Discussion:
More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks
(too old to reply)
Frederick Blake
2012-12-01 00:47:25 UTC
Permalink
More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks: the networks
have screwed up ALL of tonight's non-cable genre offerings, though (so far
as I can tell) none of the non-genre shows.

CSI:NY, for example, looks normal.

Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".

Not only is Grimm a rerun, but it's the *only* Grimm rerun -- that is,
every time Grimm has been a rerun this season it's been the same fucking
episode! This means if you missed an episode and it wasn't that one you're
SOL. They should rerun a different episode each rerun (until and unless
they've aired so many reruns as to have run out of episodes not already
rerun).

Not to be outdone by NBC, Fox has fucked up Fringe even worse: it seems to
simply be *missing*. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to have two or three
episodes still to go -- the last one I saw sure didn't seem to resolve the
plot. So either
a) They axed it just a couple of episodes before it was going to end
anyway, which makes them extraordinarily evil cheapskate bastards;
b) They preempted it -- but the thing on in its place is not something that
should be preempting anything, and nothing should be being preempted in
September, November, February, or May anyway; or
c) They just plain screwed up.
Not that it particularly matters which. The results, for viewers, are the
same.

The significant thing here though, is that there's a clear double standard
being applied.

Regular dramas that aren't geeky are airing normally, and they're taking
care not to make any mistakes in scheduling with them.

Genre shows, by contrast, get handled carelessly (forgetting to not air a
rerun before December, or forgetting to air it entirely, or similar
mistakes), get preempted at the proverbial drop of a hat, and/or get
terminated with extreme prejudice at the slightest hint of
sufficiently-shoddy ratings, established fan base needing only 3 more
episodes (or whatever) to get closure be damned.

(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
They canceled it justifiably due to low ratings; but, rather less
justifiably, they explicitly promised to air the remaining episodes only to
turn right around and yank it off the schedule without airing a single one
of those remaining episodes. In particular, it wasn't on yesterday. Note
that this makes three of the five networks that have screwed over a genre
show in the last 2 DAYS -- and CBS seems to have no genre shows on its
schedule AT ALL, so is screwing them by never ordering any to series! The
kindest network to genre shows seems to be CW -- the notorious axers of
Dollhouse and The Secret Circle.)

The systematically poorer treatment of genre shows (and their fans) by the
networks is an issue that needs to be addressed, perhaps through some type
of political action. We should have sent the networks some sort of clear
and unambiguous message the instant Fox fucked up Firefly, but we weren't
organized enough. However, it's not too late to *get* organized and send
that message now, and Fox's poor handling of Fringe in the past three
years, with frequent preemptions and fuckups, is as good a flash-point to
rally around as we're likely to get for a while. First, their treatment of
it this week is more egregious than any of the other mistreatments this
week; second, they've mistreated it chronically, which is not true of Grimm
(mostly treated well) or Last Resort (too young to have been chronically
anything); and last but CERTAINLY not least, it's the same network that
infamously fucked with Firefly.

But the message we send should make it very clear that Fox is not the sole
target of our ire -- ALL of the networks are guilty to significant degrees
of implementing the same nasty double standard, and it has to stop, on pain
of a boycott by all of geek-kind if they fail to comply with our demands.
Barry Margolin
2012-12-01 01:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks: the networks
have screwed up ALL of tonight's non-cable genre offerings, though (so far
as I can tell) none of the non-genre shows.
CSI:NY, for example, looks normal.
Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".
The episode two weeks ago was announced as the "Fall finale".
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
They canceled it justifiably due to low ratings; but, rather less
justifiably, they explicitly promised to air the remaining episodes only to
turn right around and yank it off the schedule without airing a single one
of those remaining episodes. In particular, it wasn't on yesterday. Note
Yes it was, I watched it.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
suzeeq
2012-12-01 02:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks: the networks
have screwed up ALL of tonight's non-cable genre offerings, though (so far
as I can tell) none of the non-genre shows.
CSI:NY, for example, looks normal.
Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".
The episode two weeks ago was announced as the "Fall finale".
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
They canceled it justifiably due to low ratings; but, rather less
justifiably, they explicitly promised to air the remaining episodes only to
turn right around and yank it off the schedule without airing a single one
of those remaining episodes. In particular, it wasn't on yesterday. Note
Yes it was, I watched it.
I will say that 'he who must not be named' is getting slightly more
creative in his "where the hell is" threads.

B for effort, D for content.
My Name
2012-12-10 00:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:19:51 -0700, suzeeq wrote:

422> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

422> I will say that 'he who must not be named' is getting slightly more
422> creative in his "where the hell is" threads.

Who is "he who must not be named", suzeeq? There is nobody in this
newsgroup using that alias. ;)

422> B for effort, D for content.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, suzeeq?
suzeeq
2012-12-10 00:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Name
422> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
422> I will say that 'he who must not be named' is getting slightly more
422> creative in his "where the hell is" threads.
Who is "he who must not be named", suzeeq? There is nobody in this
newsgroup using that alias. ;)
That's because he must not be named...
Post by My Name
422> B for effort, D for content.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, suzeeq?
We grade tv shows all the time here.
Michael Black
2012-12-10 03:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by My Name
422> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
422> I will say that 'he who must not be named' is getting slightly more
422> creative in his "where the hell is" threads.
Who is "he who must not be named", suzeeq? There is nobody in this
newsgroup using that alias. ;)
That's because he must not be named...
But apparently even not naming him invokes him. If only it was a simple
as Rumpelstiltskin, and we could make him disappear.

Michael
suzeeq
2012-12-10 03:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by suzeeq
Post by My Name
422> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
422> I will say that 'he who must not be named' is getting slightly more
422> creative in his "where the hell is" threads.
Who is "he who must not be named", suzeeq? There is nobody in this
newsgroup using that alias. ;)
That's because he must not be named...
But apparently even not naming him invokes him. If only it was a simple
as Rumpelstiltskin, and we could make him disappear.
Heeheheheee
Harold Gr0ot
2012-12-10 18:14:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:30:31 -0700, suzeeq wrote:

423> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

423> Michael Black wrote:
423> >>> Who is "he who must not be named", suzeeq? There is nobody in
423> >>> this newsgroup using that alias. ;)
423> >> That's because he must not be named...
423> >>
423> > But apparently even not naming him invokes him. If only it was a
423> > simple as Rumpelstiltskin, and we could make him disappear.
423>
423> Heeheheheee

Classic invective, as expected from people who lack a logical argument.

Perhaps what would make "him" disappear, given the set of newsposts you
attribute to "him", would be for you to rouse up a petition of all the
television networks to get them to enter a binding agreement with each
other, and with their audience, to set the time slots for scripted shows
once in September, once in January, and once in June, and not deviate
from that schedule (short of genuinely earth-shattering breaking news)
from one schedule-setting time to the next. (Some space could be left
each night for non-scripted-show material -- "reality", sports, movies,
awards, political fluff, etc.)

Certainly nothing short of either that or seeing a psychiatrist is likely
to rid you of "him", as without treatment for clinically-significant
paranoia you will continue to perceive all complaints about scheduling
snafus as being "him", and without an improvement in the dismal behavior
of the networks in that regard people will continue to gripe in
television newsgroups about disappearing shows, mis-timed reruns, and
other such TV-network errors.
suzeeq
2012-12-10 18:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Gr0ot
423> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
423> >>> Who is "he who must not be named", suzeeq? There is nobody in
423> >>> this newsgroup using that alias. ;)
423> >> That's because he must not be named...
423> >>
423> > But apparently even not naming him invokes him. If only it was a
423> > simple as Rumpelstiltskin, and we could make him disappear.
423>
423> Heeheheheee
Classic invective, as expected from people who lack a logical argument.
Perhaps what would make "him" disappear, given the set of newsposts you
attribute to "him", would be for you to rouse up a petition of all the
television networks to get them to enter a binding agreement with each
other, and with their audience, to set the time slots for scripted shows
once in September, once in January, and once in June, and not deviate
from that schedule (short of genuinely earth-shattering breaking news)
from one schedule-setting time to the next. (Some space could be left
each night for non-scripted-show material -- "reality", sports, movies,
awards, political fluff, etc.)
Certainly nothing short of either that or seeing a psychiatrist is likely
to rid you of "him", as without treatment for clinically-significant
paranoia you will continue to perceive all complaints about scheduling
snafus as being "him", and without an improvement in the dismal behavior
of the networks in that regard people will continue to gripe in
television newsgroups about disappearing shows, mis-timed reruns, and
other such TV-network errors.
Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
Howard Groot
2012-12-10 18:26:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:22:20 -0700, suzeeq wrote:

424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.

