PBS
Jim Thompson
This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
McCain's country).
Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
_Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
class-action suit to disband PBS.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
John Larkin
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
>
>Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
>contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
>my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
>McCain's country).
>
>Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
NPR especially. A lot of their stuff is blatant hit pieces, and a lot
of contempt for the people in flyover country.
>
>So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
>_Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
Some of it is. Some of the Mystery series (Foyle's War, Dalgliesh,
Morse) was OK, even if the plots were absurd. But around here, we are
barraged by Suzie Ormund, doo-wop music re-re-reruns, some
inspirational speaker who paces and rants, basically a ton of
cheap-or-free crap.
>
>Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
>appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
I think DVD rentals and sales have killed a lot of formerly good/free
stuff, Monte Python and such. Our local TV station, KQED, spent tens
of megabucks on a state-of-the-art studio that they hardly use, have a
staff of fat cats, and spend zip on programming.
>
>If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
>class-action suit to disband PBS.
>
Not likely to succeed.
John
mpm
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
> class-action suit to disband PBS.
>
The McCain camp could have said "No" to the selection of moderator.
They didn't.
If they now claim bias, they either didn't know about Gwen Ifill's
book (which represents piss-poor due-diligence on their part - at
best, and possibly complete incompetence), or they DID know about it,
and decided they could use it to political advantage when the time
came (which smacks of being a little disingenuous, at best). Or maybe
they knew it and figured their standings in the polls by now would
make it a moot issue. (?)
The Republicans ought to just let this one lie.
If there's a way to spin it to their advantage, I don't see it. (?)
I was not too terribly impressed with Ifill's performance in the
candidates debate.
I do hope she won't treat either candidate with kids gloves. We'll
know soon.
-mpm
Jon Slaughter
"mpm" <mpmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:47fbb037-7d39-4cd9...@q5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 1, 10:57?pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
-mpm
Dude, you are such a moron... if you don't get a doctor to look at that you
might end up an imbecile.
Rich Webb
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
>
>Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
>contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
>my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
>McCain's country).
>
>Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
Yes indeed. Reality has a well established liberal bias, eh?
>So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
>_Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
>
>Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
>appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
>
>If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
>class-action suit to disband PBS.
It's sad to see what a caricature you've become, mate.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
mpm
> "mpm" <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dude, there's nothing wrong with my post, or my analysis.
Is that why you resort to name calling; because you have nothing else
to hang your hat on?
Tonight's VP debate has the potential to be an absolute train wreck
for the Republican Party.
-mpm
Jim Thompson
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:22:01 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:57:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
>>
>>Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
>>contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
>>my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
>>McCain's country).
>>
>>Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
>
>NPR especially. A lot of their stuff is blatant hit pieces, and a lot
>of contempt for the people in flyover country.
>
>
>>
>>So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
>>_Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
>
>Some of it is. Some of the Mystery series (Foyle's War, Dalgliesh,
>Morse) was OK,
I liked both Dalgleish and Morse, though they're ancient re-runs now.
I'm a Monk fan, and have most of his seasons on DVD.
>even if the plots were absurd. But around here, we are
>barraged by Suzie Ormund, doo-wop music re-re-reruns, some
>inspirational speaker who paces and rants, basically a ton of
>cheap-or-free crap.
>
>
>>
>>Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
>>appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
>
>I think DVD rentals and sales have killed a lot of formerly good/free
>stuff, Monte Python and such. Our local TV station, KQED, spent tens
>of megabucks on a state-of-the-art studio that they hardly use, have a
>staff of fat cats, and spend zip on programming.
I'm happy to announce that KAET is laying by the bucket load... even
decided they don't really need a general manager ;-)
>
>>
>>If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
>>class-action suit to disband PBS.
>>
>
>Not likely to succeed.
>
>
>John
One can only hope... that's all we're going to have left after the
election :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The next time the Democrat Jerks whine that new drilling will
take 10 years, remind them of the Chinese proverb:
"Every journey starts with a first step"
Kris Krieger
9363cc...@q5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 1, 10:57�pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>> If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
>> class-action suit to disband PBS.
>>
>
>
> The McCain camp could have said "No" to the selection of moderator.
> They didn't.
IRIC, she was supposedly vetted and approved several weeks ago.
Maybe the Repub campaign need to brush up on what the word "vetting" means...
> If they now claim bias, they either didn't know about Gwen Ifill's
> book (which represents piss-poor due-diligence on their part - at
> best, and possibly complete incompetence), or they DID know about it,
> and decided they could use it to political advantage when the time
> came (which smacks of being a little disingenuous, at best). Or maybe
> they knew it and figured their standings in the polls by now would
> make it a moot issue. (?)
