PDA

View Full Version : Glad I don't waste 700/year on cable



SFTV_troy
06-02-09, 09:14 PM
I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.

I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
nothing in return.

Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
a year on cable.

Cable Shill
06-03-09, 12:15 AM
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>but he does, s

I'm so glad I don't have to put up with a customer as dense as
yourself, Enjoy OTA, it's made for you.

As for millions of others . . best value in a variety of entertainment
& education.
--
"From spongecake to satellites, it's gotta be Krebstar"

Bob
06-03-09, 01:06 AM
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:14:00 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
>Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
>nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
>movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
>we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
>I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
>scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
>nothing in return.
>
>Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
>hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
>and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
>I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>a year on cable.

700 dollars a year is cheap compared to hiring someone to excavate the
huge hill between me and the HD antennas. Then there is dim bulb next
door that planted a tree fence that is now 40 ft. high between me and
the antennas.

ravenlynne
06-03-09, 02:39 AM
On 6/3/2009 4:14 AM, SFTV_troy wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>

Somehow I know mentioning the devil's name would call him.

Frank
06-03-09, 06:52 AM
Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:14:00 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
> <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
>> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
>> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
>> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
>> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
>> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
>> nothing in return.
>>
>> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
>> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
>> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
>> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>> a year on cable.
>
> 700 dollars a year is cheap compared to hiring someone to excavate the
> huge hill between me and the HD antennas. Then there is dim bulb next
> door that planted a tree fence that is now 40 ft. high between me and
> the antennas.

Same problem here. We had to do without cable for several years as we
have all underground services and big clunky thing on roof brought in
mostly fuzzy channels. Now even cell phones, you have to go outside for
clear reception. I got a neighbor on top of the hill that gets along
fine with just antenna but not me.

Elmo P. Shagnasty
06-03-09, 07:00 AM
In article
<b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.

Well, not nothing. There are plenty of shows on cable that are NOT
available on broadcast TV, and never will be. But I agree, so much of
it is crap. I got rid of premium channels over 10 years ago because I
couldn't believe how little was on for my $10 extra/month.



> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap.

That's true, there's no doubt you will be able to see anything you want
by picking and choosing out of Netflix or similar.

And there are only so many hours in the day, so....just do the math.
$700 buys a lot of rental.

Put multiple people in the house, though, and the equation changes.
If/when you have a wife and children, you will look back at what you
wrote and laugh.

All that being said: because so much of it is utter crap, the only REAL
way to get your $700 worth is by using a DVR or two. Let the black box
watch TV for you, then spit it back out to you on YOUR schedule.

If you've never had a DVR, you'll never truly understand this concept.
The box is full of stuff that it's collected while you were out having a
life, and is now ready to show it to you when you're in the mood to veg
out or whatever. And it doesn't care what it shows you; whatever you're
in the mood for at that moment, it's ready to show.

No more being subject to what the networks want to show you when they
want to show it.

(And with ReplayTV's commercial skip, I don't even have to press a
button--I just don't see commercials. 3 hours of broadcasting contains
2 hours of program, and that's all I see, so I get that hour back. See
"having a life" above.)

In my mind, the DVR will ultimately be responsible for a shift for the
cablecos away from the typical "broadcast" mentality and toward a
Netflix-like streaming model--but it will take awhile, because old
habits die hard.

SFTV_troy
06-03-09, 11:07 AM
On Jun 3, 12:15*am, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I'm so glad I don't have to put up with a customer as dense
> as yourself, Enjoy OTA, it's made for you.



In what way do you consider my comment, "There was nothing to watch
across 70 channels of cable" a dense comment??? It really isn't.
It's a common observation made, not just by me, but also my friend,
his father, my brother, his wife, and so on.

I guess in your view insulting potential customers is "good service".
I'm glad I canceled my Comcast subscription back in 2002 if this is
the kind of service they provide.

SFTV_troy
06-03-09, 11:18 AM
On Jun 3, 7:00*am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> Put multiple people in the house, though, and the equation changes. *
> If/when you have a wife and children, you will look back at what you
> wrote and laugh.

Perhaps but I doubt it. My brother has both a wife and kid, and they
both say they'd cancel the cable if it wasn't for their daughter. I
told them that we grew-up without cable television, and I'm sure the
daughter would survive just fine without it too. I also added that
they can get childrens programming 24 hours a day through Qubo, and it
costs nothing. There's also kiddie shows on PBS and the This movie
channel.

I'm slowly but surely convincing them that eliminating the $700/year
bill is a good idea.


> All that being said: *because so much of it is utter crap, the only REAL
> way to get your $700 worth is by using a DVR or two.

I have one and used it often back when I had cable. Even now for
broadcast television it's nice to have.




> (And with ReplayTV's commercial skip, I don't even have to press a
> button--I just don't see commercials.)

Hey I have that same DVR! But my Panasonic model doesn't have the
commercial skip. You have to press a 30-second skip button. Still
nice although I do feel a little guilty "stealing" television. When I
use the fastforward on my VCR I still see the ads - less guilt. ;-)

QN
06-03-09, 11:18 AM
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.

After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
I have been trying to find cable channel shows to justify the expense, but
it is hard.

Currently, I have trouble with OTA signals, but in several months the signal
should improve as the Sutro tower is upgraded.

I wish I could order a la carte channels.

WQ
06-03-09, 11:21 AM
On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. *I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. *Flip. *Flip. *Nothing. *Nothing. *Nothing. *70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. *Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. * Flip. *Flip. *Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. *Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.

--- $700 a year for 70 channels? Somehow I must be getting a bargain
at $500 a year for 70 channels - well, actually, more like 60 or so.
Still. But yeah, I was much happier with TV when there was much less
of it and it came through free and without all those annoying station
logos and promo pop-ups all over the place cluttering up what I should
be seeing instead. What irony. One used to always get to see an
entire bug-free screen when TV was free, now one has to pay to see it
get all cluttered up by all sorts of useless junk not related to what
you really want to see.

Frank
06-03-09, 12:16 PM
QN wrote:
> "SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
>> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
>> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
>> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
>> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
>> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
>> nothing in return.
>>
>> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
>> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
>> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
>> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>> a year on cable.
>
> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
> I have been trying to find cable channel shows to justify the expense, but
> it is hard.
>
> Currently, I have trouble with OTA signals, but in several months the signal
> should improve as the Sutro tower is upgraded.
>
> I wish I could order a la carte channels.
>
>
>
After your deal runs out, go to the internet, Comcast and current deal
for your area. Call Comcast and tell them you want it. PITA but it
happens.

Mason Barge
06-03-09, 12:17 PM
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.


Cable is good if 1) You can't get decent broadcast reception or 2) If you
watch a lot of tv and have an interest in a lot of shows that aren't
broadcast.