It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
suzeeq
2012-12-10 19:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Groot
424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
I doubt you could get enough people who care to make a difference.
Besides, he's in Canada and it's the cable channels there who do the
weird programming, not showing all the substitute shows. I don't really
care what they networks do, I'm aware when a show is going on break and
check the guides for repeats. Then I watch other shows, or get something
on dvd.
shawn
2012-12-10 21:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Howard Groot
424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
I doubt you could get enough people who care to make a difference.
Besides, he's in Canada and it's the cable channels there who do the
weird programming, not showing all the substitute shows. I don't really
care what they networks do, I'm aware when a show is going on break and
check the guides for repeats. Then I watch other shows, or get something
on dvd.
And he's managed to troll you.
suzeeq
2012-12-11 01:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by suzeeq
Post by Howard Groot
424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
I doubt you could get enough people who care to make a difference.
Besides, he's in Canada and it's the cable channels there who do the
weird programming, not showing all the substitute shows. I don't really
care what they networks do, I'm aware when a show is going on break and
check the guides for repeats. Then I watch other shows, or get something
on dvd.
And he's managed to troll you.
No. I figured it was you know who by the numbers on the lines.
H0wie Groot
2012-12-11 20:49:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:07:29 -0700, suzeeq wrote:

416> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

426> No. I figured it was you know who by the numbers on the lines.

Who is "you know who", suzeeq? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.
Michael Black
2012-12-10 23:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Groot
424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
I doubt you could get enough people who care to make a difference. Besides,
he's in Canada and it's the cable channels there who do the weird
programming, not showing all the substitute shows. I don't really care what
they networks do, I'm aware when a show is going on break and check the
guides for repeats. Then I watch other shows, or get something on dvd.
I thought that was just him, replying to himself.

Like I just replied in another message, I have complained to CTV about
their bumping programming to a secondary channel, like during the last
Winter Olympics.

But that's a different matter from the endless complaints here about no
new programs because it's US Thanksgiving or Christmas is coming up.

Michael
suzeeq
2012-12-11 01:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Howard Groot
424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
I doubt you could get enough people who care to make a difference. Besides,
he's in Canada and it's the cable channels there who do the weird
programming, not showing all the substitute shows. I don't really care what
they networks do, I'm aware when a show is going on break and check the
guides for repeats. Then I watch other shows, or get something on dvd.
I thought that was just him, replying to himself.
Like I just replied in another message, I have complained to CTV about
their bumping programming to a secondary channel, like during the last
Winter Olympics.
But that's a different matter from the endless complaints here about no
new programs because it's US Thanksgiving or Christmas is coming up.
Maybe. I just figured it's the other side of the complaint. And this
probably isn't really Harold.
H0wie Gro0t
2012-12-11 20:56:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:12:29 -0500, Michael Black wrote:

448> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

448> I thought that was just him, replying to himself.

Who is "him", Black?

448> Like I just replied in another message, I have complained to CTV
448> about their bumping programming to a secondary channel, like during
448> the last Winter Olympics.

What do your complaints have to do with televised science fiction, Black?

448> But that's a different matter from the endless complaints here about
448> no new programs because it's US Thanksgiving or Christmas is coming
448> up.

Classic illogic, since it is currently weeks away from either date.
Classic erroneous presupposition that the complaints were about a lack of
new episodes, as well, Black; the primary complaints seem to be about
shows being yanked from the schedule entirely.

448> Michael

What does your alias have to do with television, Black?
Howie Groot
2012-12-11 20:48:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:16:09 -0700, suzeeq wrote:

425> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

425> I doubt you could get enough people who care to make a difference.

Classic illogic. The viewer data for the shows in question indicate that
the people who care exist in large enough numbers to completely populate
a city the size of New York.

425> Besides, he's in Canada

Classic erroneous presupposition. Blake's post clearly indicated watching
NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC, which are US networks, suzeeq.

425> and it's the cable channels there who do the weird programming, not
425> showing all the substitute shows.

There aren't supposed to *be* any "substitute shows".

425> I don't really care what they networks do,

How peculiar, given that what they do can interfere with an activity you
enjoy, suzeeq, particularly if they screw it up.

425> I'm aware when a show is going on break and check the guides for
425> repeats. Then I watch other shows, or get something on dvd.

Repeats, in general, aren't the issue here, suzeeq. Blake was complaining
about a) shows disappearing entirely (not going into repeats) and b)
repeats instead of new eps *during sweeps*, both of which will hurt the
show's ability to make money and increase the risk of its cancellation. A
show seeming to have been pulled completely off the air is a show many
viewers will assume is canceled and not look for again, lowering ratings
during the next sweeps period. Reruns get poorer ratings than first-run
episodes, so airing reruns during sweeps also lowers ratings during a
sweeps period. Lower ratings during a sweeps period results in reduced ad
revenue from then all the way until the next sweeps period, and reduced
revenue, in turn, results in shows getting canceled for being
unprofitable.
Michael Black
2012-12-10 23:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Groot
424> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
424> Awww Harold, we're just having fun at 'his' expense.
It would be more constructive to make the television networks behave,
suzeeq. A large enough number of signatures on a petition threatening a
viewership boycott ought to suffice.
Yet you are constantly whining here in this newsgroup, never giving a sign
that you've complained.

I complained during the last Winter Olympics when CTV bumped programming
for around the clock Olympic coverage. Yes, I actually emailed CTV. I've
complained to them about other instances of bumping, but of course I
understand what you don't, so I can tell the difference between them
airing CSI at 7pm yet not carrying the latest episode (they bumped it to
CTV2) and them not airing the latest episode of something because there is
no latest episode of that show this week.

Michael
H0wie Gr0ot
2012-12-11 21:00:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:06:01 -0500, Michael Black wrote:

449> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

449> Yet you are constantly whining here in this newsgroup, never giving a
449> sign that you've complained.

Classic contradiction.

449> I complained during the last Winter Olympics when CTV bumped
449> programming for around the clock Olympic coverage.

What does that have to do with televised science fiction, Black?

449> Yes, I actually emailed CTV.

What does your email have to do with televised science fiction, Black?

449> I've complained to them about other instances of bumping, but of
449> course I understand what you don't, so I can tell the difference
449> between them airing CSI at 7pm yet not carrying the latest episode
449> (they bumped it to CTV2) and them not airing the latest episode of
449> something because there is no latest episode of that show this week.

If there is no new episode then they are required to air a rerun of the
same show. Any other action is a blatantly erroneous one and
counterproductive, since it implies to the show's fans that the show has
been canceled and many of them will consequently not bother looking for
it ever again, resulting in a ratings decline.

449> Michael

What does your alias have to do with television, Black?
Sgt. Rutters' Only Darts Club Banned
2012-12-13 04:24:49 UTC
Permalink
AUK's July Kook Of The Month, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA H0wie Gr0ot
449> Newsgroups<SPANK!>
Hi, Paul Derbyshire. Stolen from any blind people recently?

Whose identity are you trying to steal now, Seamus - oh, that of
Harold Groot <***@infionline.net>.

You've failed at that, you stupid cunt who steals from the blind,
but you've managed to prove that you're a net abuser and morph to
evade killfiles -


From: H0wie Gr0ot <***@infi0nline.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:00:08 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Message-ID: <ka86so$8cf$***@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ekqCTrqXYkKRVHXR1zbg6g.user.speranza.aioe.org


From: H0wie Gro0t <***@infi0nline.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:56:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <ka86m8$8cf$***@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ekqCTrqXYkKRVHXR1zbg6g.user.speranza.aioe.org


From: H0wie Groot <***@infionline.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:49:38 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <ka8692$71k$***@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ekqCTrqXYkKRVHXR1zbg6g.user.speranza.aioe.org

From: Howie Groot <***@infionline.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:48:26 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <ka866q$71k$***@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ekqCTrqXYkKRVHXR1zbg6g.user.speranza.aioe.org

SPANK!

