james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: Really bad. Your comment is really stupid if you take the time to think about it.
It isnt like he's saying "any channel I dont watch should go off the air" he's saying "any channel NO ONE watches should go off the air" and logically, if there is a channel that no one watches, it should change formats to appeal to more people or be replaced, otherwise millions of dollars are being wasted to appease 10 peoples horrible taste (as opposed to millions of peoples horrible taste i suppose, but still). | |
|
 BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | Re: Really bad. I'd have to agree that Chuckles posted an amazingly stupid question. Yes, consumers *should* be the ones who decide what's worth watching. What is wrong with you? | |
|
 | 
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | Re: Really bad. I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3.
Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." | |
|
| | 
imanogre
join:2005-11-29
Mcdonough, GA
| Re: Really bad. said by Chuckles  :I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3. Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." So even if you did mean sharksfan3, how in the world did you infer that sharskfan3 even suggested that should be the one whom decides what's worth watching. He's just simply suggesting that some stations have no consumers, or not enough to sustain their programming lineup.
No offense, and Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that you are trying to put an anti Free Market spin on this. | |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | I believe channels are on the air because someone is watching them. Someone's horrible taste could be you.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
|
|
|
