Are Sunday Nights That Bad Now?
W/Q
9 hours of reality-type shows:
Funniest Videos, Secret Millionaire, 60 Minutes, Amazing Race,
Undercover Boss, Dateline, Next Great Restaurant, Celebrity Apprentice
3 hours of cartoons:
2 Simpsons [1 a rerun], American Dad, Bob's Burgers, Family Guy,
Cleveland Show
2 hours of domestic suburban dramas:
Desperate Housewives, Brothers & Sisters
1 hour cop show:
CSI: Miami
Choice? Diversity? I see no steenking choice and diversity on the
main nets.
Now rewind half-a-century to the prehistoric days of the Big 3 on
Sundays:
3 hours of anthologies:
Disney, Shirley Temple, Loretta Young, GE Theater
2 1/2 hours of variety-type shows:
Ed Sullivan, Dinah Shore, Jack Benny
2 hours of westerns:
Maverick, Lawman, The Rebel
1 hour cop show:
Asphalt Jungle
1 hour of dramas:
Lassie, National Velvet
1 hour of sitcoms:
Dennis the Menace, Tab Hunter Show
1 hour of game shows:
People Are Funny, What's My Line?
1 hour of documentaries:
20th Century, Winston Churchill Valiant Years
1 hour reality-type show:
Candid Camera, This Is Your Life
At least I would've watched Maverick, The Rebel and Jack Benny, as I
did back then. Never saw Tab Hunter but it might've been a show I
could've watched. I liked the kind of documentary shows they had back
then, even when I was just a little tyke, remembering having often
watched 20th Century and Valiant Years and others. Candid Camera was
fun for some silly laughs and I do recall some episodes really
cracking me up. Don't know what Asphalt Jungle was like, but it
sounds like a cop show I could've watched if only occasionally. And
tuning into Ed Sullivan always depended on his roster of guests: if he
had people I wanted to see, I'd watch, if not, I'd stick with
Maverick, my first choice. As a kid, I also watched Disney, Lassie
and Dennis the Menace.
So compared to the restrictive likes of today's Sunday night of 17
shows within 4 genres on the 4 main nets, the 21 shows within 9 genres
of 50 years ago on just the Big 3 were like a cornucopia of a' plenty
that one couldn't just seem to get enough of.
How far we've regressed.
Lord Vader III
> So compared to the restrictive likes of today's Sunday night of 17
> shows within 4 genres on the 4 main nets, the 21 shows within 9 genres
> of 50 years ago on just the Big 3 were like a cornucopia of a' plenty
> that one couldn't just seem to get enough of.
>
> How far we've regressed.
I don't know if you know this or not but there is this thing called
"cable television" now. Comparing the today's big 3 to the big 3 of
50 years ago isn't a valid comparison.
LVIII
Alice
> 3 hours of anthologies:
> Disney, Shirley Temple, Loretta Young, GE Theater
That's four. Can't you count?
> 2 hours of westerns:
> Maverick, Lawman, The Rebel
And that's three ...
> 1 hour of dramas:
> Lassie, National Velvet
And that's two.
Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
Interesting.
W/Q
You think I actually found anything to watch on cable last night?
More reality, more repeats, more of movies I've already seen. Cable
is the trash bin of TV. The Broadcast nets are supposed to be the
front row center of it, but it just increasingly acts more and more
like the trash bin too.
W/Q
> On 07/03/2011 1:52 PM, W/Q wrote:
>
> > 3 hours of anthologies:
> > Disney, Shirley Temple, Loretta Young, GE Theater
>
> That's four. Can't you count?
Young and GE were half-hour shows.
>
> > 2 hours of westerns:
> > Maverick, Lawman, The Rebel
>
> And that's three ...
Lawman and Rebel were half-hour shows.
>
> > 1 hour of dramas:
> > Lassie, National Velvet
>
> And that's two.
Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
or never heard of them.
>
> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
Or Alice is just 7 years old or might be undergoing the first stages
of Alzheimer's.
>
> I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
No pussy, including Alice, is smarter than W/Q.
>
> Interesting.
Yeah. Interesting that you failed on all counts.
Michael Black
> On 07/03/2011 1:52 PM, W/Q wrote:
>> 3 hours of anthologies:
>> Disney, Shirley Temple, Loretta Young, GE Theater
>
> That's four. Can't you count?