Too bad for you that two of your frogeries above use a working domain.

http://whois.domaintools.com/infionline.net

Please to lie more about how you didn't forge all those addresses
for your fake ballot, Paul.

Followups set.
--
"Sweetness Seal Of Approval" #4 Derbyshire's Baysean Lits of Haet #1
Co-winning trainer, Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog-Whistle - August 2012
Winner of multiple fake awards from serial Usenet kook Paul G. Derbyshire
Derbyshire gets tarred and feathered - <***@news.alt.net>
Why does the net abuser forge blind people?
See his forgery at http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=135428594100

Anonypussy [Tard] <***@altusenetkooks.*> is the Official AUK Peg Boi.
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-award.html
Spanking [Tard] PegBoi by Numbers - MID <***@news.alt.net>
--
"Sweetness Seal Of Approval" #4 Derbyshire's Baysean Lits of Haet #1
Co-winning trainer, Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog-Whistle - August 2012
Winner of multiple fake awards from serial Usenet kook Paul G. Derbyshire
Derbyshire gets tarred and feathered - <***@news.alt.net>

Why does the net abuser forge blind people?
See his forgery at http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=135428594100


Anonypussy [Tard] <***@altusenetkooks.*> is the Official AUK Peg Boi.
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-award.html
Spanking [Tard] PegBoi by Numbers - MID <***@news.alt.net>
Frederick Blake
2012-12-01 02:41:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:01:04 -0500, Barry Margolin wasted
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
More examples of genre shows getting the shaft from networks: the networks
have screwed up ALL of tonight's non-cable genre offerings, though (so far
as I can tell) none of the non-genre shows.
CSI:NY, for example, looks normal.
Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".
The episode two weeks ago was announced as the "Fall finale".
That doesn't make sense. It would only have been halfway through November
at that time, and a "fall finale" is supposed to air in the final week of
November or in early December.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
They canceled it justifiably due to low ratings; but, rather less
justifiably, they explicitly promised to air the remaining episodes only to
turn right around and yank it off the schedule without airing a single one
of those remaining episodes. In particular, it wasn't on yesterday. Note
Yes it was, I watched it.
It was not listed in the primetime grid for Thursday in my newspaper, and
my local affiliate didn't air it at its normal time (I checked, in case the
paper had a misprint).

If some affiliates are airing the remaining episodes and some are not, then
that's just as bad, IMO. A promise was made and it's being broken for at
least some of the show's fans; the only justifiable number of fans to break
the promise to is zero, however.
Stan Brown
2012-12-01 01:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Not to be outdone by NBC, Fox has fucked up Fringe even worse: it seems to
simply be *missing*.
Par for Fox and cult favorites.

Actually they've treated /Fringe/ a lot better than /Firefly/ and
/Wonderfalls/. To bad that I just couldn't get into /Fringe/.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
2012-12-01 01:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
They canceled it justifiably due to low ratings; but, rather less
justifiably, they explicitly promised to air the remaining episodes only to
turn right around and yank it off the schedule without airing a single one
of those remaining episodes. In particular, it wasn't on yesterday.
Huh? What? The AV Club reviewed it; it was the Thanksgiving
episode.

(I didn't watch it myself. The moment ABC cancelled it, that tipped
the balance for a show that had been on my wn personal bubble, and I
deleted it from the recorder.)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Your Name
2012-12-01 03:50:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <k9bk2u$jnl$***@news.mixmin.net>, Frederick Blake
<***@gmail.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Frederick Blake
Not to be outdone by NBC, Fox has fucked up Fringe even worse
<snip>

According to the latest local TV Guide, NBC was offered the opportunity to
make an American "Downton Abbey" written by the same creator. NBC turned
it down because, according to them, "Americans wouldn't watch a period
drama".

Now that the British show is so popular, including with many Americans,
NBC has changed its mind and now want their "Downton Abbey" ... of course,
it's extremely likely that the management and bean counters will still
stick their noses in and completely ruin it, and then turn around and say
"We told you so". :-\

There's no word on whether the American show would be a separate one or a
spin-off of the British show with Shirley McLaine's character.
Harold Groot
2012-12-01 10:00:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:47:25 -0500, Frederick Blake
Post by Frederick Blake
Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".
Sweeps HAPPENS in November, but it doesn't run from Nov. 1 to Nov. 30.
This year it started on Oct. 25 and ran through Nov. 21. (They keep
all the Holiday Stuff at Thanksgiving out of Sweeps, since Holiday
Viewing is VERY low.) Sweeps was over on the 30th. It was over the
previous week, too (23rd). Their "Fall Finale" was held on the last
Friday of Sweeps (16th).
Post by Frederick Blake
Not to be outdone by NBC, Fox has fucked up Fringe even worse: it seems to
simply be *missing*. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to have two or three
episodes still to go -- the last one I saw sure didn't seem to resolve the
plot. So either
a) They axed it just a couple of episodes before it was going to end
anyway, which makes them extraordinarily evil cheapskate bastards;
b) They preempted it -- but the thing on in its place is not something that
should be preempting anything, and nothing should be being preempted in
September, November, February, or May anyway; or
Again, Sweeps was LONG OVER. Since Thanksgiving (on the 22nd this
year, as early as it can be) we've been in HOLIDAY Programming, not
SWEEPS Programming, and will be well into January. And since
viewership sinks anyway during the holidays, they will often drag out
the absolute WORST stuff to do the preempts with. This is "Nobody
expects good ratings anyway" season.

Fox was showing the PAC-12 Championship game out here (Pacific Time
Zone), and if they also showed it in the Mountain Time Zone (or any
place further east, for that matter) it would have wiped out Fringe
there anyway.
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
They canceled it justifiably due to low ratings; but, rather less
justifiably, they explicitly promised to air the remaining episodes only to
turn right around and yank it off the schedule without airing a single one
of those remaining episodes. In particular, it wasn't on yesterday.
Actually, it was. I watched it. It was mainly about a sailor accused
of rape by an Island girl, though they also had a
"Let's-Share-Our-Holiday-With-The-Natives" Thanksgiving scene. Of
course, with the show cancelled, burning off remaining episodes during
the Holiday Season (remember, NOT SWEEPS) makes sense for a low-rated
show.
slakmagik
2012-12-01 17:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".
_Grimm_ is in re-runs now because it got an early start after
substantial promotion during the Olympics. _Grimm_ is one of NBC's few
bright spots and I believe they're *trying* to treat it right. That
said, it's NBC and NBC is stupid and a gigantic layoff in the middle of
the season is a horrible idea. But I can see what they were thinking at
least, and they weren't trying to shaft it.
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
What else could they count it as? Fictional president in a dystopian
America nukes Pakistan (thus either in the future or in an alternate
timeline) while a nuclear sub commander takes his sub and its advanced
cloaking device to what I believe is a fictional island (never caught a
name) and does radically implausible (if not impossible) things. It
ain't a documentary, that's for sure. Unfortunately, it's an ABC show,
so also included lots of disrobing from both genders and lots of crying
and lots of general soap opera and probably managed to alienate their
soap opera fans with nuclear subs and their potential nuclear sub fans
with Navy's Anatomy, which explains the horrible ratings.
Post by Frederick Blake
-- and CBS seems to have no genre shows on its
schedule AT ALL, so is screwing them by never ordering any to series!
I watch _Person of Interest_ (the last episode was horrible and there
are lots of problems in many epsiodes but it's generally adequate to
very good) and that show features a billionaire recluse computer genius,
a black ops crime fighter, and an AI computer that Knows Everything and
the show casts Paige Turco and Amy Acker in recurring roles which shows
both excellent taste and perhaps a genre awareness as both have been on
genre shows before - especially Amy Acker. It's *primarily* Yet Another
CBS Crime Drama but it's definitely an SF/F/H genre show, as well. And
CBS seems to be treating this fairly well aside from scheduling it on
Thursday opposite Thursday night football (if I got NFLN, I would be
missing _PoI_).
Post by Frederick Blake
Fox fucked up Firefly
That's one of the - if not *the* - supreme examples of a network shaft,
yes.

