Top 10 most-watched/most-DVRed shows of 2009
David
Nielsen's Top 10 TV Shows of 2009
by James Hibberd
Here's Nielsen's list of Top 10 TV shows, Top 10 single telecasts and
Top 10 time-shifted programs for 2009. Note the measurement company is
using household ratings here, a lesser-used measurement for primetime
programing that suggests the overall percentage of households that
tuned into the show (as opposed to the number of viewers or number of
adults 18-49).
The DVR list is probably the most interesting, it's a total geek-fest.
We don't often see such lists that include cable programs, and this
puts "Battlestar Galactica" and other Syfy shows into the top 10 when
using a percentage-gain basis.
Top 10 TV Programs - Regularly Scheduled Programs Network % of Homes
in U.S. (Rating)
1 American Idol-Wednesday FOX 14.4
2 American Idol-Tuesday FOX 13.8
3 Dancing with the Stars ABC 12.0
4 NBC Sunday Night Football NBC 11.7
5 Dancing with the Stars - Results Show ABC 9.9
6 NCIS: Los Angeles CBS 9.8
7 NCIS CBS 9.4
8 NFL Regular Season L ESPN 8.8
8 Sunday Night NFL Pre-kick NBC 8.8
10 The Good Wife CBS 8.5 (I'm was surprised by this one, asked Nielsen
to double-check and they assure that, yup, "Good Wife," not, say,
"Criminal Minds" or "Survivor" or other highly viewed shows, ranks in
the Top 10 among households)
Top 10 TV Programs - Single Telecast
1 Super Bowl XLIII NBC 02/01/2009 42.0
2 Super Bowl Pre-Kick NBC 02/01/2009 35.2
3 Super Bowl Kick-Off NBC 02/01/2009 29.6
4 Super Bowl Post NBC 02/01/2009 25.7
5 AFC Championship On CBS CBS 01/18/2009 22.0
6 Fox NFC Championship FOX 01/18/2009 21.9
7 Academy Awards ABC 02/22/2009 20.6
8 AFC Divisional Playoff CBS 01/11/2009 19.6
9 Fox NFC Playoff FOX 01/11/2009 18.7
10 Fox NFC Wildcard Game FOX 01/04/2009 17.6
Top 10 "Timeshifted" Primetime TV Programs Rank Programs -- Network %
Increase of Timeshifted Viewing
1 Battlestar Galactica SYFY 59.4
2 Mad Men AMC 57.7
3 Damages FX 56.3
4 Rescue Me FX 53.2
5 True Blood HBO 46.9
5 Stargate Universe SYFY 46.9
7 Sanctuary SYFY 45.9
7 Heroes NBC 45.9
9 Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles FOX 45.5
10 10 Things I Hate About You ABC Family 44.9
10 Dollhouse FOX 44.9
10 Melrose Place CW 44.9
Ian J. Ball
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/12/nielsens-top-10-tv-shows-of-2009.html
>
> Nielsen's Top 10 TV Shows of 2009
> by James Hibberd
>
> Here's Nielsen's list of Top 10 TV shows, Top 10 single telecasts and
> Top 10 time-shifted programs for 2009....
>
> The DVR list is probably the most interesting, it's a total geek-fest.
>
> Top 10 TV Programs - Regularly Scheduled Programs Network % of Homes
> in U.S. (Rating)
>
> 6 NCIS: Los Angeles CBS 9.8
Not for much longer, I'll wager!!...
> 7 NCIS CBS 9.4
> 10 The Good Wife CBS 8.5 (I'm was surprised by this one, asked Nielsen
> to double-check and they assure that, yup, "Good Wife," not, say,
> "Criminal Minds" or "Survivor" or other highly viewed shows, ranks in
> the Top 10 among households)
Interesting - this strongly implies that people are just recording CBS
Tuesday as a 3-hour block. What's up wit' dat?!!
> Top 10 "Timeshifted" Primetime TV Programs Rank Programs -- Network %
> Increase of Timeshifted Viewing
>
> 1 Battlestar Galactica SYFY 59.4
Ugh.
> 2 Mad Men AMC 57.7
> 3 Damages FX 56.3
> 4 Rescue Me FX 53.2
> 5 True Blood HBO 46.9
Totally unsurprising, these 4.
> 5 Stargate Universe SYFY 46.9
> 7 Sanctuary SYFY 45.9
Why?!!
> 7 Heroes NBC 45.9
The much maligned "Heroes" still has a number of us fans via the DVR, I
see. ;)
> 9 Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles FOX 45.5
Oh, brother.
(I now pretty much wish I'd never bothered with season #2...)
> 10 10 Things I Hate About You ABC Family 44.9
YaY!!
> 10 Dollhouse FOX 44.9
YaY!!
> 10 Melrose Place CW 44.9
BBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
Steve Newport
Mad Men AMC 57.7
----------------------------
The only three worth watching.
Obveeus
"Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29129-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
If they were really worth watching, people wouldn't be DVRing them so much.
The shows high on the DVR numbers are frequently the ones that are barely
worth watching (so FF through lots of the junk: the Academy Awards are a
great example of this) or are only secondarily worth watching (CW shows get
watched by people through DVR after they watch a 'more desirable show' live
in that timeslot).
David
I think the opposite is true. Young people and/or technology adapters
prefer watching shows they like or shows that require their full
attention at a time of their choosing, and watch live tv when they
just feel like watching whatever's on.
Looking at the list, it's shows airing on Thursday (when there are too
many good shows on), Friday (when people are doing other things) or in
slots dominated by episodic shows. And I can't believe that for people
who watch both the DVRed serial show and live episodic show the latter
takes precedence. I think it's that people watch the latter when
they're lying on the couch and half-paying attention to whatever's on
and the former when they really feel like watching something.
And then there are people who start watching DVRed shows 15 minutes
after they start to avoid commercials, which is probably exclusively
the technologically savvy and not the CBS watchers who have DVRs
through their cable company.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:39:09 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>news:29129-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>>> The Good Wife CBS 8.5
>>> Academy Awards ABC 20.6
>>> Mad Men AMC 57.7
>>> ----------------------------
>>> The only three worth watching.
>>
>>If they were really worth watching, people wouldn't be DVRing them so
>>much.
>>The shows high on the DVR numbers are frequently the ones that are barely
>>worth watching (so FF through lots of the junk: the Academy Awards are a
>>great example of this) or are only secondarily worth watching (CW shows
>>get
>>watched by people through DVR after they watch a 'more desirable show'
>>live
>>in that timeslot).
>
> I think the opposite is true. Young people and/or technology adapters
> prefer watching shows they like or shows that require their full
> attention at a time of their choosing, and watch live tv when they
> just feel like watching whatever's on.
Shows like American idol require full attention? Nope. I think they are
simply shows where a significant portion of the audience is skimming the
show with the FF button engages for large portions.
> Looking at the list, it's shows airing on Thursday (when there are too
> many good shows on),
Thursday is a good example of shows that are only secondarily worth
watching. People are watching the show they care about (the water cooler
shows like Survivor or Grey's Anatomy) live while sending shows they can
'get around to later' (like Supernatural) to the DVR.
I agree with your idea that Thursday has 'too many good shows', but the
result is simply that different people are choosing differently as to which
ones are worth watching live and which ones can be dumped to DVR for the
late night or weekend.
> Friday (when people are doing other things)
I agree that Friday DVR'ing is largely the result of 'other things':
movies, clubing, etc...
> or in
> slots dominated by episodic shows. And I can't believe that for people
> who watch both the DVRed serial show and live episodic show the latter
> takes precedence. I think it's that people watch the latter when
> they're lying on the couch and half-paying attention to whatever's on
> and the former when they really feel like watching something.
Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a day
or two behind everyone else?
> And then there are people who start watching DVRed shows 15 minutes
> after they start to avoid commercials, which is probably exclusively
> the technologically savvy and not the CBS watchers who have DVRs
> through their cable company.
I'm not sure how the cable company DVR users would be relegated to not
bypassing commercials, but yes, there is certainly a distinction between
stuff that is truly watched *later* and stuff that simply gets a delayed
start time of a half hour...or even the same night. That is why I wish the
idiots releasing the DVR numbers would compare them honestly to the
'live+same day data' rather than the 'live' data. Giving DVR numbers
compared to just the 'live' data is almost meaningless.
Klaatu
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hg12i2$s2j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
not only for future rewatching, but so you DONT have to watch the
commercials.
At my house, EVERYTHING gets DVRd, so I dont have to suffer through those
fucking commercials!
David
"American Idol" gets live viewership because it's a live/immediate
event. That's obvious from when the "Idol" finale faces the "Lost"
finale. From the ratings it's clear that many people watch both but
it's hard to believe that, all things being equal, "Idol" would have
more immediacy than "Lost." The explanation has to be that "Idol" is a
live event while "Lost" can wait an hour.
>> Looking at the list, it's shows airing on Thursday (when there are too
>> many good shows on),
>
>Thursday is a good example of shows that are only secondarily worth
>watching. People are watching the show they care about (the water cooler
>shows like Survivor or Grey's Anatomy) live while sending shows they can
>'get around to later' (like Supernatural) to the DVR.
"Grey's" is the top DVRed show. This list is in percentage increases,
but if you look at increases in millions of viewers "Grey's" is #1.
>I agree with your idea that Thursday has 'too many good shows', but the
>result is simply that different people are choosing differently as to which
>ones are worth watching live and which ones can be dumped to DVR for the
>late night or weekend.
But it's episodic and/or older-skewing shows that are being watched
live.
Personally, I think "30 Rock" is the best comedy right now but I'm
three or four episodes behind on it, precisely because I think so
highly of it. I want to watch it when I'm in the mood for a really
good comedy, not when NBC decides to schedule it. If I were to watch
it like clockwork every Thursday at 9:30 I wouldn't get the maximum
enjoyment that I get out of it when I watch it when I *feel* like
watching it.
On the other hand there's "Parks & Recreation," which I like but don't
think that highly of, and I watch it live or the same day, again
precisely because I don't think that highly of it, because it isn't
worth saving for the special time when I'm in the mood for it.
There are some shows that I have to watch live. There's "Lost" and...
that's it, aside from season finales of shows like "Dexter" and
"Breaking Bad." But otherwise if I really like something I'll watch it
on my time.
>> or in
>> slots dominated by episodic shows. And I can't believe that for people
>> who watch both the DVRed serial show and live episodic show the latter
>> takes precedence. I think it's that people watch the latter when
>> they're lying on the couch and half-paying attention to whatever's on
>> and the former when they really feel like watching something.
>
>Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
>saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a day
>or two behind everyone else?
People will probably be talking about the "Dexter" season finale after
it ends, or a regular season episode of "Lost." But there's no such
immediacy for most shows.
Obveeus
American Idol also gets a high number of DVR viewers...specifically because
people can skim past the crap and just watch the performances.
> That's obvious from when the "Idol" finale faces the "Lost"
> finale. From the ratings it's clear that many people watch both but
> it's hard to believe that, all things being equal, "Idol" would have
> more immediacy than "Lost." The explanation has to be that "Idol" is a
> live event while "Lost" can wait an hour.
From an earlier thread you seem quite convinced that Lost is the water
cooler show of our time, but it isn't. More people are talking about
American Idol the nexct day, so yes, it does have more immediacy. I've read
here about people that DVR the whole season of Lost, then watch it sometime
over the summer or over a long weekend. No one puts off American Idol like
that.
>>> Looking at the list, it's shows airing on Thursday (when there are too
>>> many good shows on),
>>
>>Thursday is a good example of shows that are only secondarily worth
>>watching. People are watching the show they care about (the water cooler
>>shows like Survivor or Grey's Anatomy) live while sending shows they can
>>'get around to later' (like Supernatural) to the DVR.
>
> "Grey's" is the top DVRed show. This list is in percentage increases,
> but if you look at increases in millions of viewers "Grey's" is #1.
Yes, because several million people consider Grey's Anatomy to be secondary
to CSI or The Office. Several million Grey's addicts also DVR CSI or The
Office or Supernatural becasue they consider one or more of those other
shows to be of secondary importance. I'm not sure why you are somplaining
about this simple fact. By definition, if two shows you want to watch are
on at the same time, only one of them can be 'of primary importance'. The
other is secondary.
>>I agree with your idea that Thursday has 'too many good shows', but the
>>result is simply that different people are choosing differently as to
>>which
>>ones are worth watching live and which ones can be dumped to DVR for the
>>late night or weekend.
>
> But it's episodic and/or older-skewing shows that are being watched
> live.
Sure, becasue those dead body shows have far more 'old fart' viewers. That
doesn't change the fact that people still have to choose what to watch live
vs. record if more than one show is on at the same time. Your belief that
they choose to watch the less interesting show 'live' is being biased by
your belief that those dead body shows are 'less interesting'. Clearly, for
the people that watch them, those shows are highly interesting...otherwise
they wouldn't sit through the stinking reruns and watch the same show again
and again.
> Personally, I think "30 Rock" is the best comedy right now but I'm
> three or four episodes behind on it, precisely because I think so
> highly of it.
It is so good you might as well save it up for summer, right? Are you the
one that saves up Lost for the summer because it is 'so good'?
> I want to watch it when I'm in the mood for a really
> good comedy, not when NBC decides to schedule it.
Maybe you only think 30 Rock is funny because you save it up for when you
are 'in the mood' (does that mean drunk, btw?)
> If I were to watch
> it like clockwork every Thursday at 9:30 I wouldn't get the maximum
> enjoyment that I get out of it when I watch it when I *feel* like
> watching it.
Next time you think you are 'in the mood' for a good comedy, try watching
Sonny wwith a chance or one of Ian's other odd shows. You will probably
think more of them if you wait for just the right moment. <--- I stole that
line from the Cialis commercial.
> There are some shows that I have to watch live. There's "Lost" and...
> that's it, aside from season finales of shows like "Dexter" and
> "Breaking Bad." But otherwise if I really like something I'll watch it
> on my time.
Odd that you don't save them for the right time...almost as if you are
admitting that people watch the shows live when those shows are most worthy
of being watched.
>>> or in
>>> slots dominated by episodic shows. And I can't believe that for people
>>> who watch both the DVRed serial show and live episodic show the latter
>>> takes precedence. I think it's that people watch the latter when
>>> they're lying on the couch and half-paying attention to whatever's on
>>> and the former when they really feel like watching something.
>>
>>Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
>>saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a
>>day
>>or two behind everyone else?