>
Disney was always an hour long, as was Shirley's show,
but Loretta's show was 30 minutes, so likely the fourth was
half an hour two, which would then mean 3 hours.
>> 2 hours of westerns:
>> Maverick, Lawman, The Rebel
>
> And that's three ...
>
Well, "Lawman" is 30 minutes long, as was "The Rebel", so
likely the third show is an hour long, making 2 hours.
>> 1 hour of dramas:
>> Lassie, National Velvet
>
> And that's two.
>
Lassie was half an hour, which is surely one reason it kept going
in reruns for so long. The horse series was half an hour too.
> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>
Apparently he can. He would seem to know more about old tv shows
than you, too.
Michael
Patty Winter
In article <19318028-db05-4dd3...@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Lord Vader III <lord.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I don't know if you know this or not but there is this thing called
>"cable television" now. Comparing the today's big 3 to the big 3 of
>50 years ago isn't a valid comparison.
You can't expect "W/Q" to know that. His Philco TV set doesn't have
a cable input.
BTW, Sunday is one of my best TV nights. HBO always has one of its
biggest series then (currently "Big Love"), there's "Masterpiece"
for 90 minutes, and sometimes there's a Showtime series, too (such
as "Dexter").
Patty
David Johnston
> On Mar 7, 2:01 pm, Lord Vader III <lord.vader....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:52 pm, "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > So compared to the restrictive likes of today's Sunday night of 17
> > > shows within 4 genres on the 4 main nets, the 21 shows within 9 genres
> > > of 50 years ago on just the Big 3 were like a cornucopia of a' plenty
> > > that one couldn't just seem to get enough of.
>
> > > How far we've regressed.
>
> > I don't know if you know this or not but there is this thing called
> > "cable television" now. Comparing the today's big 3 to the big 3 of
> > 50 years ago isn't a valid comparison.
>
> You think I actually found anything to watch on cable last night?
> More reality, more repeats, more of movies I've already seen.
That's what you found. What I found that I hadn't seen before and
might want to watch was this:
True Blood (New)
Covert Affairs (New)
The Event (New)
Inside Hana's Suitcase (2009 movie. Looks like oscar-bait)
Daniel Tosh: Happy Thoughts (Stand-up Comedy)
Bailey's Billions ( 2005 movie)
Earth: Making of a Planet (New)
Burn Notice
Hamlet 2 (2008 movie)
Nikita (not new, but the first showing is on at an inconvenient time
for me)
I had options.
W/Q
> In article <19318028-db05-4dd3-af52-fed670e8f...@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> Lord Vader III <lord.vader....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I don't know if you know this or not but there is this thing called
> >"cable television" now. Comparing the today's big 3 to the big 3 of
> >50 years ago isn't a valid comparison.
>
> You can't expect "W/Q" to know that. His Philco TV set doesn't have
> a cable input.
>
> BTW, Sunday is one of my best TV nights. HBO always has one of its
> biggest series then (currently "Big Love"), there's "Masterpiece"
> for 90 minutes, and sometimes there's a Showtime series, too (such
> as "Dexter").
>
> Patty
Oh, there goes Patty again, desperately pretending she actually has
something to watch on Sunday nights on cable by stretching the
desperation to include a show that'll only air again next fall and
whatever "sometimes" pops up on Showtime while the Big Love she tunes
into is nothing more than another drawn-out soap. Of course, she also
proves my point that there's nothing on broadcast TV.
Pete
'Sokay... *Everyone* knows more about *everything* than Seamus does...
[just another sock, I'm afraid]
W/Q
> On Mar 7, 12:20 pm, "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:01 pm, Lord Vader III <lord.vader....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 12:52 pm, "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So compared to the restrictive likes of today's Sunday night of 17
> > > > shows within 4 genres on the 4 main nets, the 21 shows within 9 genres
> > > > of 50 years ago on just the Big 3 were like a cornucopia of a' plenty
> > > > that one couldn't just seem to get enough of.
>
> > > > How far we've regressed.
>
> > > I don't know if you know this or not but there is this thing called
> > > "cable television" now. Comparing the today's big 3 to the big 3 of
> > > 50 years ago isn't a valid comparison.
>
> > You think I actually found anything to watch on cable last night?
> > More reality, more repeats, more of movies I've already seen.