The rest of the post seems off-base in most of the details (some of
which others have already addressed) to support an inarguable point:
yeah, genre shows are generally second-class citizens. But only the
above prompted any specific note.
Frederick Blake
2012-12-07 23:17:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:51:57 +0000 (UTC), slakmagik wasted rec.arts.sf.tv's
Post by slakmagik
Post by Frederick Blake
Grimm, on the other hand, is a rerun, though a rule they're supposed to
follow is "no reruns during September (after the premiere), November,
February, or May (before the finale)".
_Grimm_ is in re-runs now because it got an early start after
substantial promotion during the Olympics.
I'm not interested in NBC's excuses; I'm interested in the show. Which
seems to be *completely missing* *this* week, instead of being even a
rerun!
Post by slakmagik
_Grimm_ is one of NBC's few bright spots and I believe they're *trying*
to treat it right.
Yanking it completely off the schedule before May finales is hardly
"treating it right". Particularly when it's a somewhat serial show, that
sort of thing is, instead, a recipe for disaster.
Post by slakmagik
That said, it's NBC and NBC is stupid and a gigantic layoff in the
middle of the season is a horrible idea.
The salient fact here being "NBC is stupid". Purportedly they plan to send
Revolution, their only *other* marginal "hit", into a particularly long
period of reruns as well. Obviously, when they were handing out brains
someone cut the line and went twice and NBC was forced to do without.
Post by slakmagik
But I can see what they were thinking at least, and they weren't trying
to shaft it.
Does its *complete disappearance* fit into your theory as well? The rerun
that should ordinarily have been scheduled to air tonight isn't listed in
my area tv listings.
Post by slakmagik
Post by Frederick Blake
(ABC, incidentally, seems to be counting The Last Resort as a genre show.
What else could they count it as?
Something that wouldn't lead to it being maltreated by the guys in the
scheduling department?
Post by slakmagik
Fictional president in a dystopian America nukes Pakistan (thus either
in the future or in an alternate timeline) while a nuclear sub commander
takes his sub and its advanced cloaking device to what I believe is a
fictional island (never caught a name) and does radically implausible
(if not impossible) things.
It's no more science-fictiony, per se, than CSI. But they classified it
differently, and now its fans will be paying the price.
Post by slakmagik
It ain't a documentary, that's for sure.
Neither is CSI.
Post by slakmagik
Unfortunately, it's an ABC show, so also included lots of disrobing
??? How is that "unfortunate"?
Post by slakmagik
from both genders and lots of crying and lots of general soap opera
and probably managed to alienate their soap opera fans with nuclear
subs and their potential nuclear sub fans with Navy's Anatomy, which
explains the horrible ratings.
What it *doesn't* explain is their explicitly promising to air the
remaining episodes, followed promptly by at least some affiliates reneging
on said promise and airing whatever random other stuff instead.
Post by slakmagik
Post by Frederick Blake
-- and CBS seems to have no genre shows on its
schedule AT ALL, so is screwing them by never ordering any to series!
I watch _Person of Interest_ (the last episode was horrible and there
are lots of problems in many epsiodes but it's generally adequate to
very good) and that show features a billionaire recluse computer genius,
a black ops crime fighter, and an AI computer that Knows Everything and
the show casts Paige Turco and Amy Acker in recurring roles which shows
both excellent taste and perhaps a genre awareness as both have been on
genre shows before - especially Amy Acker. It's *primarily* Yet Another
CBS Crime Drama but it's definitely an SF/F/H genre show, as well.
No more than CSI is. Remember the "vaporizer"?
Post by slakmagik
And CBS seems to be treating this fairly well aside from scheduling it
on Thursday opposite Thursday night football (if I got NFLN, I would be
missing _PoI_).
BBT is by far the more dangerous competitor.
Post by slakmagik
Post by Frederick Blake
Fox fucked up Firefly
That's one of the - if not *the* - supreme examples of a network shaft,
yes.
The rest of the post seems off-base in most of the details
Wrong.
Post by slakmagik
(some of which others have already addressed) to support an inarguable
point: yeah, genre shows are generally second-class citizens.
Which is a problem that must be fixed.
Bill Steele
2012-12-03 19:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
The significant thing here though, is that there's a clear double standard
being applied.
Regular dramas that aren't geeky are airing normally, and they're taking
care not to make any mistakes in scheduling with them.
From a corporate point of view they're doing it right. With rare
exceptions like Lost and OuaT, the mass audience doesn't watch genre
shows. The mass audience also is more likely to buy the crap they
advertise, so that's where they put their money.

Be thankful that there are enough millions of people who do watch genre
shows that at least we get one or two seasons of each one.
Frederick Blake
2012-12-07 23:36:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:02:09 -0500, Bill Steele wasted
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Frederick Blake
The significant thing here though, is that there's a clear double standard
being applied.
Regular dramas that aren't geeky are airing normally, and they're taking
care not to make any mistakes in scheduling with them.
From a corporate point of view they're doing it right. With rare
exceptions like Lost and OuaT, the mass audience doesn't watch genre
shows. The mass audience also is more likely to buy the crap they
advertise, so that's where they put their money.
If they consider them to be profitable, they should treat them better. If
they consider them to be unprofitable, they should not order them to series
to begin with. It's the whole order-it-just-to-screw-with-it-and-dump-it
thing that doesn't make sense. Once they've invested in it, you'd think
they'd want to maximize their return on that investment; instead, they
actively sabotage it, if it's a genre show.
Post by Bill Steele
Be thankful that there are enough millions of people who do watch genre
shows that at least we get one or two seasons of each one.
How is ordering one to series, axing it after a season, ordering another to
series, and axing that one better than ordering the first one to series and
keeping it on for a second season? It's as if they're doing a futile search
for a mythical really high-rated genre show that doesn't exist. Try this
one -- nah, that's not it, how about *this* one, nope, *this time for sure*
...

Another stupid thing they do is yanking all SF&F off the schedule the
instant some big sporting event or whatever is going on. Don't they know
what the SF&F market *looks* like? If they want to grab the "mainstream"
non-nerdy audience in a timeslot they shouldn't order that genre show to
series to begin with; if, instead, they want to grab that audience rather
than fight for the more mainstream chunks of audience with four other
networks they should schedule that genre show there and then they should
*stick it in with glue*. Whatever the other networks schedule there. In
fact, the more giant a juggernaut event some other network schedules there,
the more they should not budge from airing the SF show at that time,
because they sure won't get the mainstream audience then no matter what
they do but the geeks will deliver predictable eyeballs to any decent genre
material they've learned to expect at some channel and time, *if* it's
still there. Airing a rerun of, say, CSI:NY instead of a new ep opposite
some other network's big game makes sense, because there's a fair deal of
overlap between the audiences of both things. But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday. If FOX yanks Fringe
that night, that audience will find some non-TV thing to do that night, and
certainly won't watch Kitchen Nightmares, reruns of The Simpsons, or
whatever other garbage FOX puts on instead. FOX leaves money on the table
with such a stupid move.
David V. Loewe, Jr
2012-12-09 00:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus. If it comes down to a
football game I'm interested in and Fringe, Fringe goes to DVR.

TMQ has wondered why networks try to run genre shows (like Terminator:
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
--
"You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes."
- Maimonides
Frederick Blake
2012-12-09 18:33:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:44:44 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wasted
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Barry Margolin
2012-12-10 00:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:44:44 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wasted
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-11 01:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
"Seamus" is the generic name for a poster who comes on the TV newsgroups
and complains that "his" show is not on, even though it isn't supposed
to be on because it has been pre-empted for something, the full season
orders have gone down since when Seamus had a functioning brain or
Seamus simply couldn't find it, as is the case here with Last Resort.