I bet at least 50% of my viewing is on cable. Some of my favorite series
are there. They broadcast the Stanley Cup, Atlanta Braves baseball. Etc.
And there are all these weird little shows that are interesting as hell,
e.g. Whale Wars, which is about to crank up again.

SFTV_troy
06-03-09, 01:12 PM
On Jun 3, 11:21*am, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
> --- $700 a year for 70 channels? *Somehow I must be getting a bargain
> at $500 a year for 70 channels - well, actually, more like 60 or so.




I remember when cable only cost $42 a month. Heck I remember when it
used to cost only $30 a month a mere ten years ago, but now it's
doubled in my area. Thanks Comsucks. (Although to be fair a lot of
the increase came from individual channels increasing subscriber fees
from ~35 cents per home to 75 cents per home. Greed, greed, greed.)

SFTV_troy
06-03-09, 01:15 PM
On Jun 3, 12:17*pm, "Mason Barge" <masonba...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I bet at least 50% of my viewing is on cable. *Some of my favorite series
> are there. *They broadcast the Stanley Cup, Atlanta Braves baseball.


I used to watch TCM a lot, but when Comcast moved it from channel 65
to channel 100-something, I lost my ability to view it and the whole
cable lineup became rather pointless. Yes I still watched BSG or Monk
on other channels, but it's now cheaper to simply rent those shows on
DVD.

SFTV_troy
06-03-09, 01:18 PM
On Jun 3, 11:18*am, "QN" <hidingfrom...@example.com> wrote:
>
> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
> I have been trying to find shows to justify the expense, but it is hard.
> I wish I could order a la carte channels.

Me too. There are some cities that require a la carte as part of
their franchise, and they charge a mere $1 or $2 per channel added.
For me that would be great because I could get SciFi, USA, and TNT for
a mere $6 a month.

As for reception, try upgrading to a Channel Master 4228. I have on
setting next to my tv in my living room, and it works great.

Patrick McNamara
06-03-09, 01:39 PM
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.

Depending upon the package one has, it could cost more. However, basic
packages (which is what one has to compare off-air to) are usually about
$300-$400 depending upon provider.

The problem is that not everyone has the same reception or happens to live
in an area that allows for good reception. Cable/satellite is a convince and
not all the best shows air on cable stations.

Clear reception use to be the primary advantage of cable, but with the
digital switchover off-air has become more attractive. I could see a lot of
people choosing to drop cable for off-air. But only those who live in areas
of good reception can do that.

I know I could get by on off-air quite happily, although there's still a few
shows I catch on cable channels, and then there's The Movie Network which,
if made use of, works out to be cheaper than renting. I've got in the habit
of waiting for movies to appear there before watching them.

Only 9 days left.

--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmcnamara@gmail.com
My Toy Store: http://patrickjmcnamara.webs.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing

WQ
06-03-09, 04:37 PM
On Jun 3, 2:12*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:21*am, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > --- $700 a year for 70 channels? *Somehow I must be getting a bargain
> > at $500 a year for 70 channels - well, actually, more like 60 or so.
>
> I remember when cable only cost $42 a month. *Heck I remember when it
> used to cost only $30 a month a mere ten years ago, but now it's
> doubled in my area. *Thanks Comsucks. *(Although to be fair a lot of
> the increase came from individual channels increasing subscriber fees
> from ~35 cents per home to 75 cents per home. *Greed, greed, greed.)

--- See. That's what I keep telling everybody. Forced
subsidization. Cable channels couldn't exist without it. Remove the
subsidization and maybe you'd see only the 2 or 3 strongest cable
networks be able to survive on just ad revenue alone and all the other
few hundred channels disappear overnight. And that's how it should be
- survival of the fittest on the basis of ad revenue, not
subsidization. To think that a lot of people gripe about subsidizing
PBS through taxes and yet think nothing of the junk they're forced to
subsidize if they want cable at all.

Steven L.
06-03-09, 07:50 PM
SFTV_troy wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.

As long as you have a computer and high-speed Internet,
there is also Internet TV. Lots of TV channels broadcast over the
Internet.

You can get dozens of channels from foreign countries, something you
can't even get from your local cable provider (except a handful from
other North American countries). You can watch TV stations from Africa,
Asia, etc.

And soon, the HDMI standard will let you watch HD TV on your PC over the
Internet.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Elmo P. Shagnasty
06-03-09, 08:03 PM
In article <uuxVl.17579$pr6.4683@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"QN" <hidingfromyou@example.com> wrote:

> > Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> > hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> > and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> > a year on cable.
>
> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.

Just call back and ask them to reinstate the discount.

It's free to ask.

We have two wired cable providers going through my backyard; my provider
is happy to reinstate my $20 discount every year. They'd make it
permanent, at least the CSRs would, but the computer system is
programmed for yearly expiration--no doubt to get more money from people
who forget to call back and ask, or who are too AFRAID to ask. Sheesh.

$65 for 90 analog channels plus 15/2 broadband. A couple of ReplayTVs
watch it for me, and I watch ReplayTV.

Elmo P. Shagnasty
06-03-09, 08:06 PM
In article
<c3a8d476-84ee-4b76-9923-a84292b81198@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Put multiple people in the house, though, and the equation changes. *
> > If/when you have a wife and children, you will look back at what you
> > wrote and laugh.
>
> Perhaps but I doubt it. My brother has both a wife and kid, and they
> both say they'd cancel the cable if it wasn't for their daughter.

If it weren't for the kids, I'd probably cancel and let the Replays
figure out OTA for me. Or just go Netflix/Hulu.



> I
> told them that we grew-up without cable television, and I'm sure the
> daughter would survive just fine without it too. I also added that
> they can get childrens programming 24 hours a day through Qubo, and it
> costs nothing. There's also kiddie shows on PBS and the This movie
> channel.

Kids grow up WAY more quickly than you imagine, and those are only
short-term solutions. OTOH, I agree completely--I grew up without
cable, and it didn't kill me. If you're a parent with some balls and
can stand the short-term grumbling, you can eliminate TV altogether.

Cable Shill
06-03-09, 11:41 PM
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 12:15*am, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm so glad I don't have to put up with a customer as dense
>> as yourself, Enjoy OTA, it's made for you.
>
>
>
>In what way do you consider my comment, "There was nothing to watch
>across 70 channels of cable" a dense comment??? It really isn't.
>It's a common observation made, not just by me, but also my friend,
>his father, my brother, his wife, and so on.
>
>I guess in your view insulting potential customers is "good service".
>I'm glad I canceled my Comcast subscription back in 2002 if this is
>the kind of service they provide.
>

Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only what
you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way your $700
a year will render any profit for the cable company's efforts. Be off,
go troll some other newsgroup.
--
"From spongecake to satellites, it's gotta be Krebstar"

David Johnston
06-04-09, 01:00 AM
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 11:18*am, "QN" <hidingfrom...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
>> I have been trying to find shows to justify the expense, but it is hard.
>> I wish I could order a la carte channels.
>
>Me too. There are some cities that require a la carte as part of
>their franchise, and they charge a mere $1 or $2 per channel added.
>For me that would be great because I could get SciFi, USA, and TNT for
>a mere $6 a month.