>
> That's what you found. What I found that I hadn't seen before and
> might want to watch was this:
>
> True Blood (New)
Boring.
> Covert Affairs (New)
Awful - hate the chick.
> The Event (New)
The Event is on Mondays. And became a non-event after the pilot.
> Inside Hana's Suitcase (2009 movie. Looks like oscar-bait)
Oscar bait? A 2009 movie?
> Daniel Tosh: Happy Thoughts (Stand-up Comedy)
Stand-up only works for 5 minutes, then it's sit down already, next
act.
> Bailey's Billions ( 2005 movie)
Know nothing about it and never knew it even existed, so what's the
selling point?
> Earth: Making of a Planet (New)
Actually, I did watch the beginning of that one, interesting first
half-hour, but then I saw there was still another hour and a half to
go and I thought, well, I kind of already know how the story continues
from there.
> Burn Notice
Repeats.
> Hamlet 2 (2008 movie)
You can only take so much Hamlet so many times.
> Nikita (not new, but the first showing is on at an inconvenient time
> for me)
Seen them all.
>
> I had options.
Yeah, options. But what did you actually watch out of all that?
That's the bottom line.
Boojum
> On Mar 7, 2:01 pm, Lord Vader III<lord.vader....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if you know this or not but there is this thing called
>> "cable television" now. Comparing the today's big 3 to the big 3 of
>> 50 years ago isn't a valid comparison.
>
> You think I actually found anything to watch on cable last night?
> More reality, more repeats, more of movies I've already seen. Cable
> is the trash bin of TV.
HEY! Does the word "Stargate" ring a bell with you, W/Q?
David Johnston
>
> > The Event (New)
>
> The Event is on Mondays.
And yet I watched it on Sunday. Go fig.
>
> > Inside Hana's Suitcase (2009 movie. Looks like oscar-bait)
>
> Oscar bait? A 2009 movie?
What's your point?
>
> > Daniel Tosh: Happy Thoughts (Stand-up Comedy)
>
> Stand-up only works for 5 minutes, then it's sit down already, next
> act.
>
> > Bailey's Billions ( 2005 movie)
>
> Know nothing about it and never knew it even existed, so what's the
> selling point?
Some kind of comedy about bumbling crooks.
>
> > Earth: Making of a Planet (New)
>
> Actually, I did watch the beginning of that one, interesting first
> half-hour, but then I saw there was still another hour and a half to
> go and I thought, well, I kind of already know how the story continues
> from there.
>
> > Burn Notice
>
> Repeats.
Why would I care that someone else has seen a show that I never have?
>
> > Hamlet 2 (2008 movie)
>
> You can only take so much Hamlet so many times.
Hamlet 2 isn't Hamlet. That's the whole point. I kind of regret
having to miss it.
>
> > Nikita (not new, but the first showing is on at an inconvenient time
> > for me)
>
> Seen them all.
I'm not telling you what to watch. The only shows you like are the
ones that star criminal protagonists. So naturally you aren't going
to find a wide variety of shows on television to suit your rather
specific tastes.
>
> > I had options.
>
> Yeah, options. But what did you actually watch out of all that?
> That's the bottom line.
Last night I watched True Blood, The Defenders, and the Event. But I
cheated on The Defenders and watched it on the computer. That wasn't
because of the lack of options on cable. It was for reasons not at
all unconnected to me going out and buying another TV today.
>
Alice
> Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
> or never heard of them.
Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long,
more or less by definition!
>> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>
> Or Alice is just 7 years old or might be undergoing the first stages
> of Alzheimer's.
Neither, but thanks for playing.
>> I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
>
> No pussy, including Alice, is smarter than W/Q.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, W/Q?
>> Interesting.
>
> Yeah. Interesting that you failed on all counts.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, W/Q?
Alice
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Alice wrote:
>> On 07/03/2011 1:52 PM, W/Q wrote:
>>> 1 hour of dramas:
>>> Lassie, National Velvet
>>
>> And that's two.
>>
> Lassie was half an hour, which is surely one reason it kept going
> in reruns for so long. The horse series was half an hour too.
But W/Q said they were dramas, and dramas are a full hour long.
Half-hours are for kids' cartoons, sitcoms, and fluff shows like
"e-talk". Everybody knows this.
>> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>>
> Apparently he can. He would seem to know more about old tv shows
> than you, too.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Alice
Who is "Seamus", Pete? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
W/Q
HEY! Does the word "putrid" ring a bigger bell with you, Boojum?
W/Q
> On Mar 7, 1:19 pm, "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The Event (New)
>
> > The Event is on Mondays.
>
> And yet I watched it on Sunday. Go fig.
Sneaky Canadian channels.
> > > Inside Hana's Suitcase (2009 movie. Looks like oscar-bait)
>
> > Oscar bait? A 2009 movie?
>
> What's your point?
What's yours?
> > > Daniel Tosh: Happy Thoughts (Stand-up Comedy)
>
> > Stand-up only works for 5 minutes, then it's sit down already, next
> > act.
>
> > > Bailey's Billions ( 2005 movie)
>
> > Know nothing about it and never knew it even existed, so what's the
> > selling point?
>
> Some kind of comedy about bumbling crooks.
Seen Knights of Prosperity. Was nothing to spew about.
> > > Earth: Making of a Planet (New)
>
> > Actually, I did watch the beginning of that one, interesting first
> > half-hour, but then I saw there was still another hour and a half to
> > go and I thought, well, I kind of already know how the story continues
> > from there.
>
> > > Burn Notice
>
> > Repeats.
>
> Why would I care that someone else has seen a show that I never have?
Try to stay up-to-date, will ya? You won't need cable that way.
> > > Hamlet 2 (2008 movie)
>
> > You can only take so much Hamlet so many times.
>
> Hamlet 2 isn't Hamlet. That's the whole point. I kind of regret
> having to miss it.
Almost reads like Hamlet 2 - Glee Version. Pass.
> > > Nikita (not new, but the first showing is on at an inconvenient time
> > > for me)
>
> > Seen them all.
>
> I'm not telling you what to watch. The only shows you like are the
> ones that star criminal protagonists. So naturally you aren't going
> to find a wide variety of shows on television to suit your rather
> specific tastes.
No way. Nikita, Dexter, Smith, Thieves... Oh, yeahhh. No, but hey,
Nip/Tuck. Well, they were kind of criminal in being unscrupulous,
weren't they? V? Gee, that's about a criminal alien. Burn Notice!
There. See? Nothing criminal about the protagonist there. 30 Rock,
even though it's in a low season this year, nothing criminal about Liz
Lemon.
> > > I had options.
>
> > Yeah, options. But what did you actually watch out of all that?
> > That's the bottom line.
>
> Last night I watched True Blood, The Defenders, and the Event. But I
> cheated on The Defenders and watched it on the computer. That wasn't
> because of the lack of options on cable.
Oh, yes, it was, so you cheated.
> It was for reasons not at
> all unconnected to me going out and buying another TV today.
You think the quality of the shows will improve with it?
David Johnston
> > > > Inside Hana's Suitcase (2009 movie. Looks like oscar-bait)
>
> > > Oscar bait? A 2009 movie?
>
> > What's your point?
>
> What's yours?
>
That your problem with TV is not that there's nothing on. It's that
you just don't like much television.
> > Why would I care that someone else has seen a show that I never have?
>
> Try to stay up-to-date, will ya?
> You won't need cable that way.
Yeah I do. It's the only way I can watch Burn Notice without dealing
with scruffy bootlegging sites.
> > > > Nikita (not new, but the first showing is on at an inconvenient time
> > > > for me)
>
> > > Seen them all.
>
> > I'm not telling you what to watch. The only shows you like are the
> > ones that star criminal protagonists. So naturally you aren't going
> > to find a wide variety of shows on television to suit your rather
> > specific tastes.
>
> No way. Nikita, Dexter, Smith, Thieves... Oh, yeahhh. No, but hey,
> Nip/Tuck. Well, they were kind of criminal in being unscrupulous,
> weren't they?
I couldn't say. Not a show I gave much of a chance to.
>V? Gee, that's about a criminal alien.
You like V? Seriously? Nah. V would qualify as a legitimate
deviation from pattern so far as I can see.
>Burn Notice!
> There. See? Nothing criminal about the protagonist there.
I'd say V is more of an exception. He's good hearted, but his
relationship to legality is at best casual.
30 Rock,
> even though it's in a low season this year, nothing criminal about Liz
> Lemon.
