| Author |
Message |
Ray Heindl
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:01 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On 15 Nov 2004 21:15:33 GMT, Ray Heindl <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote:
The crappiness of TV is much overstated. There is a load of good
stuff there if you look for it. A whole load of rubbish too, but
no-one forces you to watch it. One must be selective, but that's
not undifferent from anything else.
"Not undifferent"?
In the OED, although listed as obscure. What better word, in the
above, would you substitute for it?
|
"No different" or "not unlike." "Not undifferent" means "different",
whereas I think you meant "similar". But maybe I'm misconstruing your
meaning.
| Quote: | I wasn't referring to the programming, for which selectivity is
essential, but to the superfluous annoyances, such as intrusive
station IDs and ads superimposed over programs. As far as I know,
the only ways to avoid these things are to leave the TV off
permanently, or to rent movies. The normal ads can be dealt with
by suitable technology, but garbage obscuring the program can't.
Not yet, at least.
I used a small rectangle of unobtrusive (due to its color) masking
tape in Ireland, since the few stations that incorporated those
horrid ID's placed them in roughly the same area in the upper
left-hand corner of the screen. That trick works less well in the
US where they tend to be bigger and are seen located in various
areas of the screen.
|
Clever idea! I'll have to see if it's practicable here. But I fear
not; as you say, the bugs are too big and unpredictable. And the BBC's
is diagonally opposite the majority's. Maybe a series of
appropriately-shaped Post-It notes would do the trick.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: xvortren-news@yaxhoo.com)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:oehyd3x7.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
| Quote: | Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> writes:
On 12 Nov 2004 07:20:59 -0800, rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R.
Hershberger) wrote:
There was a day when I considered PBS to be the one indispensible
channel. That was a long time ago. Nowadays I am almost entirely
uninterested in its lineup. This trickled into my consciousness
when I realized they were showing Yanni specials during pledge week,
clearly telling me that I was not in their target audience.
The decline of PBS was among the several surprises I've had on
returning: some happy surprises and some, like this one, unhappy.
PBS sold itself as the alternative to the broadcast networks. The
notion was "you should support us because we show things nobody else
will". With cable, that's no longer true. Pretty much every niche
that PBS owned on the broadcast dial can be found elsewhere.
|
Same niche, perhaps, but not shows of the same quality. There's nothing like
the PBS Newshour, or the Frontline documentaries, anywhere else on TV. And
PBS still gets the best of the British shows.
| Quote: | And
because each niche has its own channels, it can be found whenever you
want, not merely when PBS deigns to program it.
|
I'm not aware of any network that offers video on demand (except
pay-per-view movies). You always have to watch or TiVo it at the time it's
broadcast. Most people complain about the endless reruns on cable stations.
| Quote: |
Now, I suspect that most of their viewership (and money) comes from
three sources (1) fans of specific shows that they happen to
broadcast, (2) people who send money out of force of habit, and (3)
people who think that "public" is somehow better. I'm pretty much in
category two these days, with a little (1) mostly for some of their
kids' programming, although Josh has pretty much outgrown most of it.
(And what he does tend to watch is on the "PBS Kids" cable network,
not the local broadcast ones.)
|
Well, chacun a son goo-goo. But if I had to limit myself to one channel, it
might just be PBS [1]. You wouldn't think public television could succeed in
such a rabidly free-enterprise country, but somehow it has, for going on 50
years now.
[1] Although come to think of it, that was almost the case a while back when
I was using rabbit ears on my TV. I could only get Fox and PBS, and I blush
to admit that PBS came in second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
Jess Askin wrote:
| Quote: | Well, chacun a son goo-goo. But if I had to limit myself to one channel, it
might just be PBS [1]. You wouldn't think public television could succeed in
such a rabidly free-enterprise country, but somehow it has, for going on 50
years now.
|
In recent decades, maybe the reason for that is all the big corporation
sponsorship spots. Some of them seem nearly indistinguishable from their
commercial-TV commercial counterparts, leading me to wonder whether
"public [i.e., noncommercial] television" is a misnomer.
--
Steny '08!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:02 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
In article <cne6jc$t2j$1@news.netins.net>, Jess Askin at
nospam@dontbother.net exposited:
| Quote: |
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:oehyd3x7.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> writes:
On 12 Nov 2004 07:20:59 -0800, rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R.
Hershberger) wrote:
There was a day when I considered PBS to be the one indispensible
channel. That was a long time ago. Nowadays I am almost entirely
uninterested in its lineup. This trickled into my consciousness
when I realized they were showing Yanni specials during pledge week,
clearly telling me that I was not in their target audience.
The decline of PBS was among the several surprises I've had on
returning: some happy surprises and some, like this one, unhappy.
PBS sold itself as the alternative to the broadcast networks. The
notion was "you should support us because we show things nobody else
will". With cable, that's no longer true. Pretty much every niche
that PBS owned on the broadcast dial can be found elsewhere.