>
> People will probably be talking about the "Dexter" season finale after
> it ends, or a regular season episode of "Lost." But there's no such
> immediacy for most shows.
Sure there is. If you aren't going to talk about Big Bang Theory or
Survivor or Supernatural or whatever the next day, then why talk about it at
all? It isn't like there is a ton of interest (posting here for example) in
discussion shows that aired a month or two ago. The most
discussion/interest exists right after a show airs, not days, weeks, months
later. That (the watercooler effect) is where the immediacy comes in.
Steve Newport
We just mute them and pet our Yorkies.
Stephen Ross Roberts-Newport
Read about our family:
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/ps/3/fsg9vxwzgjd7y8lr1k9g.
And please click to give -- it*s free!
Steve Newport
saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a
day or two behind everyone else?
Plus, it delays prompt posting to rec.arts.tv.
Remysun
> From an earlier thread you seem quite convinced that Lost is the water
> cooler show of our time, but it isn't. More people are talking about
> American Idol the nexct day, so yes, it does have more immediacy. I've read
> here about people that DVR the whole season of Lost, then watch it sometime
> over the summer or over a long weekend. No one puts off American Idol like
> that.
The reason for that on Idol and DTWS is the call-in. You can't wait,
because if you do, you won't have voted, and your reason for watching
the show will be gone. And that is a serious nail into television's
coffin because those reality shows can plug up two hours of
programming, two nights of a week.
Extravagan
> Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
> saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a day
> or two behind everyone else?
If you equate watching some TV show a day or two behind everyone else to
"living your life" a day or two behind everyone else, then you're quite
the sadsack.
Extravagan
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:hg12i2$s2j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:29129-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>>> The Good Wife CBS 8.5
>>> Academy Awards ABC 20.6
>>> Mad Men AMC 57.7
>>> ----------------------------
>>> The only three worth watching.
>>
>> If they were really worth watching, people wouldn't be DVRing them so
>> much. The shows high on the DVR numbers are frequently the ones that
>> are barely worth watching (so FF through lots of the junk: the
>> Academy Awards are a great example of this) or are only secondarily
>> worth watching (CW shows get watched by people through DVR after they
>> watch a 'more desirable show' live in that timeslot).
>
> Your opion is seriously flawed.
So is your spelling.
> Favorite show are MORE likely to be
> DVRd, not only for future rewatching, but so you DONT have to watch the
> commercials.
Perhaps *both* effects occur, and roughly cancel out?
Extravagan
> From: move...@nospam.net (Klaatu)
> so I dont have to suffer through those fucking commercials!
> ----------------------------------
> We just mute them and pet our Yorkies.
TMI!
Obveeus
"Remysun" <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8fea765-c28c-4554...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 12, 7:48 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> From an earlier thread you seem quite convinced that Lost is the water
>> cooler show of our time, but it isn't. More people are talking about
>> American Idol the nexct day, so yes, it does have more immediacy. I've
>> read
>> here about people that DVR the whole season of Lost, then watch it
>> sometime
>> over the summer or over a long weekend. No one puts off American Idol
>> like
>> that.
>
>The reason for that on Idol and DTWS is the call-in. You can't wait,
>because if you do, you won't have voted, and your reason for watching
>the show will be gone.
Most people that watch American Idol don't can in and vote, though. Some
people may spend hours calling in hundreds of times (or setting up phone
banks to call in thousands of times), but most people don't call in at all.
Obveeus
Exactly: The water cooler effect.
Dawnie
<ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> David wrote:
>> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/12/nielsens-top-10-tv-shows-of-2009.html
>>
>> Nielsen's Top 10 TV Shows of 2009
>> by James Hibberd
>> The DVR list is probably the most interesting, it's a total geek-fest.
Wow, more than half the list made up of SF shows! Nice.
>> Top 10 TV Programs - Regularly Scheduled Programs Network % of Homes
>> in U.S. (Rating)
>>
>> 6 NCIS: Los Angeles CBS 9.8
>
>Not for much longer, I'll wager!!...
>
>> 7 NCIS CBS 9.4
>> 10 The Good Wife CBS 8.5 (I'm was surprised by this one, asked Nielsen
>> to double-check and they assure that, yup, "Good Wife," not, say,
>> "Criminal Minds" or "Survivor" or other highly viewed shows, ranks in
>> the Top 10 among households)
>
>Interesting - this strongly implies that people are just recording CBS
>Tuesday as a 3-hour block. What's up wit' dat?!!
Ease of recording is one thing, I'll bet. You know, inertia and all
that. And we've mentioned this before, THE GOOD WIFE just doesn't have
much on opposite it! With zero competition (or however minimal THE
FORGOTTEN audience), I imagine it won the spot by default, rather than
popularity. I was surprised THE MENTALIST wasn't on there.
Dawnie
Replying to both you and David, so please note the attributions.
>David wrote:
>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>If they were really worth watching, people wouldn't be DVRing them so
>>>much.
You're forgetting that there's an entire group of people who DVR for
completely different reasons--because they *do* find a show worth
watching, and want to be able to watch it again because they like it
so much, or want to watch it without interruption by bypassing
commercials.
>>>The shows high on the DVR numbers are frequently the ones that are barely
>>>worth watching (so FF through lots of the junk: the Academy Awards are a
>>>great example of this)
Conversely, some of us think that those kinds of shows are perfect for
live viewing, where we can multitask by doing something else when it's
on, because we won't care if we miss something. We don't even need to
bother pressing the FF button <g>.
>> I think the opposite is true. Young people and/or technology adapters
>> prefer watching shows they like or shows that require their full
>> attention at a time of their choosing, and watch live tv when they
>> just feel like watching whatever's on.
David, I don't think it's just young people or technology adapters
(DVR owners, you mean?) Even with a VCR, I remember taping THE WEST
WING all those years ago because I wanted to watch it again later. And
really, mostly because Toby mumbled way too often and I'd miss a line
or two of dialogue and had to rewind. No way I'd have chosen to watch
it live over something else, unless I could also tape it at the same
time.
>Shows like American idol require full attention? Nope. I think they are
>simply shows where a significant portion of the audience is skimming the
>show with the FF button engages for large portions.
I understand the motivation of skimming, but AI is a poor example here
because it's a show where timeliness matters, especially when there's
a timed window for voting. It's a show where people watch live for
that reason, I imagine.
>People are watching the show they care about (the water cooler
>shows like Survivor or Grey's Anatomy) live while sending shows they can
>'get around to later' (like Supernatural) to the DVR. [..]
>I agree with your idea that Thursday has 'too many good shows', but the
>result is simply that different people are choosing differently as to which
>ones are worth watching live and which ones can be dumped to DVR for the
>late night or weekend.
Again, you're missing the point that there are different and totally
opposite motivations for using the DVR. I often record the show I like
*more*, because I get to watch it again, or because I get to pause or
rewind if I miss something. I watch a lesser show live because if I
miss something, I don't care as much.
>Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
>saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a day
>or two behind everyone else?
Because that may be when I finally have time to give a show the
necessary attention it deserves. And that in turn significantly
increases my enjoyment of the show.
>> And then there are people who start watching DVRed shows 15 minutes
>> after they start to avoid commercials, which is probably exclusively
>> the technologically savvy
Or just the very impatient! <g>
Steve Newport
<<<David wrote: The DVR list is probably a total geek-fest.>>>
-------------------------------
Yeah. Geek-fest, all right.
KC
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Replying to both you and David, so please note the attributions.
>
>>David wrote:
>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>If they were really worth watching, people wouldn't be DVRing them so
>>>>much.
>
>You're forgetting that there's an entire group of people who DVR for
>completely different reasons--because they *do* find a show worth
>watching, and want to be able to watch it again because they like it
>so much, or want to watch it without interruption by bypassing
>commercials.
I DVR some shows because I like them enough to rewatch it (like Glee),
some because I want to make sure I've caught all the little details
(like Lost or Fast Forward), but I also DVR shows at 9 or 10pm that my
DH likes, because he goes to bed early. I sometimes watch it live,
then we watch the recording later. And I agree with you that the shows
I watch live are often the shows that I either have a bit less
interest in, or are shows where missing a detail doesn't matter too
much. Then there's the show I hit "record" for, because I have to run
out and I don't want to miss the end. That's six different DVR reasons
in my house.
KC
Barry Margolin
Dawnie <siok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
> >saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a day
> >or two behind everyone else?
>
> Because that may be when I finally have time to give a show the
> necessary attention it deserves. And that in turn significantly
> increases my enjoyment of the show.
Although it's a little annoying to have to skip all the discussion
threads for a few days, I've been living my life 1-3 days behind
everyone else ever since I got my DVRs. I almost never watch anything
live, it's too annoying not being able to skip commercials or rewind
once you get into that habit.
And I agree with your point about DVRing shows you particularly like.
Wouldn't you hate it if a phone call or other interruption caused you to
miss a chunk of your favorite show? Although if you're recording the
show while you're watching it, I don't think Nielsen counts that in
their DVR numbers (I believe they only count someone as a DVR viewer if
they wait a certain amount of time before watching).
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Tony Calguire
news:q7nbi5tm85itgjbia...@4ax.com:
>
> You're forgetting that there's an entire group of people who DVR for
> completely different reasons--because they *do* find a show worth
> watching, and want to be able to watch it again because they like it
> so much, or want to watch it without interruption by bypassing
> commercials.
>
For many years, my VCR recording criteria were quite simple... I always
watched live the show that was established in the timeslot, and I always
taped the newcomer that was scheduled opposite.
But nowadays, so many shows change timeslots, change nights, and go on long
hiatuses, I don't even bother. I just make a gut decision about what I'd
rather watch live. On Thursdays, I like to watch FlashForward and Fringe
live because of they're both Usenet "watercooler" shows, and I tape the NBC
comedies because they're easily enjoyed in 23-minute bitesized segments.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:39:09 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Shows like American idol require full attention? Nope. I think they are
>>>simply shows where a significant portion of the audience is skimming the
>>>show with the FF button engages for large portions.
>>
>> "American Idol" gets live viewership because it's a live/immediate
>> event.
>
>American Idol also gets a high number of DVR viewers...specifically because
>people can skim past the crap and just watch the performances.
I'm not sure it's that high. You have to compensate for the fact that
something watched by 25-30 million would get lots of DVR viewers by
default, same as "NCIS" and "Dancing With the Stars" get a respectable
amount of young viewers even if these shows don't generally appeal to
that group.
>> That's obvious from when the "Idol" finale faces the "Lost"
>> finale. From the ratings it's clear that many people watch both but
>> it's hard to believe that, all things being equal, "Idol" would have
>> more immediacy than "Lost." The explanation has to be that "Idol" is a
>> live event while "Lost" can wait an hour.
>
>From an earlier thread you seem quite convinced that Lost is the water
>cooler show of our time, but it isn't.
It certainly is. You can put "Idol" in the same category but it's
questionable whether it's more watercooler than "Lost." I suppose it
depends on where one works/whom one knows.
>More people are talking about
>American Idol the nexct day, so yes, it does have more immediacy. I've read
>here about people that DVR the whole season of Lost, then watch it sometime
>over the summer or over a long weekend. No one puts off American Idol like
>that.
Live events always win. Ask someone what they'd do if there's a
football game they want to watch and a show on another channel and 99%
of people will say they'll tape-delay the show.
It wouldn't even matter much if there were a consensus that "Lost" is
the best show of all time. People would be willing to put it off for 2
hours to watch the live event. *Maybe* it would dip to 95%.
>>>> Looking at the list, it's shows airing on Thursday (when there are too
>>>> many good shows on),
>>>
>>>Thursday is a good example of shows that are only secondarily worth
>>>watching. People are watching the show they care about (the water cooler
>>>shows like Survivor or Grey's Anatomy) live while sending shows they can
>>>'get around to later' (like Supernatural) to the DVR.
>>
>> "Grey's" is the top DVRed show. This list is in percentage increases,
>> but if you look at increases in millions of viewers "Grey's" is #1.
>
>Yes, because several million people consider Grey's Anatomy to be secondary
>to CSI or The Office. Several million Grey's addicts also DVR CSI or The
>Office or Supernatural becasue they consider one or more of those other
>shows to be of secondary importance. I'm not sure why you are somplaining
>about this simple fact. By definition, if two shows you want to watch are
>on at the same time, only one of them can be 'of primary importance'. The
>other is secondary.
Because looking at the list, both percentages and millions of viewers,
the crime shows and CBS shows (excepting "Survivor") aren't
represented.
And just based on the nature of these shows, people who like both
should feel that serial shows are more immediate than episodic shows,
since with the former you're wondering what will happen next while the
latter doesn't create any anticipation. So based on that the
conclusion would be that people are DVRing the shows they prefer.
>> Personally, I think "30 Rock" is the best comedy right now but I'm
>> three or four episodes behind on it, precisely because I think so
>> highly of it.
>
>It is so good you might as well save it up for summer, right? Are you the
>one that saves up Lost for the summer because it is 'so good'?
I don't "save it for Summer," I save it for when I'm in the optimal
mood for it. And it isn't like I'm worse off than people who watch it
live. "30 Rock" is doing 22 (or however many) episodes this year no
matter what. People who watch it live will only get new episodes
sporadically over the next 4 months while I can continue getting new
episodes regularly at least until I catch up. So it's just a matter of
when one wants to have delayed gratification.
>> I want to watch it when I'm in the mood for a really
>> good comedy, not when NBC decides to schedule it.
>
>Maybe you only think 30 Rock is funny because you save it up for when you
>are 'in the mood' (does that mean drunk, btw?)
You could do me the courtesy of leaving my opinion alone. Afterall, I
didn't say anything when you thought "Girlfriends" should be on a list
of decade's most influential shows.
>> If I were to watch
>> it like clockwork every Thursday at 9:30 I wouldn't get the maximum
>> enjoyment that I get out of it when I watch it when I *feel* like
>> watching it.
>
>Next time you think you are 'in the mood' for a good comedy, try watching
>Sonny wwith a chance or one of Ian's other odd shows. You will probably
>think more of them if you wait for just the right moment. <--- I stole that
>line from the Cialis commercial.
I'm sure I would enjoy "Sonny" more when I'm in the mood for it. I
just don't think that mood will ever exist.
>> There are some shows that I have to watch live. There's "Lost" and...
>> that's it, aside from season finales of shows like "Dexter" and
>> "Breaking Bad." But otherwise if I really like something I'll watch it
>> on my time.