Liz Lemon's boss on the other hand...
>
> > > > I had options.
>
> > > Yeah, options. But what did you actually watch out of all that?
> > > That's the bottom line.
>
> > Last night I watched True Blood, The Defenders, and the Event. But I
> > cheated on The Defenders and watched it on the computer. That wasn't
> > because of the lack of options on cable.
>
> Oh, yes, it was,
Nope.
> > It was for reasons not at
> > all unconnected to me going out and buying another TV today.
>
> You think the quality of the shows will improve with it?
Yes. It definitely improves the quality of the shows to not have a
high-pitched whine coming from the television eating into your brain.
W/Q
> On Mar 7, 3:14 pm, "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Inside Hana's Suitcase (2009 movie. Looks like oscar-bait)
>
> > > > Oscar bait? A 2009 movie?
>
> > > What's your point?
>
> > What's yours?
>
> That your problem with TV is not that there's nothing on. It's that
> you just don't like much television.
Just because junk is on doesn't mean I should watch a lot of it to
prove that I like TV.
>
> > > Why would I care that someone else has seen a show that I never have?
>
> > Try to stay up-to-date, will ya?
> > You won't need cable that way.
>
> Yeah I do. It's the only way I can watch Burn Notice without dealing
> with scruffy bootlegging sites.
Scruffy bootlegging sites? Nothing scruffy about commercial-free
episodes.
>
> > > > > Nikita (not new, but the first showing is on at an inconvenient time
> > > > > for me)
>
> > > > Seen them all.
>
> > > I'm not telling you what to watch. The only shows you like are the
> > > ones that star criminal protagonists. So naturally you aren't going
> > > to find a wide variety of shows on television to suit your rather
> > > specific tastes.
>
> > No way. Nikita, Dexter, Smith, Thieves... Oh, yeahhh. No, but hey,
> > Nip/Tuck. Well, they were kind of criminal in being unscrupulous,
> > weren't they?
>
> I couldn't say. Not a show I gave much of a chance to.
>
> >V? Gee, that's about a criminal alien.
>
> You like V? Seriously? Nah. V would qualify as a legitimate
> deviation from pattern so far as I can see.
Last season was stronger than this one, but I still love the head
alien - she's pitch-perfect dead-on with her slithery portrayal.
>
> >Burn Notice!
> > There. See? Nothing criminal about the protagonist there.
>
> I'd say V is more of an exception. He's good hearted, but his
> relationship to legality is at best casual.
>
> 30 Rock,
>
> > even though it's in a low season this year, nothing criminal about Liz
> > Lemon.
>
> Liz Lemon's boss on the other hand...
Well, if you think sleazy is criminal.
> > > > > I had options.
>
> > > > Yeah, options. But what did you actually watch out of all that?
> > > > That's the bottom line.
>
> > > Last night I watched True Blood, The Defenders, and the Event. But I
> > > cheated on The Defenders and watched it on the computer. That wasn't
> > > because of the lack of options on cable.
>
> > Oh, yes, it was,
>
> Nope.
>
> > > It was for reasons not at
> > > all unconnected to me going out and buying another TV today.
>
> > You think the quality of the shows will improve with it?
>
> Yes. It definitely improves the quality of the shows to not have a
> high-pitched whine coming from the television eating into your brain.
Ever think that maybe it could be your brain?
W/Q
wrote:
> My favorite Sunday-night program is probably the "Silent Sunday" slot on
> TCM. Too bad W/Q's autistic brain so steadfastly refuses to assimilate
> more than four or five TV channels into his tiny universe.
"Silent Sunday"? You must be deaf, then. And definitely
ooooolllllllldddddddd, if you're trying to recall your lost youth at
the nickel cinemas through that Alzheimer's haze of yours.
erilar
<5640b235-6711-484b...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
"W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
> Just because junk is on doesn't mean I should watch a lot of it to
> prove that I like TV.
It's one of the reasons I watch so much news. More drama there than on
most other places.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Katie Gerrolds
> Yeah I do. It's the only way I can watch Burn Notice without dealing
> with scruffy bootlegging sites.
No need to deal with "scruffy bootlegging sites".