IMO, it's completely in keeping with what their strategy has been all along -
create confusion in an attmept to distract people from the real issues.
>
> The Republicans ought to just let this one lie.
> If there's a way to spin it to their advantage, I don't see it. (?)
>
> I was not too terribly impressed with Ifill's performance in the
> candidates debate.
> I do hope she won't treat either candidate with kids gloves. We'll
> know soon.
>
> -mpm
>
I don't understand the problem. Don't both candidates naswer the *same*
questions, as was done in the Pres debate? Plus, teh format has been dumbed
down to only 2 minutes per answer with somethign like 30 seconds for
rebuttal. How the bleep can the moderator "create bias"? ALl that the
moderator does is ask the question, and keep the candidates within the time
allotted per answer. IMO, teh "bias" thing is absurd.
OTOH, let's face it, the fact is that people who've already made their
decisions re: voting are completely irrelevant - teh "base" will declare
victory as long as Palin can put toetehr somethign resembling a sentence, and
the Obama voters will continue to feel that she isn't ready to be VP.
The only relevant group is the still-undecideds. Specifically, the undecided
who have not been paying any attention whatsoever so far to what either of
the VP candidates has been saying.
IMO, this is the origin of the new schtick about "it's time we have Joe
Sixpack in office" ((which makes me wonder, Where has she been the past 7+
years...?)) The GOP campaign is IMO betting that the still-undecideds are
schlepps, whereas it seems to me that Obama/Biden are figuring that the
undecideds are undecided because they are interested in having more
information.
IMO, it's characteristically supercilious to assume that all teh undecideds
are merely doofs - which, like it or not, is what the phrase "joe sixpack"
DOES imply - not that IMO "proof" should be needed, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Q._Public
QUOTE: "Roughly equivalent [to John Q. Public], but more pejorative, are the
names Joe Six-pack, Joe Blow, and Joe Schmoe, implying a lower-class
citizen..."
I've heard Biden; there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he is
intelligent and has depth and breadth of knowledge. I've heard Palin, and
the GOP commentators simply have not convinced me that her answers are
actually genius, and she is merely "nervous". I keep coming back to "What if
McCain is elected, and God Forbid gets sick, and she has to go toe-to-toe
with Putin or Ahmidinejad?" She hasn't even been able to take on WOlf
Blitzer, never mind on of them. They sure as s**t woun't give a damn about
"treating her gently because she's new to national politics" - they're
sexists to begin with, and would hammer on her as hard as possible.
So I'm personally disgusted with all of this excuse-making and demands for
special treatment. McCain has been in Presidential elections before, and he
knows *damn* good and well what is involved, and what the stakes are. I
don't "blame" Palin, I blame McCain - because *he* should have known better,
and IMO made a very poor, and to me personally VERY disappointing, judgement
call.
Jim Thompson
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:11:58 -0400, Rich Webb
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:57:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
>>
>>Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
>>contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
>>my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
>>McCain's country).
>>
>>Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
>
>Yes indeed. Reality has a well established liberal bias, eh?
If you think that's reality then you are one sick puppy.
>
>>So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
>>_Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
>>
>>Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
>>appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
>>
>>If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
>>class-action suit to disband PBS.
>
>It's sad to see what a caricature you've become, mate.
#1 I ain't your "mate".
#2 It's sad to see what a sheep you've become.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable
mpm
> mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote in news:47fbb037-7d39-4cd9-b031-
> 9363cc04b...@q5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
I like your comment re: Joe Six-Pack and the incumbent administration.
Too funny. (How many DUI's did Bush rack up??)
Anyway, back to the topic.
I think the moderator bias issue boils down to question selection.
Would Ifill give easy ones to Biden, and impossible ones to Palin, for
instance.
Although there are many other variations on the theme.
But to say that Ifill's book subject matter is the only bias
potentially involved is also flawed.
Whose to say Ifill won't throw Palin slowballs because (like Ifill)
she's a woman.
Or racism perhaps? Ifill's black and so is the top of the Obama
ticket.
Or geography (Ifill's east coast, Palin's west coast - far west
coast!!)
Or stature (Biden's a senator, Palin's only a small state governor)
Frankly, given Ifill's last debate, who's to say she'll ask the
"right" questions of EITHER candidate?
I guess I just don't understand why the Republicans get so apoplectic
over the issue when they were given ample opportunity to raise
objections (and they did not, or chose not to object). Hell, they
selected the moderator before they even selected a VP candidate...