Well no. You'd still need to pay for the service itself.

RickMerrill
06-04-09, 08:35 AM
SFTV_troy wrote:
> On Jun 3, 12:17 pm, "Mason Barge" <masonba...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I bet at least 50% of my viewing is on cable. Some of my favorite series
>> are there. They broadcast the Stanley Cup, Atlanta Braves baseball.
>
>
> I used to watch TCM a lot, but when Comcast moved it from channel 65
> to channel 100-something, I lost my ability to view it and the whole
> cable lineup became rather pointless. Yes I still watched BSG or Monk
> on other channels, but it's now cheaper to simply rent those shows on
> DVD.
>
>

There is an unadvertized special on for a cable box to replace the
channels you used-to-get.

f/fgeorge
06-04-09, 01:43 PM
>>I'm glad I canceled my Comcast subscription back in 2002 if this is
>>the kind of service they provide.
>>

And yet here you are 7 YEARS later still BITCHING about what it USED
to cost you or even what it COULD cost you if you still had it!!!! LET
IT GO DUDE! You are now officially a TROLL!!! SEVEN YEARS of bitching
is enough!!!

SFTV_troy
06-04-09, 04:05 PM
On Jun 3, 11:41*pm, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only what
> you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way your $700
> a year will render any profit for the cable company's efforts.



You're right. You're not getting my $700 a year. I hope you and your
company go bankrupt (like Circuit City did). Poor service begets lose
of business.

And there are no "variables" to consider. Free tv is free tv.
Nothing Comcast cable has to offer can beat that. Even their
internet is overpriced - $60 a month??? Verizon DSL only costs me
$15.

SFTV_troy
06-04-09, 04:26 PM
On Jun 4, 1:00*am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>
> >There are some cities that require a la carte as part of
> >their franchise, and they charge a mere $1 or $2 per channel added.
> >For me that would be great because I could get SciFi, USA, and TNT for
> >a mere $6 a month.
>
> Well no. *You'd still need to pay for the service itself. *



Okay add $5 for the hookup fee. $11 is still a heck of a lot cheaper
than their current price of $60.

SFTV_troy
06-04-09, 04:31 PM
On Jun 3, 4:37*pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2:12*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >*(Although to be fair a lot of the increase came from
> > individual channels increasing subscriber fees from
> > ~35 cents per home to 75 cents per home. *Greed, greed, greed.)
>
> --- See. *That's what I keep telling everybody. *Forced
> subsidization..*To think that a lot of people gripe about subsidizing
> PBS through taxes and yet think nothing of the junk they're forced to
> subsidize if they want cable at all.




Except it's not forced. The cable company voluntarily pays those
subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if they think it's too
much. And of course you voluntarily subscribe to the company; you
could cancel it or drop to locals-only service (~$10 a month).

PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
from your paycheck whether you like it or not.

David Johnston
06-04-09, 04:33 PM
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 1:00*am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>>
>> >There are some cities that require a la carte as part of
>> >their franchise, and they charge a mere $1 or $2 per channel added.
>> >For me that would be great because I could get SciFi, USA, and TNT for
>> >a mere $6 a month.
>>
>> Well no. *You'd still need to pay for the service itself. *
>
>
>
>Okay add $5 for the hookup fee.

Really? You think that would pay the operational expenses of the
company do you?

SFTV_troy
06-04-09, 04:34 PM
On Jun 4, 8:35*am, RickMerrill <Rick0.merr...@gmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > I used to watch TCM a lot, but when Comcast moved it from channel 65
> > to channel 100-something, I lost my ability to view it...
>
> There is an unadvertized special on for a cable box
> to replace the channels you used-to-get.




Yes I know and it was advertised repeatedly. Comcast expected us to
rent a digital box for an extra $5/month to get TCM, which we used to
get free with the basic package. Greedy bastards.

WQ
06-04-09, 05:06 PM
On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 4:37*pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:12*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >*(Although to be fair a lot of the increase came from
> > > individual channels increasing subscriber fees from
> > > ~35 cents per home to 75 cents per home. *Greed, greed, greed.)
>
> > --- See. *That's what I keep telling everybody. *Forced
> > subsidization..*To think that a lot of people gripe about subsidizing
> > PBS through taxes and yet think nothing of the junk they're forced to
> > subsidize if they want cable at all.
>
> Except it's not forced. *The cable company voluntarily pays those
> subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if they think it's too
> much. *And of course you voluntarily subscribe to the company; you
> could cancel it or drop to locals-only service (~$10 a month).

--- Where do you get the idea that the cable companies voluntarily pay
subscriber fees? There's no voluntary at all when they have to pay
for all the cable networks they carry. It's voluntary if they could
decide for themselves who to pay whenever they want to pay them and if
they want to pay them at all while carrying their signals. Even if
they drop a signal that might be popular with viewers in the cable
universe, they'd still have to pay for a less popular signal they'd
replace it with, so there's no voluntary payment on their part, just
as there's no voluntary payment on yours when you subscribe to cable.
It's a system designed to subsidize cable networks that for the most
part have no business being in business because without that forced
extraction of money from you to support them, they couldn't exist.
There's nothing voluntary about anything in that. Of course, you
could decide not to have cable, but that's not the point. The point
is that once you get it, you're forcibly paying for stuff you really
don't want to get the few things you do want.

> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.

--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.

Bob (not my real pseudonym)
06-05-09, 06:12 AM
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>
>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.

If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

$Bill
06-05-09, 07:35 AM
Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>> --- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>> again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>> of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>> bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>> cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>
> If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
> 30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
> local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

Geez, they don't have commercials to pay for their programming - how
do you expect them to broadcast without some sort of cash inflow ?
They depend on donations from wherever they can get them.

Bill
06-05-09, 09:37 AM
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
<nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>
>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>
>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

I can't remember the last time I watched something on PBS. Not only is
the programming incredibly poor overall, the constant begging for
donations is a deal breaker.

--
Bill

Thomas T. Veldhouse
06-05-09, 01:39 PM
In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

If it is a waste of money as far as you are concerned, then I am glad that you
don't waste your money on it. Too many people waste money on things they
don't use the way it is. It is good that you are fiscally responsible; at
least; on this one point.