1. Go to sourceforge. (Not a scruffy site.)
2. Download this nifty thing called Shareaza.
3. Install.
4. Run.
5. Friend of mine snarfed down all 110 episodes of B5, an older show,
in under 2 weeks using that thing. Burn Notice ought to be no
problem.
Boojum
HEY! Does the phrase "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" ring
a bell the size of the Titanic with you, W/Q?
Julie Faramis
> "W/Q"<i...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Silent Sunday"? You must be deaf, then. And definitely
>> ooooolllllllldddddddd, if you're trying to recall your lost youth at
>> the nickel cinemas through that Alzheimer's haze of yours.
>
> out of the 18-49 range seems to never end, no matter how many years it
> lasts.
And you must be [insert gender-bending insult here:] __________________.
(There, W/Q, I did most of the job for you. All you gotta do now is fill
in the blank!)
David Johnston
> > >V? Gee, that's about a criminal alien.
>
> > You like V? Seriously? Nah. V would qualify as a legitimate
> > deviation from pattern so far as I can see.
>
> Last season was stronger than this one, but I still love the head
> alien - she's pitch-perfect dead-on with her slithery portrayal.
Ah. Yes, I see the connection now.
> > > You think the quality of the shows will improve with it?
>
> > Yes. It definitely improves the quality of the shows to not have a
> > high-pitched whine coming from the television eating into your brain.
>
> Ever think that maybe it could be your brain?
Actually that's what I thought at first, that it was tinnitus. Since
the effect only started after the television had been on for an
unpredictable period of time and I have experienced tinnitus, it was
difficult to connect it to the television.
W/Q
I don't fill in anyone else's blanks, I only fill in my own.
W/Q
wrote:
> "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
> > > My favorite Sunday-night program is probably the "Silent Sunday" slot on
> > > TCM. Too bad W/Q's autistic brain so steadfastly refuses to assimilate
> > > more than four or five TV channels into his tiny universe.
>
> > "Silent Sunday"? You must be deaf, then. And definitely
> > ooooolllllllldddddddd, if you're trying to recall your lost youth at
> > the nickel cinemas through that Alzheimer's haze of yours.
>
> out of the 18-49 range seems to never end, no matter how many years it
> lasts.
You're the one who's watching silent movies, not me.
>
> Obviously, there's almost no one left who enjoys silent movies based on
> personal memories. Least of all, me. But I can certainly see how silent
> movies wouldn't have enough superficial "juice" for a TV-fed airhead
> like yourself.
Just because you claim you're not of that "age" doesn't mean you're
not of that age.
> Now why don't you go reminding everyone how old and gray you are
You're the one watching silent movies, not me.
> by
> whining yet again about TV was so much better when you were a young man?
You mean like silent movies were so much better than today's movies?
I see, you can watch your old, decrepit stuff and appreciate them but
I can't, huh? Nice hypocritical piece of work you are.
> (And therefore your own life was so much better, since your happiness at
> any given time entirely hinges upon what vegetative television
> programming you can watch.)
You mean like when you watch silent movies over current movies? Go
play with yourself, if you know which self you want to play with.
W/Q
wrote:
> "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
> > > Obviously, there's almost no one left who enjoys silent movies based on
> > > personal memories. Least of all, me. But I can certainly see how silent
> > > movies wouldn't have enough superficial "juice" for a TV-fed airhead
> > > like yourself.
>
> > Just because you claim you're not of that "age" doesn't mean you're
> > not of that age.
>
> to write taunts that you don't actually believe.
Oh, I believe you're an idiot. I fervently believe it.
>
> > > Now why don't you go reminding everyone how old and gray you are
>
> > You're the one watching silent movies, not me.
>
> I'm not whining about modern entertainment not measuring up to the good
> old days, every chance I get.
No, but you've resorted to watching it over modern entertainment and
that in itself is a form of whining.
>
> > > by
> > > whining yet again about TV was so much better when you were a young man?
>
> > You mean like silent movies were so much better than today's movies?
>
> Wherever did I say that?
You've got what, 50, 200, 1,000 channels? And of all the ones you do
have, 99% airing modern entertainment, what do you do? You choose the
one lonely channel that airs ancient entertainment from a century ago,
not 50 years ago, but a century ago, to find some solace in your video
escape. Longing for the good ol' days of the Jazz Age, are you?
Zapotec
>>>> You think the quality of the shows will improve with it?