All instances of this are thought to be the same nym-shifting idiot.
When accused of being Seamus, the clueless git complaining about his
missing shows invariably answers with "Who's Seamus?" which confirms
that it is the one and only Seamus with a new nym.

Happy?
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
If not, then I would venture that my demographic is bigger than the one
"in question."
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
DVRs have limits.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.

The MNF moniker goes back many years and should be familiar to all. MNF
is a leading (if not *the* leading) cable program. MNF won last
Monday's ratings over the broadcast TV shows. That is a lot of people
who aren't watching whatever else is broadcast those nights (and it
doesn't help that Revolution is also opposite Castle).

As for TMQ, Google is your friend. <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+TMQ%3F>

Tuesday Morning Quarterback is an ESPN column ostensibly about pro
football by author Gregg Easterbrook. The moniker is a good-natured dig
at the term Monday Morning Quarterback - as all games aren't in the bag
on Monday Morning. Peter King of SI write a Monday column named Monday
Morning Quarterback and he has added a Tuesday Morning update column to
his portfolio.

Wikipedia explains about TMQ
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuesday_Morning_Quarterback> Easterbrook
always has sections of his long, long column that venture very far a
field from football. A favorite side topic is SF in the movies and on
TV.

This is the link to Easterbrook's ESPN page where you can access the
latest and previous columns
<http://search.espn.go.com/gregg-easterbrook/>

Wikipedia article on Easterbrook
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook>
--
"The Dodger right-hander is set and here's his pitch to Jack Clark.
Swing and a long one into left field! Adios, goodbye and maybe that's
a winner! A three-run homer for Clark, and the Cardinals lead by the
score of 7 to 5 and they may go to the World Series on that one, folks!"
- John Francis Buck
Frederick Blake
2012-12-11 03:52:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:27:45 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wasted
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
"Seamus" is the generic name for a poster who comes on the TV newsgroups
and complains that "his" show is not on, even though it isn't supposed
to be on
If I'm looking for a show on a particular channel at a particular time,
then you can rest assured that it is, in fact, supposed to be on on that
channel at that time, as evidenced by the fact that it normally *is* (thus
leading me to expect to see it there). If it was supposed to be somewhere
else I would expect it somewhere else instead as it would habitually be on
somewhere else instead.

So, unlike this "Seamus", I am not looking for shows in the wrong places.
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
All instances of this are thought to be the same nym-shifting idiot.
"Are thought to be"? Those are weasel-words. Who is thinking that and why?
Certainly you don't mean to suggest that there's simply an ambient set of
thoughts of such a sort, as if some sort of Jungian collective unconscious
existed and had developed a case of clinical paranoia. :)
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
When accused of being Seamus, the clueless git complaining about his
missing shows invariably answers with "Who's Seamus?" which confirms
that it is the one and only Seamus with a new nym.
Happy?
Not really. If this Seamus actually exists, and if Seamus consistently
pretends not to know who Seamus is, then someone asking "who's Seamus"
doesn't distinguish between Seamus and someone who's never heard of Seamus.
Which, I assume, merely ends up amounting to "either he's Seamus or he's
not a regular in rec.arts.tv."

In particular, someone crossposting (as I am) from rec.arts.sf.tv or
elsewhere professing to not know who Seamus is should be 100% expected.
Since such a person is very likely to ask who Seamus is if Seamus is
mentioned around him, that one does so gives no information on the question
of whether he himself is Seamus.
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
If not, then I would venture that my demographic is bigger than the one
"in question."
Pshaw. Utter poppycock. It's common knowledge that nerds and jocks are
largely disjoint sets. Where the heck did you go to school?
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
DVRs have limits.
Not my problem. I see no sane reason why *your* DVR being low on space
should mean depriving *me* of *my* show, yet that is what you seem to be
suggesting here. Keeping one's DVR from running out of space with unwatched
shows is one's own responsibility, so the only one who should end up
missing out on a show because "DVRs have limits" should be the ones who let
their DVRs get full and not anybody else.
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.
Obviously, there's no accounting for taste.
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
The MNF moniker goes back many years and should be familiar to all. MNF
is a leading (if not *the* leading) cable program. MNF won last
Monday's ratings over the broadcast TV shows. That is a lot of people
who aren't watching whatever else is broadcast those nights (and it
doesn't help that Revolution is also opposite Castle).
A lot of jocks. The nerds are going to watch something nerdy or go without
TV. That audience isn't cannibalized (much) if their nerdy show airs
opposite football. And that audience is likelier to have a DVR.
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
As for TMQ, Google is your friend. <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+TMQ%3F>
That entirely misses the point, which is that in using that acronym
undefined you failed to communicate clearly. Your post was needlessly
opaque.
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback is an ESPN column
I don't read that magazine. ... Who the hell reads magazines these days
anyway?? I guess someone must, since they still publish them, but it's
hardly a safe assumption for you to make that any particular person reads
any magazines, let alone any particular one, let alone that one who clearly
indicated a profound lack of interest in football reads one about football.

In any event, if Easterbrook is some sort of football guy, I wouldn't take
his pontifications on what audiences "overlap quite a bit" all that
seriously. Being a jock at all, let alone one with a medical history of
multiple concussions, is a good predictor of poor intellectual prowess in
general. Quotations from sports players and columnists, in particular, are
far more commonly known for being unintentional comedy than for being
straightforwardly insightful.
David V. Loewe, Jr
2012-12-14 20:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
"Seamus" is the generic name for a poster who comes on the TV newsgroups
and complains that "his" show is not on, even though it isn't supposed
to be on
If I'm looking for a show on a particular channel at a particular time,
then you can rest assured that it is, in fact, supposed to be on on that
channel at that time, as evidenced by the fact that it normally *is* (thus
leading me to expect to see it there). If it was supposed to be somewhere
else I would expect it somewhere else instead as it would habitually be on
somewhere else instead.
Yet it was not on and I knew it wasn't going to be on.
Post by Frederick Blake
So, unlike this "Seamus", I am not looking for shows in the wrong places.
Yes, you are.
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
All instances of this are thought to be the same nym-shifting idiot.
"Are thought to be"? Those are weasel-words. Who is thinking that and why?
Certainly you don't mean to suggest that there's simply an ambient set of
thoughts of such a sort, as if some sort of Jungian collective unconscious
existed and had developed a case of clinical paranoia. :)
No one is paranoid about Seamus. They're just tired of his antics.
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
When accused of being Seamus, the clueless git complaining about his
missing shows invariably answers with "Who's Seamus?" which confirms
that it is the one and only Seamus with a new nym.
Happy?
Not really. If this Seamus actually exists, and if Seamus consistently
pretends not to know who Seamus is, then someone asking "who's Seamus"
doesn't distinguish between Seamus and someone who's never heard of Seamus.
Which, I assume, merely ends up amounting to "either he's Seamus or he's
not a regular in rec.arts.tv."
In particular, someone crossposting (as I am) from rec.arts.sf.tv or
elsewhere professing to not know who Seamus is should be 100% expected.
Since such a person is very likely to ask who Seamus is if Seamus is
mentioned around him, that one does so gives no information on the question
of whether he himself is Seamus.
Kind of circular, don't 'cha think?
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
If not, then I would venture that my demographic is bigger than the one
"in question."
Pshaw. Utter poppycock. It's common knowledge that nerds and jocks are
largely disjoint sets.
Jocks *play* football. Being a "nerd" doesn't prevent you from watching
football. And what is the measure of a nerd anyway? Most of my friends
attend SF conventions *and* watch football.

Not everyone who is into SF is a Sheldon Cooper clone.
Post by Frederick Blake
Where the heck did you go to school?
Somewhere where football players were also on the debate team.
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
DVRs have limits.
Not my problem. I see no sane reason why *your* DVR being low on space
You assume something not in evidence.

Think "tuners, number of" and limits to the number of shows that can be
recorded/watched at the same time.