I would say it's yet another well-documented example of bad judgement
on the Republican's part, except that I don't think there's any merit
to the argument in the first place.
If you truly believe their spin (McCain supporters), you have to
conclude that the campaign could just as easily be blindsided by
something of even more importance. I mean, are they paying attention
at all?
-mpm
Kris Krieger
@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
[snipped due to bad and confusing text-wrapping]
>
> I like your comment re: Joe Six-Pack and the incumbent administration.
> Too funny. (How many DUI's did Bush rack up??)
Actually, not funny - that's Palin's new schtick (in the sense of WWE
schticks). She was saying it's about time that "joe sixpack" was VP.
We already have Joe Sixpack as a President. Bush seems to be a perfectly
affable fellow, and has been describes as such by many who've had personal
contact with him. And maybe Palin is great to her friends.
The problem is that the world is an increasingly complex and dangerous
place.
>
> Anyway, back to the topic.
> I think the moderator bias issue boils down to question selection.
> Would Ifill give easy ones to Biden, and impossible ones to Palin, for
> instance.
> Although there are many other variations on the theme.
They're suppsoed to be given the same questions.
>
> But to say that Ifill's book subject matter is the only bias
> potentially involved is also flawed.
>
> Whose to say Ifill won't throw Palin slowballs because (like Ifill)
> she's a woman.
> Or racism perhaps? Ifill's black and so is the top of the Obama
> ticket.
> Or geography (Ifill's east coast, Palin's west coast - far west
> coast!!)
> Or stature (Biden's a senator, Palin's only a small state governor)
>
> Frankly, given Ifill's last debate, who's to say she'll ask the
> "right" questions of EITHER candidate?
The thing is that *ALL* people have some sort of bias. I'm biased towards
intelligence. And people who drink GOOD beer ;) No, seriously, everyone
has some bias. What's important is whether Ifill's questions will reflect
teh questions that are being asked by the Undecided voters.
It's the Undecided voters, after all, who are important right now. The GOp
base is obviously going to remain in lock-step with the Campaign Tactics
Manual. ANd people who have made up their mind to vote for Obama will
basically ignroe whatever Palin says (except, perhaps, as a source of
humor).
What matters is the peole who are undecided, and looking at McCain's
health, and realizing that Palin has a much higher-than-usual chance of
ending up taking over as President, either temporarily or permanently.
No matter what, the GOP will cry "foul". That's irrelevant, because Obama
supporters will see it as nothingmore than the campaign's consistent
strategy of creating confusing and raising smoke-screens. Poeple who've
decided to vote for ROn paul think teh otehr candidates, for Pres and for
VP alike, are all dunderheads and prob won't watch the scripted play that's
being called "a debate".
The onyl thing that is relevant is whetheIfill will ask the questions that
are of concern to the Undecided voters.
> I guess I just don't understand why the Republicans get so apoplectic
> over the issue when they were given ample opportunity to raise
> objections (and they did not, or chose not to object). Hell, they
> selected the moderator before they even selected a VP candidate...
See, you're assuming that this is a real issue, as opposed tomerely a
tactic that's consistent with theiroverall strategy. Look at why they
picked Palin in the frist palce - there *ARE* competent Republican women
who are *more than capable of politically beating the snot out of most men.
But they're mostly *older* women. You've heard it all: "Palin is a Fresh
Face", "Washington outsider", and so on - I mean, former beauty-contest
contestent, the "sexy librarian look" bit, the "Unkbnown". Do you think
for one moment that the choice was *not* a calculated tactic? It was, and
it achieved what ti intended to achieve: a couple weeks of poeple madly
buzzing about Palin, and ignoring things like McCain's voting record,
health, and so on.
This kvetching about Ifill is just more of the same. Th campaign knows
it's not goign to fool alert people - but they don't care, becasu ethey're
making the assumption that most of the Undecided voters are ONLY undecided
because they're dim bulbs (even Wikipedia notes that "joe sixpack" is
aperjorative term) who can be folled by simply tossing out another
smokescreen of trained-seal indignation.
>
> I would say it's yet another well-documented example of bad judgement
> on the Republican's part, except that I don't think there's any merit
> to the argument in the first place.
I originally thought it was bad judgement, but now, I think it's attempted
Machiavellian manipulation.
Machiavelli was a smart dood, but it's easy to confuse "Machiavellian" with
"mere manipulativeness". Machiavelli knew enough to not underestimate his
adversaries, whereas, from what I've seen and read, the "ugly cousins" in
the GOP cannot help but underestimate others, because the primary
characteristic of the true dyed-in-the-wool elitist is the inability to see
*any* capability, talent, or heck, even real threat, in their adversaries.
