My New Year Resolution - Goodbye Television

Steven Fletcher wrote:
Hi,

Just to let you all know that I have just given away my only remaining TV
and digibox. Tv is now such a waste of time, I have decided not to own one
anymore. I'm sure life will be much better without one in the house.

For sure. Congratulations.

Alex

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:52:22 -0000, "Pyriform"
wrote:


The rest of us would do well to remember the wise words of Homer
Simpson:

"Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover."

"When will I learn? The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom
of a bottle, they're on TV!"


and:-

"No Beer and No TV make Homer go crazy"

Alan wrote:

Some of the best of the 6:30pm comedy can be quite good but remember
some of these programs failed miserably when transferred to TV.

..... and ?

--
Chris Green

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:06:05 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:46:49 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
I see. Do please remind us all of the Golden Age, before TV lost
its
way.

You can see most of it on FreeView - repeated endlessly. ;-)

I think the point is when asked about the 'golden age' people offer
a list
of shows from 20-30 years. That list when looked at in perspective
of the
schedule from then indicated there must have been a fair amount of
dross
at the same time.


Not really, remember that TV programmes aimed at adults (opposed to kids
or schools) started at about 6pm and closed-down at around midnight, the
percentage of dross *was* relatively low.

Thank Jerry for the lesson in the obvious.

That still does not mean that the schedules were packed with quality
programmes or that there are less quality programmes these days.

A list of 'classic' programmes tends to be less than 100 in a timescale of
30 years.

In article ,
Alan wrote:
If you listen to Radio 4 you will soon find that everything is repeated
many times each week and the day-time programs rival the worst that can
be found on terrestrial TV.

Are there two R4s?


No.

Radio 4 is not the quality channel that many people believe it to be.
Have you actually listened to some of the day-time content or checked
the schedules to see how many times a program is repeated within the
week?

Most of the repeats are in a different part of the day - so those at work
if they were daytime - get a chance to listen. And vice versa. Same with
weekends.

I bet that if they cancelled that poorly written and patronising soap
opera called the Archers (repeated 3 times each week) you would be the
first to complain

Same reason. And it is repeated twice, to be pedantic.

It does have some highlights such as the rolling news programs which are
spoilt by the inclusion of the ' God slot sermons' and fake and
pointless discussions stage managed so that there is always a pro and
anti participant.

'Thought for the day' can be, err, thought provoking. Do you listen to it
carefully?

Some of the best of the 6:30pm comedy can be quite good but remember
some of these programs failed miserably when transferred to TV.

Why does that matter? TV almost always disappoints when this happens as
you've already formed an idea of what the characters look like. The only
one I can remember where this didn't happen was After Henry. With things
like Dead Ringers, the characters have also to look reasonably like those
they are impersonating.

Familiarity with a program content and popularity with the Radio 4
audience doesn't make it quality broadcasting - it just puts in the
same category as Big Brother on Ch4.

That's ****e.

IMO, Radio 4 has the same ratio of quality to crap as most of the main
terrestrial TV channels. This doesn't mean that it is a bad radio
station - but it is not worth the 'quality' tag often attributed to it.

I'd stick to R1 if I were you. It doesn't need any concentration. No
repeats on there. Apart from the records, obviously.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"steve" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:06:05 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

news
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:46:49 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
I see. Do please remind us all of the Golden Age, before TV
lost
its
way.

You can see most of it on FreeView - repeated endlessly. ;-)

I think the point is when asked about the 'golden age' people
offer
a list
of shows from 20-30 years. That list when looked at in
perspective
of the
schedule from then indicated there must have been a fair amount
of
dross
at the same time.


Not really, remember that TV programmes aimed at adults (opposed
to kids
or schools) started at about 6pm and closed-down at around
midnight, the
percentage of dross *was* relatively low.

Thank Jerry for the lesson in the obvious.

That still does not mean that the schedules were packed with
quality
programmes or that there are less quality programmes these days.

A list of 'classic' programmes tends to be less than 100 in a
timescale of
30 years.


