Television ratings re Prison Break vs Origin, as a example of the failings of a free market system (Attn Duggy, Fran)

[Ext User(Duggy)]

David Barnett wrote:
> Some people feel that the channel is being contemptuous, even when not
> "deliberate" sic.

And that's why they're wrong. It's not contempt unless it's
delliberate.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Duggy)]

David Barnett wrote:
> I've said similar things several times in the past, that I am grateful for
> what the channels do show.
> However, some people are complaining about how they air some shows; & IMVHO
> often legitimately.

But more often it's bitching that the shows they watch isn't being
shows exactly when they want, or it's a random attack on the networks
because well all know they have nothing but contempt for viewers.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> Yes, you would. But you'd get to subscribe to those channels individually,
> at a reasonable price, with a reasonable base subscription fee and with
> seriously good picture quality. You'd also get a lot more original
> programming than the above for your money. And the shows are not
> interrupted by ads.

And if those things were done in this country you'd get no pay-tv at
all.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Duggy)]

David Barnett wrote:
> And they are deliberately disrespecting the viewers by making such so-called
> sensible decisions.

That's a might big claim.

Show me proof that they are deliberately showing disrespect.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On 21 Jun 2006 23:04:58 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Anthony Horan wrote:
>> Yes, you would. But you'd get to subscribe to those channels individually,
>> at a reasonable price, with a reasonable base subscription fee and with
>> seriously good picture quality. You'd also get a lot more original
>> programming than the above for your money. And the shows are not
>> interrupted by ads.
>
> And if those things were done in this country you'd get no pay-tv at
> all.

Good. Without pay TV, we'd have a real digital free to air service instead
of the lame excuse for one we have now.

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150956433.659644.134140@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> David Barnett wrote:
>> And they are deliberately disrespecting the viewers by making such
>> so-called
>> sensible decisions.
>
> That's a might big claim.
>
> Show me proof that they are deliberately showing disrespect.

You, yourself, have said they are making "sensible" decisions.
These "sensible" decisions are deliberate and show disrespect to the
viewers.
Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
Qid.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(Duggy)]

David Barnett wrote:
> You, yourself, have said they are making "sensible" decisions.
> These "sensible" decisions are deliberate and show disrespect to the
> viewers.
> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
> Qid.

But the decision doesn't deliberately show disrespect.

Next you'll say that not seeing a friend and crossing the road is
deliberately showing them disrespect, because you deliberately crossed
the road.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 22 Jun 2006 16:58:32 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> David Barnett wrote:
>> You, yourself, have said they are making "sensible" decisions.
>> These "sensible" decisions are deliberate and show disrespect to the
>> viewers.
>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
>> Qid.

> But the decision doesn't deliberately show disrespect.

I know what you mean but I'm not sure it matters, they don't respect
viewers and this informs their decisions regardless. Their attitudes
towards viewers will always have an impact on the decisions they make.

> Next you'll say that not seeing a friend and crossing the road is
> deliberately showing them disrespect, because you deliberately crossed
> the road.

That analogy doesn't hold because he his decision to cross the road
wasn't due to an innate lack of respect it was accidental.


--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2006 16:58:32 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > But the decision doesn't deliberately show disrespect.
> I know what you mean but I'm not sure it matters, they don't respect
> viewers and this informs their decisions regardless. Their attitudes
> towards viewers will always have an impact on the decisions they make.

If they are making decisions based on ratings (one type of regard for
viewers) at the expense of the specific needs of some viewers, it's not
any contempt - real or imagined - informing thier decision.

> > Next you'll say that not seeing a friend and crossing the road is
> > deliberately showing them disrespect, because you deliberately crossed
> > the road.
> That analogy doesn't hold because he his decision to cross the road
> wasn't due to an innate lack of respect it was accidental.

Exactly.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:

> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
> Qid.

"Qid"?

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
> > Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
> > Qid.
> "Qid"?

I took him to mean "qed (quod erat demonstrandum)" but didn't see a
reason to get picky about it.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:55:28 +1000, Anthony Horan wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
>
>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
>> Qid.
>
> "Qid"?

QED perhaps?

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On 23 Jun 2006 00:31:05 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Anthony Horan wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
>>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
>>> Qid.
>> "Qid"?
>
> I took him to mean "qed (quod erat demonstrandum)" but didn't see a
> reason to get picky about it.

Oh, I know what he meant. At some point, *someone* has to let him know he's
making a grammatical goose of himself...

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2006 00:31:05 -0700, Duggy wrote:
>
> > Anthony Horan wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
> >>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
> >>> Qid.
> >> "Qid"?
> >
> > I took him to mean "qed (quod erat demonstrandum)" but didn't see a
> > reason to get picky about it.
>
> Oh, I know what he meant. At some point, *someone* has to let him know he's
> making a grammatical goose of himself...

Latin, just sounds so erudite. Ergo people people use it ad infinitum.


;-)

I was listenting to Jenny Spillane talking about the soccer, which she
claimed they'd been talking about "ad nauseum". She spake a gobful.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> Oh, I know what he meant. At some point, *someone* has to let him know he's
> making a grammatical goose of himself...

Eh.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(FRAN)]

FRAN wrote:
> Anthony Horan wrote:
> > On 23 Jun 2006 00:31:05 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony Horan wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
> > >>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
> > >>> Qid.
> > >> "Qid"?
> > >
> > > I took him to mean "qed (quod erat demonstrandum)" but didn't see a
> > > reason to get picky about it.
> >
> > Oh, I know what he meant. At some point, *someone* has to let him know he's
> > making a grammatical goose of himself...
>

Latin, just sounds so erudite. Ergo people people use it ad infinitum.
;-)


I was listening to Jenny Spillane talking about the soccer, which she
claimed they'd been talking about "ad nauseum". She spake a gobful.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

FRAN wrote:
> Latin, just sounds so erudite. Ergo people people use it ad infinitum.
> ;-)

> I was listening to Jenny Spillane talking about the soccer, which she
> claimed they'd been talking about "ad nauseum". She spake a gobful.

When I did my Science Fiction, Fantasy & Popular Culture exam, the
Lecturer outside before hand joked that "you'll do well, as long as you
studied your Latin"

So when discussing AI and Lt Data specifical I asked the question: "Is
it a case of 'cognito ergo sum' or 'cognito cognito ergo cognito sum'?"

I don't think I ever fully answered it.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1151020712.401978.69700@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> David Barnett wrote:
>> You, yourself, have said they are making "sensible" decisions.
>> These "sensible" decisions are deliberate and show disrespect to the
>> viewers.
>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
>> Qid.
>
> But the decision doesn't deliberately show disrespect.
>
> Next you'll say that not seeing a friend and crossing the road is
> deliberately showing them disrespect, because you deliberately crossed
> the road.

Instead of staying on the same side of the road to see the friend?
That seems disrespectful to me!
:)
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ofthjk24qaq4$.1xgdgy4y87ppv$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
>
>> Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
>> Qid.
>
> "Qid"?

Apologies - should have been: Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum).
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1151047865.823223.40430@c74g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> Anthony Horan wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:32:52 GMT, David Barnett wrote:
>> > Ergo, they are deliberately showing disrespect.
>> > Qid.
>> "Qid"?
>
> I took him to mean "qed (quod erat demonstrandum)" but didn't see a
> reason to get picky about it.

As I've just apologetically posted.
--
David Barnett