And that is why I think that neither McCain nor Palin is a real Leader. A
real Leader has to be able to look the adversary in the eye, and go toe-to-
toe with that adversary's *strengths*. Any doofus can go up against
someone's weaknesses - but will be incapable of predicting that such
tactics are likely to fail, and also be incapable of comprehneding *why*
such tatics so often fail.
I have an idealistic streak, I'll not deny that. But make no mistake - if
my expereince in the intelligence community taught me nothign else, it at
elast taught me that Leadership is NOT merely a matter of amking people
feel all warmfuzzy-touchyfeelie; it's a delicate balance between
understanding actually empathizing with, how to inpire peole to do things,
and empathizing wiht, *sharing*, the very Human traits that explain why
poeple can be inspired, all mixed in with a goodly portion of cold
rationality, and depth and breadth of intelligence IOW a truely
Machiavellian capacity.
In a way, it's like being an Intelligence Analyst, but over a far wider
range of issues. On has to be able to *objectively* look at an adversary's
capabilities, culture, everything, and make as unbiased a judgement as
possible; this includes recognizing, and having some respect for, and
adversary's capabilities. Note that "respect" does NOT mean "agreement
with". I respect the capabilities of a great white shark - that doesn't
mean I'd jump into the water with one. It simply means understnading the
psyche, seeing the caapbilities - AND seeing the holes in both. That sort
of respect *never* confuses recognition of capacility, with admiration or
agreement with ideology or methodology.
This is important because one cannot defend against an adversary whom one
does not understand.
Hubris is dangerous, therefore, because all teh ahubris recognizes is *its
own capability*. Hubris admits no vulnerability or weakness in itself, but
sees ONLY teh weaknesses of the adverasary. If that adversary can set
aside enough egotism to see its own adversary's capabilities AND
weaknesses, then avenues for possible attack (or inmfiltration) become
clear.
And personally, what I perceive in both McCain and Palin is too much hubris
- too much ego, without enough substance to back it up.
In Obama, I see at least intelligence, capacity for empathy, and rational
planning. Of course I'm not absolutely sure he would be a great Leader,
but I do think that McCain (and Plain) would not be. That of course is NOT
to say that they've nothing to offer the nation - that isn't in question,
but it also isn't relavent to the central question of Leadership.
>
> If you truly believe their spin (McCain supporters), you have to
> conclude that the campaign could just as easily be blindsided by
> something of even more importance. I mean, are they paying attention
> at all?
Of course they are. THe problem is that, as above, the Campaign is being
manipulative, rather than truely Machiavellian.
Tom Del Rosso
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:bkd8e4h2gqp21tq3m...@4ax.com
> This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
>
> Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
> contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
> my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
> McCain's country).
>
> Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
>
> So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
> _Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
>
> Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
> appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
The quality of cable TV?????? The History Channel had some good
documentaries 10 years ago. Now it's the history of bulldozers channel.
They showed one on the history of paint. Not painting - paint. They don't
even show the old good ones as late-night reruns any more.
> If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
> class-action suit to disband PBS.
I learned more science and history from PBS growing up than I learned from
school. It's no nore a special intterest than public school is. I have
never learned a single thing from The Learning Channel. What's on cable
that's remotely comparable to Nova?
PBS doesn't have anything of the caliber of The Ascent of Man or Meeting of
Minds any more, so why don't you petition to improve it. The new head of
WNET New York proved it can be done on the present budget. The old liberal
fool who previously ran the station was giving us Deepak Chopra seminars,
and not a single opera in 5 years. Under the new guy they have had two
operas a month and other improvements. Predictably, the leftist staff at
the station hates him.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
Jim Thompson
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:20:05 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@att.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>in message news:bkd8e4h2gqp21tq3m...@4ax.com
>> This Ifill situation reminds me of my feelings for PBS...
>>
>> Until ~7 years ago I was a "PBS gold card" ($500-$1000/year)
>> contributor to PBS. (I know the time frame because I remember using
>> my "gold card" for a discount at a Sedona resort (Gawwwwd's and
>> McCain's country).
>>
>> Then it struck me how biased PBS (and NPR) had become.
>>
>> So I stopped being a contributor. Not that I'm reminded often.
>> _Nothing_, anymore, on PBS is worth watching ;-)
>>
>> Given the quality of private enterprise cable TV, I think it
>> appropriate to cut off PBS (and NPR) from the public teat.
>
>The quality of cable TV?????? The History Channel had some good
>documentaries 10 years ago. Now it's the history of bulldozers channel.