Having said that, one might argue that your intent was to actually troll this
group and it appears that you have done that with mixed results. I hope that
your expectations were met whatever your intent.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

Mike Gibson
06-05-09, 04:44 PM
"Bill" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:25bi2511joa8quojt26ru0j0021h1ng9re@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> <nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>>
>>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>>
>>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...
>
> I can't remember the last time I watched something on PBS. Not only is
> the programming incredibly poor overall, the constant begging for
> donations is a deal breaker.
>
> --
> Bill




The real kicker is every time they claim they only do so one week a year.
Last time I checked a year was 52 weeks. PBS seems to think a year is 28
days. Big Bird & company promoting same sex unions is not what I would call
quality children's programming. I'm damn tired of hearing that all Muslims
are my friends and it's my fault many of them want to kill me. Force feeding
the Spanish ( Mexican ) language on my children and grand children is
unacceptable. They do not *need* to be able to speak any specific foreign
language and if they want to they can take language classes for the
languages they want to learn without brain-washing techniques.

AuldPhart
06-05-09, 06:43 PM
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:37:04 -0500, Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
><nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>>
>>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>>
>>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...
>
>I can't remember the last time I watched something on PBS. Not only is
>the programming incredibly poor overall, the constant begging for
>donations is a deal breaker.
>
The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat. evening.
Everything else is liberal left wing crap or begging.

Smarty Pants
06-05-09, 08:42 PM
"AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home> wrote in message
news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
> evening.
> Everything else is liberal left wing crap

What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?

Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?

> or begging.

Begging?

Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?

Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
multi-million-dollar bonuses.

It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
corporate elite.

AuldPhart
06-05-09, 11:14 PM
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
<smarty.pants@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:

>
>"AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home> wrote in message
>news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
>> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> evening.
>> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>
>What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?

I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.

>Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
>bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?

Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
independent.

>> or begging.
>
>Begging?
>
>Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?

Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.

>Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
>multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>
>It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
>corporate elite.
>
Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to get
your news. LMAO!!

WQ
06-06-09, 12:13 AM
On Jun 6, 12:14*am, AuldPhart <auldph...@the.home> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
>
> <smarty.pa...@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:
>
> >"AuldPhart" <auldph...@the.home> wrote in message
> >news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
> >> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
> >> evening.
> >> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>
> >What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
> I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.

--- Yeah, and we all know about the truths we've been fed by right
wingnuts, don't we? What was that reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq
again...?

> >Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
> >bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?
>
> Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
> independent.
>
> >> or begging.
>
> >Begging?
>
> >Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?
>
> Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
> to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.

--- You need to rewind a bit. It was Bush & Cronies that "forced" it
on them, and with no strings attached.

> >Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
> >multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>
> >It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
> >corporate elite.
>
> Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to get
> your news. LMAO!!

AuldPhart
06-06-09, 12:49 AM
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:

>On Jun 6, 12:14*am, AuldPhart <auldph...@the.home> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
>>
>> <smarty.pa...@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >"AuldPhart" <auldph...@the.home> wrote in message
>> >news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
>> >> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> >> evening.
>> >> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>> >What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>
>> I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.
>
>--- Yeah, and we all know about the truths we've been fed by right
>wingnuts, don't we? What was that reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq
>again...?

If you don't know, you're too far gone...!

>> >Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
>> >bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?
>>
>> Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
>> independent.
>>
>> >> or begging.
>>
>> >Begging?
>>
>> >Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?
>>
>> Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
>> to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.
>
>--- You need to rewind a bit. It was Bush & Cronies that "forced" it
>on them, and with no strings attached.

No strings attached, eh? Yomama won't let them pay it back.

This is the wrong place for this discussion. I'll be happy to go
somewhere else to continue.

>> >Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
>> >multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>>
>> >It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
>> >corporate elite.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to get
>> your news. LMAO!!

SFTV_troy
06-06-09, 11:55 AM
X-No-Archive: yes


Smarty Pants wrote:
> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>
> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
> > evening.
> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>
> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?



No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. It
would be nice to hear some right-wing, pro-small-government news for a
change, just to have a little balance.

As for the "truth" it lies somewhere between CNN on the left, and the
Libertarian Party on the right. Listening to either one of those,
alone, only gives you an extremist viewpoint. I prefer to stay away
from extremists.

SFTV_troy
06-06-09, 11:59 AM
X-No-Archive: yes

On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > Except it's not forced. The cable company voluntarily pays those
> > subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if it's too much.
>
> Where do you get the idea that the cable companies voluntarily pay
> subscriber fees? There's no voluntary at all when they have to
> pay for all the cable networks they carry.


Disagree. Overall I think subscriber fees are reasonable (between 0
cents and 75 cents), but if I owned a cable company, and ESPN came to
me and said, "We want to increase our per-home fee from $1.90 to
$3.00," I'd tell them to go **** themselves and drop the channel. I'd
then replace it with local Channel 10-3, NBC Sports from
Philadelphia. WCAU doesn't charge any fees.

Vice-versa, if a cable company says "yes" to ESPN's demand, then it's
done voluntarily. Which is what I originally said.




> > PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked
> > directly from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>
> There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System.


That doesn't make it any better. It's still forcing me to support a
channel I never watch. Same applies to Amtrak. Same applies to AIG,
the Federal reserve, GM, and other subsidies for private companies. I
think these businesses should stand on their own, without assistance,
or left to die. IMHO the only legitimate taxation is "for the common
welfare", aka for the benefit of all, not just a few.

I don't mind giving temporary loans during this time of crisis, but I
do expect them to be paid back. I don't feel like giving money from
my poor self to the rich corporations. It's not Christmas. ;-)


<n...@nope.nyet> wrote:
>
>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

Well said. I have a Christian station and an independent station in
my area, and they receive NO government assistance of any kind, and
yet they still survive on nothing but donations. The people who watch
are the ones who pay the bills, as it should be.

daytripper
06-06-09, 02:36 PM
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>Smarty Pants wrote:
>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>
>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> > evening.
>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
>
>
>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]

Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
"centrist".

Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)

EGK
06-06-09, 02:41 PM
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0400, daytripper <day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>
>>Smarty Pants wrote:
>>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>>
>>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>> > evening.
>>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>>
>>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>
>>
>>
>>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]
>
>Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
>"centrist".
>
>Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)

Actually a LOT of people think it's centrist. It's right of the left
leaning network news outlets and CNN.