Mine has two tuners. I can watch MNF and record Castle. But that means
I can't record or watch Revolution (without resorting to something like
Hulu).
Post by Frederick Blake
should mean depriving *me* of *my* show, yet that is what you seem to be
suggesting here. Keeping one's DVR from running out of space with unwatched
shows is one's own responsibility, so the only one who should end up
missing out on a show because "DVRs have limits" should be the ones who let
their DVRs get full and not anybody else.
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.
Obviously, there's no accounting for taste.
Yes. You obviously have bad taste.
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
The MNF moniker goes back many years and should be familiar to all. MNF
is a leading (if not *the* leading) cable program. MNF won last
Monday's ratings over the broadcast TV shows. That is a lot of people
who aren't watching whatever else is broadcast those nights (and it
doesn't help that Revolution is also opposite Castle).
A lot of jocks. The nerds are going to watch something nerdy or go without
TV. That audience isn't cannibalized (much) if their nerdy show airs
opposite football.
Yet genre show after genre show airing on Monday night against MNF has
failed.
Post by Frederick Blake
And that audience is likelier to have a DVR.
Proof?
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
As for TMQ, Google is your friend. <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+TMQ%3F>
That entirely misses the point, which is that in using that acronym
undefined you failed to communicate clearly. Your post was needlessly
opaque.
If I had spelled it out, would you have known anything more about it?
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback is an ESPN column
I don't read that magazine. ... Who the hell reads magazines these days
anyway??
Once again you assume something not in evidence. It is on the web site.
Post by Frederick Blake
I guess someone must, since they still publish them, but it's
hardly a safe assumption for you to make that any particular person reads
any magazines, let alone any particular one, let alone that one who clearly
indicated a profound lack of interest in football reads one about football.
ESPN Magazine isn't about football.
Post by Frederick Blake
In any event, if Easterbrook is some sort of football guy,
He's not.

Nor is he a sports writer. It is part of the charm of the column that
he is Joe Average Fan from Bethesda who also happens to be a writer who
is good enough to be published on many subjects and pull off the column.
Post by Frederick Blake
I wouldn't take his pontifications on what audiences "overlap quite a bit"
all that seriously.
Both are aimed at males - especially young males.
Post by Frederick Blake
Being a jock at all, let alone one with a medical history of
multiple concussions, is a good predictor of poor intellectual prowess in
general.
Tell it to Matt Birk, Pat McInally or Ryan Fitzpatrick. In another
vein, you could ask Myron Rolle or Bill Bradley.
Post by Frederick Blake
Quotations from sports players and columnists, in particular, are
far more commonly known for being unintentional comedy than for being
straightforwardly insightful.
Stereotype much?
--
"It? Come now. I am a female hominid, if not exactly the same species
as you. Surely I rate a she, at least."
- Gwendolyn Ingolfsson to Kenneth Lafarge in Drakon
Frederick Blake
2012-12-14 22:19:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:57:42 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wasted
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
"Seamus" is the generic name for a poster who comes on the TV newsgroups
and complains that "his" show is not on, even though it isn't supposed
to be on
If I'm looking for a show on a particular channel at a particular time,
then you can rest assured that it is, in fact, supposed to be on on that
channel at that time, as evidenced by the fact that it normally *is* (thus
leading me to expect to see it there). If it was supposed to be somewhere
else I would expect it somewhere else instead as it would habitually be on
somewhere else instead.
Yet it was not on and I knew it wasn't going to be on.
That does not help your case. It just proves that the network's wrongdoing
was premeditated, which actually is even worse than an accident or a
spur-of-the-moment thing.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
So, unlike this "Seamus", I am not looking for shows in the wrong places.
Yes, you are.
No, I'm not. If Fringe is on Fridays at 9 then it is not "looking in the
wrong place" to look for it at 9 on a Friday, more or less by definition.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
All instances of this are thought to be the same nym-shifting idiot.
"Are thought to be"? Those are weasel-words. Who is thinking that and why?
Certainly you don't mean to suggest that there's simply an ambient set of
thoughts of such a sort, as if some sort of Jungian collective unconscious
existed and had developed a case of clinical paranoia. :)
No one is paranoid about Seamus. They're just tired of his antics.
You've not convinced me that he even exists.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
When accused of being Seamus, the clueless git complaining about his
missing shows invariably answers with "Who's Seamus?" which confirms
that it is the one and only Seamus with a new nym.
Happy?
Not really. If this Seamus actually exists, and if Seamus consistently
pretends not to know who Seamus is, then someone asking "who's Seamus"
doesn't distinguish between Seamus and someone who's never heard of Seamus.
Which, I assume, merely ends up amounting to "either he's Seamus or he's
not a regular in rec.arts.tv."
In particular, someone crossposting (as I am) from rec.arts.sf.tv or
elsewhere professing to not know who Seamus is should be 100% expected.
Since such a person is very likely to ask who Seamus is if Seamus is
mentioned around him, that one does so gives no information on the question
of whether he himself is Seamus.
Kind of circular, don't 'cha think?
Grab any random person and start babbling about Seamus at him and he'll ask
who's Seamus. Apparently, Seamus will ask who's Seamus. So that response
doesn't distinguish between Seamus and pretty much anyone who's never heard
of Seamus.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
If not, then I would venture that my demographic is bigger than the one
"in question."
Pshaw. Utter poppycock. It's common knowledge that nerds and jocks are
largely disjoint sets.
Jocks *play* football. Being a "nerd" doesn't prevent you from watching
football.
It prevents you from wanting to, and unless you're a masochist, that in
turn prevents you from doing it under most circumstances.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
And what is the measure of a nerd anyway? Most of my friends
attend SF conventions *and* watch football.
Your friends are a non-representative sample. By your own prior admission,
you're some sort of freakish nerd/jock hybrid; it stands to reason that you
might have managed to find a few like-minded oddities to hang out with. Got
a random, unbiased sample? No? Then my point stands.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Not everyone who is into SF is a Sheldon Cooper clone.
No, far more are Leonard clones. He wasn't into football either.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Where the heck did you go to school?
Somewhere where football players were also on the debate team.
OK, I'll put that down on the form here as "Mars". Next question?
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
DVRs have limits.
Not my problem. I see no sane reason why *your* DVR being low on space
You assume something not in evidence.
No, I don't.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Think "tuners, number of" and limits to the number of shows that can be
recorded/watched at the same time.
Mine has two tuners. I can watch MNF and record Castle. But that means
I can't record or watch Revolution (without resorting to something like
Hulu).
Again, not my problem, and again, we'd been discussing Fringe. *You* having
lots of shows you want to watch that are on simultaneously and only two
tuners should not mean *I* don't get to watch Fringe. Who do you think you
are, anyway, King Asshole IV of Earth or something?

The *proper* solution to your problem is not for the network to yank Fringe
if there's a football game on some other station at the same time. It is
for you to get a better DVR or simply choose two out of three items instead
of *demanding*, at the expense of *everyone else*, to have your cake and
eat it too, you giant crybaby whiner.

Hint: I've heard of DVRs with four, five, even six tuners. Try looking for
one in Best Buy during the post-Christmas sales. And then *stop* agitating
to have shows yanked from the schedule rudely at random times, hurting
*every* fan of the affected shows, just so that *you* won't have any
conflicts with your recordings, you selfish jerk.