>
>Odd that you don't save them for the right time...almost as if you are
>admitting that people watch the shows live when those shows are most worthy
>of being watched.
Well no, it's because season finales of these types of shows are
mini-events.
>>>> or in
>>>> slots dominated by episodic shows. And I can't believe that for people
>>>> who watch both the DVRed serial show and live episodic show the latter
>>>> takes precedence. I think it's that people watch the latter when
>>>> they're lying on the couch and half-paying attention to whatever's on
>>>> and the former when they really feel like watching something.
>>>
>>>Now you sound like Ian; watching some rerun of the dead body shows and
>>>saving all the good shows for a day or two later. Why live your life a
>>>day
>>>or two behind everyone else?
>>
>> People will probably be talking about the "Dexter" season finale after
>> it ends, or a regular season episode of "Lost." But there's no such
>> immediacy for most shows.
>
>Sure there is. If you aren't going to talk about Big Bang Theory or
>Survivor or Supernatural or whatever the next day, then why talk about it at
>all?
If I watched "Survivor" I'd probably watch it live. And I usually
watch "Big Bang" the day it airs, but that's because I don't think as
highly of it as I do "Mother," with which I'm two episodes behind.
Dano
I hardly ever watch commercial shows "live" anymore. The closest I come is
by tuning in around twenty minutes late to allow FF through the ads.
David
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Replying to both you and David, so please note the attributions.
>>> I think the opposite is true. Young people and/or technology adapters
>>> prefer watching shows they like or shows that require their full
>>> attention at a time of their choosing, and watch live tv when they
>>> just feel like watching whatever's on.
>
>David, I don't think it's just young people or technology adapters
>(DVR owners, you mean?)
I think the numbers bear it out - shows that skew young or appeal to
"geeks" get DVRed more.
>Even with a VCR, I remember taping THE WEST
>WING all those years ago because I wanted to watch it again later. And
>really, mostly because Toby mumbled way too often and I'd miss a line
>or two of dialogue and had to rewind.
I would've used closed-captioning.
And I think VCRs were more of a hassle. DVRs are often used just
because they're convenient - so for example someone might set a
recording for every "CSI" rerun, knowing that they'll likely never get
around to watching them but thinking that they may as well have them
since recording is simple and they have the hard drive space. While
VCRs were almost exclusively used when you really really wanted
something taped.
Personally, I don't even remember using a VCR for time-shifting much.
Mostly I taped when I wanted something for keeps. I think back then
reruns were more dependable, there weren't too many serial shows to
keep up with, and there were no discussion forums, so there wasn't
this compulsion to keep up with everything.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:48:55 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:39:09 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Shows like American idol require full attention? Nope. I think they are
>>>>simply shows where a significant portion of the audience is skimming the
>>>>show with the FF button engages for large portions.
>>>
>>> "American Idol" gets live viewership because it's a live/immediate
>>> event.
>>
>>American Idol also gets a high number of DVR viewers...specifically
>>because
>>people can skim past the crap and just watch the performances.
>
> I'm not sure it's that high. You have to compensate for the fact that
> something watched by 25-30 million would get lots of DVR viewers by
> default,
Nice attempt to have your cake and eat it too. You started this off with a
claim that the dead body procedurals got lots of DVRing. If you now want to
discount large DVRing from shows with a large audience, then you have to
discount all of them, not just the ones like American idol and Dancing with
the Stars that demonstrate the likelyhood of large DVRing by peopel that FF
through big chunks of the show.
>>> That's obvious from when the "Idol" finale faces the "Lost"
>>> finale. From the ratings it's clear that many people watch both but
>>> it's hard to believe that, all things being equal, "Idol" would have
>>> more immediacy than "Lost." The explanation has to be that "Idol" is a
>>> live event while "Lost" can wait an hour.
>>
>>From an earlier thread you seem quite convinced that Lost is the water
>>cooler show of our time, but it isn't.
>
> It certainly is. You can put "Idol" in the same category but it's
> questionable whether it's more watercooler than "Lost." I suppose it
> depends on where one works/whom one knows.
Almost three times the number of people watching American Idol means almost
three times the amount of 'water cooler' talk. Lost is a 'big deal' here on
r.a.tv, but then again, so is Dollhouse. Those geeky sci-fi shows have a
dedicated fanbase, but that isn't the same as being a watercooler show.
>>> "Grey's" is the top DVRed show. This list is in percentage increases,
>>> but if you look at increases in millions of viewers "Grey's" is #1.
>>
>>Yes, because several million people consider Grey's Anatomy to be
>>secondary
>>to CSI or The Office. Several million Grey's addicts also DVR CSI or The
>>Office or Supernatural becasue they consider one or more of those other
>>shows to be of secondary importance. I'm not sure why you are somplaining
>>about this simple fact. By definition, if two shows you want to watch are
>>on at the same time, only one of them can be 'of primary importance'. The
>>other is secondary.
>
> Because looking at the list, both percentages and millions of viewers,
> the crime shows and CBS shows (excepting "Survivor") aren't
> represented.
Those CBS shows still have more DVRing than most all of the shows on the
%DVR list, though.
> And just based on the nature of these shows, people who like both
> should feel that serial shows are more immediate than episodic shows,
> since with the former you're wondering what will happen next while the
> latter doesn't create any anticipation. So based on that the
> conclusion would be that people are DVRing the shows they prefer.
People in the demo are the ones doing the most DVRing. people in the demo
are watching Grey's Anatomy much more than CSI. It is more about the
kind/age of viewer than about the style of the show.
>>> I want to watch it when I'm in the mood for a really
>>> good comedy, not when NBC decides to schedule it.
>>
>>Maybe you only think 30 Rock is funny because you save it up for when you
>>are 'in the mood' (does that mean drunk, btw?)
>
> You could do me the courtesy of leaving my opinion alone. Afterall, I
> didn't say anything when you thought "Girlfriends" should be on a list
> of decade's most influential shows.
When Girlfriends ended, it held the record for longest running sitcom of the
decade. it is also the longest running African American sitcom for the
decade. that makes it worthy of the 'most influential sitcoms of the
decade'. meanwhile, i think that my point is valid: you only watch 30 Rock
when you are ;in the mood'. I think that biases your opinion of the show.
A good sitcom should be able to make you laugh...you shouldn't have to wait
and watch it only when you are ready to laugh. If you only watched 'The
Middle' when you wetre 'in the mood', I believe you would find it much
funier than if you just watched it when it was on.
>>Next time you think you are 'in the mood' for a good comedy, try watching
>>Sonny wwith a chance or one of Ian's other odd shows. You will probably
>>think more of them if you wait for just the right moment. <--- I stole
>>that
>>line from the Cialis commercial.
>
> I'm sure I would enjoy "Sonny" more when I'm in the mood for it. I
> just don't think that mood will ever exist.
True enough.
>>> There are some shows that I have to watch live. There's "Lost" and...
>>> that's it, aside from season finales of shows like "Dexter" and
>>> "Breaking Bad." But otherwise if I really like something I'll watch it
>>> on my time.
>>
>>Odd that you don't save them for the right time...almost as if you are
>>admitting that people watch the shows live when those shows are most
>>worthy
>>of being watched.
>
> Well no, it's because season finales of these types of shows are
> mini-events.
Exactly...worthy of being watched. If you *really* care about a show, every
episode's airing is a 'mini-event'.
Obveeus
"Dawnie" <siok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Replying to both you and David, so please note the attributions.
>
>>David wrote:
>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>If they were really worth watching, people wouldn't be DVRing them so
>>>>much.
>
> You're forgetting that there's an entire group of people who DVR for
> completely different reasons--because they *do* find a show worth
> watching, and want to be able to watch it again because they like it
> so much, or want to watch it without interruption by bypassing
> commercials.
I am not forgetting about anything. No claim is really being made that 100%
of people DVR the show they dislike more or that 100% are DVRing the show
that they like more. What was under discussion was more about which group
was bigger. This is only pertinent to timeslots with multiple shows airing
that the viewer wants to watch, so all the other DVR reasons are irrelevant
here. My only contention is that when people are faced with multiple shows
they are more likely to choose to watch the one that they like more, first.
David is contending the oposite is true. Obviously, people do it both ways.
We are just quibbling about which group makes up the majority.
>>> And then there are people who start watching DVRed shows 15 minutes
>>> after they start to avoid commercials, which is probably exclusively
>>> the technologically savvy
>
> Or just the very impatient! <g>
If they were 'very impatient', why would they have waited even 15 minutes to
start enjoying it?
Obveeus
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> And I agree with your point about DVRing shows you particularly like.
> Wouldn't you hate it if a phone call or other interruption caused you to
> miss a chunk of your favorite show?
I realize that some people live as 'slaves' to their telephone, but really,
you don't *have* to answer it...especially in the movie theater or check-out
line at the grocery store or while eating or etc...
> Although if you're recording the
> show while you're watching it, I don't think Nielsen counts that in
> their DVR numbers (I believe they only count someone as a DVR viewer if
> they wait a certain amount of time before watching).
Yep. If you watch it live, then watch it again off DVR, Nielsen is only
going to count you as having viewed it once (the live viewing).
record hunter
> In article <a735i5d8skf5oskfgp3nm5akcgfkbgh...@4ax.com>,
>
> David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/12/nielsens-top-10-tv-shows-of-2009.html
>
> > Nielsen's Top 10 TV Shows of 2009
> > by James Hibberd
>
> > Top 10 time-shifted programs for 2009....
>
> > The DVR list is probably the most interesting, it's a total geek-fest.
>
> > in U.S. (Rating)
>
> > 6 NCIS: Los Angeles CBS 9.8
>
> Not for much longer, I'll wager!!...
>
> > 7 NCIS CBS 9.4
> > 10 The Good Wife CBS 8.5 (I'm was surprised by this one, asked Nielsen
> > to double-check and they assure that, yup, "Good Wife," not, say,
> > "Criminal Minds" or "Survivor" or other highly viewed shows, ranks in
> > the Top 10 among households)
>
> Interesting - this strongly implies that people are just recording CBS
> Tuesday as a 3-hour block. What's up wit' dat?!!
It's what I do on Tuesday. I used to watch MELROSE in the middle, but
Chris O'Donnell finally won out over those ninnies in WeHo.
record hunter
> "Steve Newport" <birdpare...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> news:29129-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > The Good Wife CBS 8.5
> > Mad Men AMC 57.7
> > ----------------------------
> > The only three worth watching.
>
> worth watching (so FF through lots of the junk: the Academy Awards are a
> watched by people through DVR after they watch a 'more desirable show' live
> in that timeslot).
I usually program the more desirable show. Have for years.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:111di5t8a6s26kgju...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:04:18 +0800, Dawnie <siok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>David, I don't think it's just young people or technology adapters
>>(DVR owners, you mean?)
>
> I think the numbers bear it out - shows that skew young or appeal to
> "geeks" get DVRed more.
Yep. This is another case where the issue isn't really about some claim
that 100% of the people using new technology being young. Still, David is
correct in that the younger viewers are adapting more quickly...including
dumping TV altogether in favor of internet viewing.
> Personally, I don't even remember using a VCR for time-shifting much.
Really? I thought that is what they were used mostly for (when not watching
movies anyway). If you went out or were otherwise busy, setting the VCR to
catch the show for you was an easy solution.
> Mostly I taped when I wanted something for keeps.
This is something I just don't do. I don't have (or want) a library full of
old TV stuff. I'm not a big fan of watching reruns at all, so I am
certainly not going to spend time and money aquiring the ability to watch
reruns.
> I think back then
> reruns were more dependable, there weren't too many serial shows to
> keep up with, and there were no discussion forums, so there wasn't
> this compulsion to keep up with everything.
Even without discussion forums, weren't their people that talked about stuff
in the real world?
record hunter
> From: Obve...@aol.com (Obveeus)
My main show I watch later is GLEE. I just wait until I've watched it
to read about it online. It doesn't take that much discipline.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:48:55 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:39:09 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Shows like American idol require full attention? Nope. I think they are
>>>>>simply shows where a significant portion of the audience is skimming the
>>>>>show with the FF button engages for large portions.
>>>>
>>>> "American Idol" gets live viewership because it's a live/immediate
>>>> event.
>>>
>>>American Idol also gets a high number of DVR viewers...specifically
>>>because
>>>people can skim past the crap and just watch the performances.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's that high. You have to compensate for the fact that
>> something watched by 25-30 million would get lots of DVR viewers by
>> default,
>
>Nice attempt to have your cake and eat it too. You started this off with a
>claim that the dead body procedurals got lots of DVRing.
Wait, huh? I believe I started out with the *opposite* of that.
>>>> That's obvious from when the "Idol" finale faces the "Lost"
>>>> finale. From the ratings it's clear that many people watch both but
>>>> it's hard to believe that, all things being equal, "Idol" would have
>>>> more immediacy than "Lost." The explanation has to be that "Idol" is a
>>>> live event while "Lost" can wait an hour.
>>>
>>>From an earlier thread you seem quite convinced that Lost is the water
>>>cooler show of our time, but it isn't.
>>
>> It certainly is. You can put "Idol" in the same category but it's
>> questionable whether it's more watercooler than "Lost." I suppose it
>> depends on where one works/whom one knows.
>
>Almost three times the number of people watching American Idol means almost
>three times the amount of 'water cooler' talk.
It doesn't quite work like that. Sure it depends to a point on whether
we're talking about a group of sci-fi geeks or a group of preteen
girls. But self-respecting grownups aren't gathering around the
watercooler to discuss who won "Idol." But they will talk about the
finale of "Lost."
>>>> "Grey's" is the top DVRed show. This list is in percentage increases,
>>>> but if you look at increases in millions of viewers "Grey's" is #1.
>>>
>>>Yes, because several million people consider Grey's Anatomy to be
>>>secondary
>>>to CSI or The Office. Several million Grey's addicts also DVR CSI or The
>>>Office or Supernatural becasue they consider one or more of those other
>>>shows to be of secondary importance. I'm not sure why you are somplaining
>>>about this simple fact. By definition, if two shows you want to watch are
>>>on at the same time, only one of them can be 'of primary importance'. The
>>>other is secondary.
>>
>> Because looking at the list, both percentages and millions of viewers,
>> the crime shows and CBS shows (excepting "Survivor") aren't
>> represented.
>
>Those CBS shows still have more DVRing than most all of the shows on the
>%DVR list, though.