AuldPhart
06-06-09, 05:46 PM
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:48:18 -0400, daytripper
<day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:41:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0400, daytripper <day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Smarty Pants wrote:
>>>>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>>>>
>>>>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>>>> > evening.
>>>>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>>>>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]
>>>
>>>Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
>>>"centrist".
>>>
>>>Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)
>>
>>Actually a LOT of people think it's centrist. It's right of the left
>>leaning network news outlets and CNN.
>
>Well, of course it's to the right. And other than that 21% of the population
>that still admit to remaining Republican (or at least RINO) my bet is a LOT
>MORE people think it's a lot further to the right.
>
>In any case....do you really think Rupert Murdoch could be considered - by an
>actual sane person - as being a "centrist"?
>
>How about the network's "stars", like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura
>Ingraham, Karl Rove, and Glenn Beck - not to mention frequent contributors
>like Oliver North and Ann Coulter, et al. Which one of those people is the
>"centrist"?
>
>The only thing more humorous is their slogan...
>
Where do you get your news.......MSNBC? I watch Olbermann
once in a while for comedy relief. LOL!

daytripper
06-06-09, 06:21 PM
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:46:20 -0500, AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:48:18 -0400, daytripper
><day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:41:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0400, daytripper <day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Smarty Pants wrote:
>>>>>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>>>>> > evening.
>>>>>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>>>>>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]
>>>>
>>>>Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
>>>>"centrist".
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)
>>>
>>>Actually a LOT of people think it's centrist. It's right of the left
>>>leaning network news outlets and CNN.
>>
>>Well, of course it's to the right. And other than that 21% of the population
>>that still admit to remaining Republican (or at least RINO) my bet is a LOT
>>MORE people think it's a lot further to the right.
>>
>>In any case....do you really think Rupert Murdoch could be considered - by an
>>actual sane person - as being a "centrist"?
>>
>>How about the network's "stars", like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura
>>Ingraham, Karl Rove, and Glenn Beck - not to mention frequent contributors
>>like Oliver North and Ann Coulter, et al. Which one of those people is the
>>"centrist"?
>>
>>The only thing more humorous is their slogan...
>>
>Where do you get your news.......MSNBC? I watch Olbermann
>once in a while for comedy relief. LOL!

Actually, I don't think I've ever watched MSNBC. Like, ever. And the only
Olbermann I've ever seen was in Youtube clips others had sent me links to. In
those, at least, I thought his rants were hilarious, and his targets ripe.

I suppose I'm in the fortunate position of having the time to read the "news"
from multiple sources, some very much left leaning, and at least three that
anyone with a clue would consider right-falling-over. Fox "News" is clearly in
the latter category, but that's just fine. Because I don't listen to OTA
radio, if not for Fox "News", I'd have no clue what the mouth-breathing wing
nuts are being told to think..

hth ;-)

Primordial Ooze
06-07-09, 07:16 AM
On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. *I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. *Flip. *Flip. *Nothing. *Nothing. *Nothing. *70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. *Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. * Flip. *Flip. *Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. *Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.

well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
something better whatever you may find that to be

SFTV_troy
06-08-09, 11:06 AM
On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> > a year on cable.
>
> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
> something better whatever you may find that to be


My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

Thomas T. Veldhouse
06-08-09, 12:02 PM
In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
>
> My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
> and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).
>

Why make insulting inferences like that? With every post I think you are more
and more of a troll.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

David Johnston
06-08-09, 12:11 PM
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
<nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>
>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>
>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>30% gov't subsidy?

What does being "good" have to do with being able to support
themselves?

David Johnston
06-08-09, 12:22 PM
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:59:10 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > Except it's not forced. The cable company voluntarily pays those
>> > subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if it's too much.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that the cable companies voluntarily pay
>> subscriber fees? There's no voluntary at all when they have to
>> pay for all the cable networks they carry.
>
>
>Disagree. Overall I think subscriber fees are reasonable (between 0
>cents and 75 cents), but if I owned a cable company, and ESPN came to
>me and said, "We want to increase our per-home fee from $1.90 to
>$3.00," I'd tell them to go **** themselves and drop the channel.

And then you'd lose a lot of subscribers. I'd say near half the
people who get cable get it primarily for the sports.


>
>That doesn't make it any better. It's still forcing me to support a
>channel I never watch. Same applies to Amtrak. Same applies to AIG,
>the Federal reserve,

If you think the Federal Reserve provides you with no services, you
are living in a dream world.

Adam H. Kerman
06-08-09, 01:48 PM
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>>>with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>>>something better whatever you may find that to be

>>My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
>>and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

>Why make insulting inferences like that? With every post I think you are more
>and more of a troll.

You couldn't tell this thread was going nowhere from the root message? Even
if you didn't know who it was, that the message was crossposted among
five newsgroups, not really on topic in any of them, is a bit of a hint.

Captain Infinity
06-08-09, 07:01 PM
Once Upon A Time,
SFTV_troy wrote:

>On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>> > a year on cable.
>>
>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
>
>My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
>and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

Tell me, Troy...just how do you plan to get your imaginary girlfriend
pregnant? With your imaginary stiffie?


**
Captain Infinity

AuldPhart
06-08-09, 09:51 PM
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:01:58 GMT, Captain Infinity
<Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:

>Once Upon A Time,
>SFTV_troy wrote:
>
>>On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>>> > a year on cable.
>>>
>>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>>
>>
>>My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
>>and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).
>
>Tell me, Troy...just how do you plan to get your imaginary girlfriend
>pregnant? With your imaginary stiffie?
>
Stiffie.....huh huh huh huh. He said stiffie. :-)

John Carter
06-09-09, 01:17 AM
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b78fa2a2-5929-4b17-bf88-f5b3a16e115a@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
:

> On Jun 3, 11:41*pm, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only
>> what you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way
>> your $700 a year will render any profit for the cable company's
>> efforts.
>
>
>
> You're right. You're not getting my $700 a year. I hope you and
> your company go bankrupt (like Circuit City did). Poor service
> begets lose of business.
>
> And there are no "variables" to consider. Free tv is free tv.
> Nothing Comcast cable has to offer can beat that. Even their
> internet is overpriced - $60 a month??? Verizon DSL only costs me
> $15.
>

And you get what you pay for.

You also have demonstrated a thick skull -

"Poor service begets lose LOSS of business."
You are like so many other Internet pseudo-intellectuals - can't
spell, and can't use the proper words either.

John Carter
06-09-09, 02:26 AM
AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote in
news:9vqj2519eq3nvsqrdcb1a6eebhqeeqkfh3@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
> <smarty.pants@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home> wrote in message
>>news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
>>> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>> evening.
>>> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>>What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
> I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.

And I suppose your right-wing nuts like Dick CVheney tell the truth -
He's told so many lies - even he doesn't know what is truth and what
is a lie. Look at all those Republicans - now criticising those
policies they practiced when they were in power. They are so full of
double-talk. Maybe they think some of us don't remember their inane
banter from the first time around and now they can denounce it and
somehow feel like they have accomplised somethig. Just read some of
Michele Bachman's drivel - even her own Republican party members
cringe each time she "rises for a comment". Don't any of these
people have staff that can do a half way decent job of fact checking
and Googling. If you think the left wing liberals lie, then you need
toswitch your channel off Fox News and spend more time at
http://www.factcheck.org/.

And then you have the Right wing spokesmen Rush and Newt who live
with their feet in their mouths and yet the Party members run all
over each other to be the one who kisses their ass.

Give us all a break with your labeling.

WHat this country needs is for all those useless members of Congress
to spand as much time working for the country as they do for their
party.