I rather enjoy heavy equipment ;-)
>They showed one on the history of paint. Not painting - paint. They don't
>even show the old good ones as late-night reruns any more.
>
>
>> If Ifill betrays the public trust I suggest everyone join my
>> class-action suit to disband PBS.
>
>I learned more science and history from PBS growing up than I learned from
>school.
"growing up", as in the past. PBS is dullsville anymore.
>It's no nore a special intterest than public school is. I have
>never learned a single thing from The Learning Channel. What's on cable
>that's remotely comparable to Nova?
I thrive off of HBO and Showtime movies and specials.
>
>PBS doesn't have anything of the caliber of The Ascent of Man or Meeting of
>Minds any more, so why don't you petition to improve it.
Why? You only get weenie crap as you mention below.
>The new head of
>WNET New York proved it can be done on the present budget. The old liberal
>fool who previously ran the station was giving us Deepak Chopra seminars,
>and not a single opera in 5 years. Under the new guy they have had two
>operas a month and other improvements. Predictably, the leftist staff at
>the station hates him.
We here in the backward state of Arizona do it this way...
(I live in Ahwatukee Foothills.)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Diplomacy: Kissing ass when we should be kicking ass.
john jardine
"Tom Del Rosso" <td...@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:48e8f9a5$0$4902$607e...@cv.net...
>
[...]
>
> The quality of cable TV?????? The History Channel had some good
> documentaries 10 years ago. Now it's the history of bulldozers channel.
> They showed one on the history of paint. Not painting - paint. They
don't
> even show the old good ones as late-night reruns any more.
>
Paint?. Must have a bit of Aspergers and yes I need to get a life but I'd
really enjoy a prog on Paint!.
Anything, please anything as compared to the UK exclusive diet of X factor,
singing people, pop music, wannabe models and clothes designers, Rappers
musing , makeovers for person and home, chefs and food preparation, survival
'experts', wild (always 'deadly')animals, rich kids buying property, soaps,
moronic sitcoms, quiz shows, police videos.
mpm
Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:20:05 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@att.net.invalid> wrote:
> >It's no nore a special intterest than public school is. �I have
> >never learned a single thing from The Learning Channel. �What's on cable
> >that's remotely comparable to Nova?
>
> I thrive off of HBO and Showtime movies and specials.
>
Really, I would have figured you for Blue's Clues, or something along
those lines....
-mpm
Tim Williams
> I learned more science and history from PBS growing up than I learned from
> school. It's no nore a special intterest than public school is. I have
> never learned a single thing from The Learning Channel. What's on cable
> that's remotely comparable to Nova?
I have rather fond memories of Discovery, History, and yes, even PBS.
Was The Secret Life of Machines on Discovery or TLC? I seem to think
it was TLC, which I suspect would disprove your theory about TLC.
These days they're mostly chick crap (What Not To Wear? pah..),
although I do enjoy Mystery Diagnosis on occasion.
Tim
Tom Del Rosso
"Tim Williams" <tmor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2138f31-97ed-481d...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
The Secret Life of Machines was before I had cable, but, looking it up now,
it sounds very superficial. Did you ever see Connections with James Burke?
The original was much better than the 2nd and 3rd series. It's probably
before your time, when PBS and BBC were at their peak.
Tim Williams
> "Tim Williams" <tmoran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d2138f31-97ed-481d...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Oct 5, 12:20 pm, "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@att.net.invalid> wrote:
> > > I learned more science and history from PBS growing up than I
> > > learned from school. It's no nore a special intterest than public
> > > school is. I have never learned a single thing from The Learning
> > > Channel. What's on cable that's remotely comparable to Nova?
>
> > I have rather fond memories of Discovery, History, and yes, even PBS.
> > Was The Secret Life of Machines on Discovery or TLC? I seem to think
> > it was TLC, which I suspect would disprove your theory about TLC.
> > These days they're mostly chick crap (What Not To Wear? pah..),
> > although I do enjoy Mystery Diagnosis on occasion.
>
> The Secret Life of Machines was before I had cable, but, looking it up now,
> it sounds very superficial.
Superficial? Pffbt, you stink!...
BTW, the guy still has a website:
http://www.timhunkin.com/
Lots of interesting contraptions.
> Did you ever see Connections with James Burke?
> The original was much better than the 2nd and 3rd series. It's probably
> before your time, when PBS and BBC were at their peak.
I've seen it, or at least a few, and Connections^2. I remember it
being an excellent show, except for the notable fact of being utterly
impossible to follow over a commercial break -- because you inevitably
tune over to another show, and you get back not quite in time to catch
the next move, and then you've just lost everything.
Tim