repeats for a
little while.
>My commute sometimes has breaks in it, so I end up listening news on the
>hour sometimes. I have heard exactly same broadcast over and over again.
What Bob was talking about (and I totally agree with him) is KQED-FM's
practice of pulling shows presumably live off the NPR satellite when
they are first broadcast from Washington or wherever and then
recording them for playback at a later hour.
Examples, I got examples:
Morning Edition is a 2 hour program. These two hours are broadcast from
3-5 am, 5-7 am, and 7-9 am.
Fresh Air is played live (I think) at 1 pm and rebroadcast at 7 pm.
All Things Considered used to be played 3 times (at 2, 5, and 11 weekdays)
but now is only twice on weekdays. Still 3X on weekends, though.
And the homegrown talk show, Forum, rebroadcasts one of its morning hours
at 10 pm.
I like Fresh Air and ATC and usually like Forum (which is most likely
to become the whiny white guys hour ;-) but sometimes if I'm at home
during the day I do reach saturation.
CLB
JUSTICE164
>
>What station[s] do you listen to?
KEZR, KARA, KCBS.
Praitbha
Karen O'Mara
If you list the same stations when your teenager is in the car with you,
Prat, could you tell me your trick to that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mom?! You changed the station to <gasp> *country* <shudders> when I
wasn't looking?!"
"Yes."
"You can't do that."
"Why not? It's my car."
"Because it's embarassing, Mom!"
Bob R. Kenyon
KQED for news
KITS (Live 105) for new music
KFOG for old music
KCSM for Jazz
KDFC for classical
KLLC (Alice) for whatever music is on there at the time.
On AM, it's usually KCBS, but I find that it's soundimg more and more
like KPIX-TV, which I find worse than dental surgery. Then again, I
find most AM unlistenable. This is not to imply other people are
social losers if they listen to it.
Jeff Gostin
: Prat, could you tell me your trick to that?
Oh, it's easy. It's country music. ;) Interestingly, my folks never had a
problem with me not liking their choice of music. They like Oldies, and,
shockingly, so do I. So, let's see... there's KFRC for my Oldies fix. "The
MIX" (106.5) for my "pop alternative" fix. Er.... I forget what the stations
are for the Classical or Jazz stations I listen to, and, hmmm... I think
that about covers it.
--J
Karen O'Mara
>
> Oh, it's easy. It's country music. ;)
Not always. Not even often. But if Willie Nelson's singing _Crazy_, some
12 year old who shall remain nameless better not touch that dial.
Right now, I'm listening NPR's broadcast of the hearings.... what a
Tripp, huh?
Karen
Drew Lawson
ka...@randomgraphics.com writes:
>Right now, I'm listening NPR's broadcast of the hearings.... what a
>Tripp, huh?
It all sounds like a sticky mess.
--
|Drew Lawson | Of all the things I've lost |
|dr...@furrfu.com | I miss my mind the most |
|http://www.furrfu.com | |
Jeff Gostin
: 12 year old who shall remain nameless better not touch that dial.
So another 12 year old can change it for the nameless 12 year old, but the
nameless 12 year can't change it for herself? :)
: Right now, I'm listening NPR's broadcast of the hearings.... what a Tripp,
: huh?
Bah, I wish it'd go away. It's just not impo'tant anymore....
*duck*
--Jeff
justi...@my-dejanews.com
ka...@randomgraphics.com wrote:
> JUSTICE164 wrote:
> >
> > Karen O'Mara <ka...@randomgraphics.com> wrote,
> > >
> >
> >
> > Praitbha
>
> If you list the same stations when your teenager is in the car with you,
> Prat, could you tell me your trick to that?
>
I lost that one a long time ago. In our car it is more like, they take pity on
me and don't ride with me.
Stuart O. Bronstein
> ka...@randomgraphics.com writes:
>
>>Right now, I'm listening NPR's broadcast of the hearings.... what a
>>Tripp, huh?
>
Bill Clinton will sure be blue if he gets a dressing down.
--
Stu (delete * from email address)
I met lots of people who are experts in the way that Government in
Washington works. And they said: 'We can't just have a hearing; first
you have to go on bended knee and you have to kiss a lot of rings.'
Well, my mother and father taught me that I'm no better than anybody
else, but also that I'm no worse. So I said I wouldn't go on bended
knee and I wouldn't kiss anything."
-WILLIAM F. WELD, former Massachusetts Governor.
Ken Smith
>Right now, I'm listening NPR's broadcast of the hearings.... what a
>Tripp, huh?
I listened to them for a bit on my way to and from the HOA meeting I had
tonight. Why do they call them "hearings" from what I heard they should
be called "talkings". I heard about 2 questions in total with about 20
minutes of introductory material each.
RBBigband
17 piece swing orchersta?
Join us at Foresters Hall in Redwood City on Tuesday Dec 1, 1998 and/or January
5, 1999 for dancing to this swinging big band.
Married and single people of all ages attend, and they are all there to dance.
Bring a partner or come alone and there will be someone to dance with.
Dance lessons at 7pm to 8pm. Dancing to the big band from 8 to 10pm.
Check out our web site for details and directions to Foresters Hall.
www.button.com/swing.orchestra
E-mail me to get on our mailing list for future public events.
billt...@button.com
Bill Travis