>>
>>> Yes. It definitely improves the quality of the shows to not have a
>>> high-pitched whine coming from the television eating into your brain.
>>
>> Ever think that maybe it could be your brain?
>
> Actually that's what I thought at first, that it was tinnitus. Since
> the effect only started after the television had been on for an
> unpredictable period of time and I have experienced tinnitus, it was
> difficult to connect it to the television.
I thought all CRTs produced that 11.5KHz whine. It's the
horizontal-scanning magnet's triangle wave inducing signals in the
nearby speaker coils. (480 scanlines * 24FPS = 11,520 scanlines per
second.) One-third of an octave below the very top of the human-audible
frequency range, nominally, but quiet sounds that high-pitched are
nearly-inaudible to inaudible to almost everyone.
If you replaced a CRT with a plasma/LCD/rear-projection unit then yes
the whine would be gone, but it should have been there the whole time
the old CRT was on and not just "after ... an unpredictable period of time".
Julie Faramis
> which_self_you_want_to_play_with._
Not bad, W/Q, not bad. :)
David Johnston
I'd only do something like that with something I really couldn't get
legitimately.
Katie Gerrolds
You have a queer set of morals, if it requires you to pay upwards of
$60/month to watch *a single show* (whose marginal cost per viewer is
*zero* if delivered via file-sharing) just because you think the
latter-day equivalent of the buggy whip industry has a right to eternal
preservation of its business model even in the face of technological change.
W/Q
wrote:
> "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
> > > It's too bad your moronic, desperate trolling so regularly compels you
> > > to write taunts that you don't actually believe.
>
> > Oh, I believe you're an idiot. I fervently believe it.
>
> look stupid and wound your vanity.
I'm still waiting for that to happen. It's getting awfully boring,
this waiting.
>
> > > > You're the one watching silent movies, not me.
>
> > > I'm not whining about modern entertainment not measuring up to the good
> > > old days, every chance I get.
>
> > No, but you've resorted to watching it over modern entertainment and
> > that in itself is a form of whining.
>
> So, you're now accusing me of watching silent movies every night as a
> steady pattern. Amazing that anyone would say your taunts are phony, eh?
No, I was accusing you of watching it when you felt like watching it.
But you watch it as a steady pattern? Well, that's an entirely
different story. That really does make you over 100 years old now.
>
> > > > You mean like silent movies were so much better than today's movies?
>
> > > Wherever did I say that?
>
> > You've got what, 50, 200, 1,000 channels? And of all the ones you do
> > have, 99% airing modern entertainment, what do you do? You choose the
> > one lonely channel that airs ancient entertainment from a century ago,
> > not 50 years ago, but a century ago, to find some solace in your video
> > escape. Longing for the good ol' days of the Jazz Age, are you?
>
> So, you're now accusing me of watching silent movies every night as a
> steady pattern. Amazing that anyone would say your taunts are phony, eh?
Are you repeating yourself? Is that the equivalent of your version of
summer reruns? You're a little too early in the season.
>
> You are such a sad little man. Is there really no one who'll pay you
> attention in real life?
Well, you're doing a pretty good job of it right now. Which makes you
a much sadder little man. Er, woman. Whatever. It's pretty pathetic
either way.
Mason Barge
>On Mar 7, 2:14 pm, Alice <quaxx1...@example.com> wrote:
>> On 07/03/2011 1:52 PM, W/Q wrote:
>>
>> > 3 hours of anthologies:
>> > Disney, Shirley Temple, Loretta Young, GE Theater
>>
>> That's four. Can't you count?
>
>Young and GE were half-hour shows.
>
>>
>> > 2 hours of westerns:
>> > Maverick, Lawman, The Rebel
>>
>> And that's three ...
>
>Lawman and Rebel were half-hour shows.
>
>>
>> > 1 hour of dramas:
>> > Lassie, National Velvet
>>
>> And that's two.
>
>Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
>or never heard of them.
>
>>
>> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>
>Or Alice is just 7 years old or might be undergoing the first stages
>of Alzheimer's.
>
>
>>
>> I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
>
>No pussy, including Alice, is smarter than W/Q.
>
>>
>> Interesting.
>
>Yeah. Interesting that you failed on all counts.
Good grief. Why do you feel compelled to make a perfectly justified
response so nasty?
If you'd left all that off, you would have made "Alice" look like a fool.