And it's reasonable to assume that there's some ratio of live audience
to dvr audience that's maintained for each show even before you start
accounting for the shows' popularity/audience devotion. Same as you
need to assume that any show with 20 million viewers is going to have
some percentage of 18-34 year-old viewers before you start claiming
that this show is popular with 18-34-year-olds.
The latest numbers I could find for CBS are here
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20091109cbs01
"Criminal Minds" added the most viewers with 2 million and that week's
episode got 13.72 million viewers. I think it's reasonable to conclude
that comparably small DVR gain is a syptom of the show's overall
popularity and not that it's popular with DVR users.
>> And just based on the nature of these shows, people who like both
>> should feel that serial shows are more immediate than episodic shows,
>> since with the former you're wondering what will happen next while the
>> latter doesn't create any anticipation. So based on that the
>> conclusion would be that people are DVRing the shows they prefer.
>
>People in the demo are the ones doing the most DVRing. people in the demo
>are watching Grey's Anatomy much more than CSI. It is more about the
>kind/age of viewer than about the style of the show.
But clearly there'a a lot of crossover viewership between the shows,
as they're two of the top shows on tv.
>>>> I want to watch it when I'm in the mood for a really
>>>> good comedy, not when NBC decides to schedule it.
>>>
>>>Maybe you only think 30 Rock is funny because you save it up for when you
>>>are 'in the mood' (does that mean drunk, btw?)
>>
>> You could do me the courtesy of leaving my opinion alone. Afterall, I
>> didn't say anything when you thought "Girlfriends" should be on a list
>> of decade's most influential shows.
>
>When Girlfriends ended, it held the record for longest running sitcom of the
>decade. it is also the longest running African American sitcom for the
>decade. that makes it worthy of the 'most influential sitcoms of the
>decade'.
And it deserves every one of the NAACP awards it got.
>meanwhile, i think that my point is valid: you only watch 30 Rock
>when you are ;in the mood'. I think that biases your opinion of the show.
>A good sitcom should be able to make you laugh...you shouldn't have to wait
>and watch it only when you are ready to laugh.
It would make me laugh at any time but I prefer that it make me laugh
when I can enjoy it most. I could also enjoy my favorite dessert at
any time, including right after I already had 5 portions of it, but
I'd rather eat my favorite dessert at a time when I crave my favorite
dessert the most.
Why is it odd to consume entertainment when you want it the most? If a
theater chain announced that it'll only show documentaries on Tuesday,
comedies at 8:00 and dramas at 10:00 you'd think that's crazy. Why is
TV different? It may be how it's always been done but we have a lot
more choice of how and when to consume the things we like now.
> If you only watched 'The
>Middle' when you wetre 'in the mood', I believe you would find it much
>funier than if you just watched it when it was on.
If "30 Rock" is my favorite dessert then "The Middle" would be a food
I can stomach but don't really care for. There's no such thing as the
optimal time for it and if I were to watch it when I'm in the mood for
a good comedy I'd just feel unsatisfied.
>>>> There are some shows that I have to watch live. There's "Lost" and...
>>>> that's it, aside from season finales of shows like "Dexter" and
>>>> "Breaking Bad." But otherwise if I really like something I'll watch it
>>>> on my time.
>>>
>>>Odd that you don't save them for the right time...almost as if you are
>>>admitting that people watch the shows live when those shows are most
>>>worthy
>>>of being watched.
>>
>> Well no, it's because season finales of these types of shows are
>> mini-events.
>
>Exactly...worthy of being watched. If you *really* care about a show, every
>episode's airing is a 'mini-event'.
It's a mini-event when I choose to watch it, otherwise it's just
Thursday at 9:30. Unless it's a season finale of a serial show known
to deliver big finales, in which case it's a mini-event when it airs.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:111di5t8a6s26kgju...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:04:18 +0800, Dawnie <siok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>David, I don't think it's just young people or technology adapters
>>>(DVR owners, you mean?)
>>
>> I think the numbers bear it out - shows that skew young or appeal to
>> "geeks" get DVRed more.
>
>Yep. This is another case where the issue isn't really about some claim
>that 100% of the people using new technology being young. Still, David is
>correct in that the younger viewers are adapting more quickly...including
>dumping TV altogether in favor of internet viewing.
I'm a trailblazer!
(I'll call my mom like the guy in the commercial who made suggestions
for Windows 7)
>> Personally, I don't even remember using a VCR for time-shifting much.
>
>Really? I thought that is what they were used mostly for (when not watching
>movies anyway). If you went out or were otherwise busy, setting the VCR to
>catch the show for you was an easy solution.
I don't recall doing that much. Shows like "Lost" or "24" that
required a devoted following used to be rare and I was fine with
waiting for reruns with most things.
I did go through a period when I taped Letterman and Conan. And when I
first got cable I taped daytime reruns of "Hill Street Blues" and
"L.A. Law."
>> Mostly I taped when I wanted something for keeps.
>
>This is something I just don't do. I don't have (or want) a library full of
>old TV stuff. I'm not a big fan of watching reruns at all, so I am
>certainly not going to spend time and money aquiring the ability to watch
>reruns.
I didn't have a huge library but I had "The Simpsons" through season 8
or so and maybe 40 movies I wanted to own (full-screen, tv edited, on
ugly, bulky tapes that took up a lot of space. It seems silly now).
And now I do have a huge library of DVDs and downloads, because it's a
lot simpler to cultivate stuff.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:41:36 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Nice attempt to have your cake and eat it too. You started this off with
>>a
>>claim that the dead body procedurals got lots of DVRing.
>
> Wait, huh? I believe I started out with the *opposite* of that.
Sorry, my bad. Still, your contention that shows with lots of viewers
shouldn't count in the high DVR list (or should be asterisked) doesn't make
good sense. If you don't want to count shows based upon viewership, then
just use the highest percent DVR list. Hey, then we can talk about how the
CW could legitimately be the most popular network. ;-)
>>Almost three times the number of people watching American Idol means
>>almost
>>three times the amount of 'water cooler' talk.
>
> It doesn't quite work like that.
Agreed...and shows like the CSIs are good examples of stuff that gets tons
of viewers but almost no discussion interest.
> Sure it depends to a point on whether
> we're talking about a group of sci-fi geeks or a group of preteen
> girls. But self-respecting grownups aren't gathering around the
> watercooler to discuss who won "Idol." But they will talk about the
> finale of "Lost."
I think you underestimate the number of adults talking about Idol.
Meanwhile, outside of usenet, I've never heard a single person talk about
'last night's episode of Lost'.
>>People in the demo are the ones doing the most DVRing. people in the demo
>>are watching Grey's Anatomy much more than CSI. It is more about the
>>kind/age of viewer than about the style of the show.
>
> But clearly there'a a lot of crossover viewership between the shows,
> as they're two of the top shows on tv.
I agree that both are popular enough that a 'significant' amount of
crossover exists. I just disagree with you claim that Grey's getting more
DVR use is proof that people like Grey's more. I think the truth is more
that Grey's attracts a younger crowd than CSI and the younger crowd is more
likely to DVR in the first place.
>>meanwhile, i think that my point is valid: you only watch 30 Rock
>>when you are ;in the mood'. I think that biases your opinion of the show.
>>A good sitcom should be able to make you laugh...you shouldn't have to
>>wait
>>and watch it only when you are ready to laugh.
>
> It would make me laugh at any time but I prefer that it make me laugh
> when I can enjoy it most. I could also enjoy my favorite dessert at
> any time, including right after I already had 5 portions of it, but
> I'd rather eat my favorite dessert at a time when I crave my favorite
> dessert the most.
>
> Why is it odd to consume entertainment when you want it the most?
It isn't 'odd', but it *does* bias how you feel about a show. If you only
watch 30 Rock when you are 'in the mood', but you watch some other sitcom
any old time, then it stands to reason that you are going to think that 30
Rock is funnier than it actually is compared with 'some other sitcom'..
> If a
> theater chain announced that it'll only show documentaries on Tuesday,
> comedies at 8:00 and dramas at 10:00 you'd think that's crazy. Why is
> TV different? It may be how it's always been done but we have a lot
> more choice of how and when to consume the things we like now.
Sure...but irrelevant.
I can see someone claiming it is ok to use bittorrent to steal movies,
though, since they might want to watch them at 6am and the theater won't let
them.
>> If you only watched 'The
>>Middle' when you wetre 'in the mood', I believe you would find it much
>>funier than if you just watched it when it was on.
>
> If "30 Rock" is my favorite dessert then "The Middle" would be a food
> I can stomach but don't really care for. There's no such thing as the
> optimal time for it and if I were to watch it when I'm in the mood for
> a good comedy I'd just feel unsatisfied.
Have you tried watching it when you are 'in the mood'?
>>> Well no, it's because season finales of these types of shows are
>>> mini-events.
>>
>>Exactly...worthy of being watched. If you *really* care about a show,
>>every
>>episode's airing is a 'mini-event'.
>
> It's a mini-event when I choose to watch it, otherwise it's just
> Thursday at 9:30. Unless it's a season finale of a serial show known
> to deliver big finales, in which case it's a mini-event when it airs.
If it is only a 'mini-event' live sometimes, then you don't really care
about it the rest of the time.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:00:40 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Personally, I don't even remember using a VCR for time-shifting much.
>>
>>Really? I thought that is what they were used mostly for (when not
>>watching
>>movies anyway). If you went out or were otherwise busy, setting the VCR
>>to
>>catch the show for you was an easy solution.
>
> I don't recall doing that much. Shows like "Lost" or "24" that
> required a devoted following used to be rare and I was fine with
> waiting for reruns with most things.
Lost and 24? Wow, your 'way back to the VCR days' sure do go back far. ;-)
Maybe you just didn't VCR much because the particular shows that you watched
weren't serialized. I'm sure people were using VCRs to catch Dallas or
Knotts Landing or Hill Street Blues or whatever long before Lost/24 ever
aired.
>>> Mostly I taped when I wanted something for keeps.
>>
>>This is something I just don't do. I don't have (or want) a library full
>>of
>>old TV stuff. I'm not a big fan of watching reruns at all, so I am
>>certainly not going to spend time and money aquiring the ability to watch
>>reruns.
>
> I didn't have a huge library but I had "The Simpsons" through season 8
> or so and maybe 40 movies I wanted to own (full-screen, tv edited, on
> ugly, bulky tapes that took up a lot of space. It seems silly now).
In another 5-10 year that DVD library will seem just as silly.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:41:36 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nice attempt to have your cake and eat it too. You started this off with
>>>a
>>>claim that the dead body procedurals got lots of DVRing.
>>
>> Wait, huh? I believe I started out with the *opposite* of that.
>
>Sorry, my bad. Still, your contention that shows with lots of viewers
>shouldn't count in the high DVR list (or should be asterisked) doesn't make
>good sense. If you don't want to count shows based upon viewership, then
>just use the highest percent DVR list. Hey, then we can talk about how the
>CW could legitimately be the most popular network. ;-)
I think some baseline needs to be established that's a percentage of
the show's live audience to distinguish between shows that are popular
with DVR users/shows that are popular with young viewers/etc vs. shows
that do respectably in those categories due to their overall draw.
>> Sure it depends to a point on whether
>> we're talking about a group of sci-fi geeks or a group of preteen
>> girls. But self-respecting grownups aren't gathering around the
>> watercooler to discuss who won "Idol." But they will talk about the
>> finale of "Lost."
>
>I think you underestimate the number of adults talking about Idol.
>Meanwhile, outside of usenet, I've never heard a single person talk about
>'last night's episode of Lost'.
Ooh, I have! But as we know, I'm young, hip and trailblazing.
>>>meanwhile, i think that my point is valid: you only watch 30 Rock
>>>when you are ;in the mood'. I think that biases your opinion of the show.
>>>A good sitcom should be able to make you laugh...you shouldn't have to
>>>wait
>>>and watch it only when you are ready to laugh.
>>
>> It would make me laugh at any time but I prefer that it make me laugh
>> when I can enjoy it most. I could also enjoy my favorite dessert at
>> any time, including right after I already had 5 portions of it, but
>> I'd rather eat my favorite dessert at a time when I crave my favorite
>> dessert the most.
>>
>> Why is it odd to consume entertainment when you want it the most?
>
>It isn't 'odd', but it *does* bias how you feel about a show. If you only
>watch 30 Rock when you are 'in the mood', but you watch some other sitcom
>any old time, then it stands to reason that you are going to think that 30
>Rock is funnier than it actually is compared with 'some other sitcom'..
I could watch any comedy when I'm in the mood for a good comedy. I
could even watch a movie about the Holocaust. And they all will or
won't satisfy me to a varying degree and "30 Rock" will satisfy me the
most. It's not a matter of watching "30 Rock" at the optimal time,
it's watching the optimal show at the optimal time, the show happening
to be "30 Rock."
>> If a
>> theater chain announced that it'll only show documentaries on Tuesday,
>> comedies at 8:00 and dramas at 10:00 you'd think that's crazy. Why is
>> TV different? It may be how it's always been done but we have a lot
>> more choice of how and when to consume the things we like now.
>
>Sure...but irrelevant.
It isn't what the networks are doing?
>> If "30 Rock" is my favorite dessert then "The Middle" would be a food
>> I can stomach but don't really care for. There's no such thing as the
>> optimal time for it and if I were to watch it when I'm in the mood for
>> a good comedy I'd just feel unsatisfied.
>
>Have you tried watching it when you are 'in the mood'?
I've got enough to watch "in the mood." It needs to prove that it
belongs there.
>>>> Well no, it's because season finales of these types of shows are
>>>> mini-events.
>>>
>>>Exactly...worthy of being watched. If you *really* care about a show,
>>>every
>>>episode's airing is a 'mini-event'.
>>
>> It's a mini-event when I choose to watch it, otherwise it's just
>> Thursday at 9:30. Unless it's a season finale of a serial show known
>> to deliver big finales, in which case it's a mini-event when it airs.
>
>If it is only a 'mini-event' live sometimes, then you don't really care
>about it the rest of the time.
Something being an event isn't all-inclusive with me loving it. The
"Sons of Anarchy" finale was a mini-event because it was a culmination
of the season's storylines and I wanted to see how it ended. But it's
still far from my favorite show.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:00:40 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> Personally, I don't even remember using a VCR for time-shifting much.
>>>
>>>Really? I thought that is what they were used mostly for (when not
>>>watching
>>>movies anyway). If you went out or were otherwise busy, setting the VCR
>>>to
>>>catch the show for you was an easy solution.