>
>>Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer
>>that's bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking
>>geniuses?
>
> Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
> independent.
>

Your status as an Independent has nothign to do with whether you are
a right-winger or a left winger. You are not a Democrat or a
Republican registered party member. Maybe you tend to be a moderate
maybe ?



>>> or begging.
>>
>>Begging?
>>
>>Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are
>>doing?
>
> Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
> to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.

If yo u are referring to Obama - you are certainly incorrect. Don't
you remember George Dubya Bush, ans Hank Paulsen from last September
2008? Hell, they just told banks to take the money and didn't even
have a plan for the use of the money - Their bailout plan was a
stupid pissing away of $350 billion that let banks pay dividends,
bonuses, and buy other banks with their George and Hank windfall.
You see, the money was allocated by Congress to assist individuals in
mortgage trouble and to help the banks do something with tthe"toxic
assets" on their books. But Mr. Paulsen decideded to "re-
capitalize" the banks so they would get credit flowing again - only
problem, there was no direction given to do this when the money was
given out. I would like to hear from Greenspan after this charity
hand er bailout. Remember he said he was "shocked to learn that the
banking community failed to regulate itself..."

Let's look at the whole picture and the FACTs before we start talking
about who forced what onto whom.

Currently, they may pay back the money if they can remain capitalized
to the point where they can take the worst case scenario of asset
failure, mismanagement, or any other catastrophe and remain liquid
and in business. I don't see that as a negative, do you ?

>
>>Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives
>>with multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>>
>>It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to
>>the corporate elite.
>>
> Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to
> get your news. LMAO!!
>
>
I watch many news shows and listen to news on radio each day. I do
watch some Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but I also watch some CNN, some
FOX. Of he three, Fox seems to need noe fact checking that the other
two - not as much from their newsroom, but from their decidely right
wingers O'Reilley, Hannith and Beck - who even many of my staunchest
conservative friends refer to as the Clown-Troika.


And taht's all I have to say about that.

SFTV_troy
06-09-09, 10:15 AM
On Jun 8, 12:02*pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
> >> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
> >> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
> > My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
> > and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).
>
> Why make insulting inferences like that? *With every post I think you are more
> and more of a troll.


The guy insulted me
I insulted him back.
That doesn't make me a troll, but defensive.

SFTV_troy
06-09-09, 10:22 AM
On Jun 9, 1:17*am, John Carter <m...@mymailsvr.org> wrote:
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:b78fa2a2-5929-4b17-bf88-f5b3a16e115a@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
> :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:41*pm, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only
> >> what you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way
> >> your $700 a year will render any profit for the cable company's
> >> efforts.
>
>
>
> > You're right. *You're not getting my $700 a year. *I hope you and
> > your company go bankrupt (like Circuit City did). *Poor service
> > begets lose of business.
>
> > And there are no "variables" to consider. *Free tv is free tv.
> > Nothing Comcast cable has to offer can beat that. * *Even their
> > internet is overpriced - $60 a month??? *Verizon DSL only costs me
> > $15.
>
> And you get what you pay for.

Precisely my point in post one. For what cable offers, it's not worth
$700 a year, since there's often nothing worth watching. In addition
every show I desire to watch I can see for free via antenna, or rent
on DVD, for significantly less money than seven hundred dollars.




> "Poor service begets lose LOSS of business."
> *You are like so many other Internet pseudo-intellectuals -
> can't spell, and can't use the proper words either.



A typo is not a mis-spelling. It's simply fingers stumbling on keys
where they don't belong. I see YOU stumbled yourself when you typed
"lose loss" and ruined your sentence.

I'm not perfect but then neither are you.

John Carter
06-09-09, 03:26 PM
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:dc3e389d-134c-4afd-a8d0-c212b25a29ee@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.co
m:

> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> Smarty Pants wrote:
>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>
>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> > evening.
>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
>
>
> No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and
> MSNBC are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is
> centrist.


FOX is centrist ? How long have you been asleep Ri Van Winkle ?
Look up the phrase "far right-wing conservative news" in the
dictionary and you'll find a group prtrait of the entire FOX channel
personalities.



It would be nice to hear some right-wing,
> pro-small-government news for a change, just to have a little
> balance.
>
> As for the "truth" it lies somewhere between CNN on the left, and
> the Libertarian Party on the right. Listening to either one of
> those, alone, only gives you an extremist viewpoint. I prefer to
> stay away from extremists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

SFTV_troy
06-10-09, 10:50 AM
On Jun 9, 3:26*pm, John Carter <m...@mymailsvr.org> wrote:
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:dc3e389d-134c-4afd->
>
>
>
> > No but a little balance would be nice. *PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and
> > MSNBC are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. *FOX is
> > centrist. *
>
> Look up the phrase "far right-wing conservative news" in the
> dictionary and you'll find a group prtrait of the entire...

....Al-jazeera news cast. That's a far right-wing conservative
channel, not FOX. FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
acted as if they were in man-love with Obama. i.e. Biased.

I think you'd find it amusing that some groups like the libertarians
call FOX a "liberal" channel. It's all dependent upon your own
viewpoint.

In truth studies show FOX lies directly in the middle of the American
political landscape, like Missouri.

David Johnston
06-10-09, 11:22 AM
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>In truth studies show FOX lies directly in the middle of the American
>political landscape, like Missouri.

"studies" hunh? What studies? Given that the American political
landscape has changed, did Fox move with them?

Thomas T. Veldhouse
06-10-09, 02:21 PM
In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Precisely my point in post one. For what cable offers, it's not worth
> $700 a year, since there's often nothing worth watching. In addition
> every show I desire to watch I can see for free via antenna, or rent
> on DVD, for significantly less money than seven hundred dollars.
>

TO YOU!. Get it? Good ... be gone!

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

Thomas T. Veldhouse
06-10-09, 02:23 PM
In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The guy insulted me
> I insulted him back.
> That doesn't make me a troll, but defensive.

Your original post is a troll. Besides, I read through your arguments and you
clearly have been watching cable ... debates about FOX news being left, right
or moderate politically speaking, etc. You couldn't know that without
watching.

Just go way, please?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

Syfo-Dyas
06-10-09, 03:21 PM
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 9, 3:26*pm, John Carter <m...@mymailsvr.org> wrote:
>> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:dc3e389d-134c-4afd->
>>
>>
>>
>> > No but a little balance would be nice. *PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and
>> > MSNBC are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. *FOX is
>> > centrist. *
>>
>> Look up the phrase "far right-wing conservative news" in the
>> dictionary and you'll find a group prtrait of the entire...
>
>...Al-jazeera news cast. That's a far right-wing conservative
>channel, not FOX. FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
>balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
>acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.


I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
Is that the kind of love you have for your father???

SFTV_troy
06-11-09, 10:03 AM
On Jun 10, 3:21*pm, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-D...@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>
> >...Al-jazeera news cast. *That's a far right-wing conservative
> >channel, not FOX. * FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
> >balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
> >acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.
>
> I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
> Is that the kind of love you have for your father???