Same niche, perhaps, but not shows of the same quality. There's nothing like
the PBS Newshour, or the Frontline documentaries, anywhere else on TV. And
PBS still gets the best of the British shows.
And
because each niche has its own channels, it can be found whenever you
want, not merely when PBS deigns to program it.
I'm not aware of any network that offers video on demand (except
pay-per-view movies). You always have to watch or TiVo it at the time it's
broadcast. Most people complain about the endless reruns on cable stations.
Now, I suspect that most of their viewership (and money) comes from
three sources (1) fans of specific shows that they happen to
broadcast, (2) people who send money out of force of habit, and (3)
people who think that "public" is somehow better. I'm pretty much in
category two these days, with a little (1) mostly for some of their
kids' programming, although Josh has pretty much outgrown most of it.
(And what he does tend to watch is on the "PBS Kids" cable network,
not the local broadcast ones.)
Well, chacun a son goo-goo. But if I had to limit myself to one channel, it
might just be PBS [1]. You wouldn't think public television could succeed in
such a rabidly free-enterprise country, but somehow it has, for going on 50
years now.
|
I agree. If limited to one channel, it'd be PBS. The week-nightly
"News Hour with Jim Lehrer" is one of the best at news, and the
Friday evening line up of "Washington Week in Review", the "BBC
News", and "NOW with Bill Moyers" can't be beat.
| Quote: | [1] Although come to think of it, that was almost the case a while back when
I was using rabbit ears on my TV. I could only get Fox and PBS, and I blush
to admit that PBS came in second.
|
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:04 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
"Areff" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2vvls2F2qfr0iU3@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | Jess Askin wrote:
Well, chacun a son goo-goo. But if I had to limit myself to one channel,
it
might just be PBS [1]. You wouldn't think public television could
succeed in
such a rabidly free-enterprise country, but somehow it has, for going on
50
years now.
In recent decades, maybe the reason for that is all the big corporation
sponsorship spots. Some of them seem nearly indistinguishable from their
commercial-TV commercial counterparts, leading me to wonder whether
"public [i.e., noncommercial] television" is a misnomer.
|
Oh come on, they get about 15 seconds for their little blurbs, as opposed to
15 minutes out of every hour for commercials on non-public TV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jordan Abel
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:05 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Actually, he said "crud", although it's invariably quoted as "crap".
Which arises from the assumption that his remarks must have been
bowdlerized when they appeared in print -- and indeed, 1953 being
what it was, if he *had* said "crap", they probably would have been.
|
Or if he'd said shit, for that matter. Though... how is "crud" a more
"bowdlerized" word than "crap"? I see them as equivalent |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: crud, crap [WAS: BBC America] |
|
|
Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Actually, he said "crud", although it's invariably quoted as "crap".
Which arises from the assumption that his remarks must have been
bowdlerized when they appeared in print -- and indeed, 1953 being
what it was, if he *had* said "crap", they probably would have been.
Or if he'd said shit, for that matter. Though... how is "crud" a more
"bowdlerized" word than "crap"? I see them as equivalent
|
Although they may be used interchangeably by some, "crap" has the basic
meaning of "feces," while "crud" is merely something undesirable, like
sediment or rubbish. M-W says it is cognate with "curd," which I didn't
know, and it comes from Old English crudan, "to press." I can see "crud"
being the stuff left over after you press out the juice.
Apparently if you go back far enough, "crap" also had the meaning of
"residue":
Etymology: British dialect crap, craps residue from
rendered fat, from Middle English crappe, perhaps
from Old French crappe chaff, residue, from Medieval
Latin crappa
Date: circa 1897
But then, when you render fat, the residue tends to be rather tasty
cracklings, not something repulsive.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:16 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:39:35 -0600, "Jess Askin"
<nospam@dontbother.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm not aware of any network that offers video on demand (except
pay-per-view movies). You always have to watch or TiVo it at the time it's
broadcast. Most people complain about the endless reruns on cable stations.
|
With Comcast's On Demand you can view, and retain for 24 hours, those
films and programs the cable company has selected for that week. Some
are free, most are not. What I've found this week of interest are five
or six of _The Sopranos_ episodes and several old Monty Python
episodes, all free for the viewing. They have a large selection of
films available at any one time. Mel Gibson's _Passion of Christ_, if
that is the correct title, is available for $3.50 to give people an
idea of their charges.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:16 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2004 22:12:30 GMT, Ray Heindl <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote:
On 15 Nov 2004 21:15:33 GMT, Ray Heindl <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote:
The crappiness of TV is much overstated. There is a load of good
stuff there if you look for it. A whole load of rubbish too, but
no-one forces you to watch it. One must be selective, but that's
not undifferent from anything else.