>>
>> I don't recall doing that much. Shows like "Lost" or "24" that
>> required a devoted following used to be rare and I was fine with
>> waiting for reruns with most things.
>
>Lost and 24? Wow, your 'way back to the VCR days' sure do go back far. ;-)
I meant shows *like* "Lost" and "24," not those exact shows.
>Maybe you just didn't VCR much because the particular shows that you watched
>weren't serialized. I'm sure people were using VCRs to catch Dallas or
>Knotts Landing or Hill Street Blues or whatever long before Lost/24 ever
>aired.
There were always a few but they weren't as prevalent as they are now,
and they didn't air for 22 weeks straight. It wasn't difficult to keep
up with them.
>>>> Mostly I taped when I wanted something for keeps.
>>>
>>>This is something I just don't do. I don't have (or want) a library full
>>>of
>>>old TV stuff. I'm not a big fan of watching reruns at all, so I am
>>>certainly not going to spend time and money aquiring the ability to watch
>>>reruns.
>>
>> I didn't have a huge library but I had "The Simpsons" through season 8
>> or so and maybe 40 movies I wanted to own (full-screen, tv edited, on
>> ugly, bulky tapes that took up a lot of space. It seems silly now).
>
>In another 5-10 year that DVD library will seem just as silly.
DVDs are shiny and slick and look nice on a shelf. There'll be better
technology but I don't think they'll ever look silly.
Steve Newport
watched it to read about it online. It doesn't take that much
discipline.
Yep, with any show. Too logical for some apparently. (Spoiler SPACE
indeed. Bah!)
Extravagan
> I think you underestimate the number of adults talking about Idol.
> Meanwhile, outside of usenet, I've never heard a single person talk about
> 'last night's episode of Lost'.
I have.
> I can see someone claiming it is ok to use bittorrent to steal movies
It is physically impossible to use bittorrent to steal anything, because
bittorrent is incapable of being used to take an object away from a
person. It only makes copies of things.
Steve Newport
Not to those of us who still have huge record, tape, and VHS collections
in our libraries-- along with our BOOKS.
John McWilliams
Under exceptionally narrow definitions of stealing.
--
john mcwilliams
Steve Newport
*have* to answer it...especially in the movie theater or check-out line
at the grocery store or while eating or etc...
Even at home I almost always let it go to voicemail.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:43:42 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>If you don't want to count shows based upon viewership, then
>>just use the highest percent DVR list. Hey, then we can talk about how
>>the
>>CW could legitimately be the most popular network. ;-)
>
> I think some baseline needs to be established that's a percentage of
> the show's live audience to distinguish between shows that are popular
> with DVR users/shows that are popular with young viewers/etc vs. shows
> that do respectably in those categories due to their overall draw.
This seems like a mighty fine line you are trying to draw, though...where
Grey's Anatomy counts, but American Idol doesn't. I'm also guessing from
your non-response on the CW effect that you want to draw a lower limit line
as well so that 'riff raff' shows don't get included?
>>I think you underestimate the number of adults talking about Idol.
>>Meanwhile, outside of usenet, I've never heard a single person talk about
>>'last night's episode of Lost'.
>
> Ooh, I have! But as we know, I'm young, hip and trailblazing.
From what I have read, you don't even ever leave your house...though I
suppose your relationship with ian makes you trail blazing on some level.
>>> Why is it odd to consume entertainment when you want it the most?
>>
>>It isn't 'odd', but it *does* bias how you feel about a show. If you only
>>watch 30 Rock when you are 'in the mood', but you watch some other sitcom
>>any old time, then it stands to reason that you are going to think that 30
>>Rock is funnier than it actually is compared with 'some other sitcom'..
>
> I could watch any comedy when I'm in the mood for a good comedy. I
> could even watch a movie about the Holocaust. And they all will or
> won't satisfy me to a varying degree and "30 Rock" will satisfy me the
> most. It's not a matter of watching "30 Rock" at the optimal time,
> it's watching the optimal show at the optimal time, the show happening
> to be "30 Rock."
Still, you should just admit that only watching episodes when you are
optimally 'in the mood' is going to bias your opinion of the show.
>>> If a
>>> theater chain announced that it'll only show documentaries on Tuesday,
>>> comedies at 8:00 and dramas at 10:00 you'd think that's crazy. Why is
>>> TV different? It may be how it's always been done but we have a lot
>>> more choice of how and when to consume the things we like now.
>>
>>Sure...but irrelevant.
>
> It isn't what the networks are doing?
Yes, the networks air shows on a schedule. What has that got to do with why
people DVR them (in a dump the best to DVR for 'in the mood times' vs. 'dump
the secondary shows to DVR because they aren't of watercooler importance'
discussion)?
>>Have you tried watching it when you are 'in the mood'?
>
> I've got enough to watch "in the mood." It needs to prove that it
> belongs there.
If you don't watch a sitcom when you are 'in the mood' for sitcoms, how is
that show ever going to get that cushy timeslot in your viewing schedule?
This reminds me of the Big Bang Theory fans claiming that the show has had
all its growth this year based upon word of mouth rather than mostly/simply
because it was moved to the timeslot after 2&1/2Men.
>>> It's a mini-event when I choose to watch it, otherwise it's just
>>> Thursday at 9:30. Unless it's a season finale of a serial show known
>>> to deliver big finales, in which case it's a mini-event when it airs.
>>
>>If it is only a 'mini-event' live sometimes, then you don't really care
>>about it the rest of the time.
>
> Something being an event isn't all-inclusive with me loving it. The
> "Sons of Anarchy" finale was a mini-event because it was a culmination
> of the season's storylines and I wanted to see how it ended. But it's
> still far from my favorite show.
We were addressing the other side of the coin: if a show isn't even worthy
of watching during its event time, then it really isn't *that* important to
you.
Obveeus
"Extravagan" <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> I can see someone claiming it is ok to use bittorrent to steal movies
>
> It is physically impossible to use bittorrent to steal anything, because
> bittorrent is incapable of being used to take an object away from a
> person. It only makes copies of things.
Thank you for offering up that retarded viewpoint of what 'stealing'
constitutes.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I didn't have a huge library but I had "The Simpsons" through season 8
>>> or so and maybe 40 movies I wanted to own (full-screen, tv edited, on
>>> ugly, bulky tapes that took up a lot of space. It seems silly now).
>>
>>In another 5-10 year that DVD library will seem just as silly.
>
> DVDs are shiny and slick and look nice on a shelf. There'll be better
> technology but I don't think they'll ever look silly.
DVDs are half the width of a tape...big whoop on the slick and shininess.
In 10 years when every show ever made will be downloadable on demand for
$0.05 an hour that DVD library taking up half the living room will most
definitely look silly. The hip and modern people will have no more than a
single 7in x 7in box (side note for Newport: that is the size of just one
reel-to-reel tape) that holds everything in their 'library'.
Barry Margolin
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:41:36 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Nice attempt to have your cake and eat it too. You started this off with
> >>a
> >>claim that the dead body procedurals got lots of DVRing.
> >
> > Wait, huh? I believe I started out with the *opposite* of that.
>
> Sorry, my bad. Still, your contention that shows with lots of viewers
> shouldn't count in the high DVR list (or should be asterisked) doesn't make
> good sense. If you don't want to count shows based upon viewership, then
> just use the highest percent DVR list. Hey, then we can talk about how the
> CW could legitimately be the most popular network. ;-)
I think it depends on what you're trying to find with the statistic. Do
you want the shows that have the highest absolute numbers of DVR
viewers, or the ones with the highest *percentage* of DVR viewers.
If two shows both have 10% of their views by DVR, the one with the
highest total viewership will obviously also have higher DVR viewers.
But if all shows were like this, there wouldn't be a need for Nielsen to
report DVR ratings separately, since they would parallel live ratings.
These cases aren't really very interesting.
What becomes significant, then, are the shows where the ratings and/or
demos are different depending on how you count DVR viewers. If there
are shows with low live ratings, but high DVR numbers, that's
significant.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Barry Margolin
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:111di5t8a6s26kgju...@4ax.com...
> > I think back then
> > reruns were more dependable, there weren't too many serial shows to
> > keep up with, and there were no discussion forums, so there wasn't
> > this compulsion to keep up with everything.
>
> Even without discussion forums, weren't their people that talked about stuff
> in the real world?
Yep. I remember a bunch of us at work discussing St. Elsewhere every
week at lunch the following day.
Discussion forums have simply made it easier to find other fans of shows
you like, so even niche shows feel like watercooler shows to their
devotees.
Extravagan
No, under the standard definition of stealing, which means taking
something away from its owner without their permission. Copying
something is not taking it away.
Extravagan
I'm sure the Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court of the United States of
America appreciate your calling their legal definition of theft "retarded".
Anim8rFSK
<b18832d4-7fea-4b8d...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
record hunter <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Melrose in the Middle"
You know, Ian would watch that
No matter how bad the theme song was!
--
Happy 30th Anniversary
STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
"The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning"
David
DVDs/DVD cases are the perfect size to not take up much room but also
for display and to look and feel substantial enough like you own
something. Having everything on-demand or on a tiny microchip will be
great but won't replace that. Even now I want to have my favorite
things on a DVD rather than somewhere on my hard drive.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:43:42 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>If you don't want to count shows based upon viewership, then
>>>just use the highest percent DVR list. Hey, then we can talk about how
>>>the
>>>CW could legitimately be the most popular network. ;-)
>>
>> I think some baseline needs to be established that's a percentage of
>> the show's live audience to distinguish between shows that are popular
>> with DVR users/shows that are popular with young viewers/etc vs. shows
>> that do respectably in those categories due to their overall draw.
>
>This seems like a mighty fine line you are trying to draw, though...where
>Grey's Anatomy counts, but American Idol doesn't. I'm also guessing from
>your non-response on the CW effect that you want to draw a lower limit line
>as well so that 'riff raff' shows don't get included?
I didn't say these shows don't count, but every show has some portion
of a DVR audience that should be discounted, yes including "Grey's
Anatomy."
And it's probable that people start watching "Idol" late to
fast-forward through the filler but still watch the
elimination/announcement of the winner live.
>>>I think you underestimate the number of adults talking about Idol.
>>>Meanwhile, outside of usenet, I've never heard a single person talk about
>>>'last night's episode of Lost'.
>>
>> Ooh, I have! But as we know, I'm young, hip and trailblazing.
>
>From what I have read, you don't even ever leave your house...though I
>suppose your relationship with ian makes you trail blazing on some level.
That's my relationship with Hole. We're more compatible politically.
>>>> Why is it odd to consume entertainment when you want it the most?
>>>
>>>It isn't 'odd', but it *does* bias how you feel about a show. If you only
>>>watch 30 Rock when you are 'in the mood', but you watch some other sitcom
>>>any old time, then it stands to reason that you are going to think that 30
>>>Rock is funnier than it actually is compared with 'some other sitcom'..
>>
>> I could watch any comedy when I'm in the mood for a good comedy. I
>> could even watch a movie about the Holocaust. And they all will or
>> won't satisfy me to a varying degree and "30 Rock" will satisfy me the
>> most. It's not a matter of watching "30 Rock" at the optimal time,
>> it's watching the optimal show at the optimal time, the show happening
>> to be "30 Rock."
>
>Still, you should just admit that only watching episodes when you are
>optimally 'in the mood' is going to bias your opinion of the show.
I didn't put "30 Rock" there just because. First a show needs to prove
itself and get to a point where I realize that it belongs in that
slot.
>>>> If a
>>>> theater chain announced that it'll only show documentaries on Tuesday,
>>>> comedies at 8:00 and dramas at 10:00 you'd think that's crazy. Why is
>>>> TV different? It may be how it's always been done but we have a lot
>>>> more choice of how and when to consume the things we like now.
>>>
>>>Sure...but irrelevant.
>>
>> It isn't what the networks are doing?
>
>Yes, the networks air shows on a schedule. What has that got to do with why
>people DVR them (in a dump the best to DVR for 'in the mood times' vs. 'dump
>the secondary shows to DVR because they aren't of watercooler importance'
>discussion)?
It has to do with you sneering at me (well *I* feel sneered at)
because I choose what I watch when I'm most in the mood for that
rather than when a network decides to schedule it.
>>>Have you tried watching it when you are 'in the mood'?
>>
>> I've got enough to watch "in the mood." It needs to prove that it
>> belongs there.
>
>If you don't watch a sitcom when you are 'in the mood' for sitcoms, how is
>that show ever going to get that cushy timeslot in your viewing schedule?
Same as people deciding whether anything is worth watching. This
season it happened with "Community." About a month after it started I
realized that it was becoming one of the more enjoyable comedies so I
started preserving it. OTOH, "Modern Family" is pretty funny and has a
good heart but it hasn't reached the point where after an episode I
feel like I've spent the entire half hour laughing. When a show is
special you know it.
>>>> It's a mini-event when I choose to watch it, otherwise it's just
>>>> Thursday at 9:30. Unless it's a season finale of a serial show known
>>>> to deliver big finales, in which case it's a mini-event when it airs.
>>>
>>>If it is only a 'mini-event' live sometimes, then you don't really care
>>>about it the rest of the time.
>>
>> Something being an event isn't all-inclusive with me loving it. The
>> "Sons of Anarchy" finale was a mini-event because it was a culmination
>> of the season's storylines and I wanted to see how it ended. But it's
>> still far from my favorite show.
>
>We were addressing the other side of the coin: if a show isn't even worthy
>of watching during its event time, then it really isn't *that* important to
>you.
Not every show has an "event time" (which of course you can define
differently from me) and it isn't the same thing as being a great
show.
John McWilliams
As I said, under a narrow definition, you can exclude anything that's
convenient.
--
lsmft
Barry Margolin
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
In the case of intellectual property, permission is required to make a
copy. Doing so without permission is equivalent to stealing in that
context. And even if the word "stealing" isn't appropriate, it's still
just as illegal.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:05:52 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>This seems like a mighty fine line you are trying to draw, though...where
>>Grey's Anatomy counts, but American Idol doesn't. I'm also guessing from
>>your non-response on the CW effect that you want to draw a lower limit
>>line
>>as well so that 'riff raff' shows don't get included?
>
> I didn't say these shows don't count, but every show has some portion
> of a DVR audience that should be discounted, yes including "Grey's
> Anatomy."
Once you get rid of all the DVR users that don't count, will there be any
left?
>>> Ooh, I have! But as we know, I'm young, hip and trailblazing.
>>
>>From what I have read, you don't even ever leave your house...though I
>>suppose your relationship with ian makes you trail blazing on some level.