(Also: in what universe is it at all sane for you to have that "well, if I
can't have it, *nobody* can!" negative-sum thinking imposed on everyone? If
your recording conflicts mean you skip Fringe, you miss an episode of
Fringe. If you somehow cause, as you've implied, the network to yank Fringe
entirely for that week, *everyone* misses the same episode, and, in
particular, you *still* miss it. How is that in any way an improvement? Now
two or three million people *lose out* on something while you *don't gain*
anything! I can see you *not caring*, if you'd have missed that episode
anyway, but you seem to *actively prefer* the network to shaft everyone
else of the episode you'd have had to miss anyway, which means you are
being a colossal jerk.)
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
should mean depriving *me* of *my* show, yet that is what you seem to be
suggesting here. Keeping one's DVR from running out of space with unwatched
shows is one's own responsibility, so the only one who should end up
missing out on a show because "DVRs have limits" should be the ones who let
their DVRs get full and not anybody else.
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Your lack of a cogent counterargument here is noted.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.
Obviously, there's no accounting for taste.
Yes. You obviously have bad taste.
No, you do. Fringe >> football.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
The MNF moniker goes back many years and should be familiar to all. MNF
is a leading (if not *the* leading) cable program. MNF won last
Monday's ratings over the broadcast TV shows. That is a lot of people
who aren't watching whatever else is broadcast those nights (and it
doesn't help that Revolution is also opposite Castle).
A lot of jocks. The nerds are going to watch something nerdy or go without
TV. That audience isn't cannibalized (much) if their nerdy show airs
opposite football.
Yet genre show after genre show airing on Monday night against MNF has
failed.
Ever think that maybe that's because the networks keep randomly dropping
the show from the schedule, fans think it's canceled or freak out at
missing an episode of a serial show or whatever, some of them don't come
back, and so the ratings ratchet down a notch after every skipped episode
until eventually they drop past the cancellation threshold?

Has a network tried *not fucking with the scheduling of the show* and seen
if that made a difference?

Further to that, if that time slot really *is* simply and unavoidably
deadly to genre shows, have they tried *not giving those shows that time*?
Rather than giving them the death slot and then *further* hobbling them
with random and unpredictable hiatuses and other jerky behavior that
confuses viewers and drives them away? That is, they should try putting
such a show on Tuesday nights instead, or earlier or later than the game's
time slot -- not Monday opposite the games, then mess with it and drop it
randomly from time to time.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
And that audience is likelier to have a DVR.
Proof?
Nerd. Techie. Gadget. Really, must I spell out the obvious? Also, check out
the numerous times that it's been mentioned here that Fringe is one of the
most DVRed shows out there.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
As for TMQ, Google is your friend. <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+TMQ%3F>
That entirely misses the point, which is that in using that acronym
undefined you failed to communicate clearly. Your post was needlessly
opaque.
If I had spelled it out, would you have known anything more about it?
Yes, though as it turns out it was pretty much irrelevant.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback is an ESPN column
I don't read that magazine. ... Who the hell reads magazines these days
anyway??
Once again you assume something not in evidence.
No, I don't.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
It is on the web site.
So? Every magazine has a web site these days. But I don't view the web
sites for magazines I don't read. Why would I? And I doubt anyone else does
either.

Fact is, if I'm not in the market for a football magazine I'm not likely to
go browsing the web site of a football magazine either, so the column being
available from there as well makes no difference to your arguments.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
I guess someone must, since they still publish them, but it's
hardly a safe assumption for you to make that any particular person reads
any magazines, let alone any particular one, let alone that one who clearly
indicated a profound lack of interest in football reads one about football.
ESPN Magazine isn't about football.
You just said it was. In particular, that it has a column named "Tuesday
Morning Quarterback". Unless basketball has developed quarterbacks in
recent years, or something, then it's self-evidently about football.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
In any event, if Easterbrook is some sort of football guy,
He's not.
You just said he writes a magazine column about football!!

Gweeeesh. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. Nothing
penetrates. No -- *worse* than a brick wall. Brick walls don't contradict
themselves from one minute to the next.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Nor is he a sports writer.
*Sputter*

He writes a column named "Tuesday Morning Quarterback", per your own claim
(and supported by Wikipedia).

That makes him a sports writer *by definition*, you fucking lunatic.

Were you high on something when you wrote your post???
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
It is part of the charm of the column that he is Joe Average Fan from
Bethesda who also happens to be a writer who is good enough to be
published on many subjects and pull off the column.
So? Still a sports writer. One with a particular marketing schtick. Maybe
it's even the truth, but "he writes for money about sports" = "he's a
sports writer", FFS.

You're well into "arguing that 2 + 2 = 3" territory here and *still
trending towards crazier and stupider*.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
I wouldn't take his pontifications on what audiences "overlap quite a bit"
all that seriously.
Both are aimed at males - especially young males.
Well, if you define things *that* broadly, then it can seem like they might
overlap. But that's like arguing that the United States, Mexico, and Canada
probably "overlap quite a bit" because they are located in the same wedge
of the planet between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and away from
Eurasia.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Being a jock at all, let alone one with a medical history of
multiple concussions, is a good predictor of poor intellectual prowess in
general.
Tell it to Matt Birk, Pat McInally or Ryan Fitzpatrick. In another
vein, you could ask Myron Rolle or Bill Bradley.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", and a handful of random people you
can name that (allegedly) straddle the nerd/jock divide is hardly proof of
a broad overlap. If you could list off a few *million* names and prove that
each and every one of them straddled the divide, *then* you'd be on your
way to making your case.

But I won't be holding my breath.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Quotations from sports players and columnists, in particular, are
far more commonly known for being unintentional comedy than for being
straightforwardly insightful.
Stereotype much?
Stereotypes, as I'm sure you're well aware, are statistical inferences that
may not be valid when applied to a single particular person (e.g. "Specific
Person likes football; therefore, he hates Fringe") but *are* valid, by
their very nature, when applied to a *population* (e.g. "Very few people
are into both sci-fi and football, compared to people into sci-fi but not
football or vice versa").

I await your next installment -- if your last was anything to go by, it
should be freaking *hilariously* stupid.
David V. Loewe, Jr
2012-12-15 04:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.
Obviously, there's no accounting for taste.
Yes. You obviously have bad taste.
No, you do. Fringe >> football.
A) We are discussing Sunday Night Football. I was unaware that Fringe
was on the air on Sunday nights.

B) I watch both.
--
"Of course I admit when I'm wrong... You might not have noticed
before because I have never been wrong."
-- 10/22/91, John S. Novak III to Robert Parker
Frederick Blake
2012-12-15 06:34:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:49:19 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wasted
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.
Obviously, there's no accounting for taste.
Yes. You obviously have bad taste.
No, you do. Fringe >> football.
A) We are discussing Sunday Night Football.
No, we were discussing football and how Fox doesn't seem to like airing
Fringe opposite a game.

And now you're spamming, to judge by my header list for this group showing
half a dozen separate replies by you to the same post of mine. If you can't
"win" a debate without resorting to wacky behavior, then we're done here.

*plonk*
David V. Loewe, Jr
2012-12-15 15:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.
Obviously, there's no accounting for taste.
Yes. You obviously have bad taste.
No, you do. Fringe >> football.
A) We are discussing Sunday Night Football.
No, we were discussing football and how Fox doesn't seem to like airing
Fringe opposite a game.
Topic drift. Get used to it.
Post by Frederick Blake
And now you're spamming, to judge by my header list for this group showing
half a dozen separate replies by you to the same post of mine. If you can't
"win" a debate without resorting to wacky behavior, then we're done here.
Breaking up a long post into more manageable bits is not spamming.
Post by Frederick Blake
*plonk*
Coward.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-15 04:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
DVRs have limits.
Not my problem. I see no sane reason why *your* DVR being low on space
should mean depriving *me* of *my* show, yet that is what you seem to be
suggesting here. Keeping one's DVR from running out of space with unwatched
shows is one's own responsibility, so the only one who should end up
missing out on a show because "DVRs have limits" should be the ones who let
their DVRs get full and not anybody else.
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Your lack of a cogent counterargument here is noted.
You're babbling here about a lack of space on my DVR. *That* isn't the
problem, so there is no need to address it. I have plenty of space
available on my DVR.
--
"I love it when a plan comes together."
Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-15 04:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
DVRs have limits.
Not my problem. I see no sane reason why *your* DVR being low on space
You assume something not in evidence.
No, I don't.
Yes. You did - and laughably so. You assumed lack of space. That is
not what limits me.
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-15 04:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Hint: I've heard of DVRs with four, five, even six tuners. Try looking for
one in Best Buy during the post-Christmas sales.
Are you buying?
--
"It's déjà vu all over again."
- Yogi Berra after Mantle & Maris had gone back-to-back
for the umpteenth time
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-15 05:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback is an ESPN column
I don't read that magazine. ... Who the hell reads magazines these days
anyway??
Once again you assume something not in evidence.
No, I don't.
Indeed you do.
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
It is on the web site.
So? Every magazine has a web site these days.
The thing is, it is the web site for a cable channel.
Post by Frederick Blake
But I don't view the web
sites for magazines I don't read. Why would I? And I doubt anyone else does
either.
Fact is, if I'm not in the market for a football magazine I'm not likely to
go browsing the web site of a football magazine either, so the column being
available from there as well makes no difference to your arguments.
You should give TMQ a try. It's a football column - for nerds. For
example, he frequently talks about the *math* of going for it on 4th
down instead of punting.
--
"The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the
western shore."
Jimmy Page & Robert Plant
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-15 05:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
ESPN Magazine isn't about football.
You just said it was.
No. ESPN Magazine is about sports.
Post by Frederick Blake
In particular, that it has a column named "Tuesday
Morning Quarterback".
Which it does not. Only the web site for the cable channel has that
column.
Post by Frederick Blake
Unless basketball has developed quarterbacks in
recent years, or something, then it's self-evidently about football.
Monday Morning Quarterbacking is, like Back Seat Driver (which has a
similar meaning), one of those phrases that has ascended to a broader
meaning. TMQ is just a more accurate way of putting that.
--
"We all grew up on Mickey Mouse and hula-hoops
Then we all bought BMW's and brand new pickup trucks
And we watched John Kennedy die one afternoon
Kids of the baby boom."
- David Bellamy
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-15 05:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Nor is he a sports writer.
*Sputter*
He writes a column named "Tuesday Morning Quarterback", per your own claim
(and supported by Wikipedia).
That makes him a sports writer *by definition*, you fucking lunatic.
So?