"Not undifferent"?
In the OED, although listed as obscure. What better word, in the
above, would you substitute for it?
"No different" or "not unlike." "Not undifferent" means "different",
whereas I think you meant "similar". But maybe I'm misconstruing your
meaning.
|
Ouch. I didn't see the mistake even after you underlined it! It still
sounds right to me on a quick read, even though it is not.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:33 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote in message
news:q31np0d262vgbnd8pmf83ju629q07g32b4@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:39:35 -0600, "Jess Askin"
nospam@dontbother.net> wrote:
I'm not aware of any network that offers video on demand (except
pay-per-view movies). You always have to watch or TiVo it at the time
it's
broadcast. Most people complain about the endless reruns on cable
stations.
With Comcast's On Demand you can view, and retain for 24 hours, those
films and programs the cable company has selected for that week. Some
are free, most are not. What I've found this week of interest are five
or six of _The Sopranos_ episodes and several old Monty Python
episodes, all free for the viewing. They have a large selection of
films available at any one time. Mel Gibson's _Passion of Christ_, if
that is the correct title, is available for $3.50 to give people an
idea of their charges.
|
How much would you have to pay to guarantee that you never have to watch it
as long as you live? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:33 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
"Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3003tpF2q7sfbU2@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Actually, he said "crud", although it's invariably quoted as "crap".
Which arises from the assumption that his remarks must have been
bowdlerized when they appeared in print -- and indeed, 1953 being
what it was, if he *had* said "crap", they probably would have been.
Or if he'd said shit, for that matter. Though... how is "crud" a more
"bowdlerized" word than "crap"? I see them as equivalent
|
Not to everybody. I once had a conversation with a rather proper older lady
in which I happened to use the word "crappy." In her response, she echoed
back part of what I said, but discreetly changed "crappy" to "cruddy." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:33 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
Jess Askin wrote:
| Quote: | "Jordan Abel" wrote:
Mark Brader wrote:
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Actually, he said "crud", although it's invariably quoted as
"crap".
Which arises from the assumption that his remarks must have been
bowdlerized when they appeared in print -- and indeed, 1953 being
what it was, if he *had* said "crap", they probably would have been.
Or if he'd said shit, for that matter. Though... how is "crud" a more
"bowdlerized" word than "crap"? I see them as equivalent
Not to everybody. I once had a conversation with a rather proper
older lady in which I happened to use the word "crappy." In her
response, she echoed back part of what I said, but discreetly changed
"crappy" to "cruddy."
|
Well, you do crap daily, right? Not crud, though.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Heindl
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:34 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On 16 Nov 2004 22:12:30 GMT, Ray Heindl <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote:
On 15 Nov 2004 21:15:33 GMT, Ray Heindl <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"Not undifferent"?
In the OED, although listed as obscure. What better word, in the
above, would you substitute for it?
"No different" or "not unlike." "Not undifferent" means
"different", whereas I think you meant "similar". But maybe I'm
misconstruing your meaning.
Ouch. I didn't see the mistake even after you underlined it! It
still sounds right to me on a quick read, even though it is not.
|
I wonder if you were subconsciously thinking of "not *in*different",
which has a completely different meaning.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: xvortren-news@yaxhoo.com) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:34 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
Jess Askin filted:
| Quote: |
"Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3003tpF2q7sfbU2@uni-berlin.de...
... how is "crud" a more
"bowdlerized" word than "crap"? I see them as equivalent
Not to everybody. I once had a conversation with a rather proper older lady
in which I happened to use the word "crappy." In her response, she echoed
back part of what I said, but discreetly changed "crappy" to "cruddy."
|
I'll have to tell them about that at the next fish fry...we'll all have a big
laugh about it over our fried cruddie....
Then some of us will retire to the alley to shoot cruds....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:34 am
Post subject: Re: BBC America |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:50:38 -0600, "Jess Askin"
<nospam@dontbother.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3003tpF2q7sfbU2@uni-berlin.de...
Mark Brader wrote:
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Actually, he said "crud", although it's invariably quoted as "crap".
Which arises from the assumption that his remarks must have been
bowdlerized when they appeared in print -- and indeed, 1953 being
what it was, if he *had* said "crap", they probably would have been.
Or if he'd said shit, for that matter. Though... how is "crud" a more
"bowdlerized" word than "crap"? I see them as equivalent
Not to everybody. I once had a conversation with a rather proper older lady
in which I happened to use the word "crappy." In her response, she echoed
back part of what I said, but discreetly changed "crappy" to "cruddy."
How about "crap" versus "shit"? An organisation I was involved with |
once produced a report on toilets at outdoor music festivals which
used the word "crap". Our sponsoring department (part of the UK Home
Office) asked us to change it to "shit", which we duly did, although a
bit puzzled by the request, since we thought that "shit" would have
been *less* acceptable.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in