>
> That's my relationship with Hole. We're more compatible politically.
It would be hard for anyone under 60 to be politically compatible with Ian.
maybe Elisabeth Hasselbeck?
>>Still, you should just admit that only watching episodes when you are
>>optimally 'in the mood' is going to bias your opinion of the show.
>
> I didn't put "30 Rock" there just because. First a show needs to prove
> itself and get to a point where I realize that it belongs in that
> slot.
...and yet you chose 30 Rock? What comedy was displaced by it?
>>Yes, the networks air shows on a schedule. What has that got to do with
>>why
>>people DVR them (in a dump the best to DVR for 'in the mood times' vs.
>>'dump
>>the secondary shows to DVR because they aren't of watercooler importance'
>>discussion)?
>
> It has to do with you sneering at me (well *I* feel sneered at)
You are projecting, just like when you took offense to my question of
whether 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'. The comedy clubs operate on just that
premise: get the audience drunk in order to get them laughing.
>>If you don't watch a sitcom when you are 'in the mood' for sitcoms, how is
>>that show ever going to get that cushy timeslot in your viewing schedule?
>
> Same as people deciding whether anything is worth watching. This
> season it happened with "Community." About a month after it started I
> realized that it was becoming one of the more enjoyable comedies so I
> started preserving it. OTOH, "Modern Family" is pretty funny and has a
> good heart but it hasn't reached the point where after an episode I
> feel like I've spent the entire half hour laughing. When a show is
> special you know it.
Community and 30 Rock...you seem to be peddling for NBC again. They should
treally pay you more.
Obveeus
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> What becomes significant, then, are the shows where the ratings and/or
> demos are different depending on how you count DVR viewers. If there
> are shows with low live ratings, but high DVR numbers, that's
> significant.
The funny thing is that fans will brag about how good the DVR ratings are
(hoping to hype the potential for DVD sales), yet advertisers are much less
likely to pay good money to advertise on a show where most people are using
the DVR to watch. That actually brings up the larger point: Live, Live+7,
and DVR percentages are all pretty much useless for advertiser/network
business. They use the Live+3 ratings for people watching the commercials,
only. If you bypass the commercials, you don't actually count as a viewer.
Nielsen rarely shares that data with the common folk, but you can be sure
that there are both network and advertising experts rolling their eyes when
people hype how great the DVR numbers look just as they roll their eyes when
people try to hype the 'total audience' number.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DVDs/DVD cases are the perfect size to not take up much room but also
> for display and to look and feel substantial enough like you own
> something. Having everything on-demand or on a tiny microchip will be
> great but won't replace that.
Sure it will. In 10 years the industry will come out with some new and
improved video format and you won't be able to buy a player for those DVDs.
Then you will need some old legacy machine or special retro machine (like
those things they sell nowadays to play LPs) sitting next to your newfangled
3D HD holographic video projector.
> Even now I want to have my favorite
> things on a DVD rather than somewhere on my hard drive.
Tell it to the music industry.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> DVDs/DVD cases are the perfect size to not take up much room but also
>> for display and to look and feel substantial enough like you own
>> something. Having everything on-demand or on a tiny microchip will be
>> great but won't replace that.
>
>Sure it will. In 10 years the industry will come out with some new and
>improved video format and you won't be able to buy a player for those DVDs.
>Then you will need some old legacy machine or special retro machine (like
>those things they sell nowadays to play LPs) sitting next to your newfangled
>3D HD holographic video projector.
Of course there'll be new technology, but your assertion was it that
it would DVDs look silly the way videotapes now look ugly and clunky.
And the new technology will still have to fill the criteria of being
something you can hold in your hand and look at on a shelf, because
that's what people will prefer. A virtual library that avails
everything is great but for your favorite movies you don't want it to
just be something you can call up from a hard drive, you want to own a
physical thing.
>> Even now I want to have my favorite
>> things on a DVD rather than somewhere on my hard drive.
>
>Tell it to the music industry.
I'm sure most people still prefer to own complete albums that they
love. It's individual songs that are being stored virtually. I'm happy
to have individual episodes of "30 Rock" on my computer but when the
complete season set comes out I want to own the physical object.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:05:52 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>This seems like a mighty fine line you are trying to draw, though...where
>>>Grey's Anatomy counts, but American Idol doesn't. I'm also guessing from
>>>your non-response on the CW effect that you want to draw a lower limit
>>>line
>>>as well so that 'riff raff' shows don't get included?
>>
>> I didn't say these shows don't count, but every show has some portion
>> of a DVR audience that should be discounted, yes including "Grey's
>> Anatomy."
>
>Once you get rid of all the DVR users that don't count, will there be any
>left?
If you get the ratings-to-dvr users forumla right.
>>>> Ooh, I have! But as we know, I'm young, hip and trailblazing.
>>>
>>>From what I have read, you don't even ever leave your house...though I
>>>suppose your relationship with ian makes you trail blazing on some level.
>>
>> That's my relationship with Hole. We're more compatible politically.
>
>It would be hard for anyone under 60 to be politically compatible with Ian.
>maybe Elisabeth Hasselbeck?
Sarah Palin is in her 40's I think.
>>>Still, you should just admit that only watching episodes when you are
>>>optimally 'in the mood' is going to bias your opinion of the show.
>>
>> I didn't put "30 Rock" there just because. First a show needs to prove
>> itself and get to a point where I realize that it belongs in that
>> slot.
>
>...and yet you chose 30 Rock? What comedy was displaced by it?
"The Office." Or maybe "Arrested Development." It doesn't just have to
be one show. "30 Rock," "Community," "Mother" and to a slightly lesser
degree "The Office," "Modern Family" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" are
all at the top of my list. "30 Rock" is just the best of them.
>>>Yes, the networks air shows on a schedule. What has that got to do with
>>>why
>>>people DVR them (in a dump the best to DVR for 'in the mood times' vs.
>>>'dump
>>>the secondary shows to DVR because they aren't of watercooler importance'
>>>discussion)?
>>
>> It has to do with you sneering at me (well *I* feel sneered at)
>
>You are projecting, just like when you took offense to my question of
>whether 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'.
You mean suggesting that I'd need to be drunk to get optimal enjoyment
out of "30 Rock," a show you hate, wasn't a putdown?
>>>If you don't watch a sitcom when you are 'in the mood' for sitcoms, how is
>>>that show ever going to get that cushy timeslot in your viewing schedule?
>>
>> Same as people deciding whether anything is worth watching. This
>> season it happened with "Community." About a month after it started I
>> realized that it was becoming one of the more enjoyable comedies so I
>> started preserving it. OTOH, "Modern Family" is pretty funny and has a
>> good heart but it hasn't reached the point where after an episode I
>> feel like I've spent the entire half hour laughing. When a show is
>> special you know it.
>
>Community and 30 Rock...you seem to be peddling for NBC again. They should
>treally pay you more.
I wish you'd put in a good word with Media Rights Capital. You know
people here trust me.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Of course there'll be new technology, but your assertion was it that
> it would DVDs look silly the way videotapes now look ugly and clunky.
It will. When 'modern' homes don't have a bunch of bulky plastic boxes
laying around on their shelves, your home full of DVDs wil look bulky and
clunky - exactly the way VHS tapes looked to you a decade ago.
> And the new technology will still have to fill the criteria of being
> something you can hold in your hand and look at on a shelf, because
> that's what people will prefer.
Tell it to the music industry.
> A virtual library that avails
> everything is great but for your favorite movies you don't want it to
> just be something you can call up from a hard drive, you want to own a
> physical thing.
That sounds like out of date thinking. Why would people want to lug around
piles of plastic boxes and store them in their home when none of that
archaic methodology will be necessary to have full/instant access?
>>> Even now I want to have my favorite
>>> things on a DVD rather than somewhere on my hard drive.
>>
>>Tell it to the music industry.
>
> I'm sure most people still prefer to own complete albums that they
> love. It's individual songs that are being stored virtually.
'Album' sales aren't what they used to be.
> I'm happy
> to have individual episodes of "30 Rock" on my computer but when the
> complete season set comes out I want to own the physical object.
Sure...and when the format for DVDs is upgraded/changed you will be one of
the ones standing in line to buy the 'all new' versions of the same old
stuff. They have been selling Star Trek and Star Wars to the same people
over and over again for decades. The thing is, with every iteration, fewer
people repurchase. Eventually, that old clutter goes away.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course there'll be new technology, but your assertion was it that
>> it would DVDs look silly the way videotapes now look ugly and clunky.
>
>It will. When 'modern' homes don't have a bunch of bulky plastic boxes
>laying around on their shelves, your home full of DVDs wil look bulky and
>clunky - exactly the way VHS tapes looked to you a decade ago.
Even if global warming and overpopulation forces us to live in
cubicle-sized domiciles and store all our possessions on microchips
out of necessity it won't change that DVDs are the perfect size for
owning and displaying and have an asthetic quality
>> And the new technology will still have to fill the criteria of being
>> something you can hold in your hand and look at on a shelf, because
>> that's what people will prefer.
>
>Tell it to the music industry.
>
>> A virtual library that avails
>> everything is great but for your favorite movies you don't want it to
>> just be something you can call up from a hard drive, you want to own a
>> physical thing.
>
>That sounds like out of date thinking. Why would people want to lug around
>piles of plastic boxes and store them in their home when none of that
>archaic methodology will be necessary to have full/instant access?
People want to own stuff they love.
>>>> Even now I want to have my favorite
>>>> things on a DVD rather than somewhere on my hard drive.
>>>
>>>Tell it to the music industry.
>>
>> I'm sure most people still prefer to own complete albums that they
>> love. It's individual songs that are being stored virtually.
>
>'Album' sales aren't what they used to be.
It doesn't necessarily have to be "album sales." People can create
their own albums, legally or illegally. I'm just saying they want
albums they love on a CD, not in a folder on their ipod.
>> I'm happy
>> to have individual episodes of "30 Rock" on my computer but when the
>> complete season set comes out I want to own the physical object.
>
>Sure...and when the format for DVDs is upgraded/changed you will be one of
>the ones standing in line to buy the 'all new' versions of the same old
>stuff. They have been selling Star Trek and Star Wars to the same people
>over and over again for decades. The thing is, with every iteration, fewer
>people repurchase. Eventually, that old clutter goes away.
I could also just keep the DVDs and watch higher-tech versions of "30
Rock" out of a virtual library.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:30:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It would be hard for anyone under 60 to be politically compatible with
>>Ian.
>>maybe Elisabeth Hasselbeck?
>
> Sarah Palin is in her 40's I think.
Ian is living in north Tijuana. He probably couldn't survive a move to
Alaska.
>>You are projecting, just like when you took offense to my question of
>>whether 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'.
>
> You mean suggesting that I'd need to be drunk to get optimal enjoyment
> out of "30 Rock," a show you hate, wasn't a putdown?
I asked if 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'...and yes, that is exactly how the
comedy clubs operate to get people in the optimal mood for comedy.
>>Community and 30 Rock...you seem to be peddling for NBC again. They
>>should
>>treally pay you more.
>
> I wish you'd put in a good word with Media Rights Capital. You know
> people here trust me.
Its still not too late to tune in for a few episodes Life and Times of Tim.
Rita Rocks is done for the year, though.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even if global warming and overpopulation forces us to live in
> cubicle-sized domiciles and store all our possessions on microchips
> out of necessity it won't change that DVDs are the perfect size for
> owning and displaying and have an asthetic quality
When on a bookshelf or in a display case, all you see is the edge. I'm not
sure I see the massive 'asthetic quality' you see. Sure, it is half as wide
as a VHS tape, but beyond that all it means is that there is only half the
space to display the title.
>>That sounds like out of date thinking. Why would people want to lug
>>around
>>piles of plastic boxes and store them in their home when none of that
>>archaic methodology will be necessary to have full/instant access?
>
> People want to own stuff they love.
Is that why some of you make personal archives of usenet?
I love money, but I'd rather keep it in the bank than piled up on shelving
units around my house.
> It doesn't necessarily have to be "album sales." People can create
> their own albums, legally or illegally. I'm just saying they want
> albums they love on a CD, not in a folder on their ipod.
I'm not so sure that is true for the 'young folks'.
>>Sure...and when the format for DVDs is upgraded/changed you will be one of
>>the ones standing in line to buy the 'all new' versions of the same old
>>stuff. They have been selling Star Trek and Star Wars to the same people
>>over and over again for decades. The thing is, with every iteration,
>>fewer
>>people repurchase. Eventually, that old clutter goes away.
>
> I could also just keep the DVDs and watch higher-tech versions of "30
> Rock" out of a virtual library.
You could...the same way that people keep albums, vhs tapes, reel-to-reel,
etc...
He who dies with the most toys wins!
Steve Newport
her computer, but we like to own things. Records, tapes, books, scores
programs-- especially when shelved and organized-- are very attractive.
Just looking at them gives us pleasure. "Modern" places where everything
is electronic are as cold and inviting as liquor stores, tobacco shops,
or Home Depot.
Obveeus
"Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8192-4B28...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
I rather like Home Depot. It is very inviting...certainly moreso than
Blockbuster Video. Not keeping loads of old TV shows around your home
doesn't equate with having an empty house. People can decorate with art,
for example, rather than using their home as a giant storage shed.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:30:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>It would be hard for anyone under 60 to be politically compatible with
>>>Ian.
>>>maybe Elisabeth Hasselbeck?
>>
>> Sarah Palin is in her 40's I think.
>
>Ian is living in north Tijuana. He probably couldn't survive a move to
>Alaska.
Maybe Ian thinks he can be "First Dude."
>>>You are projecting, just like when you took offense to my question of
>>>whether 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'.
>>
>> You mean suggesting that I'd need to be drunk to get optimal enjoyment
>> out of "30 Rock," a show you hate, wasn't a putdown?
>
>I asked if 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'...and yes, that is exactly how the
>comedy clubs operate to get people in the optimal mood for comedy.
In current vernacular bringing in drunkenness into the enjoyment of
something is considered a putdown of that thing.
>>>Community and 30 Rock...you seem to be peddling for NBC again. They
>>>should
>>>treally pay you more.
>>
>> I wish you'd put in a good word with Media Rights Capital. You know
>> people here trust me.
>
>Its still not too late to tune in for a few episodes Life and Times of Tim.
>Rita Rocks is done for the year, though.