In your ignorant opinion, not in my opinion nor anyone who knows what
they are talking about.

Go on, name some programmes from 30 years ago?...

wrote in message
...
On 31 Dec,
Alan wrote:


If you listen to Radio 4 you will soon find that everything is
repeated
many times each week and the day-time programs rival the worst
that can
be found on terrestrial TV.

I thought it was called that as everything was repeated until
everyone had
heard it 4 times.


You only hear the repeats if you listen 24/7, how many people with a
life does that....

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...

Do you have so little self-control that you are unable to stop yourself
watching crap?

There is next to nothing but crap on these days. So I presume you find
'crap' entertaining?

Perhaps you are like an alcoholic, and total abstinence
is the only answer. I pity you.

I pity you, if you find anything on TV these days that is actually worth
watching.

Fortunately, I possess the ability to select my viewing, as well as
technology which ensures I can watch my choices at a time convenient to me.

We all posses that ability. The difference though is that some of us are
more intellectual than others in their choice of programming and what they
consider as entertaining. If you extract all the crap out of the schedules,
what remains isn't worth owning a televison for. As for current affairs and
news coverage, a radio receiver is quite adequate. Seeing as you are so
vocal on the subject, I think you should tell all the nice boys and girls
about all the great entertainment you enjoy on TV and lets be knowing about
all those great programmes I am now missing out on. Are you into science
fiction garbage by any chance?

I have no use for a TV anymore. Radio programming is more than enough for me
from now on.

You are welcome to the one eyed monster in the corner. Enjoy!

Steven Fletcher wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote:
Do you have so little self-control that you are unable to stop
yourself watching crap?

There is next to nothing but crap on these days. So I presume you
find 'crap' entertaining?

One man's crap is another man's primetime entertainment. But since you
are the one who has asserted that TV has deteriorated to the point where
there is nothing worth watching any more, I think it is incumbent upon
you to remind us all of the superior programming of the past.

Perhaps you are like an alcoholic, and total abstinence
is the only answer. I pity you.

I pity you, if you find anything on TV these days that is actually
worth watching.

I can manage without your pity, trust me. There you go again: "these
days". Tell us about the Golden Age! Hold us entranced as you opine
eloquently on the artistic and comedic merits of "On the Buses" (or
whatever it was you had in mind).

Fortunately, I possess the ability to select my viewing, as well as
technology which ensures I can watch my choices at a time convenient
to me.

We all posses that ability. The difference though is that some of us
are more intellectual than others in their choice of programming and
what they consider as entertaining.

Oh I see. You are an "intellectual", and find the current range of
programming on offer fails to meet your exacting requirements. So
explain how you were better served in the past. Perhaps you feel that
there has been nothing with quite the depth and range of "The Ascent of
Man" from the 1970's (we might even agree about that - Robert Winston is
certainly no Jacob Bronowski). Or perhaps you feel that comedy lost its
way after "Fawlty Towers", or that drama reached a pinnacle with "The
Forsyte Saga". Just saying "it's all crap now" makes it look as though
you lack any analytic capabilities and are in fact just some old fart
banging on about how things aren't what they used to be.

Seeing as you are so vocal on the subject, I think you
should tell all the nice boys and girls about all the great
entertainment you enjoy on TV and lets be knowing about all those
great programmes I am now missing out on.

*I* am vocal on the subject? You were the one who came charging into a
newsgroup devoted to digital television, loudly proclaiming your
rejection of that medium with the demented evangelical fervour of the
born-again christian, and imploring us all to do likewise...

Are you into science fiction garbage by any chance?

No. I'm not a fan of garbage of any decription. But I like *good*
science fiction, as part of my well-balanced TV diet. Absolutely. You
have a problem with that? Tell me about the Golden Age (it wasn't
"Blake's 7", was it?)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
'Thought for the day' can be, err, thought provoking. Do you listen
to it carefully?

Frequently. The only thought it provokes in me is to wonder why so much
airtime is given to a bunch of God-bothering idiots.