I'm not really sure myself but based upon the context used, "man-love"
and "man-crush" refers to an affection a man feels for another man,
but in a straight fashion (i.e. not homosexual). For example: Tom
Brokaw displayed a very obvious crush on Obama during the democratic
primaries and convention. Ditto other anchormen and women.

They did the same thing with Kerry and Gore in previous elections.
The reporters are leftists, and that gives their respective networks
(ABC, cBS, CNN) a left-leaning bias.

SFTV_troy
06-11-09, 10:15 AM
On Jun 10, 2:23*pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The guy insulted me
> > I insulted him back.
> > That doesn't make me a troll, but defensive.
>
>
>
> Your original post is a troll.


No it's an OPINION. Too many people like you confuse a person's
opinion with baiting, when in fact it's just an opinion. Then you use
labels like "troll" or "hate speech" to justify your attempt to censor
that person and make them shutup. Inexcusable.

Everybody has a right to speak, from the president all the way down to
the guy living in a box. Nobody should be called names simply because
you disagree with them.




>*Besides, I read through your arguments and you clearly have
> been watching cable ... debates about FOX news being left

Well obviously due to seeing cable channels when I visit friends,
hotels, or even online (FOX and other shows are streamed online). And
yet I still don't have cable. I've not had cable since 2002 or 3
because I consider it a waste of money.

It's simply not worth the $700 a year that it would cost me. That's
an opinion, not hate speech or trolling.

SFTV_troy
06-11-09, 10:17 AM
On Jun 10, 2:21*pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Precisely my point in post one. *For what cable offers, it's not worth
> > $700 a year, since there's often nothing worth watching. *In addition
> > every show I desire to watch I can see for free via antenna, or rent
> > on DVD, for significantly less money than seven hundred dollars.
>
> TO YOU!


No **** Sherlock. Yes to me. It's my opinion. That's why my name's
at the top of the post, and no I'm not gonna shut up just because you
call me "******" or "jew" or "troll" or other hate labels.

Mike Gibson
06-11-09, 02:12 PM
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3afdd99d-a327-4f2d-a42e-ec3a49ed2923@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 2:21 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Precisely my point in post one. For what cable offers, it's not worth
> > $700 a year, since there's often nothing worth watching. In addition
> > every show I desire to watch I can see for free via antenna, or rent
> > on DVD, for significantly less money than seven hundred dollars.
>
> TO YOU!


No **** Sherlock. Yes to me. It's my opinion. That's why my name's
at the top of the post, and no I'm not gonna shut up just because you
call me "******" or "jew" or "troll" or other hate labels.




Are you President Obama?

I ask because no one brought up "******" or "jew" or "troll" or other hate
labels but you.


Mike

Thomas T. Veldhouse
06-11-09, 03:13 PM
In alt.online-service.comcast Mike Gibson <MikeGibson@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Are you President Obama?
>
> I ask because no one brought up "******" or "jew" or "troll" or other hate
> labels but you.
>

I called him trollish.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

Captain Infinity
06-11-09, 05:47 PM
Once Upon A Time,
****ing Hypocrite Troy Heagy wrote:

>Everybody has a right to speak, from the president all the way down to
>the guy living in a box.

Except David Letterman, who should be jailed and charged with
endangerment of a child and a hate crime for making a simple, stupid
joke, right?

Good god, Troy, your flaming hypocrisy makes me puke. You are one
seriously worthless human being.


**
Captain Infinity

Who Dat
06-12-09, 06:52 AM
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 10, 3:21*pm, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-D...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>>
>> >...Al-jazeera news cast. *That's a far right-wing conservative
>> >channel, not FOX. * FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
>> >balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
>> >acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.
>>
>> I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
>> Is that the kind of love you have for your father???
>
>
>
>I'm not really sure myself but based upon the context used, "man-love"
>and "man-crush" refers to an affection a man feels for another man,
>but in a straight fashion (i.e. not homosexual). For example: Tom
>Brokaw displayed a very obvious crush on Obama during the democratic
>primaries and convention. Ditto other anchormen and women.
>
>They did the same thing with Kerry and Gore in previous elections.
>The reporters are leftists, and that gives their respective networks
>(ABC, cBS, CNN) a left-leaning bias.
>

Does that mean you are gay troy? Or do you have a hard on for fox?

ravenlynne
06-12-09, 12:19 PM
On 6/11/2009 10:13 PM, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.online-service.comcast Mike Gibson<MikeGibson@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Are you President Obama?
>>
>> I ask because no one brought up "******" or "jew" or "troll" or other hate
>> labels but you.
>>
>
> I called him trollish.
>

He's a troll that's been around here forever. Make him really mad and
he'll email you death threats.

Thomas T. Veldhouse
06-15-09, 07:25 AM
In alt.online-service.comcast ravenlynne <ravenlynne@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> He's a troll that's been around here forever. Make him really mad and
> he'll email you death threats.

Unless he lives in Minnesota, I HIGHLY recommend against that because such
cases go directly to the FBI. In Minnesota, I have my own resources ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

DanS
06-18-09, 11:49 AM
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in news:74e4698c-5526-49f2-8116-
edfb15232b5f@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700
dollar
> s
>> > a year on cable.
>>
>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
>
> My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
> and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

What a stupid point of view. I'll bet your parents are/did live of YOUR
wages. Your parents are/were nothing but parasites !!!

So you're not going to take social security when you're elgible ? What a
crock-of-sh*t !!!!!! I don't believe it for a minute.

I'll look at it as I'm taking back MY money I paid into it for (what will
be) 50 years of work. Hell, by that time the retirement age will probably
be up to 80 anyway (so make it almost 65 years of work), but won't get
squat, on a count of BEING DEAD !!!!!

Syfo-Dyas
06-21-09, 05:03 AM
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:52:30 -0400, Who Dat <whodat@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
><SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 10, 3:21*pm, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-D...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>>>
>>> >...Al-jazeera news cast. *That's a far right-wing conservative
>>> >channel, not FOX. * FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
>>> >balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
>>> >acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.
>>>
>>> I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
>>> Is that the kind of love you have for your father???
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not really sure myself but based upon the context used, "man-love"
>>and "man-crush" refers to an affection a man feels for another man,
>>but in a straight fashion (i.e. not homosexual). For example: Tom
>>Brokaw displayed a very obvious crush on Obama during the democratic
>>primaries and convention. Ditto other anchormen and women.
>>
>>They did the same thing with Kerry and Gore in previous elections.
>>The reporters are leftists, and that gives their respective networks
>>(ABC, cBS, CNN) a left-leaning bias.
>>
>
>Does that mean you are gay troy? Or do you have a hard on for fox?


I think it is both....