I love "Tim," and for the right time I'll let everyone know and direct
them to any websites the MRC wishes.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Even if global warming and overpopulation forces us to live in
>> cubicle-sized domiciles and store all our possessions on microchips
>> out of necessity it won't change that DVDs are the perfect size for
>> owning and displaying and have an asthetic quality
>
>When on a bookshelf or in a display case, all you see is the edge. I'm not
>sure I see the massive 'asthetic quality' you see. Sure, it is half as wide
>as a VHS tape, but beyond that all it means is that there is only half the
>space to display the title.
It's slick and shiny and thin. That design works for everything from
cellphones to laptops.
>>>That sounds like out of date thinking. Why would people want to lug
>>>around
>>>piles of plastic boxes and store them in their home when none of that
>>>archaic methodology will be necessary to have full/instant access?
>>
>> People want to own stuff they love.
>
>Is that why some of you make personal archives of usenet?
>
>I love money, but I'd rather keep it in the bank than piled up on shelving
>units around my house.
Money isn't asthetic and has dirt and cocaine on it.
>> It doesn't necessarily have to be "album sales." People can create
>> their own albums, legally or illegally. I'm just saying they want
>> albums they love on a CD, not in a folder on their ipod.
>
>I'm not so sure that is true for the 'young folks'.
>
>>>Sure...and when the format for DVDs is upgraded/changed you will be one of
>>>the ones standing in line to buy the 'all new' versions of the same old
>>>stuff. They have been selling Star Trek and Star Wars to the same people
>>>over and over again for decades. The thing is, with every iteration,
>>>fewer
>>>people repurchase. Eventually, that old clutter goes away.
>>
>> I could also just keep the DVDs and watch higher-tech versions of "30
>> Rock" out of a virtual library.
>
>You could...the same way that people keep albums, vhs tapes, reel-to-reel,
>etc...
There's no reason to keep those since everything is on DVD and better.
but "30 Rock" on DVD is the optimal "30 Rock." There aren't any
quality issues or special-effects improvements they can do to it and
it all fits on a few disks of perfect size for storing and display.
David
>I love "Tim," and for the right time .
"Right price."
If this is a job interview I hope this doesn't reflect poorly on me.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:47:32 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I asked if 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'...and yes, that is exactly how the
>>comedy clubs operate to get people in the optimal mood for comedy.
>
> In current vernacular bringing in drunkenness into the enjoyment of
> something is considered a putdown of that thing.
Really? maybe being drunk is still cool, but you just got too old for that
crowd?
>>Its still not too late to tune in for a few episodes Life and Times of
>>Tim.
>>Rita Rocks is done for the year, though.
>
> I love "Tim," and for the right time I'll let everyone know and direct
> them to any websites the MRC wishes.
Life and Times of Tim is set to premiere Feb. 14th according to futoncritic.
From that premiere date, it seems that HBO is not looking for ratings. As
for MRC's website: www.mrcstudios.com
The website was designed entirely in one afternoon by a guy using the 'how
to make a website for dummies' book.
Side note: I see that The Ricky Gervais show is also set to premiere in
February on HBO, so you can hype two MRC animated shows.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:53:17 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if global warming and overpopulation forces us to live in
>>> cubicle-sized domiciles and store all our possessions on microchips
>>> out of necessity it won't change that DVDs are the perfect size for
>>> owning and displaying and have an asthetic quality
>>
>>When on a bookshelf or in a display case, all you see is the edge. I'm
>>not
>>sure I see the massive 'asthetic quality' you see. Sure, it is half as
>>wide
>>as a VHS tape, but beyond that all it means is that there is only half the
>>space to display the title.
>
> It's slick and shiny and thin. That design works for everything from
> cellphones to laptops.
Cell phones and Lap tops from 10 years ago were considered shiny and thin
then as well. Now, they seem bulky/tacky, as do VHS tapes...as will DVD
cases.
>>>>That sounds like out of date thinking. Why would people want to lug
>>>>around
>>>>piles of plastic boxes and store them in their home when none of that
>>>>archaic methodology will be necessary to have full/instant access?
>>>
>>> People want to own stuff they love.
>>
>>Is that why some of you make personal archives of usenet?
>>
>>I love money, but I'd rather keep it in the bank than piled up on shelving
>>units around my house.
>
> Money isn't asthetic and has dirt and cocaine on it.
If the DVDs were tested, they would come back with cocaine and dirt on them
as well. Everything has some contamination level. meanwhile, I'm still not
convinced that shelves full of plastic DVD cases are astheticly pleasing.
>>> I could also just keep the DVDs and watch higher-tech versions of "30
>>> Rock" out of a virtual library.
>>
>>You could...the same way that people keep albums, vhs tapes, reel-to-reel,
>>etc...
>
> There's no reason to keep those since everything is on DVD and better.
> but "30 Rock" on DVD is the optimal "30 Rock." There aren't any
> quality issues or special-effects improvements they can do to it and
> it all fits on a few disks of perfect size for storing and display.
Just you wait. 10 years from now the people that re-did the old Star Trek
TV series will get ahold of 30 Rock and dub in some modern jokes to keep it
topical. Plus, they will add in new special effects so that Baldwin's head
doesn't look so much like a horse's.
Extravagan
The standard definition remains standard, no matter how "narrow" you
claim it is.
Obveeus
Don't take it too hard. You had already been pre-cancelled, anyway.
Extravagan
> In article <hg8av7$ush$1...@aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>> I think you underestimate the number of adults talking about Idol.
>>>>> Meanwhile, outside of usenet, I've never heard a single person talk
>>>>> about 'last night's episode of Lost'.
>>>> I have.
>>>>
>>>>> I can see someone claiming it is ok to use bittorrent to steal movies
>>>> It is physically impossible to use bittorrent to steal anything,
>>>> because bittorrent is incapable of being used to take an object away
>>>> from a person. It only makes copies of things.
>>> Under exceptionally narrow definitions of stealing.
>> No, under the standard definition of stealing, which means taking
>> something away from its owner without their permission. Copying
>> something is not taking it away.
>
> In the case of intellectual property, permission is required to make a
> copy.
Irrelevant to the topic of theft.
> Doing so without permission is equivalent to stealing in that
> context.
No, it is not.
> And even if the word "stealing" isn't appropriate, it's still
> just as illegal.
No, it is not. You can be sued for copyright infringement, whereas you
can be arrested and put in prison for theft.
John McWilliams
And you cannot see that you might be taking away income from the owner
of the medium?
--
lsmft
Extravagan
It's not theft to cause a company to make fewer sales; if it were, then
opening up your own pizzeria across from a Pizza Pizza and thereby
causing some customers to go to yours instead of theirs would be theft,
yet clearly it is not.
John McWilliams
Your argumentative posture is noted, but reason is lacking, and you
probably know that.
I'm done!
--
lsmft
Steve Newport
SN: Not loads, but some special stuff in storage closets.
-----------------------------------------
People can decorate with art
------------------------------------------
SN: Fine and pop. And photographs.
-----------------------------------------
storage shed
-----------------------------------------
SN: We have an outdoor one-- mosty used to stock holiday decorations and
critter food.
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>> The standard definition remains standard, no matter how "narrow" you
>>>> claim it is.
>>>
>>> And you cannot see that you might be taking away income
>>
>> It's not theft to cause a company to make fewer sales; if it were,
>> then opening up your own pizzeria across from a Pizza Pizza and
>> thereby causing some customers to go to yours instead of theirs would
>> be theft, yet clearly it is not.
>
> Your argumentative posture is noted, but reason is lacking
Translation: I disagree with you and for every statement you've made
I've had a calm and logical rebuttal that you couldn't find specific
fault with, so you resort to namecalling and simply asserting that
"reason is lacking". Reason is indeed lacking -- yours.
David
Gotcha. Can't let the rubes know I'm on the payroll.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:47:32 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>I asked if 'in the mood' meant 'drunk'...and yes, that is exactly how the
>>>comedy clubs operate to get people in the optimal mood for comedy.
>>
>> In current vernacular bringing in drunkenness into the enjoyment of
>> something is considered a putdown of that thing.
>
>Really? maybe being drunk is still cool, but you just got too old for that
>crowd?
You're thinking of being stoned.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:53:17 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if global warming and overpopulation forces us to live in
>>>> cubicle-sized domiciles and store all our possessions on microchips
>>>> out of necessity it won't change that DVDs are the perfect size for
>>>> owning and displaying and have an asthetic quality
>>>
>>>When on a bookshelf or in a display case, all you see is the edge. I'm
>>>not
>>>sure I see the massive 'asthetic quality' you see. Sure, it is half as
>>>wide
>>>as a VHS tape, but beyond that all it means is that there is only half the
>>>space to display the title.
>>
>> It's slick and shiny and thin. That design works for everything from
>> cellphones to laptops.
>
>Cell phones and Lap tops from 10 years ago were considered shiny and thin
>then as well. Now, they seem bulky/tacky, as do VHS tapes...as will DVD
>cases.
Laptops and cellphones are the perfect size now. The only thing they
can do is make them lighter, but not much lighter because people do
want to feel some heft to what they're purchasing.
>>>>>That sounds like out of date thinking. Why would people want to lug
>>>>>around
>>>>>piles of plastic boxes and store them in their home when none of that
>>>>>archaic methodology will be necessary to have full/instant access?
>>>>
>>>> People want to own stuff they love.
>>>
>>>Is that why some of you make personal archives of usenet?
>>>
>>>I love money, but I'd rather keep it in the bank than piled up on shelving
>>>units around my house.
>>
>> Money isn't asthetic and has dirt and cocaine on it.
>
>If the DVDs were tested, they would come back with cocaine and dirt on them
>as well. Everything has some contamination level. meanwhile, I'm still not
>convinced that shelves full of plastic DVD cases are astheticly pleasing.
Mine looks nice.
>>>> I could also just keep the DVDs and watch higher-tech versions of "30
>>>> Rock" out of a virtual library.
>>>
>>>You could...the same way that people keep albums, vhs tapes, reel-to-reel,
>>>etc...
>>
>> There's no reason to keep those since everything is on DVD and better.
>> but "30 Rock" on DVD is the optimal "30 Rock." There aren't any
>> quality issues or special-effects improvements they can do to it and
>> it all fits on a few disks of perfect size for storing and display.
>
>Just you wait. 10 years from now the people that re-did the old Star Trek
>TV series will get ahold of 30 Rock and dub in some modern jokes to keep it
>topical. Plus, they will add in new special effects so that Baldwin's head
>doesn't look so much like a horse's.
I'll only stream "30 Rock: Enhanced" to show my support for the
writers.
Obveeus
I worry about it all the time. That is why I stay away from the town
square.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:33:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It's slick and shiny and thin. That design works for everything from
>>> cellphones to laptops.
>>
>>Cell phones and Lap tops from 10 years ago were considered shiny and thin
>>then as well. Now, they seem bulky/tacky, as do VHS tapes...as will DVD
>>cases.
>
> Laptops and cellphones are the perfect size now. The only thing they
> can do is make them lighter, but not much lighter because people do
> want to feel some heft to what they're purchasing.
10 years from now a computer could easily be nothing more than a small roll
of plastic, a pair of glasses, and a battery. The roll of plastic unrolls
to form the keyboard and the pair of glasses serves as a heads up display.
People will think that carrying around a 10Lb box is antiquated beyond
reason. No one will want to 'feel the heft of their purchase'.
>>> Money isn't asthetic and has dirt and cocaine on it.
>>
>>If the DVDs were tested, they would come back with cocaine and dirt on
>>them
>>as well. Everything has some contamination level. meanwhile, I'm still
>>not
>>convinced that shelves full of plastic DVD cases are astheticly pleasing.
>
> Mine looks nice.
Sure, until you put it under the microscope and find all the rat feces and
cocaine residue.
People thought those huge projection TVs that weighed hundreds of pounds
looked nice, too. Now, people walk into a home and see one of those and
wonder why the owner is a decade behind and why he is wasting half his
livingroom with a giant box that could be one inch thick and mounted nicely
on the wall like a picture.
>>Just you wait. 10 years from now the people that re-did the old Star Trek
>>TV series will get ahold of 30 Rock and dub in some modern jokes to keep
>>it
>>topical. Plus, they will add in new special effects so that Baldwin's
>>head
>>doesn't look so much like a horse's.
>
> I'll only stream "30 Rock: Enhanced" to show my support for the
> writers.
What? No love for the computer programmers that will do the CGI correction
to Baldwin's face?
David
You're welcome for the lay-up.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:33:54 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> It's slick and shiny and thin. That design works for everything from
>>>> cellphones to laptops.
>>>
>>>Cell phones and Lap tops from 10 years ago were considered shiny and thin
>>>then as well. Now, they seem bulky/tacky, as do VHS tapes...as will DVD
>>>cases.
>>
>> Laptops and cellphones are the perfect size now. The only thing they
>> can do is make them lighter, but not much lighter because people do
>> want to feel some heft to what they're purchasing.
>
>10 years from now a computer could easily be nothing more than a small roll
>of plastic, a pair of glasses, and a battery.
We were already supposed to have robot butlers and vacations on the
moon. This much of a leap forward is just science-fiction right now.
>The roll of plastic unrolls
>to form the keyboard and the pair of glasses serves as a heads up display.
>People will think that carrying around a 10Lb box is antiquated beyond
>reason. No one will want to 'feel the heft of their purchase'.
10 Lbs? I think mine is under 5.
>>>> Money isn't asthetic and has dirt and cocaine on it.
>>>
>>>If the DVDs were tested, they would come back with cocaine and dirt on
>>>them
>>>as well. Everything has some contamination level. meanwhile, I'm still
>>>not
>>>convinced that shelves full of plastic DVD cases are astheticly pleasing.
>>
>> Mine looks nice.
>
>Sure, until you put it under the microscope and find all the rat feces and
>cocaine residue.
How do books look? Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging
a sterile house.
>>>Just you wait. 10 years from now the people that re-did the old Star Trek
>>>TV series will get ahold of 30 Rock and dub in some modern jokes to keep
>>>it
>>>topical. Plus, they will add in new special effects so that Baldwin's
>>>head
>>>doesn't look so much like a horse's.
>>
>> I'll only stream "30 Rock: Enhanced" to show my support for the
>> writers.
>
>What? No love for the computer programmers that will do the CGI correction
>to Baldwin's face?
Screw the computer programmers. They're the ones hoarding the robot
butlers.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:55:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>10 years from now a computer could easily be nothing more than a small
>>roll
>>of plastic, a pair of glasses, and a battery.