But you succeeded in making yourself look just as bad as her.
Alice
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:23:40 -0800 (PST), "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>> Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
>> or never heard of them.
Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long,
more or less by definition!
>>> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>>
>> Or Alice is just 7 years old or might be undergoing the first stages
>> of Alzheimer's.
Neither.
>>> I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
>>
>> No pussy, including Alice, is smarter than W/Q.
What does W/Q's classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Barge?
>>> Interesting.
>>
>> Yeah. Interesting that you failed on all counts.
What does W/Q's classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Barge?
> Good grief. Why do you feel compelled to make a perfectly justified
> response so nasty?
Because W/Q is a nasty troll?
> If you'd left all that off, you would have made "Alice" look like a fool.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Barge?
> But you succeeded in making yourself look just as bad as her.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Barge?
erilar
W/Q
I couldn't resist using the lines I used. Besides, Seamus doesn't
know the meaning of the word fool.
Mason Barge
>On 08/03/2011 12:21 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:23:40 -0800 (PST), "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
>>> or never heard of them.
>
>Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long,
>more or less by definition!
>
>>>> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>>>
>>> Or Alice is just 7 years old or might be undergoing the first stages
>>> of Alzheimer's.
>
>Neither.
>
>>>> I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
>>>
>>> No pussy, including Alice, is smarter than W/Q.
>
>What does W/Q's classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
>with television, Barge?
Hey, I'm on your side about that remark. ALthough you started the name
calling.
Alice
> On Mar 8, 12:21 pm, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:23:40 -0800 (PST), "W/Q"<i...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
>>> or never heard of them.
Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long,
more or less by definition!
>>>> Confirmed: W/Q can't even count to two.
>>
>>> Or Alice is just 7 years old or might be undergoing the first stages
>>> of Alzheimer's.
Neither, but thanks for playing!
>>>> I think my cat may even be smarter than W/Q in that regard.
>>
>>> No pussy, including Alice, is smarter than W/Q.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, W/Q?
>>>> Interesting.
>>
>>> Yeah. Interesting that you failed on all counts.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, W/Q?
>> Good grief. Why do you feel compelled to make a perfectly justified
>> response so nasty?
What does Barge's classic erroneous presupposition that your response
was justified have to do with television, W/Q?
>> If you'd left all that off, you would have made "Alice" look like a fool.
What does Barge's classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, W/Q?
>> But you succeeded in making yourself look just as bad as her.
What does Barge's classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, W/Q?
> I couldn't resist using the lines I used.
What does your lack of willpower have to do with television, W/Q?
> Besides, Seamus doesn't know the meaning of the word fool.
Who is "Seamus", W/Q? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
suzeeq
> On 08/03/2011 5:54 PM, W/Q wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 12:21 pm, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:23:40 -0800 (PST), "W/Q"<i...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
>>>> or never heard of them.
>
> Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long,
> more or less by definition!
They are now, but didn't used to be. Most TV shows in the 50s and early
60s were only half hour, drama and comedy. I think the only hour shows
were variety and Disney until the mid 60s.
Michael Black
>> Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long, more
>> or less by definition!
>
> They are now, but didn't used to be. Most TV shows in the 50s and early 60s
> were only half hour, drama and comedy. I think the only hour shows were
> variety and Disney until the mid 60s.
>
A few years back, I bought "Rat Patrol" on DVD, a show I remember fondly
for reasons I can't remember. I was surprised to discover it was 30
minutes, but as you say, it wasn't uncommon back then.
They often talk about how hour long shows don't do well in syndicated
reruns, so often there isn't that market. You'd think that might have
tv producers give the idea another go. It probably is harder to
make a good show in half an hour than to fit an hour (and maybe then
add fluff to fill out the hour).
Michael
Alice
> Alice wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 5:54 PM, W/Q wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 12:21 pm, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:23:40 -0800 (PST), "W/Q"<i...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Half-hour shows again. Guess you either forgot about half-hour dramas
>>>>> or never heard of them.
>>
>> Well of *course* I've never heard of them. Dramas are one hour long,
>> more or less by definition!
>
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, suzeeq?
suzeeq
They like half hour shows, primarily comedies, for syndication because
local stations buy them to fill in between local newscasts and network
programming. Though they often use hour programs late night after
network programs are done.