Tom Clancy wrote a non-fiction book about a Los Angeles class submarine.
That doesn't make him a military equipment writer.

TMQ is more like a hobby for Easterbrook.
--
"I'm warning you: I'm very dangerous when I don't know what I'm doing..."
- The Fourth Doctor
slackmagic
2012-12-11 21:11:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:27:45 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:

8> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

8> "Seamus" is the generic name for a poster who comes on the TV
8> newsgroups and complains that "his" show is not on, even though it
8> isn't supposed to be on because it has been pre-empted for something,
8> the full season orders have gone down since when Seamus had a
8> functioning brain or Seamus simply couldn't find it, as is the case
8> here with Last Resort.

Classic illogic. Either a show airs regularly in a particular time slot
and it is supposed to be on in that time slot, or it does not and it is
not. It can't be "not supposed to be on" in a time slot where it is on
every single week, any more than the sun can be "not supposed to rise"
next morning when it does so every single day.

8> All instances of this are thought to be the same nym-shifting idiot.

What does your paranoia have to do with television, Loewe?

8> When accused of being Seamus, the clueless git complaining about his
8> missing shows invariably answers with "Who's Seamus?" which confirms
8> that it is the one and only Seamus with a new nym.

Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

8> Happy?

What does your question of Blake have to do with television, Loewe?

8> If not, then I would venture that my demographic is bigger than the one
8> "in question."

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

8> DVRs have limits.

What does your classic pontification have to do with televised science
fiction, Loewe?

8> Indeed. SNF was the Number One show on TV last season.

What does the dismal failure of the American education system have to do
with televised science fiction, Loewe?

8> The MNF moniker goes back many years and should be familiar to all.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with televised science fiction, Loewe?

8> MNF is a leading (if not *the* leading) cable program.

What does that have to do with televised science fiction, Loewe?

8> MNF won last Monday's ratings over the broadcast TV shows.

What does that have to do with televised science fiction, Loewe?

8> That is a lot of people who aren't watching whatever else is broadcast
8> those nights (and it doesn't help that Revolution is also opposite
8> Castle).

Blake had been discussing Fringe, Loewe, and that "lot of people" likely
excludes the vast majority of Fringe's fans.

8> As for TMQ, Google is your friend.

What does your URL have to do with television, Loewe?

8> Tuesday Morning Quarterback is an ESPN column ostensibly about pro
8> football by author Gregg Easterbrook.

What do magazine columns have to do with television, Loewe?

8> The moniker is a good-natured dig at the term Monday Morning
8> Quarterback - as all games aren't in the bag on Monday Morning.

What does that have to do with televised science fiction, Loewe?

8> Peter King of SI write a Monday column named Monday Morning
8> Quarterback and he has added a Tuesday Morning update column to
8> his portfolio.

What does his portfolio have to do with television, Loewe?

8> Wikipedia explains about TMQ

What does your URL have to do with television, Loewe?

8> Easterbrook always has sections of his long, long column that venture
8> very far a field from football.

What does Easterbrook's failure to stay on topic have to do with
television, Loewe? Rather ironic that your mention of his failure to stay
on topic is an instance of your own failure to stay on topic.

8> A favorite side topic is SF in the movies and on TV.

Classic illogic. SF fans, by and large, won't be reading a football
magazine, so such an off-topic digression will have an audience of
roughly zero.

8> This is the link to Easterbrook's ESPN page where you can access the
8> latest and previous columns

What does your URL have to do with television, Loewe?

8> Wikipedia article on Easterbrook

What does your URL have to do with television, Loewe?
Frederick Blake
2012-12-11 03:22:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:27:32 -0500, Barry Margolin wasted
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Frederick Blake
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:44:44 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wasted
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
Post by Frederick Blake
But airing a rerun of, say,
Fringe (or dumping it completely!) is foolhardy. The geeky audience of that
show doesn't watch football and will take a new Fringe episode on FOX over
a CSI:NY rerun on CBS or a football game on NBC anyday.
I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.
Who's Seamus?
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
Fringe goes to DVR.
* You're not representative of the demographic in question.
* And you end up watching Fringe anyway rather than missing it that week.
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because Easterbrook
thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
You might want to explain what you mean by "TMQ", "MNF", and "SNF" for the
6,999,999,999 people in your audience that *can't* read your mind.
Not sure what TMQ is, but MNF and SNF are Monday and Sunday Night
Football, frequent rec.arts.tv abbreviations.
They're not frequent rec.arts.sf.tv abbreviations, though.
My Name
2012-12-10 00:31:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:44:44 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:

7> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv

7> I watch Fringe and I watch football, seamus.

Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

7> If it comes down to a football game I'm interested in and Fringe,
7> Fringe goes to DVR.

Classic illogic.

7> TMQ has wondered why networks try to run genre shows (like Terminator:
7> TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because
7> Easterbrook thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.

Who are "TMQ", "MNF", "SNF", and "Easterbrook", Loewe? There is nobody in
this newsgroup using any of those aliases.
David Loewe, Jr.
2012-12-11 01:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Name
Post by David V. Loewe, Jr
TSCC, Terra Nova and Revolution) against MNF and SNF because
Easterbrook thinks that the demographics overlap quite a bit.
Who are "TMQ", "MNF", "SNF", and "Easterbrook", Loewe? There is nobody in
this newsgroup using any of those aliases.
No one said there were. Those are all either things or people external
to the group.
--
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
- Yogi Berra explaining how to get to his home
which can be reached regardless of which branch
of the fork you take
Ken Arromdee
2012-12-10 20:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederick Blake
If they consider them to be profitable, they should treat them better. If
they consider them to be unprofitable, they should not order them to series
to begin with. It's the whole order-it-just-to-screw-with-it-and-dump-it
thing that doesn't make sense.
Network internal politics.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Frederick Blake
2012-12-11 04:00:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Ken Arromdee wasted
Post by Ken Arromdee
Post by Frederick Blake
If they consider them to be profitable, they should treat them better. If
they consider them to be unprofitable, they should not order them to series
to begin with. It's the whole order-it-just-to-screw-with-it-and-dump-it
thing that doesn't make sense.
Network internal politics.
I couldn't care less about the network's internal politics. I just want to
watch decent TV shows. And not satisfying that want is suboptimal business
strategy for them. If they can't, or won't, do a competent job -- for
reasons of "internal politics" or any other -- then a competitor should do
it for them. But I don't see much competition -- just an oligopoly of a few
giant megacorps wielding ludicrously-long copyright monopolies. :(
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...