>
> We were already supposed to have robot butlers and vacations on the
> moon. This much of a leap forward is just science-fiction right now.
I've already seen glasses that provide heads up displays and roll-up
keyboards. I'm not sure why anyone would want a robot butler, but a roomba
exists. As for the moon, there are no good restaurants, so why would anyone
want to go there on vacation? besides, CityCenter just opened up and I'm
quite sure that it is superior to the moon in every way.
>>The roll of plastic unrolls
>>to form the keyboard and the pair of glasses serves as a heads up display.
>>People will think that carrying around a 10Lb box is antiquated beyond
>>reason. No one will want to 'feel the heft of their purchase'.
>
> 10 Lbs? I think mine is under 5.
And some people surf the web using a Blackberry, but all the stuff used
today will be obsolete junk in a decade.
> How do books look? Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging
> a sterile house.
Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections, but since I never
learned to read I don't have much use for them either. I'd rather see
pictures/painting, plants, fish tanks, fire places, sculptures, etc... than
shelves full of plastic boxes advertising TV shows and movies. You can keep
trying, but you are not going to convince me that a wall full of DVDs is
attractive.
>>>>Just you wait. 10 years from now the people that re-did the old Star
>>>>Trek
>>>>TV series will get ahold of 30 Rock and dub in some modern jokes to keep
>>>>it
>>>>topical. Plus, they will add in new special effects so that Baldwin's
>>>>head
>>>>doesn't look so much like a horse's.
>>>
>>> I'll only stream "30 Rock: Enhanced" to show my support for the
>>> writers.
>>
>>What? No love for the computer programmers that will do the CGI
>>correction
>>to Baldwin's face?
>
> Screw the computer programmers. They're the ones hoarding the robot
> butlers.
Nope. The robot butlers are the kind of thing that people working in a cog
factory would have in their home.
Steve Newport
house.>>>
Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections, but I don't have
much use for them either.
SN: Is this connected to your lowbrow taste in music and film?
Obveeus
It could be. I watched Julie & Julia last night and it sucked.
Boring...pointless...fawning...yuck.
Better movies I saw from this year's crop: District 9, Watchmen, Harry
Potter, Up, Coraline, Ponyo, Star Trek, Monsters vs. Aliens, Angels &
Demons, Surrogates
Mediocre: The Proposal, Terminator Salvation, Duplicity, Planet 51
Other movies that sucked as bad as Julie & Julia: Gi Joe, Ice Age: Dawn of
the Dinosaurs, Bride Wars, Funny People
I'm sure there are others, but clearly I gravitate towards that silly pop
culture stuff that isn't highbrow enough for your yawning old fart desires.
Extravagan
> "Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:29128-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>> From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)
>> <<<Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging a sterile
>> house.>>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections, but I don't have
>> much use for them either.
>> ----------------------------------
>> SN: Is this connected to your lowbrow taste in music and film?
>
> It could be. I watched Julie & Julia last night and it sucked.
> Boring...pointless...fawning...yuck.
> Better movies I saw from this year's crop: District 9, Watchmen, Harry
> Potter
Whoa, wait a minute -- isn't that for kids?
> Up
Whoa, wait a minute -- isn't that for even younger kids?
> Star Trek
Ah, that's better.
> Monsters vs. Aliens
*facepalm* What are you, about six?!
> Angels & Demons, Surrogates
Either way too young to be seeing things like District 9 and Surrogates
or way too old to be seeing things like Monsters vs. Aliens and Up.
> Mediocre: The Proposal, Terminator Salvation, Duplicity, Planet 51
> Other movies that sucked as bad as Julie & Julia: Gi Joe
Error.
> Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
More kid stuff.
> Bride Wars
Ah, now that's more like it.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:55:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>10 years from now a computer could easily be nothing more than a small
>>>roll
>>>of plastic, a pair of glasses, and a battery.
>>
>> We were already supposed to have robot butlers and vacations on the
>> moon. This much of a leap forward is just science-fiction right now.
>
>I've already seen glasses that provide heads up displays and roll-up
>keyboards.
When will that fall into my price range?
>I'm not sure why anyone would want a robot butler, but a roomba
>exists. As for the moon, there are no good restaurants, so why would anyone
>want to go there on vacation? besides, CityCenter just opened up and I'm
>quite sure that it is superior to the moon in every way.
Is that like Chelsea Piers? I'd rather golf on the moon.
>>>The roll of plastic unrolls
>>>to form the keyboard and the pair of glasses serves as a heads up display.
>>>People will think that carrying around a 10Lb box is antiquated beyond
>>>reason. No one will want to 'feel the heft of their purchase'.
>>
>> 10 Lbs? I think mine is under 5.
>
>And some people surf the web using a Blackberry, but all the stuff used
>today will be obsolete junk in a decade.
Blackberries have many uses but as a "shrunken-down laptop" they lose
some of the function.
>> How do books look? Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging
>> a sterile house.
>
>Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections,
That depends on what DVDs you're displaying. And there's a place for
both. DVDs go on a shelf above the entertainment center (and under the
tv for those I'm not as inclined to display or which don't have
manufacturers' packaging). Books go on a bookshelf on a different
wall.
>but since I never learned to read I don't have much use for them either. I'd rather see
>pictures/painting, plants, fish tanks, fire places, sculptures, etc...
I don't have sculptures and fire places. Close your robe, Mr. Hefner.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:28:32 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I've already seen glasses that provide heads up displays and roll-up
>>keyboards.
>
> When will that fall into my price range?
TVs have dropped 50%-75% in the last year. They will likely do the same in
the next year. The portable computer discribed above will certainly be in
your price range in less than 10 years.
>>I'm not sure why anyone would want a robot butler, but a roomba
>>exists. As for the moon, there are no good restaurants, so why would
>>anyone
>>want to go there on vacation? besides, CityCenter just opened up and I'm
>>quite sure that it is superior to the moon in every way.
>
> Is that like Chelsea Piers?
Not really. CityCenter is more hotel/condo/eateries/shopping/resort...so
less sports oriented, for sure.
>I'd rather golf on the moon.
I won't even play to play golf on this planet, so golfing on the moon hardly
seems like a good way to spend one's fortune.
>>And some people surf the web using a Blackberry, but all the stuff used
>>today will be obsolete junk in a decade.
>
> Blackberries have many uses but as a "shrunken-down laptop" they lose
> some of the function.
How about an 'i-phone'? people think those are web worthy, right?
>>> How do books look? Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging
>>> a sterile house.
>>
>>Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections,
>
> That depends on what DVDs you're displaying. And there's a place for
> both.
Sure there is...behind a solid wood cabinet door so that they don't show.
> DVDs go on a shelf above the entertainment center (and under the
> tv for those I'm not as inclined to display or which don't have
> manufacturers' packaging).
Does that mean 'porn'?
> Books go on a bookshelf on a different wall.
If I owned a book I'd probably put it in a computer room rather than a
living room.
>>but since I never learned to read I don't have much use for them either.
>>I'd rather see
>>pictures/painting, plants, fish tanks, fire places, sculptures, etc...
>
> I don't have sculptures and fire places. Close your robe, Mr. Hefner.
I don't own a robe. No fireplace? Would you settle for a pellet stove?
Hey, nowadays you can even by faux fireplaces that run off a lightbulb, a
fan, and some colored paper cut in the shape of flames. I suppose New
Yorkers have to settle for the fake stuff since there is no chimney. Do you
at least have a window that opens? If not, does that mean you don't get
visits from Santa Claus?
Obveeus
"Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29128-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
Side note: Glee has 5 songs on this week's Billboard Hot 100:
#51 My Life Would Suck Without You
#53 Don't Rain on My Parade
#71 You Can't Always Get What You Want
#89 Last Christmas
#94 And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:28:32 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>I've already seen glasses that provide heads up displays and roll-up
>>>keyboards.
>>
>> When will that fall into my price range?
>
>TVs have dropped 50%-75% in the last year. They will likely do the same in
>the next year. The portable computer discribed above will certainly be in
>your price range in less than 10 years.
We shall see. We shall see. I predict it'll be used exclusively by
rich guys and tv CSIs with unlimited budgets.
>>>I'm not sure why anyone would want a robot butler, but a roomba
>>>exists. As for the moon, there are no good restaurants, so why would
>>>anyone
>>>want to go there on vacation? besides, CityCenter just opened up and I'm
>>>quite sure that it is superior to the moon in every way.
>>
>> Is that like Chelsea Piers?
>
>Not really. CityCenter is more hotel/condo/eateries/shopping/resort...so
>less sports oriented, for sure.
Haven't heard of it. Ah, it's in Vegas. I try to avoid all
temptations.
>>I'd rather golf on the moon.
>
>I won't even play to play golf on this planet, so golfing on the moon hardly
>seems like a good way to spend one's fortune.
The moon will need caddies too.
>>>And some people surf the web using a Blackberry, but all the stuff used
>>>today will be obsolete junk in a decade.
>>
>> Blackberries have many uses but as a "shrunken-down laptop" they lose
>> some of the function.
>
>How about an 'i-phone'? people think those are web worthy, right?
They're all good but they aren't replacements for a laptop with a
comfortable keyboard and a big screen.
>>>> How do books look? Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging
>>>> a sterile house.
>>>
>>>Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections,
>>
>> That depends on what DVDs you're displaying. And there's a place for
>> both.
>
>Sure there is...behind a solid wood cabinet door so that they don't show.
But how will I judge peoples' worthiness if not by their reactions to
my possessions?
>> DVDs go on a shelf above the entertainment center (and under the
>> tv for those I'm not as inclined to display or which don't have
>> manufacturers' packaging).
>
>Does that mean 'porn'?
My porn is still on VHS. There haven't been enough DVD extras to
upgrade.
>> Books go on a bookshelf on a different wall.
>
>If I owned a book I'd probably put it in a computer room rather than a
>living room.
A computer room? No wonder you think you'll have one of those future
keyboards. What else do you have,
>>>but since I never learned to read I don't have much use for them either.
>>>I'd rather see
>>>pictures/painting, plants, fish tanks, fire places, sculptures, etc...
>>
>> I don't have sculptures and fire places. Close your robe, Mr. Hefner.
>
>I don't own a robe.
Then close your drapes!
>No fireplace? Would you settle for a pellet stove?
>Hey, nowadays you can even by faux fireplaces that run off a lightbulb, a
>fan, and some colored paper cut in the shape of flames.
That'll go great in my bedroom with the heart-shaped hot tub and the
slowly rotating bed.
>I suppose New
>Yorkers have to settle for the fake stuff since there is no chimney. Do you
>at least have a window that opens?
Of course. You're thinking of Newark.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:28:32 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>I've already seen glasses that provide heads up displays and roll-up
>>>keyboards.
>>
>> When will that fall into my price range?
>
>TVs have dropped 50%-75% in the last year. They will likely do the same in
>the next year. The portable computer discribed above will certainly be in
>your price range in less than 10 years.
We shall see. We shall see. I predict it'll be used exclusively by
rich guys and tv CSIs with unlimited budgets.
>>>I'm not sure why anyone would want a robot butler, but a roomba
>>>exists. As for the moon, there are no good restaurants, so why would
>>>anyone
>>>want to go there on vacation? besides, CityCenter just opened up and I'm
>>>quite sure that it is superior to the moon in every way.
>>
>> Is that like Chelsea Piers?
>
>Not really. CityCenter is more hotel/condo/eateries/shopping/resort...so
>less sports oriented, for sure.
Haven't heard of it. Ah, it's in Vegas. I try to avoid all
temptations.
>>I'd rather golf on the moon.
>
>I won't even play to play golf on this planet, so golfing on the moon hardly
>seems like a good way to spend one's fortune.
The moon will need caddies too.
>>>And some people surf the web using a Blackberry, but all the stuff used
>>>today will be obsolete junk in a decade.
>>
>> Blackberries have many uses but as a "shrunken-down laptop" they lose
>> some of the function.
>
>How about an 'i-phone'? people think those are web worthy, right?
They're all good but they aren't replacements for a laptop with a
comfortable keyboard and a big screen.
>>>> How do books look? Are you also against displaying books? I'm imaging
>>>> a sterile house.
>>>
>>>Books are certainly more classy than DVD collections,
>>
>> That depends on what DVDs you're displaying. And there's a place for
>> both.
>
>Sure there is...behind a solid wood cabinet door so that they don't show.
But how will I judge peoples' worthiness if not by their reactions to
my possessions?
>> DVDs go on a shelf above the entertainment center (and under the
>> tv for those I'm not as inclined to display or which don't have
>> manufacturers' packaging).
>
>Does that mean 'porn'?
My porn is still on VHS. There haven't been enough DVD extras to
upgrade.
>> Books go on a bookshelf on a different wall.
>
>If I owned a book I'd probably put it in a computer room rather than a
>living room.
A computer room? No wonder you think you'll have one of those future
keyboards. What else do you have,
>>>but since I never learned to read I don't have much use for them either.
>>>I'd rather see
>>>pictures/painting, plants, fish tanks, fire places, sculptures, etc...
>>
>> I don't have sculptures and fire places. Close your robe, Mr. Hefner.
>
>I don't own a robe.
Then close your drapes!
>No fireplace? Would you settle for a pellet stove?
>Hey, nowadays you can even by faux fireplaces that run off a lightbulb, a
>fan, and some colored paper cut in the shape of flames.
That'll go great in my bedroom with the heart-shaped hot tub and the
slowly rotating bed.
>I suppose New
>Yorkers have to settle for the fake stuff since there is no chimney. Do you
>at least have a window that opens?
Of course. You're thinking of Newark.
Steve Newport
sucked. Clearly I gravitate towards that silly pop culture stuff that
isn't highbrow...
----------------------------------
As much as I love Amy Adams, I skipped J & J because it's about
non-vegetarian cooking.
Extravagan
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'd rather golf on the moon.
>
> I won't even play to play golf on this planet, so golfing on the moon hardly
> seems like a good way to spend one's fortune.
Even though you might actually be able to get a hole in one on a par 5?
Steve Newport
Glee has 5 songs on this week's Billboard Hot 100: #53 Don't Rain on My
Parade
----------------------------------------
Turning kids on to composer Jule Styne is great: GYPSY, BELLS ARE
RINGING, GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES, Mary Martin's PETER PAN, etc., etc.
Steve Newport
I don't own a robe. Do you at least have a window that opens? If not,
does that mean you don't get visits from Santa Claus?
We have robes and windows that open. I asked Santa for a new robe, in
fact.