Syfo-Dyas
06-21-09, 05:05 AM
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:47:46 GMT, Captain Infinity
<Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:

>Once Upon A Time,
>****ing Hypocrite Troy Heagy wrote:
>
>>Everybody has a right to speak, from the president all the way down to
>>the guy living in a box.
>
>Except David Letterman, who should be jailed and charged with
>endangerment of a child and a hate crime for making a simple, stupid
>joke, right?
>
>Good god, Troy, your flaming hypocrisy makes me puke. You are one
>seriously worthless human being.
>
>
>**
>Captain Infinity

I second that. Troy is just plain scary.

SFTV_troy
06-21-09, 08:51 AM
Who Dat wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
> <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 10, 3:21�pm, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-D...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
> >>
> >> >...Al-jazeera news cast. �That's a far right-wing conservative
> >> >channel, not FOX. � FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
> >> >balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
> >> >acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.
> >>
> >> I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
> >> Is that the kind of love you have for your father???
> >
> >
> >
> >I'm not really sure myself but based upon the context used, "man-love"
> >and "man-crush" refers to an affection a man feels for another man,
> >but in a straight fashion (i.e. not homosexual). For example: Tom
> >Brokaw displayed a very obvious crush on Obama during the democratic
> >primaries and convention. Ditto other anchormen and women.
> >
> >They did the same thing with Kerry and Gore in previous elections.
> >The reporters are leftists, and that gives their respective networks
> >(ABC, cBS, CNN) a left-leaning bias.
> >
>
> Does that mean you are gay troy? Or do you have a hard on for fox?


Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it? I'm not the one with
a man-crush on Obama. Tom Brokaw on the other hand obviously does -
ditto Chris Matthews and other anchormen at ABC and CBS and CNN and
MSocialistNBC.

Syfo-Dyas
06-22-09, 07:54 PM
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Who Dat wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>> <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 10, 3:21?pm, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-D...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>> >>
>> >> >...Al-jazeera news cast. ?That's a far right-wing conservative
>> >> >channel, not FOX. ? FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
>> >> >balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
>> >> >acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.
>> >>
>> >> I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
>> >> Is that the kind of love you have for your father???
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm not really sure myself but based upon the context used, "man-love"
>> >and "man-crush" refers to an affection a man feels for another man,
>> >but in a straight fashion (i.e. not homosexual). For example: Tom
>> >Brokaw displayed a very obvious crush on Obama during the democratic
>> >primaries and convention. Ditto other anchormen and women.
>> >
>> >They did the same thing with Kerry and Gore in previous elections.
>> >The reporters are leftists, and that gives their respective networks
>> >(ABC, cBS, CNN) a left-leaning bias.
>> >
>>
>> Does that mean you are gay troy? Or do you have a hard on for fox?
>
>
>Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it? I'm not the one with
>a man-crush on Obama. Tom Brokaw on the other hand obviously does -
>ditto Chris Matthews and other anchormen at ABC and CBS and CNN and
>MSocialistNBC.

Like he asked ...
Does that mean you are gay troy? Or do you have a hard on for fox?

Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
06-29-09, 09:47 AM
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Who Dat wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>> <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 10, 3:21?pm, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-D...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>> >>
>> >> >...Al-jazeera news cast. ?That's a far right-wing conservative
>> >> >channel, not FOX. ? FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
>> >> >balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
>> >> >acted as if they were in man-love with Obama.
>> >>
>> >> I always wanted to ask what you kids meant when you say "man-love".
>> >> Is that the kind of love you have for your father???
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm not really sure myself but based upon the context used, "man-love"
>> >and "man-crush" refers to an affection a man feels for another man,
>> >but in a straight fashion (i.e. not homosexual). For example: Tom
>> >Brokaw displayed a very obvious crush on Obama during the democratic
>> >primaries and convention. Ditto other anchormen and women.
>> >
>> >They did the same thing with Kerry and Gore in previous elections.
>> >The reporters are leftists, and that gives their respective networks
>> >(ABC, cBS, CNN) a left-leaning bias.
>> >
>>
>> Does that mean you are gay troy? Or do you have a hard on for fox?
>
>
>Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it? I'm not the one with
>a man-crush on Obama. Tom Brokaw on the other hand obviously does -
>ditto Chris Matthews and other anchormen at ABC and CBS and CNN and
>MSocialistNBC.

it must be a commie conspiracy. did you time shoot back to the
fifties? they're all hiding behind bush(es).socialist?? wow, now tell
us about pinko's and new inventions like car phones and colorr tv.

Who Dat
08-28-09, 11:40 PM
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:05:22 -0400, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-Dyas@nomail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:47:46 GMT, Captain Infinity
><Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>
>>Once Upon A Time,
>>****ing Hypocrite Troy Heagy wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody has a right to speak, from the president all the way down to
>>>the guy living in a box.
>>
>>Except David Letterman, who should be jailed and charged with
>>endangerment of a child and a hate crime for making a simple, stupid
>>joke, right?
>>
>>Good god, Troy, your flaming hypocrisy makes me puke. You are one
>>seriously worthless human being.
>>
>>
>>**
>>Captain Infinity
>
>I second that. Troy is just plain scary.


True enough!

Michael
08-29-09, 12:23 AM
Keep this shite out of this newsgroup. We don't care.
--
**********
Michael

"Who Dat" <whodat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9ch955lvmki0i2rtmklssv376aatanfge@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:05:22 -0400, Syfo-Dyas <Syfo-Dyas@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:47:46 GMT, Captain Infinity
>><Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Once Upon A Time,
>>>****ing Hypocrite Troy Heagy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Everybody has a right to speak, from the president all the way down to
>>>>the guy living in a box.
>>>
>>>Except David Letterman, who should be jailed and charged with
>>>endangerment of a child and a hate crime for making a simple, stupid
>>>joke, right?
>>>
>>>Good god, Troy, your flaming hypocrisy makes me puke. You are one
>>>seriously worthless human being.
>>>
>>>
>>>**
>>>Captain Infinity
>>
>>I second that. Troy is just plain scary.
>
>
> True enough!

pltrgyst
08-29-09, 04:59 PM
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:23:01 -0700, "Michael" <booyakashaster@gmail.com> wrote:

>Keep this shite out of this newsgroup. We don't care.

Yo, you dumb ****, this thread ended two and a half months ago - until you
revived it.

--LL

Michael
08-29-09, 08:38 PM
I only replied to it after someone else put it here ass wipe!

Go away.

"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:i29j95dprqibd8f7aiv82a3ro2n6usk663@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:23:01 -0700, "Michael" <booyakashaster@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Keep this shite out of this newsgroup. We don't care.
>
> Yo, you dumb ****, this thread ended two and a half months ago - until you
> revived it.
>
> --LL

Shep Morelli
09-03-09, 02:33 PM
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-
f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:

> 70 channels and nothing worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEl2HiSw0ho